First there's Karl Rove. And no, I am not talking about how this "traditional marriage defender" is getting divorced - for a second time. No surprise to learn that a prominent GOPer is trying to rewrite Bush Administration history. Via Thinkprogress:
And what do you think we find when we actually you know take a look at the Bush record? Thinkprogress links to this at the this Huffingtonpost article where the headline reads:Yesterday on Hannity, former Bush White House adviser Karl Rove sharply criticized President Obama’s response to the failed terrorist attack on Christmas Day. In particular, Rove went after the fact that Obama issued his first public statement on the matter 72 hours after the event.
Bush Waited Six Days To Discuss Shoe Bomber With No GOP ComplaintsHuh. Imagine that.
There's more. This from Talkingpointsmemo:
Last night, former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge said that he disagreed with the decision to try the Flight 253 suspect criminally, and that "he's not a citizen of this country."A few paragraphs later TPM reports:
Of course, Ridge was secretary of Homeland Security during the Bush administration, when British citizen and "shoe-bomber" Richard Reid was tried and convicted in 2003 on terrorism charges after attempting to blow up a plane with explosives hidden in his shoes.History, truth, evidence. None of these terms means anything to these folks. Not while they're defending the records of war criminals.
A footnote: So Rove has now been married (and divorced) twice and Newt Gingrich is on his third marriage (he's twice divorced). Rush Limbaugh married and divorced three times. Even Ronald Reagan got divorced and remarried. Given that the GOP is the party most bent on "defending" marriage can someone please explain to me, in light of how casually prominent Republicans seem to take their marriage vows, why so many gay Americans still can't get married?
4 comments:
If Obama makes a statement quickly, he would be "rash." If he waits a normal amount of time, he is "too slow in responding." The key thing for "our side" is to be aware of this conundrum and make sure it is addressed each time Obama speaks. To wit...
"I have waited until I had the time to speak to all the parties involved...but I made it clear to them that the Public has a right to know what's happening, as soon as possible."
Hammer that home every time. It really isn't very complicated.
However, Obama needs to project strength and power in situations like this. People WANT to like him and WANT to rely on him, but he HAS to get some balls.
Period.
All I could keep thinking about was Bush reading a book to a grade school class as the WTC fell.
I'm sure he had a press conference of some type fairly quickly (I was in Italy, so I can't be positive). But how much information did they have at the time of his conference? I think Obama wanted to gather the fact, especially about the vulnerabilities that allowed such an act to happen.
Clearly the Republicans are in fact great consumers of marriage, that they wish to share it with as many women as possible. I suppose they must also like single mothers, since I assume at least some of the women who were divorced had children. But their stance on gay marriage reminds me of the cartoon Maria posted on the twenty third.
Sorry to report albamaria30 Bush did not hold a press conference or anything quickly after 9/11. He went scurrying all over the country on Air Force One for a day before he returned to the White House. He left the Dark Lord, VP Chaney, in charge.
Post a Comment