February 8, 2010

WHICH RAISES AN OBVIOUS QUESTION...:

Sarah Palin's Storm at the Tea Party: Why haven't responsible Republicans spoken out against her? (Fred Kaplan, Feb. 8, 2010, Slate)

If there is a terrorist attack on the United States in the next few years, we could deal with it more confidently, and respond more effectively, if the president were able to rally a spirit of national unity. George W. Bush was given a chance to do this after Sept. 11 and, despite some initial fumbling, rose well to the occasion, at least for a few months.

But if the Republican Party's most popular aspirant declares that the sitting president doesn't know we're at war, isn't even a commander-in-chief (and crowds roar at this charge with approval), then Obama would have a much harder time repairing a wounded nation.


Clinton: Obama government to drop 'war on terror' from lexicon (Reuters, 3/31/09)
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday the Obama administration had dropped "war on terror" from its lexicon, rhetoric former President George W. Bush used to justify many of his actions.

"The [Obama] administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself. Obviously," Clinton told reporters...


...if Mr. Obama's own administration claims we are not in a war and Mr. Kaplan thinks that will make it harder for him to respond after the next time we're attacked, then why is he attacking Ms Palin instead of the President?

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 8, 2010 5:49 PM
blog comments powered by Disqus
« WELL, IT IS CHANGE...: | Main | TARGET RICH ENVIRONMENT: »