I had Fox News on earlier today; two Senators, one Democrat and one Repub, were discussing the Mosul massacre as the camera showed the wounded being deplaned in Germany. The Democrat Senator, whose name I didn't catch, was discussing the lack of post-invasion planning and the resultant miseries, but he felt compelled to inject, "I'm not mad at President Bush, but--"
"I'm not mad at President Bush."
Why the f not?
I recognize that most elected Democrats, stunned by the election results and feeling the need to sound responsible on such a tragic occasion, feel compelled to adopt this more-in-sorrow-than-anger tone that was one of Tom Daschle's less attractive traits. But look what good it did Daschle shaking his head with weary regret over the latest Republican outrage--he was still vilified as some sort of rabid obstructionist.
Republicans belch fire all the time without suffering repercussions, yet Democrats behave like some meek choir. More
http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2004/12/wanted_less_sor.phpYeah, really, why the f not? The level of support for junior's war continues to slide. Not that they should have waited until now, but what holds the Democrats back from expressing some anger at the lies, incompetence, and sheer carelessness with the lives of Iraqis and Americans in this Republican war?