My two issues were this:
1) Of the 7 people at our table 4 were from Edgemont. It’s funny that I say that is a problem. As we sat waiting for the event to start, I could tell by the materials on the tables that we would have “small-group” discussions. I spent the first ten minutes in complete anxiety that they were going to split us up and I would have to talk to someone I didn’t know. After the fact, it bothered me.
2) All 7 held the same basic view of the war. The conversation was great. We had a very diverse group (as diverse as you can get in the mainstream Christian church anyway). We had young, old, and in between, and we had both white and black, male and female. We had at least one man with combat experience, and more than one veteran.
I wanted to hear diverse opinions. I wanted to hear from people who disagreed with me. I wanted a chance to explain my opinion, and have them explain theirs. I wanted to question my beliefs. Instead, we all agreed. No dissention. No disagreement. No questioning or defending.
Well, that’s not what I started out to write. The day was interesting for another reason. That morning I heard on the radio that Condaleeza Rice made a surprise trip to Iraq. Her meetings with their Prime Minister resulted in an agreement that a Time Table for troop withdrawal is needed and forthcoming. Oops, I’m sorry. A Time Event or was it a Time Horizon. I don’t care if you call it a Time Warp (Again!!!), it’s a time table for withdrawal.
The announcement sent my head spinning, as I’m sure it did for many of you. Why would this administration, which has completely shot down even the idea of a timetable for withdrawal, suddenly change course and propose such a timetable? Better yet, why would this administration seemingly turn it’s back on it’s own party (and their Presidential Candidate) and turn toward the opposition’s candidate? What is the Bush Administration’s motivation for this complete reversal in policy? I’ve thought of and have heard several ideas. The desire to make the war a non-issue in this election seems to be the most popular. To help McCain distance himself from Bush? I have another idea. I think my reasoning is the best. I win. Game over.
Think back to late 1999-early 2000. George Bush is running for the Republican nomination for President. Who was his chief rival for that nomination? John McCain. Do you see where I’m going with this?
The campaign was nasty, especially in South Carolina. In that state, some special interest groups ran several attack ads against McCain. Then came the real smear campaign. Then came the anonymous smear campaign that included flyers, faxes, phone calls, etc. The campaign asserted that, among other things: 1) McCain had diminished capacity because of exposure to Agent Orange. 2) McCain fathered an illegitimate child with a prostitute. 3) John McCain was a homosexual.
McCain fired back with ads accusing Bush of lying and comparing him to Bill Clinton. After the election, McCain was quoted as saying there must be “a special place in hell” for those who started the rumors. Who did he accuse? The Bush campaign.
My question is this: Does President Bush (or someone in his administration) still hold some ill will toward John McCain? Is that animosity strong enough to influence policy change in order to hurt McCain’s presidential campaign?
There are rumors that the proposed “Time Horizon” looks a lot like Barak Obama’s plan to pull troops from Iraq. This switch completely pulls the rug from under John McCain’s “stay until it’s finished” stance on the war in Iraq. Is it payback?
No comments:
Post a Comment