Unfotunately, the majority of politicians refuse to have any Iraq debate without playing the political games of backhanded name-calling. Let's take a case-in-point from our old buddy, Al Gore.
Former Vice President Gore went on the Today Show yesterday morning and talked at length with Matt Lauer. Let's leave aside all the intense liberal bial from Lauer (who rather than asking Gore if he planned run for president, basically pleaded for him to do so) and just focus on what Gore said about the War. Here was his first comment:This was the worst strategic mistake in the entire history of the United States...Then this one,
But I would urge the President not to, to try to separate out the, the, the personal issues of being, of being blamed in history for this mistake and instead recognize it's not about him, it's about our country and we all have to find a way to get our troops home and, and to prevent a regional conflagration there.Then this one,
This is the equivalent of a car wreck....What the former VP said was not necessarily untrue. Though there can be rational--and even strong--defenses for invading Iraq, no one can deny any longer that what is going on there is nothing short of a worst-case scenario. This might well be an "utter disaster" a "mistake" and akin to "a car wreck". My point is not to tear down the former VP for saying these things. My point is that saying these things is not helpful to move us forward.
Those leading this country--and especially those who may have ambitions of being the executive leader of the nation--must now lead. We need people to step up and say, "this is the way to go; follow me". What did Gore do? He rehashed what happened three years ago. In his arrogance, even when he talked about doing what's "best for the country", he said President Bush needs to not worry about "being blamed in history" for what has happend. Why didn't the former VP talk at length about what we should do now? Lauer even asked him directly if he would pull the troops out. Gore didn't answer. Instead, what did he do? Personal attack, personal attack, personal attack.
We can't go back to 2003 and uninvade Iraq, yet we keep going back to 2003 in our discourse.
It's hard to imagine our great leaders blaming each other for the past rather than moving the country forward. Imagine Lincoln standing up at Gettysburg and saying "man, this Civil War is a wagonwreck. Look at all these dead guys. This is the worst strategic blunder in our nation's history. Thanks alot, John Calhoun." Or envision Washington, his troops bloodied by the British saying, dealing with a constant barrage of "signing the Declaration of Independence was the biggest mistake this country has ever made. We should have found a diplomatic solution to gain our freedom."
It is not my intent to insult your intelligence by equating Iraq to Emancipation, or Baghdad to Bunker Hill, but my point remains: in times of trouble great leaders lead. They do not blame. They do not focus on what brought them their travails. They get to work and they get to leading.
Who is our Lincoln? Who is our Washington? Who is our Jackson? What is more, who are the people who will support such a person when he/she stands up to take charge? Will the Freakshow force them to go back to the politics of bash and blame?
We must leave behind the politics of destruction.
If Al Gore--or anyone else for that matter--wants the ticket to the Oval Office, that person should stand up and say, "we all know Iraq is a mess, but focusing on what got us here takes the focus off of how to get us moving forward. We need to focus on how to do what's best for Iraq and for America. Leave behind the politics of bash and blame. America is a great nation, and we will not lay down and wallow in defeaat. Follow me as we find a way forward."
That's a leader, regardless of party, I could get behind. Couldn't we all.
No comments:
Post a Comment