Thursday, March 04, 2004

Yawn: The latest hubbub is over the inclusion of a couple short clips of 9/11 scenes in Bush's political ads. Democrats charge that he's "politicizing" the attacks.

This criticism seems unwarranted considering Kerry, and even at times Clark, invoked the Vietnam War over and over for campaign purposes. The only difference is, 9/11 is more relevant.

The war against terrorism is a crucial issue in this election -- and that makes it political. It would be different if Republicans and Democrats were on the same page on how to fight this war (like during World War II), and this election focused on other issues. But there are fundamental differences between the two parties in how we should take on the terrorists.

Bush was there to respond to 9/11, and that's something that he should be able to tout to his credit. The 9/11 images in Bush's commercial were faint and brief. Someone could make a similar argument saying Bush is "politicizing" the rebounding economy for the election.

But that's the problem with politics. Most of the criticisms that get any attention are pretty weak. So much ink has been spilled on Bush's aircraft carrier landing (flight suits are standard wardrobe there), the Thanksgiving Turkey (it was a real turkey, but the troops weren't eating that one; who cares?), and Bush's National Guard stint (he finished his duty, get over it), that critics lose credibility in the process.

There are so many legitimate issues with which to attack the president. He's running up massive deficits. He's not responding to lapses in our intelligence community. He's advocating a constitutional amendment to prevent homosexuals from gaining civil rights.

I'm angry at a lot of what President Bush is doing. But when Democrats conjure up weak attacks, it makes me think that they don't have any better ideas to offer.