Political Agents

Those who think I'm conservative, and those who think I'm liberal, this posting will have a little bit for each of you.

As reported by MSNBC, with Bush's radio address today, we are shown again what revisionist history is all about:

"President Bush said Saturday U.S. troops in Iraq were fighting to protect Americans at home from terrorism like the Sept. 11 attacks four years ago."

While not literally charging that Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks, Bush is again attempting to raise that specter so that he can justify the war in that country. It's a rather disingenuous attempt to rewrite history. He should be ashamed.

Lest we forget, even the Christian evangelist Max Lucado, speaking on Larry King Live on 11 March 2003 clearly believed that Bush wanted to wage the war as an effort to defend America from an Iraqi threat:

"You know, C.S. Lewis said that to love your enemy doesn't mean that you never hold him accountable for his deeds. ... Again, I come back to the fact that the president, I think, has a moral obligation to protect innocent people here and abroad, but especially here. He's given supervision over us and he is privy to information that, to be quite candid, I'm not and my trust must be that if he
engages us in this conflict it's because he sees that we are in threat, which I think we are, we are in danger and at some point you have to protect the people here from that type of despot and that danger."

Lucado, of course, isn't a radical leftist. Yet he chose -- and many of we Americans did -- to believe Bush was acting in our best interests. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a matter of betrayed trust. This fact is like a nail after each successive hit of the hammer's head - it is seated deeper each time a new revelation surfaces about what the CIA knew - and what the CIA knew that the Bush Administration chose to ignore.

Anti-war activists have made Cindy Sheehan their poster girl, evoking strong criticism of her from Bush loyalists. In turn, people, usually anti-war Democrats, have responded to the criticism saying that Sheehan, as a grieving mother, should not be attacked for the public position she has taken against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Bush Administration.

Sheehan deserves the condolences and appreciation of a nation that sent his son to a war in which he would die. We should also understand the grief that comes with the death of a family member, especially a mother's son. However, made the choice to thrust herself into the political arena. She chose to become a political agent rather than presenting herself as just a grieving mom.

Perhaps grief clouded her judgement. But if she did not want to be part of the political fray, open to criticism by Bush's supporters, then she should have stayed away from issues other than her son. She chose to attack and, in turn, should expect that in public debate she will be attacked in return.

That said, I am not a Bush supporter when it comes to what is going on in Iraq. His administration has failed miserably, first in its decision to wage war in Iraq and then its failed prosecution of that war. It's time to fight the war there the way it should be fought or bring the troops home. (And, no, I do not believe it was a matter of not planning appropriately for the "peace" or post-war Iraq. The war is - and never was - over, at least not in the sense of previous wars.)