Victory at All Costs
By Leon H Wolf Posted in Liberals — Comments (294) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Anybody who reads my material on a regular basis knows that I'm in to politics almost exclusively for one reason, and one reason alone, and that reason is not the Iraq War. In fact, under normal circumstances, this war would fall probably third or fourth on the list of my priorities.
The protest this weekend convinced me that my priorities need adjusting. As I watched the most anti-American elements of society rub shoulders this weekend, given legitimacy and free press through their attachment to a growing anti-war sentiment in this country to a fully complicit American Left that is seeking to capitalize on that growing anti-war sentiment, I came to realize that these people are not in this fight for the war. They are in it for political victory.
And it further led me to consider that much of the moral repugnance writ legal ushered in during the 70s did not occur in a vacuum, but rather was washed in on a wave of euphoric success by an almost identical crowd of misbegotten America haters, flush with the thrill of their victory over the "establishment" in Vietnam.
Their victory, in reality, was a victory over America. If there is anything we should have learned from the Vietnam Era, if there is anything George McGovern has to teach us, it is that our most dangerous enemy will not seek to defeat us with military force, it will seek to defeat us by demoralizing us. And its base of operations isn't in the mountains of Afghanistan, it's right here in our own country.
And if their success is not to repeat itself, we must not allow them to succeed again. They must be defeated at all costs. Their message must be discredited. They must be pushed back into the margins of history, having failed to accomplish anything more significant than getting Cindy Sheehan's picture on the Drudge Report. If we allow them to succeed by failing in Iraq, we provide a vital foothold to a fifth column whose end is the destruction of this country through increments of moral decay.
This must never happen, no matter the cost.
There is a certain segement of the American population - a segment that sadly determines most elections, that is impressed by victory and successful action, no matter what that action might be. They are impressed with whoever gets their agenda passed, they are easily wowed by triumphalism, by anyone who can point and say, "See what I have done!" They are blown along by the changing tides of history, forever content to be on the winning side, never caring whether they are on the right side.
In the Vietnam era, the American Left tied themselves hand and foot to the anti-war movement, with all the unsavory elements that it included - many of the same elements we saw on display this weekend. They root for America and her allies to lose. They openly advocate victory for our enemies. Anything that might go wrong anywhere in the world is America's fault, and America must be made to pay. Their method of operation was to cast dispersion and disparagement on anything that represented the American system, including the American system of Judeo-Christian morals and any person who could be identified with America. LBJ, Nixon, it did not matter to this group of rabble-rousers, they wanted victory, they wanted a scalp, and when we capitulated to the Viet Cong and Nixon resigned from office, they had won. Nevermind that their accomplishment was the disgrace of our country and our government, they were at the front of a movement that had done something. And so the political "winners" were defined for another generation.
It's time to quit deluding ourselves and accept the fact that Vietnam is happening to us again. Not the war - the war is really nothing like Vietnam at all - but the America-hating freakshow is exactly the same. And their goals and methodology are exactly the same, too. The scalp they are looking for belongs to George W. Bush, but their real success will be defined by nothing less than seizing the reins of power for another generation, in an attempt to futher hamstring us from having the ability to be the horrible blight on the world they perceive us to be. And just like before there's some truly horrible scree being pulled by this undertow, and if it is given legitimacy and a stronger voice in the halls of power, America truly will cease to be great.
To discredit them, we must be victorious. We must press on in spite of their rabble-rousing. We must prove that we will not be deterred by the stench of the unwashed, or the spectacle of tie-dye en masse. Most importantly, we must show the resolve to prosecute this war without flinching, or inappropriate care for political considerations at home or abroad. If drastic measures become necessary, we must be prepared to take them. We destroyed countless historial chapels and churches in World War II when the Germans used them for refuge, and militarily, we achieved victory. We forced a constitution that we wrote upon the Japanese, and it's worked pretty well for 60 years. We pussyfooted around in Vietnam, tried real hard to be careful with everyone's feelings, and we ended up coming home with our tails between our legs. Just one of the many aspects of the Vietnam era I hope to never live through.
It's time for victory to be pursued at all costs. By whatever means necessary, we must finish the job we set out to do, accepting the reality that the patience of this generation is lamentably short. I cannot be persuaded that our military as it was constituted in 2003 did not have the sufficient training, manpower, and equipment, to defeat the army of Iraq, or the current insurgency. I believe that victory can and must be had. If not for the defeat of Fundamentalist Islam in the Middle East, for the defeat of the Fifth Column here at home.
A postscript - angry anti-war folks who might feel tempted to fill my inbox with righteous indignation may save themselves the time. By not distancing yourselves from the genuine fifth column, you have given them legitimacy in numbers and association, and are therefore accountable. If the annual march on Washington for the anniversary of Roe were sponsored by the KKK, or even well-attended by the KKK, we'd denounce it on the front page here every day for a week (probably twice a day) - and we'd be obligated to do so. My kudos to the several diarists at Kos who expressed public disgust at the presence and sponsorship of ANSWER and other like-minded organizations, you have fulfilled your duty.
The front page silence here and here by the Democratic leadership, is deafening.
« Do Nothing Dem Congress Slow-Bleeding US Auto Industry — Comments (46) | Their True Colors Shining Through — Comments (126) »
Victory at All Costs 294 Comments (0 topical, 294 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Well said. But, I must admit, I don't have as bleak an outlook as you do, for these reasons:
- Iraq is not Vietnam
- There are alternative outlets to the MSM and Ivy League academia opinionmaking. This website, for example.
- Our military is popular, and many of the zealots in the antiwar left are, deep down, anti-military. Remember how they piled on two Army recruiters at Seattle Central Community College earlier this year? There they showed their true colors. And, many Americans didn't like it. The smart ones in the antiwar crew know they have to restrain their rhetoric. For Pete's sake, Cindy Sheehan couldn't handle an interview by NPR without having to run to her handlers!
- The antiwar crew isn't being run by the smart ones. It's being run by ANSWER, and the anti-Semite Cynthia McKinney, and Mother Raging Fool Sheehan, and professional Israel-haters. They can't and won't shut up--which is good for us! I hope we're taping everything they say and recording everything they write. That way, if they really try to assert themselves in American society, we can then replay those tapes and ask:"Hey Mr & Mrs America, do you agree with these thoughts? Do you want these people running this country? Do you want politicians beholden to these people running this country? I look forward to that conversation.
I'm not saying this fight will be easy, but I feel confident we can win--IF we fight!
The behavior of the Elected democrats in washington, not just the kook left or far left or just left, but the leaders, even those like Biden who says he supports the war and whose own son is over there!! have behaved disgracefully while we have been at war in Iraq.
I despise the ones that always first say they support the mission like Biden, or those that say they support the troops first before they go on with their bilge more than the kooks.
One wonders if the kooks would be as prominent if the dems were patriotic enough at least to accept the 2004 election verdict. But no. They are no better than they were in the year before the election despite neing proved wrong at every turn.
Except that their behavior has no doubt caused the enemy to fight harder in hopes their dispiriting voices would sap our will.
There is blood on the dems hands.
They predicted massive deaths if we didn't have more troops; that the election would not be possible w/o more troops; that the nation would be split apart and in full blown civil war by now and that they couln't possibly write a constitution. They discount all the great progress and lie that things are bad.
We won the main battle. BWe should be an exultant country at what we have done and what we are doing. its among our fimest hours. Heros should be on pedastals. But instead the naysaters are.
Compared to history what is happening is astounding.
And they also, these erudite elected responsible dems, never denounce gore or teddy or dean on specific statements. Oh, i wouldn't say it that way...crap.
That party is decadent and hannity was right. We have to defeat them if we are to defeat the enemy.
They are dangerous.
You War Weeary post made good points too about how Bush could and should lead more. But maybe Bush thinks that to higlight these sorry people by response especially given the get along crap in the senate, that he might be on a limb bt hisself.
Because when you get down to it, if one is to honestly address the dems, it would be necessary to state the obvious.
There conduct has been unpatriotic and has aided and abetted the enemy. PERIOD.
great post
...Daily Kos didn't really have positive (or neutral) coverage of the march either, just one photo diary frontpaged by Armando. I get the feeling, based on past statements and his absence, Kos doesn't really want to deal with the march in any way.
Besides Kos, and besides the front page, the condemnation of ANSWER and the anti-Israel, anti-American, motley fringes have been, at long, long, long last, almost universal. It actually surprised me how much the march made people finally care about ANSWER and their politics, and about the effect of the crazies on everyone else. Crucial steps are being made in moving towards a sane and unexploitive antiwar movement, and this is happening thanks to copious self-reflection and correction which you either didn't see or don't acknowledge.
So, I think your concerns would, ironically, have been much better founded before the march, which has made most everyone at Daily Kos more wary and critical of some elements in the antiwar camp.
They won no elections. They only highjacked a party.
McGovern went down to defeat in one of the most lop-seided election in our history. The party he led to defeat only holds on to the power they do have by pure race based voting blocks. The DNC only goes into popular support by splitting up conservatives.
I do not think that the freak show using Cindy as their mascot will succeed in that.
That they did demoralize us by control of the airwaves at the time is inarguable. That they do not control the airwaves to the same extent this time is also inarguable.
We will ahve some rough sledding ahead. The criminal ativites of the anti-American bigots will only grow, but will alos alienate large numbers of voters. Short of their election theft- which they are completely willing to do- they will not win anymore elections than did McGovern in 1972.
There is so much in this post that is dead wrong that it defies the imagination. There is blood on the Democrats' hands? (Excuse me -- who started the war? So the thousands of Iraqi civilians who died in a war for WMD which don't exist -- that's the Democrats' fault?) We won the main battle? (So that is why last month was the most violent yet?) And how exactly were the Democrats proved wrong? (The 2004 election was decided by a single state, and the outcome was unclear for hours after the polls closed. Over 60% of Americans disapprove of the Bush administration. If the 2004 election were held today, Bush would be toast. The only President with a similarly low approval rating was Nixon before he resigned).
However, the truly galling thing about that post is the statement that Democrats have been unpatriotic and aided and abetted the enemy. Let me make sure I have this right: if you support everything the government does, you are being patriotic. If you object to a war whose premises have been proven to be wrong, and which most of the world finds to have been a horrible and tragic mistake, then you are aiding and abetting the enemy in stating the obvious. Do I have this right?
...Daily Kos didn't really have positive (or neutral) coverage of the march either, just one photo diary frontpaged by Armando. I get the feeling, based on past statements and his absence, Kos doesn't really want to deal with the march in any way.
Listen, Addison, I acknowledged the dKos diarists and commenters, and I further rifled through your comments in particular. I found that there were a several folks who tried to distance themselves from ANSWER. A majority? No. And I'll tell you the two classes of people who are the only people who count, in this particular case:
- The people who participated in the rally
- The people who are benefiting politically from it.
Neither of those classes of people said a peep. Which does make them complicit.
Now, does Kos benefit from Cindy Sheehan and her crowd? I'd check the next Cindy Sheehan diary to see.
And I'd further posit that he benefits at least as much as we do from the folks who do the march on DC for the anniversary of Roe - and in the hypothetical I posited, you know we'd be obliged to frontpage.
Let's see, Clinton won two terms -- Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 votes -- Kerry lost against a war president by one state -- I guess this is all due to election theft and race based voting blocks.
And by the way: MeGovern's loss has about as much relevance as Barry Goldwater's.
Nixon thought the "silent majority" would win out and lend him support. I guess the right believes the "silent majority" will help them win this one. Melanie Morgan knwe what had to be done, she said if they could not attract 500,000 thousand people no one would pay attention to them. They didn't , no one did.
The right did not show up on Sunday for the Support the troops rally, they had maybe 400 people. Don't tell me you have jobs, yadda, yadda.
I took a day off and drove to Crawford, I took time out and drove to DC from St Louis, MO.
The talk show personalities could not get more than 400 people to come out and support the troops. It is only a matter of time now before they achieve their victory.
Leon, you too damn late. I did not see anything on most right sided blogs talking about the MoveAmericaForward support the troops rally. Yes, I know a link was here, but this was one of the FEW places that talked about it.
I especially like the line "...the destruction of this country through increments of moral decay." I happen to share that view.
Unfortunately, it reminds me of the toad in hot water story. Undoubtedly, should we ignore your advice to be prepared to take drastic measures, we will be boiled alive in increments of moral decay.
After reading of the 'anti-war' protestors in this post, several others on RS, and articles on other sites, I'm honesly not sure what nauseates me more: the actual protestors themselves, or those who pat them on the back in the name of patriotic dissent.
...I saw quite a few comments written by people who were there who were pretty bitter and angry. Mostly on Sunday, and dribbling off into early Monday. There was some defense of ANSWER on "we must maintain solidarity" grounds, but that didn't get any real traction. Instead the "we need to stop whining and get an alternative to ANSWER, cause they're awful" seemed to be the main thrust of the pro-march folks. Which seems fair enough.
If you want to make it about Kos' silence on the matter, ok. I guess that's fair enough and you top-level bloggers can duel it out. But the vaguely defined "5th column" terminology that floats through the piece, I dunno, sort of overheated considering Sat/Sun's self-reflection and (what I felt was) a near universal rejection of ANSWER crowd. Not as overheated as some of the rhetoric coming out of Kos or Red State, of course, but still I think it's a misjudgement of the zeitgeist over there.
Anyway, I get your point, it's true the left collaborated with ANSWER too long, didn't heed warnings when they were given, and are now failing -- perhaps -- to have a unified and wholehearted rejection of ANSWER and their politics.
As a proud participant in the peace rally, I was amazed at the number of Military Families involved, at the number of Vietnam Vets against the War, at the number of Iraq vets participating, and at the military both in uniform and out. In fact, some held their dogtags in the air at the helicopter that circled us continually. The cross section of America was wonderful-old, young, middle, aged, retired, etc. The good thing is that the number of people against this war is increasing. I noticed in todays paper that there were about 400 at the anti peace rally. And that even after you were offering on this sight to pay their way.
...is at home. They can't beat us on the battlefield, but the chicken-jihadis at home can.
They ARE having an effect already; they've successfully brainwashed a significant chunk of America by being louder than the rest of us and getting their hateful voices injected into the mainstream media. People ARE impatient, and when all they hear from the MSM (with the sole exception of Fox News) is that self-loathing hand-wringing and calling Bush a "liar," it sticks.
How often do you hear ANY MSM outlet remind people of all the other countries who were unequivocal in their assertions that Saddam had WMD?
How often do you hear in the MSM the reminder that Saddam had been committing acts of war against the United States for the 12 years between the ceasefire in 1991 and 2003?
All I hear constantly is the reasons why we "shouldn't" be in Iraq, and Bush-bashing for every reason under the sun. WE have the internet and, as you said, smagar, this site--but most Americans don't have the first clue.
Any of you fellas on the right a little worried about wasting your time fighting the anti-war Eugene McCarthy leftists while Hillary positions herself as the centrist candidate with a "secret plan" to bring "peace with honor" in Iraq? Sounds like your focus needs some adjusting......
Who in the name of all that is good and wonderful in this world died and appointed the likes of you, of all people, to be judge and jury of what is or is not patriotic? Not too much of a swelled head, there, huh?
Not that you'd actually listen, but next time you decide that you're in charge, go back and look at all those Republicans who attacked Clinton during a war in the 1990s about patriotism. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it's somehow a crime to question a misbegotten war fought for no national interest whatsoever. And now that it's gone bad, the only answer is "stay the course." Why? Really, why?
Patriotism is doing what one believes is in the national interest. It is only those on the right who attempt to define anything other than blind allegiance to a deified Republican President who see it otherwise. It just smacks of so much desperation to see a position supported by, what, 65% of the public, condemned as "fifth column."
This Iraq war is bad. Bad policy, bad execution, refusal to adjust course, and now, there is no good option. Staying is bad, leaving may be worse. All other military action, either actual or potential, is now at risk because of this disaster -- that's not my opinion, that's what the military leadership says. Of course, this Administration has a tendency to cashier anyone who disagrees with its fantasies.
And you say, "win at all costs." What does that mean? You ready to saddle up and fight? If not, don't be so quick to throw other people's lives into the hopper. And besides, the tone of your post is so clear -- it's not about the national interest, it's Republican political interest that you're looking to promote. Not that we should be surprised -- everything your Leader does is about Party, not country.
So print up some posters -- "Join the U.S. Army, Save the Republican Party!" Bet that'll improve recruiting, yes sir.
Such a "weak" diatribe to cover up and distract from the issues of lying to this country regarding WMD, connections to terrorism, and Sodamn Insane being a "clear & present danger" to the USA.
Shame on you for FAILING TO SEEK TRUTH, HONESTY IN GOVERNMENT, AND ACCOUNTABILITY - SHAME SHAME ON YOU.
Your total lack of compassion is evident and most egregious.
JR
I have no defense.
I was of the opinion, prior to the epiphany that led to this post, that protests are a waste of time. Most conservatives feel this way.
Sign a petition? Stand outside holding a sign? I'd rather just vote and let my guys do the right thing.
I'm slowly coming to realize that maybe we DO need to get out there and do these things just like the left does. For all the inroads we've made into the press, there's nothing like some good old fashioned show of solidarity. We did the links, time to get out the "rally."
Except minus the communists.
Next time, I'll be there.
From an article at Realclearpolitics by F. Gregory Gause III
September 18, 2005
Can Democracy Stop Terrorism?
Even if democracy were achieved in the Middle East, what kind of governments would it produce? Would they cooperate with the United States on important policy objectives besides curbing terrorism, such as advancing the Arab-Israeli peace process, maintaining security in the Persian Gulf, and ensuring steady supplies of oil? No one can predict the course a new democracy will take, but based on public opinion surveys and recent elections in the Arab world, the advent of democracy there seems likely to produce new Islamist governments that would be much less willing to cooperate with the United States than are the current authoritarian rulers.
The answers to these questions should give Washington pause. The Bush administration's democracy initiative can be defended as an effort to spread American democratic values at any cost, or as a long-term gamble that even if Islamists do come to power, the realities of governance will moderate them or the public will grow disillusioned with them. The emphasis on electoral democracy will not, however, serve immediate U.S. interests either in the war on terrorism or in other important Middle East policies.
It is thus time to rethink the U.S. emphasis on democracy promotion in the Arab world. Rather than push for quick elections, the United States should instead focus its energy on encouraging the development of secular, nationalist, and liberal political organizations that could compete on an equal footing with Islamist parties. Only by doing so can Washington help ensure that when elections finally do occur, the results are more in line with U.S. interests.
===
How do you define "victory?"
If Marc R. Gerecht is right and we cannot even win control of the roads (hence safety, commerce and prosperity), how will we win the war? Why can't the party in power exert its will and demand the ouster of Rumsfeld? If he is the chief author of this disaster, why not oust him and bring in Schwarzkopf II (whomever that might be) and get the job done right? This isn't FEMA we're talking about. This is the safety and future of our country, of our children.
It's all good and well to paint your adversaries as unpatriotic because they (like most Americans) don't see the Pentagon moving the ball down the field. Do you think the Dems have the power to affect change in the Pentagon? One party does, and so far, has failed to do so.
Yeah, I'm a Liberal but I'm tired of seeing the good name of our great nation dragged through the mud because no one in power is willing to say "this is stupid!" Dems for the most part are saying stay the course. It's time for the party in power to lead or get out of the way. Dump Rumsfeld and win the war, or admit slow miserable defeat.
Quit whining about the protestors. Quit whining about the liberals and war fatigue. We live in the most powerful country on the planet. ACT LIKE IT! We have the most powerful military in the Solar System. USE IT! Excuses are for girliemen. Either you are the majority party or you're not. Either you speak for a majority of Americans or you don't. Find a way to win this thing and get the job done. Period.
However, to judge by some of the posts above, ratiocination is no match for emotion and bile.
Yeah, I'm a Liberal but I'm tired of seeing the good name of our great nation dragged through the mud because no one in power is willing to say "this is stupid!" Dems for the most part are saying stay the course. It's time for the party in power to lead or get out of the way. Dump Rumsfeld and win the war, or admit slow miserable defeat.
Quit whining about the protestors. Quit whining about the liberals and war fatigue. We live in the most powerful country on the planet. ACT LIKE IT! We have the most powerful military in the Solar System. USE IT! Excuses are for girliemen. Either you are the majority party or you're not. Either you speak for a majority of Americans or you don't. Find a way to win this thing and get the job done. Period.
I think that's pretty close to what I said. Except the part about Rumsfeld.
So Lefty Lawyer's post was filled with some eminently reasonable stuff, and all the rest was just emotion and bile. That chickenhawk argument - how can it be defeated?!
...when inroads finally start being made on the left as regards the ineffectiveness and counterproductivity of mass protests, the right starts to pick them up? This after Nick Danger's post advocating that the GOP get into a spending war with Democrats?
This country is getting weird.
Put that on a resume sometime. And be sure to forward us your "I got banned at RedState" diary, wherever it may be posted.
"If we allow them to succeed by failing in Iraq, we provide a vital foothold to a fifth column whose end is the destruction of this country through increments of moral decay."
Allow me to suggest that whether America "wins" in Iraq will not depend on the extreme left fringe, it will depend on the situation on the ground in Iraq. The success of the Iraqi "opposition" is dependent on their own successes and/or our failures, not 1% of America's feelings.
Likewise, I rather hope that the focus of the "pro-war" population is on winning in Iraq in order to stabilize the Middle East and protect American borders, not on a more vindictive, perhaps even juvenile quest to merely prove the "fifth column" wrong. That short-sightedness reminds me more of LBJ/Nixon and losing sight of the reality of war with their obsessive personal longing to not be the first President to lose a war, or to be able to blame it on someone else if it were lost.
God help us if our wars are started and/or continued and our foreign policy determined not on facts and what's best for the country, but because of political quests to show that one's hated domestic opponents are wrong.
This country is getting weird.
I think The Big Ditch is swallowing us all.
If you guys quit doing them, I promise I won't ever do a counter-protest.
When Bush's and Cheney's daughters are in Iraq, there will be less emphasis on how Bush avoided the VietNam wars because of his father's connections, or how Cheney avoided it because of his "other priorities."
I don't fear her for a lot of reasons, specificcally on this because I expect the Iraq situation will not be a major issue at all by 2008.
Did you read my post? My ire was directed at the elected dems like Biden and Co., which includes Hillary.
But, honestly, I don't fear the dems at all. It ain't all about elections. its about doing all we can beat the enemy as fast as we can, and given their refusal to unite behind the policy that has our troops in harm;s way, a policy approved of by most dems and ratified in the 2004 election,
we need to do all we can to reduce the hope they give the enemy by vocally opposing them and making it clear that their voices will not stop Bush from killing them till the Iraqis can do it mostly alone.
So its a war strategy not an election strategy.
This democratic country has, made a choice. It is unpatriotic to act to reduce the chance for the chosen strategy to succeed.
patiotism is loving one's country enough to accept its freely chosen choice after all voices were heard. rather than loving one's vanity more so and willing that their actions give the enmey hope when hope is what causes them to keep on killing us.
This is especiallly so when the only way we can lose is if we lose will.
They are a weakness the enemy exploits. we need to ameliorate that weakness thru calling them out.
agree, call out the hillarites for the cute language that has it both ways?
Allow me to suggest that whether America "wins" in Iraq will not depend on the extreme left fringe, it will depend on the situation on the ground in Iraq. The success of the Iraqi "opposition" is dependent on their own successes and/or our failures, not 1% of America's feelings.
I did not say that our success or failure in Iraq would be due to the left wing fringe. I said their success, if it exists, would be due to our failure. Those are two distinct propositions.
Likewise, I rather hope that the focus of the "pro-war" population is on winning in Iraq in order to stabilize the Middle East and protect American borders, not on a more vindictive, perhaps even juvenile quest to merely prove the "fifth column" wrong. That short-sightedness reminds me more of LBJ/Nixon and losing sight of the reality of war with their obsessive personal longing to not be the first President to lose a war, or to be able to blame it on someone else if it were lost.
I'm a domestic policy person. I supported the war in Iraq from the get-go - but like I said, it was pretty much ancilliary. The "proving the 'fifth column' wrong" is a nice - a necessary side effect, which is the point I was trying to drive home.
Can we get a "short list" of nominees to get the job done right? Anyone but Patreus. Puhleaze.
But I'd not be the person to give them. I know my limitations.
A knowledge of people qualified to run the DoD is one of them.
If you are, I hope you're riding a desk somewhere, under the watchful eyes of adult officers and NCOs, and not pushing troops.
Why does the President have to send his daughters to this battle? Would you want to be their platoon leader in Iraq, knowing that their presence would make your troops a magnet for jihadis looking for a headline.
Your comments are childish tripe. Grow up.
You ready to saddle up and fight? If not, don't be so quick to throw other people's lives into the hopper.
Aside from this being a juvenile argument--we do, after all, have a VOLUNTEER army--seems to me that, if your bleak assessment of the situation in Iraq was shared by the majority of our military, then retention would be down. Army units would be missing their reenlistment targets.
But, they're not. Look it up.
These are the words of a small, small mind.
- Republican President
- Republican Senate
- Republican House of Representatives
So, you go girl. By all means, keep associating the Democratic Party with socialists, communists, jihadists, anti-Semites and the like. Continue to convey to America your plan for our future.
Also, you might want to keep a lid on the Talking Points.
were reported by a caller (policeperson type) to Rush today. He said there looked like only 2000 people on the Cindy Sheehan side and 2000 people on the other side. That's not big in numbers. The MSM tends to inflate the numbers and pictures.
professional protesters, how many people would you have had?
After being a lefty and spewing similar garbage for much of my adult life, I now am also convinced that the left's focus on universal nonviolence -- what they call 'peace' -- will ultimately destroy our country and civilization and they must be fought in every way without resorting to their tactics of profanity and sensationalism and meanness. That the terrorists want to kill us is not hyperbole; it is a fact and no change of policy such as advocated by the left will stop this. In fact, it will only embolden them and encourage their jihad. To believe otherwise is to be living in a utopian la la land and I know many leftist who who truly believe that the la la land would be true is only we could 'Imagine' it. This delusion runs their energy pool and provides an attractive facade covering a empty hole of unrealistic and self-defeating promises. So yes, we have to fight this self-destructive part of our culture that freely screams that they are living in a Nazi state.
technically, saddam in 1991
But most dems voted for both the soon after 911 war on terror resolution and the specific iraq war resolution. Kerry as well. Kerry also did not run on a platform to pull out. But he did make all the criticisms that the dems make today andhave since the day after the election
in which their criticisms were rejected.
The people chose Bush's way.
But the dems insist on giving the enemy hope and putting our troops at greater risk die to a childish vanity.
Were the democrats proved right by losing the white house and more seats in congress?
Would you refuse to fight an enemy that hides behind and purposefully kills civilians as a matter of strategy?
MSM polls are consequence free.
Elections make choices.
Our troops are in the feild. Your disagreements were heard. Once this nation goes to war, defeat is not an option. The policy was affirmed on election day despite the same arguments.
Your disagreements had their chance to change policy, but really didn't even get Kerry to fully embrace them. The woos.
So now, with full knowledge that yopur disagreements will not be heeded, we therefore know that the only reason you do it is
vanity
to have an i told you so moment of pink pleqasure if we lose, at elast until the terrorists kill more of us
or to cause us tolose
for we do there only effect is to give the encourage the enemy
for you see, the enemy is cheering you on
becasue they know they are in a desperate situation.
By the way, some our greatest casualties in wwi and the civil war was near the end.
But you are factually wrong. US casualtis are down. the iraqis ae up. They ar e a brave people, the army, the purple fingered 80% fighting those baathist dead enders and terrorists.
By the way, most of the war objectives have been met. in ant way in history, removal of the regime and the threat it posed is victory. Mor4eover, we made sure that sadam cannot harbour terrorist or use wmd. Our willingness to go to war is why he got rid of the stuff. Or he lied. Moreover, the peoplehave embraces freedom and are bonded with us against a commoin enemy and will be abeacon to the muslim world.
all good
rejoice
or don't let facts get in the way of the hysteria
I appreciate your suggestion to move on, but I would prefer to outline the fallacy in Tacitus's argument.
The thesis is true as far as it goes (i.e., if, for example, you don't want to support Amtrak, you can't deduct the part of your tax bill which goes to Amtrak. Certain decisions of the state are binding on all of its citizens. Moreover, you can't put a bunch of 60 year old Senators in uniform because they voted for the war. It's like saying that Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening didn't have to go to VietNam because they voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, but the other 98 Senators had to go).
But this misses the point. The fact of the matter is that when it was George Bush's chance to serve, he declined. Ditto for Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, etc. Does this mean that once in power, they could not legitimately start a war because they avoided service? No, but it casts some doubt on the willingness with which they sent others to their deaths. I do not think that a President who has seen war -- Eisenhower, for example -- would have been so eager to wage war on a country which has never attacked us.
But that misses the point, too. The chicken hawk thing did not become prominent until the Republicans impugned John Kerry, who is a bona fide war hero. Seeing delegates at the Republican convention with purple band-aids (to mock Kerry's Purple Hearts) was truly nauseating. Kerry is a man who bled for his country. For people who strove mightily to avoid fighting in VietNam to slime someone who volunteered and served, the term chicken hawk is far too kind.
While Lieutenant Bradshaw, LeftyLawyer and other gasbags rail on and on and on about how Iraq is a quagmire and we're doomed, the troops of the Coalition are slowly but surely making progress.
No one I know in the Army thought this would be easy. But, the situation in Iraq is a lot better than many of us thought it would be.
I concede that Rummy and some in DOD thought it would be easier that it turned out to be. I know of no one in the JCS or Pentagon who thought this would be a piece of cake.
Sadly, many Americans simply lack the staying power for this fight. But, I feel we have enough to get the job done.
And for those lefties who are poised to scream "Well, why don't YOU go serve in Iraq," why don't you tell me where YOU were in the fall of 1990/winter of 1991, or one month after 9/11. If your answers aren't, respectively, "In Saudi Arabia and Iraq during Gulf War I" and "mobilized to active duty," I'm really not interested in your opinion.
There is no responsible voice on the left which is against fighting terrorism. It is the war in Iraq which we are against. There were few, if any, terrorists in Iraq under Saddam. There are plenty of them now. So how is it that we are fighting terrorism by giving terrorists a place to train and practice their trade?
Of course I would not want to serve under Bush's daughters -- they are spoiled, bratty kids who share their father's earlier inability to keep sober for very long. But that's not the point. Rather than repeat the post I made above, I will simply state that if George Bush were draft age, he surely would have found a way to avoid service now, as he did back in the 1960's.
Come on dude, why say something so ignorant? If all of us on the left are communists, jihadists, and so on, then what are you? A theocrat, a Nazi, a fascist, American Taliban? I SAY NOT! Please stop saying such horrid things and restore some dignity. Do it for the right, ok?
You are the epitome of the peace at any cost bunch. The fact is you would never support a war, no matter what.
And get over the past two elections, YOU LOST!
"How often do you hear in the MSM the reminder that Saddam had been committing acts of war against the United States for the 12 years between the ceasefire in 1991 and 2003?"
I've been wondering why they don't ask where Osama bin Laden is anymore! Ain't that somethin'?
Those "known facts" again, huh? Seems like the facts are increasingly being known by Americans.
Democratic Party is morally bankrupt and traitorous as exemplified by John Kerry's actions after returning from Viet Nam as a coward.
"I now am also convinced that the left's focus on universal nonviolence -- what they call 'peace' -- will ultimately destroy our country and civilization"
Are you suggesting that, what you call "war", will ultimately save our country and civilization? Just a question...
need links where repubs attacked Clinton's patiotism for a war he was fighting
Do you beleive it is in our national interest to lose this war? For Al Qaida and/or Baathists to control Iraq?
We have enough soldiers to fight. Its just that we could win quicker and lose less of them if the enemy weren't hopeful that we will lose our will and put the paper tiger party back in charge.
And when they look back at Vietnam and and see the "courageous patriotic" marchers that risked... well nothing...but they "stood" for ...well surrender and abandoning our allies to two million slaghterd by communists, and when they look at the hans blix strategy folks
and think they can last till y'all can get "power"..kind of an oxymon when applied to the power to surrender.
Free speech allowed us all to argue and then we made a choice, and the pres and congress we chose sent us to war.
And that choice was re-affirmed.
The next chance to make choices to change policy is nov 2006 and then 2008.
msm weekly consequence free pulses aside
He shot himself to get the pass home and upon arrival slandered the heros he left behind.
Isn't that what Bill Bennett called Charlie Rangel?
I realize that your mind is made up, so I'm reluctant to intrude with some facts. Regrettably, by any conceivable metric, the war is going very badly. Violence continues to increase. You can't even drive safely from Baghdad Airport to the Green Zone. There is intermittent electricity, poor water and sanitation, and the oil pipelines are frequently under attack. The country is splitting apart along ethnic and sectarian lines. The constitution -- if it is adopted -- enshrines Sharia and denies the rights of women (this is what we are fighting for?). Also, there is no Coalition -- it's us and the Brits.
Sounds suspiciously like a quagmire to me...
And, I doubt he'd see eye-to-eye with Lieutenant Bradshaw, based on this
There are only two serious attempts at swamp-draining currently under way. In Afghanistan and Iraq, agonizingly difficult efforts are in train to build roads, repair hospitals, hand out ballot papers, frame constitutions, encourage newspapers and satellite dishes, and generally evolve some healthy water in which civil-society fish may swim. But in each case, from within the swamp and across the borders, the most poisonous snakes and roaches are being recruited and paid to wreck the process and plunge people back into the ooze. How nice to have a "peace" movement that is either openly on the side of the vermin, or neutral as between them and the cleanup crew, and how delightful to have a press that refers to this partisanship, or this neutrality, as "progressive."
And how nice it is to have peaceniks and defeatniks, such as Lieutenant Bradshaw and LeftyLawyer and smittywhatever, who are great at whining but...well, anything else? I wonder.
BZ, Chris Hitchens!
I think the critical flaw of the right these days is that they fail to realize that perhaps liberals wouldn't be so staunchly against the Iraq war if it had been planned properly. As far as I can remember (I may be wrong)nobody expected the death of nearly 2,000 American soldiers during this war. As a matter of fact, if our boys weren't dying at this current rate, I probably would support the war (despite the lack of evidence linking Saddam to 9/11).
The left doesn't want our country to "lose" anything. That is why we don't want to "lose" anymore of our soldiers. We aren't cheering for insurgent success, we're hoping for a better future. Unfortunately, the disagreement lies here. Those of us on the left believe that the future won't be so good if we stay in Iraq, while the right thinks that leaving Iraq will jeopardize our future. I can see your argument, but the death toll of American soldiers (Iraqi civilian deaths too) makes it a little hazy. I hope you understand.
As an American citizen, I don't care if Democrats benefit or lose politically in any situation any more than Republicans. What I do care for is the American people and, not big government or small government, but GOOD government. But hey, I'm just some dude trying to make sense out of all of this madness. Just my two populist cents!
Is the idea that the anti war movement is growing. Presently I'd say it was stagnant. In Vietnam you didn't see pro troop rallies countering the protesters. Furthermore, a good chunk of the protesters last weekend were the same people who were antiwar activists in Nam trying desperately to cling to their fading youth.
Most of the young people who were there were there for the free dope, sex and obnoxious music. Most of this crowd probably didn't even know what exactly the protest was over.
There would have been more people at the counter protest, but we were too busy making America work helping out our fellow citizens clean up the wreckage of Katrina and Rita.
Furthermore don't discount the media in all this. They're 100% behind the antiwar protesters cause a lot of media big wigs made their reputations reporting on Nam. They're not going to change their tune now.
I'm happy that these imbeciles were out in force. They're the greatest argument in favor of free speech I've ever seen. Now everyone can see exactly how stupid they all are.
the Lieutenant Bradshaws of this world have never added one positive note to this geat country. They make up the true quagmire through which the builders of this country have had to tread over the last 250 years.
I have a feeling this one's commission extends only as far as his tag line.
I promised myself to be nice. I had my "one bite" weeks ago, so if I get a little crazy, let the directors ban me. Don't blame me for being attracted to good discussions. I hope you understand Tbone.
There is only one way to finish a fight and that is finish your opponent. The liberals never have had guts for a fight. Not now, not ever. Instead of accepting their cowardly weakness, they try to assuage it with rationalizations like you just wrote.
just to get his 3 scratches and home pass.
Yes,
Being willing to fight the killers -- called 'War' is the only way to stop them. They cannot be negotiated with, massaged, hugged, or appeased into changing. The fight is not only via military warfare, but also via all other valid methods: helping the world to democratize and giving people a sense of power in their lives -- called 'Hope'. But at the moment military warfare is essential to our survival.
BTW, I wanted to get rid of Saddam without the WMD argument (even though everyone from Clinton to Mubarek were convinced Saddam had stockpiles of WMD): you know the litany of actions that made him an international war crimial -- he harbored Abu Nidal, Zawaqari, trained terrorists and would in a heartbeat have reinvigorated his nuclear, chemical, and biological ambitions once the world looked the other way. He is a thug and sadist -- called 'Evil' -- and would do anything he could to create havoc in the world. His two sadistic raping, murdering sons were metaphors for the progeny of Saddam's activity in the world.
Before the election, Democrats who opposed the war were smeared as traitors. After the election, Democrats who opposed the war are still smeared as traitors. And before the next election, if there is still a war, I'm quite confident any Democrats who oppose the war will be smeared as traitors.
You keep bringing up the election as some magical moment when we made a choice, but I'm still quite confused as to when you would consider it legitimate to oppose the war.
Around these parts, which explains why some seldom show it.
Toodles.
I guess you can drive safely from Baghdad Airports, violence is decreasing, the electricity is on all the time, and the newly adopted constitution is a marvel of Jeffersonian democracy. Thanks for correcting me.
and several to preserve it. While war is an abomination, it is so often so very necessary.
If either Kos or Duncan says a word, just a single sentence, on the front page about this, I'll amend this post accordingly. I almost included the folks from mydd, but then I noticed Chris Bowers said something about hoping the rally was controlled by the Cindy Sheehan folks and not the crazy ANSWER folks (I'm paraphrasing, and deleting profanity), and I counted that as "distance."
FDR and IKE planned the training mission for d-day training mission so poorly they lost 5000 men. But the GOP did not rise up and insist on defeat due to poor plans.
Our plans have lost less than 2000 while liberating the country from the regime we sought to remove, had an election and are free.
And are fighting with us as muslim allies g=against the barbarians
There no men and women of courage and character on the left. That is why the left is increasingly being left.
"Yes,
Being willing to fight the killers -- called 'War' is the only way to stop them. They cannot be negotiated with, massaged, hugged, or appeased into changing. The fight is not only via military warfare, but also via all other valid methods: helping the world to democratize and giving people a sense of power in their lives -- called 'Hope'. But at the moment military warfare is essential to our survival".
Many of us on the left happen to think that people like you, the Bush conservatives, are responsible for the messy Iraq war. Does that mean I should go after you and kill you? If everyone follows this doctrine, won't it create MORE problems? I mean, China or even France may feel like calling us "killers" one day. Would it be ok for them to attack us for their survival? Are we supposed to live like animals fighting each other for the female in the pack?
If we met on the street and I disliked your way of life, would I have the right to thrash you (and I'm sure I would buddy, this 230 lb linebacker would crush you)? But if I did, wouldn't your family see me as a "killer" and therefore, seek vengeance. This creates a vicious cycle. I'd say try again.
In that President Clinton during Operation Desert Fox 1998-99 bombed the holy bejezus out of Iraq, but refused to go all the way and remove the problem which was Saddam Hussein.
The objective reason cited by Clinton and Al Gore, for Operation Desert Fox? Saddam Hussein's posession of WMDs and kicking out the inspectors.
We basically had two options, both of which were negative:
- Take Saddam's word for it that he had no WMD after he'd kicked out inspectors again and refused to account for his prior stocks fo WMDs and precursors.
- Invade and remove Saddam.
The strategy of bombing and leaving Saddam in was the worst of all possible worlds. Innocent people died while Saddam stayed in power, and the basic problem (Saddam) remained.
Let me note the PEACE MOVEMENT HAD NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT OPERATION DESERT FOX. Sorry for the Caps but this must be emphasized. The Peace Movement was perfectly willing to allow Presidend Clinton to kill innocent Iraqis while allowing Saddam to stay in power.
In the post-9/11 World the US is not going to take brutal and repeatedly anti-American dictators word for it. Let me remind you Saddam gave shelter and financial support to Abdul Rahman Yassin, the only remaining at-large 1993 WTC bomber. Also Abu Nidal, Zarqawi, and many others, as well as offering publicly refuge to Osama (as noted by Richard Clarke). Taking Saddams or lil Kim's or the Mullah's word for it is simply a non-starter.
The real objection of the Peace Movement is that Bush for better or worse ACTED instead of doing the desultory bombing that earned the contempt of bin Laden (as evidence of our "weakness" and ability to be bullied).
gross generalization you are making. How could you assume that liberals don't have guts? Come on pal, you're behind a computer talking smack. I'm sure you would get thrashed by many liberals. Stop acting all tough while sitting behind a computer. Let the Marines or the Army tell me what you're saying, but not you.
so, we can fight terrorists unless they band together and cross a nations border to attack us? ok
Uh, so when can we kill these terrorists/ Must we leave and then hunt them down one by one after we sat we're sorry, just to make it fair?
even if one could accept a "slander" argument (which last check expressing one's opinion about a public issue is not), you are really reaching on the shot himself one. Why not just argue that Hillary and Bill had Vince Foster killed by the Cuban mafia too? It would be just as credible.
How would have the American public reacted to the GOP being against Nazi removal? I'm sure you wouldn't have said anything either buddy.
Going to war in Iraq to "liberate" it is a "known fact" by the right. Sure, Iraq was liberated from Saddam only to fall in the hands of al-Qaeda. Nice work guys, nice work!
The fringe elements of the anti-war Left you despise have no political power in this country, and never will, no matter how many Democrats are elected to office.
You can recite all the Michael Moore and Ward Churchill quotes you want, but they hold no political power and never will no matter how much you try to portray them as the authentic voice of the Democratic Party. Oh, but wait, Michael Moore had a nice seat at the Democratic Convention. Wow, such power.
The viewpoint you decry is a fringe and will always be a fringe. There is such a gulf between some aging hippie complaining about American imperialism and Russ Feingold calling for a timetable for withdrawal that it's comical for anyone to pretend otherwise.
I understand there is sometimes a need to rally the troops by pretending that the wackiest elements of the other side are on the verge of taking over America. The Left does it too, every time Pat Robertson talks about hurricanes being punishment for homosexuality or whatever. But the fact that moderates are underrepresented in the blogosphere should not obscure the fact that most of the country is smart enough to identify a fringe and disregard it.
Jerry Falwell gets a call from the White House to solicit his opinion on the Supreme Court nomination, and you can take that fact for whatever it's worth. Do you seriously think President Kerry would place a call to ANSWER to ask them what he should do about Iraq? Your answer may determine whether you are a member of a fringe movement, as well.
I don't think so. Come on, come up with better logic. I didn't say kill those who 'disagree with us.' Your skewed logic is exactly the type of idiocy we need to counteract with logic and realism. Good night. Enjoy la la land.
Seriously, deep breaths. He's not challenging your personal manhood, there's no reason to slap him with your glove.
His point is that, historically, liberals don't have the stomach for prolonged war (especially in comparison with conservatives).
I suppose the point is disputable, but I've never heard it disputed.
you mention it, removing Saddam from Iraq isn't the same to removing Nazis. After the allies invaded Normandy, Nazis didn't multiply in numbers like insurgents did in Iraq after invading it.
sunday. He is ana cave with 10 people and no way to communicate/. i forgot who the source is.
seriously
big story
how did you miss it
with soldiers who all had Dkos accounts? As for liberals thrashing me, I'm a real 2 Amendment kind of guy.
He said it in a way that sounded so personal, making me want to pimp slap him. But I apologize guys. No pimp slapping here! Although I would take a swift kick in the arse for making such a bad judgement.
"Who in the name of all that is good and wonderful in this world died and appointed the likes of you, of all people, to be judge and jury of what is or is not patriotic? Not too much of a swelled head, there, huh?"
Umm, well that would be me. As you can see from my user name you can't really attach the chickenhawk meme to me. Uberpilothusband is in Iraq on a very regular basis and gets shot at every now and then as well. And, oh yeah, he even got to do some of that spook stuff a couple of weeks ago to help spread democracy in Afghanistan. So I am your MORAL AUTHORITY on this war. Got it? And I appointed Leon to do my dirty work. Ya see, he writes better than me 'cuz he gets to be around adults all day. Me, I just get to read picture books to kids. So, now that we have that out of the way, I'll address a bit of your nonsense.
"This Iraq war is bad. Bad policy, bad execution, refusal to adjust course, and now, there is no good option. Staying is bad, leaving may be worse. All other military action, either actual or potential, is now at risk because of this disaster -- that's not my opinion, that's what the military leadership says.
All war is bad. People die, it sucks.
Bad policy, blah, blah, blah. No war is perfect. Find one that was and we'll shut up.
Leaving is NOT an option. Period. Never has been, never should be.
All other military action is at risk, blah, blah, blah....Surely you have credible links to back up such a claim. FTR-uberpilothusband did a thesis paper on the problems/successes in Iraq quite recently for his command and staff class. I don't recall any of his professors or sources saying anything of the sort.
"And you say, "win at all costs." What does that mean?"
John F. Kennedy says it far better than I could-
"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
"You ready to saddle up and fight? If not, don't be so quick to throw other people's lives into the hopper."
I've already addressed this. Remember, IAM your MORAL AUTHORITY.
"And besides, the tone of your post is so clear -- it's not about the national interest,"
On that note you couldn't be more wrong. The national interest is the ONLY purpose. Duty, honor, country.....not party, you idiot.
Skewed logic is exactly what I said my friend. You must be a resident of la la land?
and neither clinton or gore ran as a liberal, ie they lied.
bush set popular vote record
clinton got 49% and 43%
God saved us from gore
I know that ignoring media articles is a textbook play, but can you ignore this photo?
If you can, your cognitive dissonance has been taken to new levels.
I think the critical flaw of the right these days is that they fail to realize that perhaps liberals wouldn't be so staunchly against the Iraq war if it had been planned properly.
If the Democrats had stayed on this message, I submit to you that their polling would have actually improved at the expense of Bush, instead of diving with it. As it is, too many of the fund raisers started agitating for "Out of Iraq, NOW! No war for Oil! Halliburton!" To the point that the message is just not believable for folks.
The left doesn't want our country to "lose" anything. That is why we don't want to "lose" anymore of our soldiers. We aren't cheering for insurgent success, we're hoping for a better future.
Fine. Then it's your job to shout down those idiots carrying signs like the Palestinian flag one I linked in this post, because they're marching for your cause, not mine. In case you're missing it, there are a heck of a lot of them who ARE rooting for us to lose. And I presume that's not you, but I also hold you and those of your ilk accountable when they become symbiotic with the crowd that DOES hate America and want us to lose.
Glad to hear you find foreign policy important, too. If we are not safe, nothing matters. Look at New Orleans and see how close we are to chaos . . . and look at how vulnerable we are.
The "peace" group wants to see the U.S. lose in Iraq. While Iraq may never be a U.S. type democracy, it does have the potential to be a free society. Whatever our reasons for going in, we cannot leave it now.
There is still great potential for freedom to spread throughout the Middle East. At least it is a much better shot than the chaos that has existed for decades. If we can solve that problem, then we have so much more opportunity to solve problems at home.