The West Central Tribune is to be commended, as of day two, for giving Sen. John Kerry's faux pas the minimal attention it deserved. True, the implications of his remark would be offensive to our servicemen, but it was quite apparent that he had lost his place in the speech, and misspoke. Our virtuoso stumbletongue president ought to have particular empathy.
President Bush instead seized the opportunity to again evade accountability, and has demanded the senator apologize. But it is Bush who should be apologizing to the troops and families for the injuries, deaths and hardships which have resulted from his hubris, ignorance and bumbling leadership, and for having so cavalierly abused the trust and loyalty placed in him.
Presidential apology is also due for squandering billions of dollars which might have gone to our own infrastructure and education systems, and to a constructive foreign policy. And not least, he should apologize to the Iraqis. Perhaps not for his intentions, which may have been noble, but for his repeated instances of arrogance and ineptitude. Such a statement of humility and regret would be the first step in establishing a dialogue with our opponents and gaining an admission that, for the majority of them, continuing violence accomplishes nothing.
The Tribune's restraint, so laudable in this instance, is lamentable when it results in negligible examination of political doublespeak. As politicians trip over each other to be more pro-life and more anti-tax than their opponents, might those stances be inherently contradictory? When they insist they are pro-family, that only heterosexual couples raising children can serve as the foundation of society, and then opine that unwed motherhood and serial monogamy will do fine, shouldn't questions follow? When they say they want to cut health costs and fight AIDS, yet actively discourage committed relationships between gays, is such de facto encouragement of gay promiscuity and its consequences?
This paper wisely shows restraint in pursuing sensational aspects to candidacies. Unfortunately, it seems to show an even greater restraint in exploring the meaning (or lack thereof), inconsistencies and consequences to the slogans and aphorisms which constitute the bulk of political dialogue.
ADVERTISEMENT
Fred Cogelow
Willmar
