Cut and Run and Then…?
September 29, 2006, Media Matters For America Headline: "ABC, CBS, CNN aired Bush's "cut and run" attack on Democrats, ignored Democratic response"
Media Matters went on to report that the gist of the "response", by Harry Reid, was: "If George Bush is so confident that his national security policies are working, he should release the entire National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism and let the American people decide for themselves. The fact that he won't speaks volumes about how the failure of his policies has made the American people less safe. George Bush has no credibility left on national security. No matter how many stump speeches he gives on the campaign trail, the American people can see the damage his tough talk has done to America's safety. It's time to be tough and smart so we can change course and give Americans the real security they deserve."
Most sane Americans wish there were no "War on Terror" and want nothing more than a sensible plan to end it and let Peace and the Happy Bosom Family reign. They will support a "cut and run" solution if a plan is presented that clearly outlines its benefits and risks.
For example, a short-term benefit of a quick exit from Iraq would likely be to save many American soldiers lives, (perhaps at the cost of a bloodbath for Iraqis). But, what of the longer term? How will defeating America cause the jihadists to become peace-loving live-and-let-live world citizens? Have there been any such signals from any Islamist? Would they no longer hate Jews, Christians or any non-Muslims? Will they limit their aggression to their own countries?
Since everybody loves a winner, could America's defeat inspire even more recruits to Al Qaeda? With our forces gone, they'd certainly be in less danger.
A "tough and smart" answer to these questions would have been a stirring response to the President's message. It "fairly boggles the mind" that Mr. Reid wasn't prepared to disclose his new course.
-Zorroaster