Public Getting Tired of GOP's Version of the War on Terror
The White House is doing its best to spin the Lieberman primary defeat as a sign that the terrorists will strike again (see Tony Snow say it here, Cheney repeat it here, and then O'Reilly parrot it back here).The fact is, though, there is no difference between the Dems and the Repubs in terms of willingness or determination to fight terrorism. The difference comes down entirely to how the two sides feel it's best to wage the war against terrorism.
That difference is highlighted in this quote by Josh Marshall on the uncovering of the UK terror plot:
President Bush just said the events in London are "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists."
Also a pretty stark reminder that President Bush's War on Terror, the way he's chosen to fight it, is at best irrelevant to combatting this sort of danger. These are homegrown Brits apparently trying to blow up planes over the Atlantic. Good thing we've got a 150,000 or so troops in Iraq to take the fight to them.
----------------------Thankfully, the American people seem to be awakening to this difference.
A recent Washington Post poll asked respondents if they support President Bush's handling of the US campaign against terrorism. Only 47 percent of respondents say they do.
That's the lowest the number has been since the Post started asking the question right after September 11. Only one other time, in November 2005, did the number drop under 50 percent.
What's more, as Greg Sargent points out, when asked which political party they trust to do a better job handling the US campaign against terrorism, more respondents stated the Dems (46 percent) than the Repubs (38 percent).
The public simply has had enough of the GOP's version of the war on terror, and they're no longer buying that it's the only way to go.