Tuesday, November 25, 2003

A Democratic Alternative?

Well, the prescription drug policy passed today. Another crowing achievement of our President's “conservative” domestic policy, otherwise known as "Spend, Spend, Spend... and Spend!" I truly wish there was a Democratic alternative. But I have no doubt they would spend even more if given the chance. And none of them seem to have a serious grasp of foreign policy. I can’t even sit through their debates. Last night I watched five minutes and had to switch the channels to keep my eyes from rolling out of their sockets. The two exchanges I did hear are below.

Dick Gephart explaining why it’s not very smart to call Kim Il Jong evil:

“When Bush came in office, he called the agreement that Clinton had appeasement. He then put them in the axis of evil without explaining to anybody what in the world that was. And then he called the leader in North Korea the most evil leader in the world. Now this guy's half nuts anyway.”

I’m sure he’ll like being called half nuts much better than being labeled evil.

And here’s General Wes Clark, inexplicably still trying to pin the blame of 9/11 on Bush:

“And I think the real failure occurred after the change of administrations. It took a few weeks after the Cole was attacked to really definitively pin it on Al Qaida. By that time, the Clinton administration was on the way out. As I'm told, as John Edwards said, the Bush administration was told the greatest threat to the United States is Osama bin Laden”

Well, the Cole bombing did happen in October 2000, but it’s not like that was the first time we were attacked by Al Qaida. The embassy bombings happened August 1998 and it’s been reported that Al Qaida played a role in Somalia as well as the first WTC bombing.

Now I believe trying to blame the President for the 9/11 is repugnant. On top of that, I think it’s a pretty stupid campaign strategy. If we are going to play the blame game, do you expect the American electorate to place more of it on the Bush administration after 8 months in office, or the Clinton administration after 8 years in office?

And Clark keeps repeating Truman's phrase “The Buck Stops Here” (at the President's desk). But it sound like he’s trying to pass the buck to me. All this talk about the Clinton administration handing over some plan to tackle Al Qaida and telling the Bushies that Al Qaida was the biggest threat to the United States is horseshit. If they had some magical plan to defeat Al Qaida, and prevent 9/11, why in the hell didn’t they initiate it themselves?

Clark went on to say, "And I think the American people deserve to hear exactly what happened during that period." I totally agree with that statement. We need to know what happened so we can learn from our mistakes and try to prevent another attack. But Clark can make that point without trying to blame President Bush for the death of over 3000 innocent people.