Creating Terrorists

We've been repeatedly advised that our behavior in going on the offensive against Islamic Jihadists has created even more terrorists instead of reducing them; that the harder we attack the more vehemently they oppose us. Why then are the Democratic leaders not following their own advise when dealing with irate Americans?

We who speak out against policies we strongly disagree with have already been labeled as radicals and potential terrorists, our ideals scoffed at and our very existance marginalized, but has this shut us up or has it made us louder?

Is it logical or reasonable to believe that disregarding the opinions of people already upset with their leadership will help a volatile situation, especially considering that the situations is only volatile because people feel they are not being heard? Is it really a good idea to deal with a dissenting opinion by telling the concerned people to sit down and shut up whiile in no way addressing the concerns that drove them to speak, or are you only swelling their ranks?

By going on the offensive and referring people to exercise their very American right to question their government as Unamerican, the leadership appears to be alienating even more people. The support for the Obama plan is steadily declining and yet on July 29th Time published an article titled "Americans Back Reform, Worry Over Details". Although the title says we all support the reform, in the body it indicates that over 60% believe that with the government plan the cost and the complexity will rise, while 56% believe that we will no longer be able to choose our own doctors. Yet the title says we back this reform and we wonder why people are getting frustrated.

The leadership will argue that they have told us repeatedly that these things will not happen, that costs will not go up and we'll be able to keep our doctors, and what possible reason could we have for questioning the word of our politicians. They wouldn't lie to us don't you know.

My question is this; will the pat answer of "because I said so" combined with the stradegy of discreting dissenters serve to reduce protests -- or increase them?

But Don't You Remember Bush Lied

Nancy Pelosi in her briefing today, in her attempts to explain what she didn't know and why she didn't know it, kept reminding the press that it was Bush that lied. Her comments had common themes, and she repeatedly stated that Bush was misleading them and it was "her job" to change the leadership in congress and the white house which she did. The change in leadership, to her, seemed to be the end of the story. Why question HER when the leadership has now changed and it was all Bush's fault anyway.

So what she's really saying is that this was an excuse for partisanship and none of it is her fault. Again, no personal responsibility or accountability. On one hand she accuses the Republicans of misdirection, and on the other hand she engages in misdirection. A clever and effective practice of the Democrats. Accuse you're opposition of what you're doing yourself.

The press was actually doing their job and Nancy's demeanor started to crack. She was getting more and more pissed off that they would dare suggest that she was misleading or lying when she keeps making it clear that it was Bush who lied. I particularly loved her throwing in the WMD discussion. Misdirection yet again.

And she was briefed on the second briefing because she wasn't at the actual briefing. So why wasn't she there. If she was so concerned about it that she saw it as her job to change the leadership. Oh, and by the why, by the time they changed the leadership these tools were no longer being used. So that change was so critical at that point. Yeah right.

Watching that briefing, I was reminded of the politician from The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas. Ooooooooh I love to dance a little sidestep.....