Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Her point is that doing things that do harm a war effort, not because you feel the war is wrong, but instead because you feel it will you get votes in some future election, is wrong.
She asks the question whether the vote in the house might not show that the "anti-war" movement doesn't really believe what it says.
|
Actually, I think the liberal use of the word "treason" detracts from any point she may make.
Are you saying that Murtha did this to get votes in a future election? Doubtful.
Quote:
Of course, the insulation is that most dems are staying pretty silent on the issue and letting the extremes carry their water. That way they can shift position when the polls show (See today's WP poll) that the cut and run arguments are not gaining public support.
It is perhaps not treason to keep quiet in such circumstance, but is it the behavior we should expect from the leaders of a party that will ask to lead the country in a few more years?
|
Another way to view this is that we don't have the same wacky left that we had in Vietnam. The Bush Administration must pray nightly for the same collection of vocal anitwarriors that Nixon had and so successfully demonized.
You saw a microcosm of this with Murtha, in which the GOP stance for the first couple of days was to declare that Murtha, whom they've lionized for agreeing with them in the past, was secretly a pinkco commie-lover who was sleeping with Michael Moore. This pretty sight reached its zenith with a pissant Republican freshman in the House calling the Purple-Hearted and Bronze-Star wearing Murtha a coward on the House floor.
Eventually the GOP either reached its threshhold for self-loathing over this tactic, or realized that it simply wouldn't work, because the next day Murtha was, in GOP eyes, suddenly a "good man" who was entitled, like every good American, to question the war.
It's worth asking, is this the behavior that we should expect from leaders of a party who control every lever of federal power?
