Another Bush Blunder
Last week on the news, they showed a clip of President Bush chatting up the troops in Iraq. It was a question and answer session. The troops asking questions and their Commander in Chief answering honestly.
Well, not quite.
It was soliders repeating questions they were told to ask, to a President who even knowing the questions managed to screw up the answers. This was bad enough, but what's worse, the White House and the Pentagon tried to play it off as if it was a leitimate give and take, instead of something more scripted than your average sit-com.
The White House said that the point of this was to show that the troops over in Iraq were still comitted to the cause and that the Iraqi people for the most part were still behind us. Fair enough. But if all that is true, doesn't it stand to reason that they could find people to say that without being prompted?
The fact of the matter is that it is a living hell over there, and that the troops weren't given enough equipment and information from the Bush administration to quell the insurgency. But why would the President want to talk about something like that?
And you know something? People ask me all the time why I'm not more critical of the war. One of the reasons is that I fear that their morale would be lessened if they thought there were people back here who think that what they are doing is a waste of time. Low morale is dangerous. But these men and women are laying it on the line, giving their lives for their country. God Bless Them, and may their morale never waver.
But they should also not be used as a prop for the President, who put them in this predicament. They deserve better than that. Much better.
Well, not quite.
It was soliders repeating questions they were told to ask, to a President who even knowing the questions managed to screw up the answers. This was bad enough, but what's worse, the White House and the Pentagon tried to play it off as if it was a leitimate give and take, instead of something more scripted than your average sit-com.
The White House said that the point of this was to show that the troops over in Iraq were still comitted to the cause and that the Iraqi people for the most part were still behind us. Fair enough. But if all that is true, doesn't it stand to reason that they could find people to say that without being prompted?
The fact of the matter is that it is a living hell over there, and that the troops weren't given enough equipment and information from the Bush administration to quell the insurgency. But why would the President want to talk about something like that?
And you know something? People ask me all the time why I'm not more critical of the war. One of the reasons is that I fear that their morale would be lessened if they thought there were people back here who think that what they are doing is a waste of time. Low morale is dangerous. But these men and women are laying it on the line, giving their lives for their country. God Bless Them, and may their morale never waver.
But they should also not be used as a prop for the President, who put them in this predicament. They deserve better than that. Much better.
Comments