Take It To Them

Why do the Dems allow the media and GOP to define the way we talk about national defense and terrorism? Those bold enough to say we should not be in Iraq are accused of being pro-terrorism (see Chris Wallace's recent interview with GW). What's the response? Am not!!! Wow, strong stuff.

Reminds me of the old trap question to ask a politician: "When are you going to stop beating your wife?" You cannot answer the "when" without admitting that you do beat your wife. The only way to respond is to avoid the trap by taking it to the questioner.

The Dems need to attack the media and GOP by asking why they are unwilling to consider solution s to fighting terror that do not include sacrificing the very Americans we want to keep alive. Why has the current administration surrendered the moral high-ground in order to prove they are morally superior?

King Pyrrhus of Epirus defeated the Romans twice, the latter in 279BC. Afterwards, he commented that one more such victory would utterly undo him. Hence, the phrase "Pyrrhic victory". How much more of this success at fighting terrorism with the military, with torture, with spying on Americans, can we take? What will we have left of what we cherished?

The question "what price freedom" does not mean "what freedoms do we give up to retain life". It means "there are some risks and costs to being free, but we understand and appreciate their significance". We do not compromise our ideals because of the risks to the citizens. Dictatorships and totalitarian regimes arise from the government's intention to protect, and advance the fortunes of, its citizens at all cost. Every country in which that has happened witnessed the approach, and the citizens confidently said "it can't happen here". And it did. The majority of 1990's Americans would not have foreseen the day of waterboarding and warrantless tapping of citizens' phones. Yet here we are. There are actually average Americans now convinced those are necessary activities.

So, what will we allow in 5 years if we continue on this path? We have yet another chance to stop the slide, but it cannot be done with "am not!!!!". It cannot be done by having more of our soldiers killed in the vain hope of outlasting "the enemy" in a war of attrition.

Hmmm...maybe the Anti-Choice crowd merely wants to create more future soldiers. Why is the potential life more important than that of the 20-year-old soldier? Let's take it to the media and the GOP and press them on their disregard for the lives of the people standing between them and the so-called enemy. Show the voting records of the hawks and ask them why they don't make personal sacrifices for the war effort? What have they cut back on so that soldiers in Iraq can have more supplies, more armor and a better chance of surviving? How many of these ghouls have seen significant increases in their personal wealth during the war?

Ask GW: "how can you smile and laugh in public when our soldiers are dying in Iraq because of your decisions? Have you no empathy for those in the line of fire?"

Take it to them.