Inouye changes course after visit to Afghanistan
posted at 10:12 am on October 14, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Just a few weeks ago, Senator Daniel Inouye spoke mainly about the empires that had failed to transform Afghanistan over the last two centuries, in response to questions about whether the US should commit more resources to the Af-Pak theater. After a visit to the country and a briefing from General Stanley McChrystal, the Democrat from Hawaii has changed his tune. Now he wants a full commitment to McChrystal’s strategy, increasing pressure on President Obama to make up his mind:
Without committing himself to specific troop increases, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye returned Tuesday from Afghanistan, seeming to fully embrace Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy that would demand more American resources and manpower.
“I believe Gen. McChrystal’s assessment of the current situation and his conclusions, including his assessment that coalition forces must have more daily contact with the people of Afghanistan, is correct,” said the Hawaii Democrat, “and is what is needed if we are to achieve security and stability in Afghanistan.”
“This strategic approach will mean altering our military strategy to focus on counterinsurgency,” Inouye continued in a statement released late in the day. He said “appropriate resources” will be needed “to accomplish this goal” but “as for the specific numbers of U.S. troops that may be required… I will await specific recommendations from the military and the administration.”
A Medal of Honor veteran of World War II, Inouye has been a reliable partner for past administrations—Republican and Democratic—on foreign policy issues, so at one level his statement is not surprising. At the same, time the chairman, who personally manages the annual defense appropriations bill, has been openly skeptical of what can be accomplished with military might in Afghanistan. To this degree, his new statement marks a change and a more determined tone to press ahead.
Inouye joins colleague Dianne Feinstein on Afghanistan. Feinstein made the point more forcefully on Sunday’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, but Feinstein had been consistent on her commitment to the Af-Pak theater. Inouye shows that some Democrats may join the GOP in pushing Obama to match his campaign promises to his actions.
No one thinks this will be easy, or short. Michael Yon likens the effort to the space program, but perhaps over a century rather than a decade:
The peril might not yet be obvious, but the consequences are far too grave to ignore. Enemies of humanity are trying to pull India and Pakistan into war. Ignorance is their primary weapon, and Afghanistan is merely one battlefront. Most of these kids will remain illiterate, and the children of their children likely will not be able to read. Even if they were literate, there are few books available in languages such as Dari or Pashto. This kid in Zabul Province is already lost. Afghanistan will be doing well to get his sons and daughters into a school, but more realistically it will be his grandchildren that might first be reached. We must be realistic. America did not succeed in putting people on the moon by hiring mathematicians who could not expertly use the slide rule or correctly perform the math. America succeeded in part by hiring the best mathematicians, along with the best scientists and engineers of all sorts, who possessed powerful intellects, realistic imaginations, and a volatile intolerance for anything less than pure truth. They didn’t drink anyone’s Kool-Aid.
And so President Kennedy said, “First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.” And they kept pushing through a painful series of dramatic failures, until, within that same decade, in 1969, the first words spoken from a man on the moon came beamed home to earth …
All of that may seem too distant and too expensive, but the alternatives are worse. We have already seen what happens to Afghanistan when left to its own devices as a failed state for just a few years. We cannot afford another round of radical Taliban control, complete with its partnership with other radical Islamist groups, including but not exclusive to al-Qaeda. Nor can we rely on our ability to re-invade later to remove radicals and terrorists. We only had that ability because of cooperation we got from Pakistan and neighboring countries such as Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, cooperation that would dissipate if we bugged out and left them with the Taliban on their borders after making them targets for their ire.
If we want to stop Afghanistan from being a one-stop shop for radical terrorists, we have to stick to the mission and pull Afghanistan out of the Stone Age, which means a large commitment of resources and time to get the job done right. If we don’t, then we need to get out. And we need that decision now.
Update: The Investors Business Daily/TIPP Poll shows that Americans now support a larger commitment of troops, a reversal from last month:
As President Obama mulls the military’s request for a big troop build-up in Afghanistan, Americans have swung in favor of such a move, according to a new IBD/TIPP Poll.
The survey of 927 adults found that a plurality of 48% favors sending more troops and resources to Afghanistan. That’s a sharp reversal from September, when Americans opposed the idea, 55%-35%. …
That’s because the turnaround comes from a surge in support from Republicans — up 27 points just in October to 72%. A month ago, GOP respondents had leaned against sending more troops, 47%-45%.
Independents narrowly support beefing up America’s commitment to Afghanistan, 45%-42%.
But Democrats say no more blood and treasure by 57%-32%. Many congressional leaders have signaled their reluctance to send reinforcements.
That’s a smaller gap than what I’d predict for Democrats.
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 »
Hard for me to lose faith in a Senator who was a member of the 442nd, even if he is a democrat.
MadisonConservative on October 14, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Welcome to reality, Mr In No Way.
SouthernGent on October 14, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Test to see if my new login works
right2bright on October 14, 2009 at 10:17 AM
If only our CINC would take the time to visit the troops and have an earnest talk about a military campaign, and not worry about an election campaign.
right2bright on October 14, 2009 at 10:19 AM
What about Murtha the ex-Marine? Ya’ folla? The 442nd, as honorable as its service was, was a unit of men, and men do make mistakes.
That said, I honor Mr. Inouye for his service in the military, but doubt his judgment by wondering why the hell he ever became a Democrat, especially as that party was responsible for the internment camps.
unclesmrgol on October 14, 2009 at 10:20 AM
“I, um, er, uh, um, er vote PRESENT” BHO
BobK on October 14, 2009 at 10:20 AM
It’s amazing how being on ground zero of a conflict can bring things into focus so much better that sitting up on Capitol Hill.
kingsjester on October 14, 2009 at 10:20 AM
At the RNC site, or here at HA?
WashJeff on October 14, 2009 at 10:24 AM
These elected officials are simply lazy. They don’t read, they don’t fact check, they simply absorb what they are told by their party leaders and vote accordingly. It’s pathetic considering the pay scale and the benefits for life these leeches have voted for themselves to receive.
Hening on October 14, 2009 at 10:25 AM
After doing research on the 442nd in college, learning what they did on the battlefield, and went through on and off…it’s a rare pass. Additionally, you let me know when Inouye starts calling our troops cold-blooded murderers. Until that day, the comparison is very, very lopsided.
MadisonConservative on October 14, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Why is Obama standing in the way of such bipartisanship?
mankai on October 14, 2009 at 10:28 AM
If rabid liberals like Feinstein can see the necessity of being committed, why is the filthy lying coward in the White House dithering? Our troops in harm’s way deserve better than this rat bastard traitor. Troop build-up takes time, three months minimum, and every American life lost because this bastard is dithering is unacceptable.
highhopes on October 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM
I guess Inouye ran out of women in America to sexually harass so he went over to Afghanistan.
Percy_Peabody on October 14, 2009 at 10:30 AM
I think some dems are starting to see the writing on the wall.
Vashta.Nerada on October 14, 2009 at 10:30 AM
What we learned from healthcare…
One GOP member = “Bipartisanship”
What we know about Obama’s foreign policy…
Two Dem members = [nothing]
mankai on October 14, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Yeah…Murtha didn’t come close.
MadisonConservative on October 14, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Even Code Pink agrees:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/10/epiphany-on-left.html
MSimon on October 14, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Because he hasn’t found a way to make the war in Afghanistan all about him.
highhopes on October 14, 2009 at 10:35 AM
This is the empire that managed to transform Japan from a feudal society to an industrial power. All it takes is a united support in our troops and their mission… and a president with a pair of testicles.
Michelle Dubois on October 14, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Daniel Inouuye is a genuine American war hero.
I can only respect anything the man has to say.
He’s earned it.
jake-the-goose on October 14, 2009 at 10:35 AM
He’s a democrat, I don’t trust him. He probably wants a share of the Afghan opium poppy crop.
There’s always a hidden agenda with democrats.
darwin on October 14, 2009 at 10:35 AM
If only we could get our “foreign policy guru”/Vice President on board, we would be all set. As Thomas Ricks said, when is Joe Biden right about anything (he voted against the use of force in Desert Storm, he wanted to divide Iraq, and he was against the surge)? The fact that Joe Biden thinks we should decrease our footprint is evidence that we need more troops on the ground.
Shock the Monkey on October 14, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Poor Barry, his own people demanding that he make a decision!
GarandFan on October 14, 2009 at 10:40 AM
He’s afraid of Fox News. What on earth makes people think he can handle terrorism?
Ronnie on October 14, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Good; its a start at least.
beachgirlusa on October 14, 2009 at 10:48 AM
I’m generally inclinded to give the benefit of the doubt of MoH recipients also.
BadgerHawk on October 14, 2009 at 10:49 AM
LOL
beachgirlusa on October 14, 2009 at 10:50 AM
I totally dig that.
But you can respect someone and still think they’re full of s–t.
gryphon202 on October 14, 2009 at 10:50 AM
uhhh where did the headlines go?
Joe Caps on October 14, 2009 at 10:51 AM
The Huns were the only empire to control Af’stan, and that only after marrying into key tribes over dozens of years.
MarkT on October 14, 2009 at 10:52 AM
PRESENT!!!
bessex on October 14, 2009 at 10:53 AM
And change the suicidal ROE while they;re at it, too, so that the molitary can defeat the enemy, not p*ssyfoot for the Taliban-lite among the population who cry propaganda tears (“You have killed civilians!”) every time our forces strike effectively.
profitsbeard on October 14, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Another racist comment…I suppose you think graffiti is the only way this president communicates?
right2bright on October 14, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Yes. But. just listening to people in the armed forces helps. Having open eyes, hearts and minds help. How many liberal Democrats have those and are willing to listen to the “cold-blooded killers” who are defending our freedoms?
Loxodonta on October 14, 2009 at 10:56 AM
They never bothered to take those trips under Bush. They weren’t as meaningful.
drjohn on October 14, 2009 at 10:59 AM
He doesn’t need to. He just renames them “man-caused disasters”.
Doughboy on October 14, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Hening,
I couldn’t agree with you more. It seems that the second these Capitol Hill politicians get elected (both parties) it’s “Fuck my constituents and the American people. What matters to me is how do I stay in power.”
And please don’t even mention that maggot Murtha’s name…
Fuzzlenutter on October 14, 2009 at 11:02 AM
I very much admire Senator Inouye as a man, even though I disagree with many of his positions. To me, he seems more like the old liberals I recall when young, like JFK, liberal on social issues, moderate to liberal on fiscal, but conservative on national security. Is that Inouye? And how many of those are left in Congress these days? They used to be the majority.
Loxodonta on October 14, 2009 at 11:03 AM
I still say we could leave and deny entry to America from anyone who has traveled to either Pakistan or Afghanistan. That way they aren’t a threat to Americans if they do become a terrorist training ground.
I’m all for a good victory. But I don’t think that a war can be fought by ‘winning hearts and minds’. They don’t have a ‘hearts and minds’ bullet. . . they have a killing bullet. If we are too squeamish to kill when necessary to win regardless of collateral damage, I don’t want to risk American soldiers in a foreign war.
I know that there is a lot of Afghan fighting and it isn’t just Al Qaeda across the Pakistan border. . . but I really don’t see what we ‘win’ if we ‘win’. And I think that American border enforcement would be just as effective if we have the nerve to tell people that they aren’t allowed to come here. It’s a simple, cost effective, and protective solution.
ThackerAgency on October 14, 2009 at 11:07 AM
No Jake, he’s earned our respect for what he has done just as I respect the military record of John McCain. That doesn’t make either McCain or Inouye right in the present tense when talking about current issues. Inouye has been a liberal Democrat more wrong than not when it comes to legislation concerning social issues. That doesn’t take away from his war record but it doesn’t give him added credibility either. Why I respect his opinion here is his consistent track record when it comes to foreign policy issues.
highhopes on October 14, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Yeah, I tend to seperate dems like that also…Tammy Bruce is still really an old style dem. Which is basically what the Republican party has become recently…or at least moved towards since Reagan left office.
right2bright on October 14, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Reality and truth has a way of revealing itself.
Good for him and for GEN McChrystal.
Leading by example
ted c on October 14, 2009 at 11:09 AM
SO IS JOHN KERRY!
Cybergeezer on October 14, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Sorry but, extremely easy for me to never have faith in ANYONE, even someone who served, who spends his life in a party of baby killers and Communist supporters.
Jeff from WI on October 14, 2009 at 11:10 AM
If anyone doubts the danger of abandoning Afghanistan, go see Charlie Wilson’s War. The final couple of scenes will make you even more ashamed of your government. We had an opportunity to turn those people into loyal allies but we left them to twist in the wind because we didn’t want to spend a tenth of what we were spending to help them kick the Russians out.
Kafir on October 14, 2009 at 11:11 AM
1) He’s from Hawaii
2) The Democrats weren’t always this soft on defense.
MarkTheGreat on October 14, 2009 at 11:13 AM
I had no idea this Senator was a MOH winner. I looked him up on wikipedia and he has an extraordinary story. My hat is off to him and I sincerely appreciate his service to our country.
Thanks for posting this thread.
ted c on October 14, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Loxodonta on October 14, 2009 at 10:56 AM
You are right, my friend. President Bush did that. Clinton used them as waiters at his WH banquets and parties. Obama is using them as a Political Tool. If Congress would actually speak to these men and women giving their lives to protect our freedom, they would understand what they need to do. These are our sons and daughters. They are America’s Brightest and Best. They deserve all the support we can give them. No less.
kingsjester on October 14, 2009 at 11:14 AM
To think, people here complain about the knee jerk reactions of some Democrats.
MarkTheGreat on October 14, 2009 at 11:16 AM
America is not, and never has been, an empire.
MarkTheGreat on October 14, 2009 at 11:16 AM
They come and go today, depending on how they feel about you.
MarkTheGreat on October 14, 2009 at 11:18 AM
….and this is what the cut and run crowd cannot reconcile when advocating we leave Afghanistan to the jihadist.
The alternatives are worse.
I think a lot of the people that want to get out of Afghanistan (besides liberals who only supported it for political points against Bush) are very concerned about the lack of leadership and commitment coming from the White House.
Instead of conceding failure because our Hustler and Chief lacks any kind of leadership abilities, we should hold their feet to the fire and demand that our war effort receive 100% support and be directed by our military, not polls and gutless liberals.
Obama and his democratic supporters yelled for years that they had a “smarter plan” and that America will not be safe until the jihadist threat is eliminated in the “central front” of the “over seas contingency program”.
democrats care more about their political power and “legacies” than anything else.
It needs to be made clear that both will be destroyed with surrender in Afghanistan/Pakistan.
On a side not considering the politicizing of war that democrats do so well,did we not just endure democrats yelling and screaming about McCrystal “breaking chain of command” and “discussions about the war should be done within the White House,not in the press” all last week.
So the first thing the democrats do is start leaking information to the press in an attempt to sway public opinion.Exactly what they condemned the General in charge of doing:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/13/mcchrystal-troop-increase-afghan/
How can anybody take these partisan hacks seriously when everything to them is about moving poll numbers.
No war plan can say for 100% that it is going to be successful producing the planned results.
You go with the plan that has the best chance of producing a successful mission.
The enemy will adjust,you have to do the same.
You fight with force and diplomacy until you win.
I would like to see the democrats hold there failed policies to the same standards that they are holding our militaries to.
They would all have had their a$$’s sent packing a long time ago.
Baxter Greene on October 14, 2009 at 11:19 AM
The progressive/communist wing of the democrat party is in control of the party and the nation. I haven’t seen any democrat except for Lieberman stand up against them. Explain to me how being distrustful of today’s democrats is a knee jerk reaction.
darwin on October 14, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Inouye is a war hero like former Senator Bob Kerrey. John Kerry is as much a war hero as Senator Harkin.
highhopes on October 14, 2009 at 11:24 AM
So. IS that what we want to achieve, or not?
Ombambi: (In hushed tones) Present.
nolapol on October 14, 2009 at 11:30 AM
HI U.S. Senate Sr Daniel Inouye Democratic Rating 100
2008 On the votes used to calculate a Senator’s rating, the NARAL Pro-Choice America attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 2008, the NARAL Pro-Choice America gave Senator Inouye a rating of 100 percent.
2008 Senator Inouye supported the interests of Planned Parenthood 100 percent in 2008.
2007-2008 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association 100 percent in 2007-2008.
2007-2008 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to National Right to Life Committee’s position, Senator Inouye received a rating of 0.
2007 In 2007 NARAL Pro-Choice America gave Senator Inouye a grade of 100.
2006 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 55 percent in 2006.
2006 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 92 percent in 2006.
2005-2006 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association 86 percent in 2005-2006.
2005-2006 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 25 percent in 2005-2006.
2005 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.
2004 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2004.
2003-2004 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the Democrats for Life of America 0 percent in 2003-2004.
2003-2004 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 0 percent in 2003-2004.
2003 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 98 percent in 2003.
2001-2002 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 0 percent in 2001-2002.
2001 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2001.
2001 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 100 percent in 2001.
2000 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 65 percent in 2000.
1999-2002 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association 100 percent in 1999-2002.
1999-2000 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 0 percent in 1999-2000.
1999 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 1999.
1999 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 0 percent in 1999.
1999 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 100 percent in 1999.
1998 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 1998.
1997-1998 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 8 percent in 1997-1998.
1997 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 1997.
1997 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 10 percent in 1997.
1996-2003 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 100 percent in 1996-2003.
1996 On the votes that the NARAL Pro-Choice America considered to be the most important in 1996 , Senator Inouye voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
1996 On the votes that the National Right to Life Committee considered to be the most important in 1996, Senator Inouye voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
1995-2004 On the votes that the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association considered to be the most important in 1995-2004, Senator Inouye voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
1995-1998 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 100 percent in 1995-1998.
1993-1996 Senator Inouye supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 100 percent in 1993-1996.
How to Interpret these Evaluations:
(Back to top)
Jeff from WI on October 14, 2009 at 11:31 AM
The p/c wing controls the Dem party, therefore all Dems are p/c.
Like I said, knee jerk thinking.
MarkTheGreat on October 14, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Jeff from WI on October 14, 2009 at 11:31 AM
You’ve proven that he supports abortion 100%.
And this proves what about his positions on defense, or anything else?
MarkTheGreat on October 14, 2009 at 11:33 AM
So if he doesn’t agree with you on the one issue that matters the most to you, you won’t work with him on anything. That’s not a very good way to get anything done.
MarkTheGreat on October 14, 2009 at 11:34 AM
You can still respect the man for his accomplishments and life story even if you don’t respect his opinion on social issues. Inouye is deserving of some higher regard than other liberals such as Teddy Kennedy or the filthy lying coward in the White House.
highhopes on October 14, 2009 at 11:35 AM
That’s not what I wrote and not what I implied. Knee jerk reading.
darwin on October 14, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Tell that to the filthy lying coward in the White House. Republicans don’t agree with his plot to seize 1/6 of the economy so does he work with them or does he shut them out of all discussions. The rat bastard traitor hasn’t talked to a single Republican about healthcare since April.
highhopes on October 14, 2009 at 11:37 AM
I’m pretty sure that the real end point in ending terrorism is going to have to be when the level of productivity in these remote places makes it possible and worthwhile to the locals to keep their own area clean. That, of course, will require imposing the rule of law so that a free market economy can develop, as well as finding something that the region has a comparative advantage at producing (besides apocalyptic lunatics).
Until then, we are going to have to take action to make such places unattractive as terrorist training sites, no matter how big a bill we run up for ordinance.
Count to 10 on October 14, 2009 at 11:41 AM
For some background on what it is that Sen. Inouye earned.
It’s the highest honor an American can receive. It has become such a rare award, requiring such a selfless and heroic act, that not one of the heroes who have earned it fighting in the war on terror lived to receive the award.
BadgerHawk on October 14, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Thanks
darwin on October 14, 2009 at 11:50 AM
“..go for broke”.
VoyskaPVO on October 14, 2009 at 11:52 AM
“Empire”?
Aside from that, Japan already was an industrial power, with all of the cultural mechanisms in place to support it. It had already lifted itself out of feudalism by WWII, but by going fascist.
Side note: I wonder if there is a case for viewing fascism as the final step before a constitutional republic (rather than Marx’s idea of the final stage before communism), as people finally reach for freedom and the rule of law. I think the case can be made that Britain’s relationship with the US colonies approached a fascist nature.
Count to 10 on October 14, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Everyone has differing opinions. You’re certainly entitled to yours. I understand you’d rather categorize liberals into different levels. I on the other hand consider it such a serious character flaw in being part of a political party
that has killed more people than the NAZI party, that I prefer to give no respect to any of their members, no matter how wonderful they once were. To me it’d be the same as those that excuse Roman Polanski, citing his artistic attributes, as an excuse for his other obvious despicable character flaws.
Jeff from WI on October 14, 2009 at 11:54 AM
One issue Democrat?
How is he on economics?
Count to 10 on October 14, 2009 at 11:54 AM
My only question is “Why did it take them 55 years?”
Count to 10 on October 14, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Please note my response to highhopes above at: 11:54, the answer I’d give you is identical.
Jeff from WI on October 14, 2009 at 11:56 AM
I’m sure the NAZIs had wonderful economists too, it’s a shame their talent is ruined by their membership in a political party known for the holocaust.
Jeff from WI on October 14, 2009 at 11:58 AM
The Democrats can always be counted on by our troops to provide them with what they need. The troops should stop whining and accept that they have been given enough to finish the job they were sent there to do. When Obama makes his mind up on what to do you can expect it to conform to this……http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/125469.jpg.
wtng2fish on October 14, 2009 at 12:00 PM
oops
wtng2fish on October 14, 2009 at 12:01 PM
I am absolutely stunned that it takes a trip to the battlefield to understand the consequences of war. Who is electing these bean brains.
rjoco1 on October 14, 2009 at 12:02 PM
I must agree. I could understand it possibly with things like foreign policy, if they’re isolationists, or if they’re against constitutional rights like free speech or firearms ownership. However, abortion is, and has always been, a hotly controversial subject.
…I wonder that as well.
MadisonConservative on October 14, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Inouye stopped drinking the Kool Aid while he was in theatre and he is now convinced.
BigMike252 on October 14, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Not a problem.
If you look at the Congressional Medal of Honor site you’ll see several references to awards not being given to very desrving recipients because of their race. Many Asian service members were given the MoH decades after their WWII service.
BadgerHawk on October 14, 2009 at 12:06 PM
I agree, Ed, but most of these analyses ignore one crucial point: to break the hold of al Qaeda and the Taliban over these people, to break the hold of jihadism itself, then the stranglehold of Islam over the minds of the people must be broken. The religion itself is key to the global jihad. Remember, the 9-11 hijackers were almost all well-educated. So were the doctors who attacked the Glasgow airport. Providing education to people trapped in the grip of sharia means you often just be creating educated jihadists.
irishspy on October 14, 2009 at 12:07 PM
You scored a double. Nazis and pedophiles in the same comparison!
Seriously, I understand the point you are making but your analogy doesn’t hold up. You paint Inouye with the same brush as all other Democrats in Congress over his abortion voting record. To suggest that not doing that is akin to defending Polanski would require the assumption that all directors in Hollywood are guilty of statutory rape.
highhopes on October 14, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Look, I’m no fan of abortion-at-will, but reasonable people can disagree where the lines are drawn, and which rights take priority. There are a number of reasons that people don’t view abortion the same as murder, and the comparison you make here is even further removed from that. In fact, because the Democrats have not been forcing the abortions, only allowing and providing the means, comparing each Democrat to the German public would be more appropriate than the Nazi party itself.
Count to 10 on October 14, 2009 at 12:12 PM
They are starting to see the Light!.
A baby step for mankind.
hawkman on October 14, 2009 at 12:13 PM
That’s what I was afraid of.
I can’t tell which would be worse, if he was denied it because of race, or was given it because he was a Senator.
Count to 10 on October 14, 2009 at 12:14 PM
High..the outfit that scores/rates their favorite baby killers, give him a solid rating of 100, that’s out of…100
You can’t do better as a baby killer!!!
My point about Polanski is, here’s a man that’s raped a 13 year old and just because a group of people think he’s done something great in his life, they can excuse the bad action.
I know I’ll get attacked for this but…in reality the M of H winning Senator abused far more little girls, millions, far worse, by death, by his solid pro-baby killing record, than the deviant Polish director ever did.
Jeff from WI on October 14, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Technically count, the NAZI murders were all legal, to them, as the NAZI party simply made laws to LEGALIZE their genocide. So you see, there isn’t all that much difference.
As far as lines being drawn, what lines, and where? Do liberal women throw each other non-viable tissue mass showers? Do liberal women say to their husbands, “Honey, feel this, the TUMOR is kicking!”. You see, even the most liberal woman KNOWS it’s a human life in there.They simply prefer to say it isn’t to make killing it easier.
Jeff from WI on October 14, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Don’t you have a clinic to go bomb somewhere? Geesh
kg598301 on October 14, 2009 at 12:26 PM
kingsjester on October 14, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Clinton used them as waiters at his WH banquets and parties.
Yes. that was awful.
Yes. Obama’s even worse.
Somehow, through private means, we simply have to do as much as we can to thank members of the armed forces and reduce the sting of their current treatment by Obama and his minions.
Loxodonta on October 14, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Somebody buy him a ticket to England and a map to the nearest hospital!
McGurk on October 14, 2009 at 12:27 PM
My opinion makes me a bomber?
Welcome to H. A. kg598301.
It’s always nice to see a visiting liberal stop in for a visit.
Jeff from WI on October 14, 2009 at 12:29 PM
22 Asian Americans received the MoH for WWII service in 2000.
And Jeff has some VERY strongly held views, and there’s no way you’re going to have any luck changing them.
BadgerHawk on October 14, 2009 at 12:32 PM
It is what you wrote, and it is what you implied. Maybe if your knee wasn’t jerking so high, you could see it.
MarkTheGreat on October 14, 2009 at 12:35 PM
So your goal in life is to be a filthy lying coward too?
MarkTheGreat on October 14, 2009 at 12:36 PM
It could easily be both. He was denied the medal because of his race. The issue was reinvestigated because he was a senator. (Many other Americans of Japanese descent never getting their cases re-examined.)
MarkTheGreat on October 14, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Jeff from WI on October 14, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Single issue voters impress the faithfull, but they rarely get anything done.
MarkTheGreat on October 14, 2009 at 12:44 PM
See my 12:32 post. 21 other individuals received it at the same time he did for their WWII service. Him being a Senator may have helped him be one of those 22, but reading the Citation and some of the more graphic accounts, it certainly seems like he deserved it.
BadgerHawk on October 14, 2009 at 12:47 PM
I see you practice creative interpretation. As far as I know that’s only programmed in public school.
You also intentionally ignored this … “Explain to me how being distrustful of today’s democrats is a knee jerk reaction.”
It’s understandable, as you were obviously too busy interpreting creatively.
darwin on October 14, 2009 at 12:59 PM
A huge hunk of my family is JA and had the camping experience as well as the 442nd one too. I’m quite aware of Inouye’s service to our nation — as I’m aware of Murtha’s service.
It’s one of the reasons I’ve called out Michelle Malkin on her assertion that the internment was correct.
But I don’t give Inouye a pass on the rest of his political baggage; I’m with Jeff from WI on that.
Interestingly, most of Inouye’s peers were Republicans. In my family, it’s only the young 20-something never-been-to-war people who are the Democrats. All the older and oldest people are Republicans. They still rankle at Roosevelt saying that American patriotism wasn’t a matter of race or ancestry — while they sat in the camps.
Of course, our side are mainlanders primarily from the old Terminal Island area — who knows what it was like in Hawaii.
unclesmrgol on October 14, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Not necessarily at the same time. Sadao Munemori, rip, received his award earlier. Like most modern recipients, it was posthumous.
unclesmrgol on October 14, 2009 at 1:13 PM
I don’t generally give people a pass based off of military service. I’ve been in 10 years and I know plenty of jackasses. But MoH recipients are a different story, and while I strenuously disagree with Inouye over abortion, I’ll give him his due respect for being one of the nation’s greatest heroes.
And I don’t believe that Michelle’s book argued that internment was correct (but I could be wrong). I think it was an attempt to explain, not excuse.
BadgerHawk on October 14, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »