Democrats attack President Bush because he failed to protect us from the 9/11 sneak attacks. Was there plenty of information telling us that something was afoot? You bet your ass there was. Was any of it operational intelligence, accurate enough to let Bush thwart the particular attacks we suffered? Bloody unlikely.
So, someone tell Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle to lay the hell off already. (Although if I heard correctly on Tony Snow Sunday, it seems Gephardt has already seen fit to see the light.)
But you goddamn Republicans make me sick sometimes, you really do.
Wherever I turned, Republican talking heads “defended” Bush by accusing Democrats of partisanship (probably) or – again, this was on Fox on Friday – treason. Yep, the T-word was used, just because the opposition raised its voice.
Get a grip, get a clue, get a reality check. Dissent is not treason. Partisanship is not aid and comfort. Keep tossing around treason charges, and the voters will toss you out in November.
Are we clear?
Sorry, not with me you aren't, Stephen, at least not on the partisanship charge.
Here's how a non-partisan effort to uncover the truth of the matter works: bi-partisan delegations from the Intel committees of both houses go to Bush and demand to hold closed-door hearings, so as to afford the usual protections to intel sources in time of war. Bush agrees, and things get tossed over in private and, maybe, even fixed.
Here's how you run a partisan effort: You send all the leaders of your party in front of every microphone and camera you can find to shout "Bush Knew."
It was a fully partisan attack by a party desperate to weaken Bush's poll numbers in the runup to the election, and I think you know it. And I think you kmnow my opinions well enough to know I'm not at all afraid to take big, dripping chunks out of Bush's hide when I think he deserves it.
Not this time, though. Here, the Elephants are correct in their characterizations of partisanship.
Calling it "treasonous" is completely out of line. Calling it "partisan" is... you know, the truth. Gephardt's blatantly obvious attempt to paint Bush as Nixon is more than enough evidence of this.
Er, "blatantly obvious" is redundant, isn't it? Sorry.
Bill, I agreed with the partisanship charge! What I curse some Republicans for is calling partisanship "treason."
Calling any of this "treasonous" is out of line, yes.
Um, oops, Stephen. I think I shot before I aimed. My bad. Sorry.
I think this question MUST be disscussed more carefully!
