It depends on what the definition of ‘attack’ is I guess. Every time I see a republican accused of attacking the democrats, I check the article out to see what it’s all about. What I invariably find is that the so-called attack is merely a stone cold analysis of a democrat position. When I think of an ‘attack’, I think of stuff like calling Bush a liar, a thief, a murderer, etc..
In this case, the Washington Post calls this an attack:
“You can’t say I want to win the war but not be willing to fight the war,” said Rove, Bush’s top political adviser. “And if leading Democrats have their way, our nation will be weaker and the enemies of our nation will be stronger. And that’s a stark fact, and it’s the reason that this fall election will turn very heavily on national security.”
Rove is right of course. But because it is he who had the nerve to utter those words, that makes it an attack? Despite the confidence they are exhibiting about the election this November, democrats continue to show just how thin skinned they are about their own positions.
