Political discourse in this country has been usurped by an emotionally charged partisanship. Anyone who doubts this will have to explain the Left's response to Bush's Thanksgiving trip to Baghdad. It is only the morning after the trip and already several bloggers are claiming that Bush was grandstanding, using the trip as just another photo op. This is a sad reminder of how a blind hatred for Bush has replaced all reason and logic from the minds of his liberal critics.
With the exception of Michael Moore, I don't assume that liberals are idiots. So I honestly don't believe the people who make such a claim are stupid. I prefer to believe that they simply didn't think before they expressed this opinion. For to impugn Bush's motives by claiming this was a "politically calculated" event requires one to believe that the photo-op would be effective means of getting re-elected.
There are several problems with this theory that liberals need to account for -- timing, audience, and effectiveness.
Timing -- Since the election is still almost a year away, who is going to remember this event when it comes time to vote?
Audience -- A similar unresolved question is which voters would this sway? Was there anyone who was planning to not vote for Bush but changed their mind because he served some turkey to a group of soldiers?
Effectiveness -- To believe Bush's motives were primarily political requires that the effect of the action (getting publicity) outweighed any potential detrimental effects (getting killed). While you might believe that George W. is stupid it's hard to imagine he would risk his life over a politically meaningless gesture.
President Bush may not be a genius but he is a leader. A good leader shows his solidarity with his troops by sharing in their hardship and showing his commitment to them. Having been stationed in a foreign land over several holidays I can attest that it would be quite a morale booster to receive a surprise visit from a President .
While the Dove-bloggers criticize from the safety of their own homes, these men and women of our military are on the front lines of the war on terror. Bush understands this and did what he could to show his appreciation. Bush could have been in Crawford but chose to be in Baghdad instead. What's your excuse?
Update: In the original post I had used "Spoons", a libertarian blogger, as an example of Bush's critics. While I still believe his criticism of Bush on this issue is unfair, he mentions it only in a larger context of Bush's lack of support for Israel (a point I would concede to Spoons). I've removed the original link since it was inaccurate to suggest Spoons is in the category of "Bush-hating liberal dove" and I apologize to him for the error.
1
I don't mind the criticism (I expected it) but I'm hardly "The Left." Did you read the whole post?
I also take it that you didn't read the comments. If you had, you'd see that I'd agree that showing support for the troops showed physical courage, and would ordinarily be good leadership. However, doing the flashy stuff while taking a dive in the rest of the War because you're afraid of political criticism is hardly evidence that this is a man who can lead us to victory.
Like I said, I don't mind the criticsm (and you may well still disagree with me), but it seems like you didn't read what I wrote.
posted on 11.28.2003 11:45 AM2
To further clarify, I'm not "a liberal" or a "dove". I'm a helluva lot more conservative, and more hawkish, than Bush.
posted on 11.28.2003 11:49 AM3
Not a problem. At least you didn't call me petty and churlish!
posted on 11.28.2003 12:50 PM