Democrats attack the West’s ability to wage war (again)
posted at 10:16 am on September 6, 2006 by Bryan
Quick question–which have the Democrats spent more time demonizing, Osama bin Laden or Don Rumsfeld? See: Patty Murray and pretty much all leftwing bloggers for your answer. Or just pick up a newspaper. When Democrats demand a head on a stick, 9 times out of 10 it’s Rumsfeld’s, not the actual enemy. Remember Al Gore, who tried to get the entire Bush cadre in DoD to resign en masse a couple of years ago. If he’d succeeded, he would have all but decapitated the war effort–on our side, not the enemy’s. His adminstration had 8 years to deal with bin Laden, and didn’t do an effective thing.
Which have the Democrats spent more time trying to hollow out–Hezbollah or the US military? See: Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and all leftwing bloggers and most Congressional Democrats for your answer. Which side elected a president famous for loathing the military?
Recall that Sen. John Kerry opposed nearly every single weapons program of the 1980s, programs that developed the weapons our military uses in the fight against terror today. Kerry, who I assume you’ve heard served in Vietnam, was joined in this effort by most Democrats throughout the 80s. Sen. Ted Kennedy, a Democrat in case you didn’t know, ran his own foreign policy with Moscow, against President Reagan, throughout that decade.
And now, in the middle of a war, Sens Feinstein and Leahy–both Democrats–are at it again, this time chipping away at the use of cluster bombs by Israel against its enemies. I swear if they get their way the West will end up defending itself with those plastic picnic forks–if that.
The two Democratic lawmakers, members of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, identified Israel’s use of cluster bombs in Lebanon as an “example” or a “factor” in proposing the amendment. “The recent experience in Lebanon is only the latest example of the appalling human toll of injury and death,” Leahy said in a joint September 5 press release issued with Feinstein.
As usual, the Democrats don’t condemn enemy weapons of choice, whether it’s suicide belts loaded up with ball bearings or katyusha rockets packed with same and launched against exclusively civilian targets. They focus their energy on the weapons our allies choose to use to destroy an entrenched, dug-in terrorist army that operates at the behest of terror-sponsoring, freedom-hating radicals in Tehran.
Rather than just rant and condemn the Democrats, I’ll just point out that Feinstein’s and Leahy’s amendment is a clarifying moment. We have an election coming up. If you want our military and our allies to be able to defend civilization effectively, vote against the likes of Leahy and Feinstein and the party that empowers them. If you want to tie our military and that of our allies down with more silly battlefield restrictions that will end up making the enemy’s job easier (and the enemy’s job is, ultimately, killing or enslaving you and your family and destroying your freedoms), vote Democrat. It really is that simple.
Note to Kirsten Powers: The above is why Democrats have no credibility on national security at face value. They have a very long record of undermining US national security at every conceivable turn, and the same generation of Democrats that has done all of the above is still in power or still very influential. Your party’s national security legacy is an albatross around your neck.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
“United States forces armed with what? Spitballs?”
Their tune never changes.
Evilwhiteguy on September 6, 2006 at 10:23 AM
Do these two idiots remember who started this whole thing?
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on September 6, 2006 at 10:38 AM
Evilwhiteguy! I’m not big on spitballs, but I am a big proponent of FLAME THROWERS!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on September 6, 2006 at 10:39 AM
Remember Georgie boy saying that any nation that harbored or aided terrorists would have to deal with the full force and wrath of the US? Well how about Pakistan going into “don’t ask, don’t tell” mode?
Think this “remmbering” what has been said/done by politicians is a real, real dangerous game for anyone supporting Bush.
honora on September 6, 2006 at 10:46 AM
Voting for the party that will not skewer the miltary means voting for the party that could not do ANYTHING on immigration even with the majority! What a disheartening choice. They need to stop playing politics (waiting to see the fallout from immigration) and have some backbone and actually do something about it. This band aid on a sucking chest wound technique leaves much to be desired.
Theworldisnotenough on September 6, 2006 at 10:47 AM
Right now, members of both parties evince enervating opinions about warfare and justice. The two parties are solidly in agreement that it should be illegal for federal, state, or local governments or private citizens to shut down or destroy mosques and drive out the muslims in our own country. Neither party has a plan for demographic renewal in our country or a plan for countering muslim fertility here or elsewhere. The Democrats are worse, true, but I’m drawing cold comfort from such mere matters of degree.
Kralizec on September 6, 2006 at 10:48 AM
Excellent analysis of the importance of defeating the intellectually challenged and spineless Democrats this fall.
In the unlikely event that the Libs do gain control of one or both branches, (and this could only happen with widespread voter fraud) the repercussions will be seismic.
Expect the markets to fall, Bush to be impeached, and the
Terrorists to be emboldened worldwide.
Any new attack on American soil will be attributed to the Democrat appeasers among us. As Tommy Franks has previously stated, an attack of 9/11 proportions or worse will lead to the imposition of Martial Law in the U.S.A.
Under Martial Law expect America to become Balkanized between the “reds” and the “blues.”
Yeah, I’d say this is one election you don’t want to sit out.
there it is on September 6, 2006 at 11:01 AM
Paging Zell Miller, Mr Miller please pick up the white courtesy phone. The Dems are against wiretaps on terrorists, detention of terrorists in Gitmo, against tracking financial transactions, pursue crimminal investigations against our troops, provide continous intelligence updates to the enemy as to what our capabilities are or where they are lacking in regards to everything from military hardware to soft targets inside the country, oppose tightening the border security, and have their sights set on discrediteing and running out of office anyone in the administration.
Tell me again why I should vote them.
LakeRuins on September 6, 2006 at 11:03 AM
That’s one of your best posts right there, Bryan.
BirdEye on September 6, 2006 at 11:06 AM
Bryan, one of your best.
Everyone take down your dictionaries, draw a line through ‘treason’ becasuse the word has absolutely no meaning in the U.S. Some of our own people, listed above here, create as much havoc and do as much damage to our country as the terrorists, all with absolute impunity.
If you just flew in from another planet, you would swear the Left was the enemy of America.
shooter on September 6, 2006 at 11:09 AM
“Georgie boy?” Honora, at least “Georgie boy” spends more time going after terrorists than his own countrymen. Can’t say they same for the Democrats. And “Georgie boy” doesn’t and can’t control what Pakistan is going to do. Or would you have us invade Pakistan now?
And I should add this. While I don’t pretend to know what Pakistan is up to, there is a caveat applied to that “safe haven” notion that the critics are conveniently leaving out: al Qaeda types have to lead a “peaceful” life. How likely are they to do that? And–Pakistan just reaffirmed that they will capture bin Laden if the opportunity arises.
As I said, I don’t know what Pakistan is up to here, but slinging around knee-jerk “Georgie boy” insults just makes you look unserious and silly.
Bryan on September 6, 2006 at 11:10 AM
“killing” is the only one that’ll be their victory. If we lose our freedom, it’ll be our own doing.
Mark Jaquith on September 6, 2006 at 11:22 AM
Bryan: your bias is showing. Someone in this thread just made the statement:
and I’m unserious and silly??? How about the smallest crumb of intellectual honesty?
As for Pakistan, I am quoting Georgie. Seems your boy isn’t held accountable for his statements. Of course that’s the problem with sweeping statements. Sound so darn good but then there’s that pesky follow thru.
As to Georgie boy–exactly how is he going after terrorists? By securing our borders? By his policy in Iraq?
I think having contempt for our current President is the only reasonable POV:
Ask yourself this: Bush keeps insisting that Iraq is the “central front” of the WOT. What happens if (in my opinion, when) the government implodes and full fledged civil war erupts? Is it still the central front, and if so, whose side are we on?
Now ask yourself this: we went from the rationale of deposing Saddam because he was an imminent threat to us, to the rationale of establishing a beach-head for democracy in Iraq, to the rationale fighting Islamic fascists. Yet, and Bushies are proud of this–our strategy hasn’t changed. Objectives change, strategy stays constant. If this doesn’t seem very, very odd to you, well, we have nothing further to discuss.
honora on September 6, 2006 at 11:27 AM
[quote]Remember Georgie boy saying that any nation that harbored or aided terrorists would have to deal with the full force and wrath of the US? Well how about Pakistan going into “don’t ask, don’t tell” mode?[/quote]
So, you’re a proponent of invading Pakistan, destabilizing the Pakistani gov’t, and possibly allowing Pakistani nukes to fall into the hands of terrorists? Let me know how that works out.
JasonG on September 6, 2006 at 11:28 AM
Ha! This ain’t phbb. What a tard
JasonG on September 6, 2006 at 11:28 AM
No I’m a proponent of all politicians being held responsible for their actions and words, not just Democrats.
honora on September 6, 2006 at 11:34 AM
You’re hijacking the thread like a good little Dem, honora. Defend your party’s abyssmal record on national defense. Go ahead. You have the floor.
Mark–you’re naive. If you think many leftists and liberals aren’t prepared to chuck our freedoms to appease the Islamists, you aren’t paying attention. Or you’re fearful of the wrong people.
Bryan on September 6, 2006 at 11:34 AM
there is a saying in Hebrew often used during the passover service
Mah Nishtanah ha laiyla ha zeh mi kol ha laylot
Translation: What makes tonight different then any other night?
The Democrats attack American and not the enemey
Mah Nishtanah ha laiyla ha zeh mi kol ha laylot
Defector01 on September 6, 2006 at 11:34 AM
Well said, Bryan. Great post.
Don’t let KP hear you saying that. You’ll shatter her illusions.
Pablo on September 6, 2006 at 11:35 AM
And you sir, should take some guidance from Allahpundit, who answers questions and doesn’t have a kneejerd response and tiresome insults always at the ready.
honora on September 6, 2006 at 11:38 AM
Honora, I think you’re going to need to quote Musharraf, as well as Bush if you’re going to talk about what Pakistan is or isn’t doing. And if you’re going to go with this, you’d best be careful about deciding what it means and predicting outcomes.
Ever think Bush has a tough job? Nah, Musharraf has a tough job.
Pablo on September 6, 2006 at 11:40 AM
And you honora, should talk about the better way things would be happening if only Georgie boy weren’t reelected. You do have the floor, don’t squander it.
Pablo on September 6, 2006 at 11:41 AM
I know who started the tiresome insults. If there’s anything more tiresome than insulting the president, merely because it’s been *done*, I don’t know what it is. It’s really damned easy to criticize his policies without insulting him. Compare:
President Bush really barfed his foreign policy when he committed us to a course of action that it now looks like Pakistan could violate.
Georgie-boy [ya ya ya ya I'm a huge twit].
See how easy that was?
Anwyn on September 6, 2006 at 11:44 AM
In your given example it sounds like the President has to invade or bomb Pakistan or …what? What should he do in order to untwist your panties?
JasonG on September 6, 2006 at 11:48 AM
It’s funny, honora. You insist that I do your bidding and criticize Bush for something he didn’t do and that may not even have been accurately reported, while you haven’t stuck to the subject of this post at all.
Did you miss all of the posts and Vents excoriating Bush’s immigration record? Or noting when he went wobbly on Lebanon? This blog holds all of our politicians accountable for what they say and do. You, on the other hand, tried to hijack this post in what seems to be an attempt to deflect criticism away from Democrats for their abyssmal national security record spanning several decades. Yet you’re slamming me for not criticizing Bush to your liking.
You’re a hypocrite.
Bryan on September 6, 2006 at 11:55 AM
For ease of writing this, I will state in terms of what Bush or the next guy/gal should do IMO:
1) first, stop being such a little girl. This notion that we are facing an enemy that poses a far greater threat than we have ever before faced is bullshit. Remember Hitler, remember Stalin? Remember Khrushchev? Remember “we will bury you”. This from a country that had as many weapons as we had. Remember the Cuban missile crisis? (if you’re not familiar with it, it’s like Iraq only the opposite–Cuba had WMD and we didn’t invade them, nonetheless, they got rid of them) Yes we face a grave challenge, but stop selling fear, it’s not what we Americans respond to.
2) realize that America is great and can lead internationally only when we are strong and united internally. Stop looking at GNP as the sole indicator of economic well-being–look at wage stagnation, increase in the # of people under the poverty level, college tuitions, health care out of reach of an increasing number of people. We won the Cold War in large part because we could afford it–the middle class was blooming and could afford the generosity of spirit that made us the envy of every other nation. We are now in a situation that is astonishing to me: for the first time since this Gallup poll has been taken (back in the 60s if memory serves) the majority of Americans say they do not expect their children to have a better life than themselves. Think about that for a minute. Someone who sees this for what it is–a very real threat to our national security, is who I want as President.
3. for the love of God, raise the alarm and get serious about an energy policy that has the long term goal of getting us off our oil jones. Envision and sell and implement something like the Manhatten project or the moon landing program. LEAD!!!
4. stop talking to us like we’re morons. North Korea and Iran and the WOT and Venezuela are not all the same thing. Related yes, but different in significant ways. Have a debate, a dialogue, not just dogma.
Who can do all this? Frankly I don’t see anyone on the Dem side with the possible exception of Biden who has the gravitas and the leadership skills. See several Republicans who could–McCain,Gingrich, Guiliani.
honora on September 6, 2006 at 12:00 PM
Bryan: I don’t understand what you mean by “highjack”?
I thought I asked for the walk and chew gum at the same time section.
honora on September 6, 2006 at 12:01 PM
“Hijack”–immediately trying to move the comments to your own pet point of view rather than taking the subject of the post on its own merits. That’s what you did. And it’s a trick that Democrats usually use when a post gets uncomfortably close to exposing their own party’s uselessness on the war or some other topic.
Your little laundry list above is yet another example of hijacking. “Poverty” as a big topic for dealing with the war? Riiiiight. You want us to chase your leads rather than the one I presented in the post. It’s usually a banning offense if it keeps up.
Bryan on September 6, 2006 at 12:11 PM
Honora, I will direct you to the transcript of a speech that Bush gave in 2002. No where does he mention that Iraq is an imminent threat. He outlines clearly the rationale and reasons for going into iraq. I suggest you read it to refresh your memory.
pullingmyhairout on September 6, 2006 at 12:14 PM
Bryan: if you don’t think that the economic health of the US is a critical part of this battle, well we do disagree.
A banning offense?? Dear God.
honora on September 6, 2006 at 12:14 PM
Hey Honora,
You’re absolutely right. What the hell was I thinking to suggest that the only way Democrats could win in Nvember was through massive voter fraud? Totally silly and unserious. I bow to your superior intellect.
My Felon Americans – Why Hillary Clinton & John Kerry want to let criminals vote ~ John Fund
WSJ.’s Opinion Journal ^ | March 7, 2005 | John Fund
July 5, 2006
Francine Busby Encourages Illegals To Vote For Her
SanDiego Democrat Francine Busby has been caught on tape soliciting campaign help from illegal aliens in San Diego County.
Stiffing the troops serving overseas
Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published 5/8/01
The Democratic candidate for president wielded more power than anyone else in the five weeks after Election Day, according to Bill Sammon, White House correspondent for The Washington Times, in his new book, “At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election.”
In this second of three excerpts, he details how the Gore legal team plotted to throw out the votes of Florida servicemen and women serving overseas.
there it is on September 6, 2006 at 12:18 PM
Ecomonic health–yet another ruse. Of course it’s relevant, just not to this post. How many distractions do you plan to put up anyway?
And you still. haven’t. addressed. this. post’s. subject. Not once.
Bryan on September 6, 2006 at 12:19 PM
And yes, the democrats have consistently opposed all efforts to fight the WOT effectively. Honora, if you are able to name ONE measure that the democrats have proposed to effectively win this war that doesn’t embolden the enemy, I’d like to hear it.
pullingmyhairout on September 6, 2006 at 12:19 PM
He says they have chemical and bio weapons and are seeking nukes. Please tell me you’re not hanging your hat on the fact he doesn’t use that exact term!!
honora on September 6, 2006 at 12:23 PM
Actually, I am. He said many times that Saddam needed to be dealt with BEFORE he became an imminent threat. As usual, the dems twisted his words to mean otherwise.
pullingmyhairout on September 6, 2006 at 12:27 PM
Bush said in the 2002 SOTU that we shouldn’t wait until the threat is imminent, that by then it’s too late. That’s nearly an exact quote. What part of that don’t you understand, four years down the road?
And you still haven’t addressed the subject of this post.
Bryan on September 6, 2006 at 12:28 PM
Remember. Realize. Notice that grave challenge, but don’t say scary things about it. Look at poll numbers. Look at irrelevant economic indicators. Take them as a serious national threat. Raise the alarm! Envision! Lead! Sell! Implement! Have a debate. Don’t have dogma. Who can do this? I dunno.
What an outstanding plan, honora. It’s just chock full of things we could do. Get that right over to Dean, and the Dems are sure to take Congress back.
We’re gonna finally win the war! Yay!
Pablo on September 6, 2006 at 12:28 PM
Some democrats have opposed some efforts that the admin has proposed. And I believe they were/are wrong in some of these efforts. However, let’s try to tamp down the hyperbole. Exactly what efforts have been opposed consistently by the majority of Democrats?
Proposals for fighting WOT from dems:
-enact the 9/11 commission recommendations
-engage Iran in talks
-investigate Abu Graib (that was McCain as well)
-consider breaking Iraq into 3 states
-increase troop level in Iraq
-remove Rumsfeld
honora on September 6, 2006 at 12:30 PM
Oh HERE you are Honora! I left a little ditty for you on Allah’s post from yesterday re Bush/Caliphate. You remember–the one you tried to hijack this morning with your moral equivalency argument.
Kudos, Bryan. Yet another excellent post.
IrishEi on September 6, 2006 at 12:30 PM
Honora,
I usually respect what you have to say, but this time, I’m on Bryan’s side. So far, we haven’t heard you defend the fact that the dems consistently undermine the president and our military in the WOT. Again, please tell me HOW you can defend the indefensible. Please tell us ONE measure that dems have proposed that does not embolden the enemy. I am eagerly awaiting your response.
pullingmyhairout on September 6, 2006 at 12:31 PM
Pssssst…..
What point are you trying to make by noting Bush having said Iraq had WMD and wanted more?
Pablo on September 6, 2006 at 12:32 PM
You disappoint me Pablo.
honora on September 6, 2006 at 12:33 PM
Likewise. I thought you were going to give us a plan, not a synopsis of your discomfort.
Aside from increasing the troop levels in Iraq, how do any of these help us FIGHT the WOT? Not defend ourselves in it, but fight it.
Do you think Iran wants to negotiate with us? Honestly?
Pablo on September 6, 2006 at 12:38 PM
Hmmm. ever think that maybe some of these were unworkable? or, considering that the 9/11 commission totally ignored ‘able danger,’ i’m not too sure i take a lot of stock in their ability.
For God’s sake, talk about WHAT???? The guy wants to destroy Israel, which is a defacto way of saying he wants to destroy America.
And HOW does that help us win the WOT?? Wins the terrorists hearts and minds?
Interesting thought, but that didn’t work so well in eastern european countries. who decides the borders? the UN? what a joke.
Wait a minute. Doesn’t the dems want to ‘redeploy’ our troops? codeword for cut and run.
He’s not elected. Censor him all you want. it won’t do a damned thing.
pullingmyhairout on September 6, 2006 at 12:39 PM
Finally we get something from honora that pertains to the post–”remove Rumsfeld.” Which, as I wrote in the post, the Dems call for his head far more often than they demonstrate any anger at the enemy. When they’re not, like Murray and Moore, actually praising the enemy for his charity or calling them “the Minutemen.”
So, since you brought it up, what on earth would removing Rumsfeld do for winning the war? Hmmmm?
Bryan on September 6, 2006 at 12:46 PM
wow, this honora person is a real idiot. Where do they grow these people?
My favorite: engage Iran in talks?
lol, the multi-party talks didn’t work with Iran, they won’t talk to the UN or let inspectors in, Bush has offered 1 on 1 talks if Iran stops enrichment – Iran says no.
Hey honora! Your late for class, better hurry.
Brian on September 6, 2006 at 12:50 PM
Pablo: fighting is a combination of offense and defense if I am not mistaken, but be that as it may.
Enacting the 9/11 comm recommendations would better seal our borders, our ports, our transportation system; it would integrate our intelligence assets; it would make everyone more accountable.
Do I think Iran wants to negotiate with us? I don’t know. But I do know if there is a chance in hell of this working we need to pursue it. The military option is fraught with danger as you know. I don’t say it will work, I say it is unwise to ignore.
Abu Graib: the WOT is fought on many levels, one of which we win if we keep our hold on the high road. America has long been the standard of morality and it is a key component of our strength. Torture and ridiculing Islam is plain stupid. We were right to acknowledge it.
3 states: if you believe as I do that the other options are a full fledged civil war or a Shiite/Iran ally, this is a less problematic option for us.
Removing Rumsfeld–American public opinion has passed the tipping point on this guy. Bush is here for another 2 plus years. But Rumsfeld can be tossed, and tossing him might turn public opinion around, which is critical to winning the WOT.
honora on September 6, 2006 at 12:50 PM
Well clearly I don’t have your elegance or erudition. But
, golly, that’s kinda rough.
honora on September 6, 2006 at 12:53 PM
Right, although this one is really, really hard to fully defend so the best defense is a good offense. You don’t seem to have an offense in your plan at all, aside from increasing troop levels in Iraq and then dismantling the Democratically elected government we’ve spent all that blood and treasure standing up, and then playing mapmaker by pushing Iraq back into tribally constituted entities. I don’t see where that gets anything good done for us or for them.
Pablo on September 6, 2006 at 12:56 PM
Brian: “your” is a possessive modifier. “you’re” is thecontraction for “you are”.
Meet you at grammar class and no, you can’t have my notes.
honora on September 6, 2006 at 12:56 PM
Face it, democrats for the most part are traitors to their Country. Always have been, always will be. Left up to the same kinds of people in the early 40′s, Europe would be run by Hitler or one of his toadies right now. They can’t win a war because they cannot see evil when they are faced with it right before their eyes. Their liberal free thinking brain falling out minds make them that way, and what’s worse, they want to be the way they are.
NRA4Freedom on September 6, 2006 at 12:57 PM
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Meet you at grammar class; and no, you may not have my notes.
IrishEi on September 6, 2006 at 12:59 PM
Just call it like I see it pal.
But “Golly”
I’m not sure you have ever experienced what “rough” is.
But But, I have to say this is not the first time I have found a lib so in love with “erudition” hats off.
Brian on September 6, 2006 at 1:00 PM
1) first, stop being such a little girl. This notion that we are facing an enemy that poses a far greater threat than we have ever before faced is bullshit.
It’s not necessarily that Mohammedan extremists pose a greater threat than Stalin, Kruschev and Hitler did, but they are the greatest threat we’ve faced since WWII and the Cold War. And one could also argue that even though we fought a war against Hitler, neither he nor Stalin or Kruschev ever initiated hostilities with the massacre of thousands of American civilians on American soil.
And let’s not forget what the Mohammedan extremists will do if they ever get their hands on the “Islamic Bomb” – Stalin and Kruschev merely threatened us with nukes, our present day enemies would have no hesitation about using them.
2) realize that America is great and can lead internationally only when we are strong and united internally.
That’s rich, considering how the entire focus of this country’s political left has been to foster internal division and recrimination while we’re at war with a foreign enemy. It’s gotten to the point where the Mohammedan extremists are parroting donkey party talking points so closely that if one were to set al Qaeda and donkey party comments side-by-side without attribution, it’d be difficult if not impossible to tell who said which.
We are now in a situation that is astonishing to me: for the first time since this Gallup poll has been taken (back in the 60s if memory serves) the majority of Americans say they do not expect their children to have a better life than themselves.
We’re also in a situation where around 40% of the American people still think we’re in a recession. This is the predictable byproduct of a donkey party and its media mouthpieces relentlessly doing their best to talk down the economy. I bet they’d be singing a different tune based on the same economic data if only there was a (D) instead of an (R) after the president’s name – in fact, that’s just what they did when Clinton was in office. It’s circular logic to constantly portray the country’s economic prospect as all doom-and-gloom, all-the-time, and then when people start feeling pessimistic to say, “See? Look how badly people are feeling – it must be all George Bush’s fault!”
3. for the love of God, raise the alarm and get serious about an energy policy that has the long term goal of getting us off our oil jones.
A touchstone of some agreement here … I’d be all for higher taxes if I knew they were going for a “Manhattan Project” style effort to develop say, commercially practical fusion power and a strong national defense instead of throwing more money at the teachers’ unions grip on the publik skools, and an assortment of failed entitlement programs.
In the meantime, if we want to reduce our reliance on foreign oil while we develop practical alternatives, how about making use of what we have – like the ANWR? Or the oil shale deposits in the west? Or the oil deposits in the Gulf of Mexico and off Florida? Heck, we just found one deposit recently in the gulf that increased our domestic oil reserves by up to 50 percent – imagine what we could do if we unshackled our own oil companies and let them do what they do best?
stop talking to us like we’re morons. North Korea and Iran and the WOT and Venezuela are not all the same thing. Related yes, but different in significant ways. Have a debate, a dialogue, not just dogma.
Again, this is rich considering how all we get as “dialogue and debate” from the donkey party is a tired collection of canards, slogans and cliches – all of which are variations of a single theme, “George Bush can do no right.”
I think it’s true that most conservatives would welcome meaningful debate; our democracy is stronger when we have a robust two-party system. But the donks forfeited on that count in 2000 when they decided to let themselves be governed by Bush Derangement Syndrome instead of the other way around, and frankly it’s too late now to go back to the old standard of “politics stops at the water’s edge” – not at least until the donkey party frees itself from the grip of the moonbat left that presently forms its ideological core.
And that isn’t going to happen anytime soon… so until then, what’s best for American security is to keep the donks as far away from the levers of state as possible until their fever breaks.
Spurius Ligustinus on September 6, 2006 at 1:02 PM
ty – IrishEi
Brian on September 6, 2006 at 1:02 PM
Ok Pablo, and I am not being a brat here: what is your offense? Do we bomb Iran? Pakistan?
And at the risk of sounding very cold, the blood and treasure we have thus far poured into Iraq is a sunk cost. Finally, I am less concerned about “anything good for..them” than I am for what is good for us. (What is good for Iraqis, it seems to me, is increasingly dependent on which sect of Iraqis you are asking. How do we work with that??)
honora on September 6, 2006 at 1:02 PM
spurius ligustinus, you ‘da man.
After all of this, i’m off for shopping therapy. i need to clear my head…
pullingmyhairout on September 6, 2006 at 1:08 PM
Watch out. You are messing with the winner of the Eight Grade English Medal at Holy Name School! (She’s just burned because I called her an infinitive splitter on another post. Heh.)
IrishEi on September 6, 2006 at 1:10 PM
I was going to take on your list honora, but pullingmyhairout beat me to it (probably younger and faster than me). If that’s the best you can come up with on behalf of the dems, it sure doesn’t inspire confidence that they have shed the legacy they began when Euguene McCarthy upset LBJ in the 1968 NH primary by running on the anti-war platform.
You are urinating up the proverbial rope if you actually think you can convince anybody that democrats will be better on national security. You simply cannot over come a record of weakness that spans nearly four decades, especially nowadays with nuts like Howard Dean, Ned Lamont, and Jack Murtha being prominent members of your party while purging it of the likes of more hawkish democrats such as Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller. Having vocal supporters like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan doesn’t help your case either, nor does having a friendly press that gleefully reveals every secret it can regarding our approach to the war.
Whatever mistakes Bush and the Republicans have made in this war (and as Bryan pointed out, we have been very vocal here regarding criticsim thereo), they are nothing compared to the democrats complete inability/unwillingness to proactively engage our enemies on any front. I would tell you to pray to God that this election doesn’t come down to national security, but then again, most demcorats hate God, so … never mind.
thirteen28 on September 6, 2006 at 1:10 PM
No, I’m misunderstood. See below.
I don’t think that. I didn’t say that.
I did say this:
We (meaning Americans, to be clear) can arrange for our freedom to be lost in different ways:
Heck, if the current level of fear prevails, I expect that both will happen simultaneously. The left/right competition could turn the efforts into a positive feedback loop. At any rate, the effectiveness of terrorism for causing disproportionate fear means that the people who are afraid will be rushing to stay ahead of the terrorists, using one of the two freedom zappers above. I’m not (contrary to your greeting), naïve. Most people in the country, whether on the left or the right, will choose safety over freedom. As such, our freedom will be be long gone before the terrorists are in a position to take it away.
At any rate, Islamic terrorists are a bit of a diversion for this thread… the main issue you brought up is weakening of our military by Democrats. Military spending is wildly out of control, but the Democrats’ objections go beyond simple cost-cutting. Their goal seems to be of a more emasculative nature.
Mark Jaquith on September 6, 2006 at 1:13 PM
We squeeze Iran. And if they don’t cut the crap with their nuke program, we bomb that and all access to it. Weekly, for a year or two, if need be. Add sanctions, embargoes, and the Iranian people to the mix and it’s bye-bye mullahs. We have the Sunni side of the Muslim split that we can leverage against them as well, with SA, Jordan, etc…
Pakistan is tough. Waziristan is a nightmare, especially to send troops into. The political situation is as dicey as it gets right now. But most importantly, there’s not much coming OUT of there, either materially or in command and control terms. It’s a hornet’s nest that’s not worth smacking while we’ve so many other irons in the fire. Perhaps another time under a different set of circumstances.
Our focus needs to be on Iran, Syria, Hezbollah. We can do that from Iraq like we can’t do it from anyplace else. Handing it over to them would be idiotic.
Pablo on September 6, 2006 at 1:17 PM
Here’s the thing about wars and freedom. There usually is a temporary and limited curtailing of some freedoms in the pursuit of victory. But once the war is won, those freedoms do actually get restored. But you have to win the war or not only those temporarily curtailed liberties but all liberties are lost, and the constant and divisive carping about what really are small issues isn’t helping get the job done. It just shows an unwillingness to look at the big picture and understand that all of life involves trade-offs. The reason I use the word naive is that, frankly, it applies to all civil liberties absolutists who don’t recognize the value of things like the Patriot Act and the NSA data-mining in hastening the war’s end.
I suppose your reply would be that we haven’t been promised an end to this war. Well, that’s true. We weren’t promised a definitive end to any other war either, at least not one set to a specific date or time. Yet we won those wars and we can win this one too. But we won’t win it if we keep attacking our own side’s tactics in the war while giving the enemy free virtual highways right into our country allowing them to recruit, plan and stage attacks.
And I should add, you keep talking about fear and our responses being based on that. Speaking for myself, my war stance is based almost entirely on anger. I’m sick to death of petty little imams trying to tell the world what to do, and killing innocent people if they don’t get their way. I don’t fear them. I despise them and want them to shut up or face hellish consequences. I want them to stop imposing themselves on us. I want them quiescent or dead, since “civilized” doesn’t seem to be an option and murder is very much on their agenda. So I know of at least one person you’re misreading, Mark. I suspect you’re misreading most people, at least on the right, similarly.
Bryan on September 6, 2006 at 1:27 PM
Okay, I’ll give you habeas corpus (Lincoln took it away, but it was reinstated), but what about the Federal Income Tax and the draft?
It’s not about deadlines… it’s about the fact that we’re fighting a concept, not a consolidated enemy with a leader and the ability to surrender. How do you define victory in a war against a concept? Terrorism is not going away. Technology provides the raw material, and as long as we have a free society, the opportunity will be there. Islamic radicalism isn’t going anywhere, so the motivation will remain. It has to be about containment (even Bush admits that we can’t “win” in the traditional sense). But without a goal, the war, and the freedoms set aside in its name, carry on indefinitely.
But I do recognize it. I just have a different big picture than you. I do not believe Islamic terrorists have the numbers or the means to topple this country’s government and install their own. If they can’t do that, they’re not a threat to my freedom — they’re just a threat to my safety. Because I don’t believe that they ultimately pose a threat to my freedom, arguments that follow the “give up a little now to avoid losing it all” line of reasoning don’t resonate with me. Believe me… if I thought our freedom was on the line, I’d be singing a different tune. Freedom is my big picture, and if it were in jeopardy from a foreign threat, I’d be willing to loosen the reigns at home.
That may be true of the far-right (and me), but Bush got re-elected by people from the middle and the middle-right. He leaned more towards “keep America safe” than “make those bastards pay,” and I think that’s why he got re-elected. At any rate, “make them pay” doesn’t really affect my freedom, whereas “keep America safe” does.
Mark Jaquith on September 6, 2006 at 2:19 PM
Spurious L: you make some sound points, some stuff to my way of thinking is over the top. But I hate to hear how pessimistic you are that the country can come together and triumph. We have done it before.
Pablo: attacking Iran may be the only choice, but only after we exhaust all other means. We would stand alone on this, the Brits have made that plain. And Iran ain’t Iraq, these guys have a real army with real weapons, and are likely itching for the chance to attack our guys in Iraq.
Let’s say our prayers.
honora on September 6, 2006 at 2:21 PM
What do you think we’re doing?
Are you unaware that the Iranian military is already responsible for quite a bit of what we’re fighting in Iraq? Or what Israel was fighting in Lebanon? They’re itching for more than the chance to fight American troops.
Pablo on September 6, 2006 at 2:32 PM
Read Londonistan by Melanie Phillips. There are many ways to infiltrate and disrupt societies and Islamists have been quite successful in this regard–most spectacularly in Europe, and to a lesser extent in the USA.
IrishEi on September 6, 2006 at 2:35 PM
I’m a Hitler, you’re a Hitler, she’s a Nazi, he’s a Fascist, wouldn’t you like to be a Nazi too??
How many people, outside of those who hide their own Easter Eggs, are there left that have a first hand memory of Hitler, or the Nazis, or the Fascists? I mean outside of watching Hogan’s Heroes or Indiana Jones?
For the most part, I’ll tell you….NONE! We Baby Boomers can’t relate! It was ancient history by the time we realize that Howdy Doodie was made of wood!
As for Gen X and Gen Y, you might as well be talking about the Huns for all they care. As for Fascism, do you think the mother on line at Toys R Us knows what the hell Fascism is or how it’s going to murder her child? F-NO!!!!
People, we are at WAR with militant Islam worldwide! TODAY!! They want to KILL US, and no amount of talking, or coddling, or cajoling, or talking or anything else is going to change their minds.
So forget all of the Hitler, and Nazi and Fascist crap and take a minute and read Ed Koch’s column in the NY PRESS.
http://nypress.com/19/36/news&columns/opinion.cfm
Ya now were we screwed up? We believed Paul Simon. “I am a Rock! I am an Island! I have my poetry and my books to protect me!” Bull..T! 100% Bull…t!!
Like the Vietnamese of my generations, while we were playing in our sandboxes they were learning how to make booby traps.
So, while our kids were watching Power Friggin Rangers, today’s Islamists were learning how to slit the throat of all non-believers.
We lost Vietnam because of the likes of Paul Simon. Who will be the cause of us losing the United States of America? Think about it, because it’s not that far away.
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on September 6, 2006 at 2:36 PM
Have you been drafted, Mark? Otherwise, why bring that up? The fact is, we have very foolishly made a draft politically impossible now. We’ll have to have an enemy army occupying Washington before we can even think about a draft, so your bringing that up is just wading into the weeds. Or, if you’re worried about a draft, isn’t that your fear getting ahead of your head?
Islamic radicalism can be defeated. It’s another -ism, and can be discredited and destroyed like any other in the past. We just haven’t really taken the fight to its actual source yet, which is Iran. We have encircled them and they’re breaking out, very effectively imho. Your thinking betrays a defeatism that does just as much damage to the war effort as your civil liberties absolutism.
Islamic radicals are a threat to your safety and freedom, whether you recognize that fact or not. When 19 nuts can take down two very large buildings and kill nearly 3,000, they’re a threat to both safety and freedom. Safety in the obvious way; freedom in the less obvious way of making us adopt more and more cowering stances as they demand more and more from us. And don’t think they won’t. If they succeed in one goal, whether it’s driving us from the Middle East or destroying Israel, they’ll pursue other goals. Their ultimate goal is a global caliphate. That includes you, bub, if you’re still alive. Or, did you miss the whole Cartoon Jihad with its implied and direct threats against your freedom of speech? Ask Salman Rusdie whether or not jihadis have to take over our governments in order to curb your freedoms.
I mostly agree with your last bit on Bush, but it’s worth noting that whenever we do have a US official who stands up and says “Make ‘em pay!” the Dems go nuts about all the “cowboy talk.” The Dems hate Rumsfeld and Bolton for that very reason–they’re too much in the punitive mode. The Dems have, unfortunately, dragged quite a few in the middle toward their weak-kneed point of view. That, too, only lengthens the war.
Bryan on September 6, 2006 at 2:46 PM
By implementing a new Normandy strategy, FDR acknowledged that its previous North African campaign had failed to make the Allies safer.
By implementing Sherman’s March to the Sea strategy, Lincoln acknowledged that Grant’s Battle for Richmond strategy had failed to make the Union safer.
Did you ever see a statement so ripe for VDH pickin’?
/absurdity on stilts
Terp Mole on September 6, 2006 at 3:20 PM
I am so tired of the talk about a possible draft. Let me say this as I remember hearing it the first time in the sandbox in 1990-1991; the military doesn’t want draftees. We have a professional military and while I know a few of you will want to start yapping about the few bad apples, let me ask you this, what industry doesn’t have a few bad apples? Those who volunteer today don’t want the draft. They are there because they want to be there and because they serve a higher calling. They don’t want individuals who would rather be home playing their gameboys and listening to their ipods in their ranks. Sorry, all of you who keep bringing up the draft but rest assured your not wanted nor needed in todays professional military.
Catie96706 on September 6, 2006 at 3:36 PM
Sorry Terp Mole, but Grant did not wage a Battle for Richmond. Lincoln’s strategy was to defeat Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia and Grant was his instrument.
Sherman and Sheridan brought the war and all its horrors to the PEOPLE!
Valuable lessons for today in both! Very valuable lessons.
The difference is that Lincoln had guts and knew what needed to be done and did it!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on September 6, 2006 at 3:37 PM
wish we had a preview key: should read “you’re not wanted” in the last full line. Sister Colleen would be appalled.
Catie96706 on September 6, 2006 at 3:38 PM
Bingo!! As Sherman said:
“War is cruelty. There’s no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over.”
Of course the catch-22 is that if Bush DID take this approach, democrats and some girly-boy republicans whose vanity makes them fancy themselves as somehow more “civilized” and on the “moral high ground” would never tolerate that. So instead, we go to war prioritizing the avoidance of innocent casualties at the expense of winning it – leaving people like honora and other democrats the opening to take potshots at Bush for failing to do so.
thirteen28 on September 6, 2006 at 3:49 PM
That tells me all I need to know about this. Mark, please explain how you are being deprived of your civil liberties nowadays? – I always love to hear liberals spew off on this issue, as if we are all living in concentration camps now. Are you upset because you can’t look up how to make bombs on the internet at public libraries, without raising a red flag? Or is it because you feel your privacy is being violated when you’re on the phone with some militant in the Pakistani tribal regions? Better yet, is it because you hate to have to wait at airports because of all this security crap? Please explain, because your points appear to be pretty abstract.
My family’s safety is the most important thing for me right now. If security is a little tighter, so be it. It’s all about inconvenience – that’s what it boils down to. I praise the administration for doing whatever it can to protect us during these times of uncertainty. I cannot even imagine what it must have been like for President Bush on 9/11 and after. All those people died on his watch. My guess is that he probably said from that point on – better safe than sorry. Can you blame the guy for trying to prevent that again?
Rick on September 6, 2006 at 3:55 PM
DPR: Grant’s Appomatox campaign and Battle of Petersburg were aimed at what Confederate capital? [Hint: Battle of Bladensburg wasn't for Bladensburg. The Battle of Brandywine was for Brandywine.]
Your quibble doesn’t diminish the larger point– that Sherman’s new Atlanta strategy was hardly an admission that Grant’s original (protracted) Richmond strategy was a failure.
Terp Mole on September 6, 2006 at 4:36 PM
Sen. Biden…from him this could be a lapsus; however, since this is prevalent or 100% the case, that the Democrats ask for or yammer about something, and then, even if they get it, criticize it, no matter what, so long as it comes from President Bush or his Admin.
Aside from spin, insanity, incongruence, puerility, derangement of some sort, can you please help define this – we need to coin a new term for this. It’s much needed as the next 2 months will be intense and loaded with such…
Entelechy on September 6, 2006 at 6:30 PM
I do love Joe Biden so; he proves so elegantly, in so few words, how the donkey party’s “war strategy” consists of one plank: “George Bush can do no right.”
I’d wager that Biden was one of the donks who was saying, “‘Staying the course’ isn’t a strategy! We need a change of course!!” And naturally, when there’s a subsequent modification of the strategy, then he gets upset that we’re not “staying the course,” because ya know, any adjustment to the plan means that it’s a “failure.”
It’s a pearl of wisdom among military planners that “No plan survives initial contact with the enemy.” What’s interesting to observe in Biden’s comment is the implied standard of perfection against which the donks judge everything that’s happening in the conflict:
- If your plan doesn’t unfold without a hitch, then it’s a “failure.”
- If the plan requires sticking with a course of action long enough to accomplish the mission despite taking a certain number of combat deaths – then it’s a “failure.”
- If you make any adjustment to the plan at all – whether based on changing battlefield circumstances or to adapt to the enemy’s adaptations to what you’re doing – then that’s as good as admitting that the original plan was a “failure.”
In other words, according to DonkThink, the only military strategy that isn’t a “failure” is one that somehow manages to anticipate all possible contingencies before they occur, knows the enemy’s strategy and dispositions with perfect accuracy before hostilities commence, predicts the enemy’s behavior with complete certainty weeks, months and even years into the future, avoids all but a few friendly casualties, has a set ending date by which all of its objectives will be accomplished no matter what happens in the interim, is popular with “allies” like the French, Russians and Chinese, has unanimous approval from the UN Security Council, and incorporates a “plan to win the peace.”
Naturally, only the donkey party is capable of formulating such a plan, because only the donkey party is in possession of the requisite time machine that enables them to travel into the future, see how it all will end, and then come back again to make the perfect plan. And naturally, the existence of the time machine, as well as the particulars of the plan itself, must be kept tightly under wraps until after the donkey party has retaken control over the government – otherwise “Dr. Evil” George Bush and his neocon flying monkeys might steal the plan and take credit for it or something.
I’ll sure be glad when Hillary or Kerry becomes president in 2008; then they can finally unveil the donkey party’s Perfect Strategy and I can join in the general chorus of, “We’re saved!
Spurius Ligustinus on September 6, 2006 at 7:07 PM
Like they did in the 90s…oh wait, that didn’t work for them either. That’s right, our military and intelligence were depleted; our president was out having a good time; and all along, these islamo-nazis were declaring war on the U.S. to anybody that listened (including MSM reporters). But hey, everybody was living it up then.
Rick on September 6, 2006 at 7:14 PM
Another crystal clear view into the mind of the left. Who gives a rat’s ass if most military people consider Rummy to be a near genius, he doesn’t poll well so he has to go.
B Moe on September 6, 2006 at 8:42 PM
Instead of harping, here’s an idea for bi-partisanship and doing something for our country, and actually being patriotic (so as to avoid being accused of lacking patriotism)…
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.
Entelechy on September 7, 2006 at 1:23 AM
Terp Mole, we could argue the point all day but thirteen28 understands.
Unlike Lee who said, “It is good that war is so terrible. We would grow to like it too much.” during Vietnam we began to wage un-terrible War and that trend continues to this day.
Memory fails but someone during the Civil War said that “the support of southern womanhood and the effect they have on their loved ones is worth that of a full Crops in the field!”
Only after the southern soldiers started receiving letters from home about how their crops were rotting in the field, and their families were starving and dying, did their morale start to seriously decline to the point were desertions were running at 30% or higher. (Unfortunately, Jeff Davis would not take action to stem this tide, which was a major contributing factor in the South’s eventual defeat, on the Battlefield.)
However, only by raising the Black Flag and taking the war to every home and hearth in the South, would the Union stand any chance of breaking the back of the Confederacy.
Grant finally came to understand this and authorized Sheridan to, as Sheridan put it, “Make Georgia Howl” and HOWL it did.
And as for Sherman! Well when he was finished with the Shenandoah Valley he told Lincoln that “a black bird setting out up the valley must carry its own rations!” Clearly, these guys GOT IT!
So, until we commit to take whatever means are necessary to end this war, and that includes personal sacrifice as well as breaking the will of the people who support those who wage war against us, it will not end and we just might lose.
Sheridan set out to make s, we have not interjected enough Hell in this War.
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on September 7, 2006 at 8:57 AM
Because good polling is critical to winning the WOT. You can’t win a war without a good Q score.
God help us. We’re gonna need it.
Pablo on September 7, 2006 at 9:09 AM
I get your point, look at Iraq and Afghanistan, hard to argue with success. (Maybe we can get an actual genius next time…)
honora on September 7, 2006 at 9:38 AM
“It is better to be feared than loved,” Machiavelli wrote. But he was wrong. The Soviet Union was feared by its allies; the United States was loved (or better liked). Look who’s still around. America transforms its enemies into allies not only with its power– but also with its ideals.
Grant could have used Sherman’s blitzkrieg and merely sacked Richmond. Instead, he fought Lee’s army in an honorable (if protracted) campaign. It’s down the memory hole today, but Sherman’s March to the Sea did great damage to healing the Union.
Terp Mole on September 7, 2006 at 9:56 AM
Well put. It’s a real puzzle to me why this isn’t completely obvious to everyone. I guess the immediate gratification of muscle versus mind is too hard to resist.
honora on September 7, 2006 at 10:03 AM
Victor Davis Hanson would tell you that without that march, the war might not have been won.
Allahpundit on September 7, 2006 at 10:05 AM
so I guess that if we can just “make everyone like us” then terrorism will go away and the world will be ‘as one.’ okey dokey. can someone please pass the pipe? who has the guitar? i’ll light the campfire. we can make smores! you invite osama, I’ll call Kim. that’ll work. we can talk it out.
pullingmyhairout on September 7, 2006 at 10:14 AM
I am so tired of this deliberate? (Jesus I hope it’s deliberate) refusal to consider we can be both strong and true to our ideals at the same time. It’s not easy, it doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker, it doesn’t give that soft glow of satisfaction that chest thumping and simplistic sloganeering do–you know, “wanted dead or alive”, “mission accomplished”, “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”–so inane in hindsight, but damned! so hot and so simple at the time.
The combination of strenght and restraint and holding ourselves accountable: it’s what has worked for us in the past. It’s hard and it’s frustrating and it’s not immediately gratifying. If you can’t handle that, well, that’s a real pity because we need everyone.
honora on September 7, 2006 at 10:35 AM
The war was already won, the South simply wouldn’t acknowledge it. Sherman is an interesting study in how an old soldier deals with his legacy in a really positive way, really quite an inspiring story.
honora on September 7, 2006 at 10:38 AM
When are you thinking of? I can think of a number of occassions in which opening an economy sized can of whoop ass, has worked. I can also think of a Cold War we won, but we didn’t do much in the way of holding ourselves accountable, we just did what needed to be done or seemed the right thing at the time.
BTW, we’re not fighting with slogans. And the fact that something can be reduced to a slogan doesn’t make it any less true.
Now, who has been flogging a “Mission Accomplished” slogan? I only hear that one from the left.
Pablo on September 7, 2006 at 10:48 AM
Victor Davis Hanson would tell you that without that march, the war might not have been won.
I’ll take VDH’s opinion over the others … and Machiavelli’s for that matter. The reason many of our allies were our allies during the Cold War is because they feared Soviet domination more than they feared us. Now that the Cold War is over, the threat of Soviet domination gone, and thus the fear removed, many of those same “allies” aren’t so friendly towards us anymore.
thirteen28 on September 7, 2006 at 11:27 AM
Off the top of my head: the Truman Doctrine, Berlin blockade, Marshall Plan, Truman firing MacArthur; Cuban Missile crisis; the Cold War policy of containment; Bush I not invading Iraq. Domestically in the 20th Century: rejection of McCarthyism, rejection of no-nothingism, rejection of segregation. Strength, restraint, ideals.
At each of these junctures, there were frightened little people howling for the use of force. Plus la change….
honora on September 7, 2006 at 11:41 AM
honora, you’re talking about bits of much larger conflicts, or things that weren’t conflicts at all. The Marshall Plan? As for this one, well we started a no fly list. That’s satisfies your desires, doesn’t it?
Oh, and not only did Bush I invade Iraq, he had us killing quite a number of retreating Iraq troops. (Sy Hersh is in there! You’ll love it!)
That “restraint” is why were back in Iraq today. So please don’t tell me how well that worked out.
The Cuban Missile Crisis? Kennedy said “Get the f**k out, or we’ll throw you out.” Restraint?
Domestic issues have nothing to do with conducting war and have no place in this discussion.
Oh, and the Truman Doctrine led to NUKING 2 CITIES. Restraint?
Come on, honora. You can do better than this.
Pablo on September 7, 2006 at 11:54 AM
Pablo: you seem to be laboring under the delusion that you set the terms of our discussion. How extraordinary.
Domestic issues speak to who we are as a people. I realize context is not a concept compatible with right wing rhetoric but that’s too bad. In no other area of life is it not seen as sheer stupidity not to look at issues comprehesively. Jesus, we are a nation with ADD. Sorry, connections matter.
Please don’t play that crap with me on Iraq, you know damned well what I mean.
Cuban Missile crisis: this is well documented–the military was all for a strike against Cuba–Kennedy insisted on exhausting all avenues before that. Had he listened to the frightened little men, we would have likely ended up exchanging nuclear weapons with Russia.
A couple of things: the Truman Doctrine was developed post War. I have no problem with the bombing of H and N; it was a last resort, as you well know, and one over which Truman agonized after careful evaluation of all options.
honora on September 7, 2006 at 12:05 PM
Todays Democrats are not demonized by Republicans, but by their own record of being anti-war at all times, especially when we are at war. Senators Feinstein and Leahy are leading their party to even greater defeats in November because, no matter how you frame it, we are at WAR. To be anti-War is a nice sentiment-I hate war, too. But that sentiment is not a grounds for undermining our efforts to defend ourselves.
It isn’t a “scare tactic” to mention that the Democrats are weak on our national defense. It’s reality. And the fantasy that we can achieve Peace through negotiations is a dangerous one. ‘Love them back first’ doesn’t work. ‘Kill them back first’ does.
Doug on September 7, 2006 at 12:16 PM
Doug: I respectfully disagree. I understand we are at war; I don’t agree with the policies around waging that war. How does that make me anti-war?
I understand your concern about undermining efforts to defend ourselves–I presume this is NSA warrantless taps, the recent court decisions etc. Ok, this is worth discussing, but to me, and a lot of people, security without freedom ain’t much.
I suggest that the current administration is in fact endangering us. The Iraqi government officials themselves are saying there is a window of about 3 to 4 months in which control and law has to be established, or else complete civil war and chaos will ensue. Putting us in that position endangers us, IMO.
(I saw something on TV last night that really startled me: Pat Buchanan was on a panel on Hardball–I think–and was being pushed to answer the question, when do we exit Iraq, what does that look like? His response, after trying to duck a couple times, “when we no longer have absolutely any chance of winning”. WTF???? I know Buchanan is a rogue Republican/conservative, but Jesus…)
honora on September 7, 2006 at 12:35 PM
honora, I suggest you go back and read your 10:35 post. In it, you said:
The subject of the discussion is war. Since I read that, I’ve been trying to decipher what you meant by it, and upon asking you, you gave me a list of things that bear no resemblence to your alleged point. You preach restraint, and as examples you give us the only wartime use of nuclear weapons, an incident that damn near became the second use of nuclear weapons wherein the American President’s position was “Bring it on.”, and another instance where we bombed the crap out of a country for 6 weeks and killed enormous numbers of their troops. I don’t see the restraint.
So, if by asking you why none of your examples match your assertion you’re allegedly supporting, I’m setting the terms of the debate, then color me guilty. I’d like to set the terms so that you tell us what the hell you’re talking about.
We’re talking about war with Islamic fascism, not health care. Thanks for the strawman and the moronic, partisan insult you followed it up with.
Perhaps I do. If so, I think you’re wrong and that would be my point. But I’m suggesting that you explain what you mean since the reality doesn’t jive.
Kennedy ordered a blockade, which is an act of war. We also mounted an invasion force. But the blockade and the ultimatum worked. That was not restraint, that was a display of American steel. Kennedy new the stakes and he decided to go with brinksmanship. Don’t play that revisionist crap with me.
Pablo on September 7, 2006 at 1:07 PM
BTW,
It was not a last resort, it was the lesser of two evils. Truman had options, as you note, and dismissed all but one of them: a great big can of whoop ass. Or two.
He did not exhaust all options. He chose to save American lives. More revision. Don’t romanticise it.
Pablo on September 7, 2006 at 1:15 PM
Pablo, you remind me of people I have known
in my work life. We need to be talking about the plane, you’re intent on that rivet. Have at it friend. I guess a man’s reach shouldn’t exceed his grasp after all.
honora on September 7, 2006 at 1:34 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »