Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry and others were scrambling on the day of the Iraq Election to find the bad news.
It went something like this beginning before the election: the elections cannot take place on January 30th...if they do take place, they will be a failure...if they're not a failure, they are illegitimate...if they're legitimate, it doesn't matter for Iraq...if it matters for Iraq, it says nothing about the Bush policy in Iraq...if it says anything about the Bush policy in Iraq, it says something bad.
or: only 30% will vote...if more vote, the turnout was down where it matters...where does it matter? wherever it was down.
and we've been hearing that maybe the turnout actually is a statement about how the Iraqis want the Americans to leave.
Face it, this was a success. Deal with it.
There's more to do. There will be more violence. But the flag of freedom was planted yesterday in the heart of the Middle East.
As Churchill said, it's probably not the end or even the beginning of the end; but maybe the end of the beginning.
A good day for peace.
Monday, January 31, 2005
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Good Day for America
The Inauguration is over. The president and vice president have been sworn in and the speech has been given.
Generally, I thought the speech was good. Bold. Broad. Sweeping. Not bringing freedom to Iraqis but to the world. Not giving a tax cut, but changing the tax code. It seemed not to be so much a political speech as it was a change the world speech. It was not so much about America, but about the world.
Anytime a President says something 'is the policy of the United States' it's a big deal. When the president says it is our policy to take or support democracy and liberty anywhere and everywhere in the world, it's big. And will demand future presidents to live up to it or clearly distance from it.
What about Taiwan in the days to come? When they 'stand for their liberty' will we stand with them? What about violations in Myanmar and China and other parts of the world? The speech was eloquent, but the devil's always in the details? The 'what' is easier...the how and why gets messier.
The theme of the speech was that our safety and security are tied to freedom being spread worldwide.
Here is the text of the speech.
Generally, I thought the speech was good. Bold. Broad. Sweeping. Not bringing freedom to Iraqis but to the world. Not giving a tax cut, but changing the tax code. It seemed not to be so much a political speech as it was a change the world speech. It was not so much about America, but about the world.
Anytime a President says something 'is the policy of the United States' it's a big deal. When the president says it is our policy to take or support democracy and liberty anywhere and everywhere in the world, it's big. And will demand future presidents to live up to it or clearly distance from it.
What about Taiwan in the days to come? When they 'stand for their liberty' will we stand with them? What about violations in Myanmar and China and other parts of the world? The speech was eloquent, but the devil's always in the details? The 'what' is easier...the how and why gets messier.
The theme of the speech was that our safety and security are tied to freedom being spread worldwide.
Here is the text of the speech.
Friday, January 07, 2005
Pay for Play
I am sure this goes on. I hate it.
There's no way it can be justified (unless of course I could get a similar deal).
There's no way it can be justified (unless of course I could get a similar deal).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)