2008 Woodie Awards
If the Shoe Fits
Find comfort in a flip-flop
Corey Kempf
Issue date: 10/21/04 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 2 next >
I don't know if you're anything like me, but when I think of the newspaper comics, I don't think of them being associated much with politics. However, it was exactly one of those, a newspaper comic, that displayed a message that happened to be the idea for an opinion idea I had been tinkering with.
In the October 11 edition of "Non Sequitur," Danae, the naively, but intelligently, observant young girl decided to watch a political debate in order to learn "from the pros." Upon hearing this, her father intriguingly asks what she has learned, to which she replies, "That it's more important to demean the opponent's integrity than to be right about anything...and never, ever admit you're wrong." See what I mean about a naively intelligent observer?
How this relates to my idea was that a question popped into my mind recently. The question is, why can't these guys admit their mistakes? Is a "steadfast, unwavering" president really what we should be looking for?
President George W.Bush has ridden out this conflict in Iraq for way too long, and regardless of whether you think it should have or shouldn't have happened in the first place, I think most would agree that it has gone on for more than needed. Bush has been steadfast; he has been unwavering; he's been a leader, but he's led us into an inescapable hole and continues to lead us further with every day that passes.
In the recent report on Iraq, evidence has proven the fact that there were absolutely no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. It conceded that Saddam Hussein was attempting to recreate a weapons program, but it explained that he had no intent whatsoever of using them on the United States or selling them to terrorist groups.
And those U.S. school blueprints that were so partisanly uncovered by FOX were obtained from the man in Iraq in charge of building schools (go figure) and not for planning an attack.
So how can Bush continue to try to drive home the message that Hussein had every intention of attacking the U.S.? Sure, he and Vice President Dick Cheney admitted there were no WMDs in Iraq, but they still continue to say he was a danger to the U.S. Why in the wide world of mind games can't they just admit a mistake?
In the October 11 edition of "Non Sequitur," Danae, the naively, but intelligently, observant young girl decided to watch a political debate in order to learn "from the pros." Upon hearing this, her father intriguingly asks what she has learned, to which she replies, "That it's more important to demean the opponent's integrity than to be right about anything...and never, ever admit you're wrong." See what I mean about a naively intelligent observer?
How this relates to my idea was that a question popped into my mind recently. The question is, why can't these guys admit their mistakes? Is a "steadfast, unwavering" president really what we should be looking for?
President George W.Bush has ridden out this conflict in Iraq for way too long, and regardless of whether you think it should have or shouldn't have happened in the first place, I think most would agree that it has gone on for more than needed. Bush has been steadfast; he has been unwavering; he's been a leader, but he's led us into an inescapable hole and continues to lead us further with every day that passes.
In the recent report on Iraq, evidence has proven the fact that there were absolutely no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. It conceded that Saddam Hussein was attempting to recreate a weapons program, but it explained that he had no intent whatsoever of using them on the United States or selling them to terrorist groups.
And those U.S. school blueprints that were so partisanly uncovered by FOX were obtained from the man in Iraq in charge of building schools (go figure) and not for planning an attack.
So how can Bush continue to try to drive home the message that Hussein had every intention of attacking the U.S.? Sure, he and Vice President Dick Cheney admitted there were no WMDs in Iraq, but they still continue to say he was a danger to the U.S. Why in the wide world of mind games can't they just admit a mistake?