Keep Iraq debate civil
Published: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 at 6:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 at 1:06 a.m.
It is possible, in other words, to talk about Iraq from both sides of the aisle without the inclusion of juvenile bickering or careless insults. Krauthammer doesn't even agree with the president's plan, and I, who admire and usually support the president, think Krauthammer is probably right. In his opinion we should essentially stay the course but in a much different manner than the president's new plan.
It would be so very nice if we all could speak and debate in the civilized manner of these men. The president is a fine man of conviction who is his own person and willing to be a whipping-boy if that is what it takes to do what he believes is best for the country.
A country cannot be run day-to-day by plebiscite, but can be directed by combining the wisdom of the executive and legislative branches of government if those legislators who oppose the CEO have the political courage to decline to give him financial support. In the case of the Iraq war, Congress would not be deserting the troops by doing this, they would be placing the president in a position wherein he would be failing the troops if he did not change course.
It will take history about 50 years to tell us whether George Bush is a great or a bad president.
Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.
Comments are currently unavailable on this article