February 12, 2004

It's not Bush he hates, but what he symbolizes...

Kevin Drum comments on President Bush referring to himself as a "wartime President."

...Who the hell does George Bush think he is, anyway? We haven't had a "wartime president" since FDR, and there's a good reason for that: you're only a wartime president if you act like you're at war. That means placing the country on a wartime footing, putting aside petty politics to forge a bipartisan wartime consensus, and telling the nation in no uncertain terms that sacrifices need to be made. George Bush has done none of those things. In fact, he's done exactly the opposite, sending the message loud and clear that this war is as trivial and inconsequential as it's possible to be, all the time treating it as little more than a partisan club with which to beat his enemies...
Some odd psychology here. Projection?

Drum's implication that the Democrats would like to forge a consensus or put aside petty politics is simply a lie. Go here for a Lonnng list of Dem leaders who spoke for strong action against Saddam for all the SAME reasons Bush has used--and are now attacking Bush for doing exactly what they advocated. We HAD a consensus and Dems abandoned it. And think of the Democrats on the Intelligence Committees, who had access to exactly the same intelligence Bush had--and are now claiming that Bush lied to us. That's a lot lower than "petty."

And Drum shouldn't be so quick to mention FDR, because there's a BIG difference. FDR didn't have to "forge a bipartisan wartime consensus." Republicans supported our war effort whole-heartedly starting with Pearl Harbor. They had plenty of criticisms, as is appropriate for an opposition party. But nobody doubted that they were 100% in favor of American victory, even if it helped the Democrats. And unlike today, nobody needed to worry whether the war would be fought vigorously if Dewey were in the White House.

And hey, I think the President SHOULD demand sacrifices�just because it will be SO pleasing to watch Kevin Drum and the Democrats cheerfully cooperating and supporting the President. Right.

And the idea that it's only a war if the country is put on a "war footing" is either ignorance or an opportunistic bit of lying. Many of America's wars have been fought without much adjustment for the country as a whole. And what sort of sacrifices or "war footing" does he want? Are our soldiers drilling with broomsticks because they lack rifles? What are we lacking that a country on a war footing could provide? And do Drum and the Democrats promise cross-their-hearts to SUPPORT the President if he asks for a "war-footing?" Let me pause while I laugh until I barf.

And the idea of Drum or any Democrat criticizing the President for treating the war as "trivial and inconsequential" �my sarcasm skills aren't up to that one. But I'm very glad they would like to see the War intensified and fought more vigorously and more widely. I look forward to them URGING the President to go on the attack and start some serious bloodshed.... [It would in fact be SPLENDID if the Dems were a real opposition party urging the prez to get more serious about the war. But how can Drum have the NERVE to talk like this when only anti-war Dem candidates have even a chance to be nominated?]

And you know what�if Bush were really using the war as "a partisan club with which to beat his enemies," he would be talking sort of like....THIS BLOGPOST! But he never does that. Never once. It's not Bush who's beating up the Democrats, it's the American voters. And what Drum hates is not really George W Bush, but what he symbolizes�the American People, who are, in ever increasing numbers, repudiating him and his sclerotic party.

Posted by John Weidner at February 12, 2004 10:07 PM
Weblog by John Weidner