| USA Today | 0 | |
| CNN | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| Jen Rubin | 0 | |
| Fox News | Source: Powerful Sedative Propofol Found at Michael Jackson’s Mansion |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Flyswatter in Chief:
"He had this fly that was persistently buzzing around him during the interview...he swatted his hand and he said ‘I got the sucker’...it was a, you know, Dirty Harry ‘make my day’ moment."- The NYT's John Harwood, describing Obama's killing of a fly - 6/16/09
Random thoughts on the anti-war left, their rhetoric and how some would rather see us lose
I’ve written about this issue before, but wanted to expand on my thoughts some as I read some comments at a political forum today that suggested that the Bush administration’s supporters were deliberately ‘blaming Democrats’ for how things were going in Iraq and for the erosion in support for the war because they ‘don’t want to put the blame on Republicans. My slightly modified (for clarity) response to one post is reposted below:
The fact of the matter is that there IS truth – a great deal of it – to the statement that there are some Democrats who would rather see us fail in Iraq than to see us win, because us losing in Iraq means Bush loses, make no mistake about it. Never forget that. Funny thing about it is, though, is that the left has consistently said from the start that this is “Bush’s war” but when you assert to the left that if we lose in Iraq that it means Bush loses too, they get indignant and all of a sudden start claiming that it wouldn’t be Bush losing but America losing. Funny, the little inconsistencies which fly off the lips and fingers of the left, eh?
Bush has taken responsiblity for his Iraq policy. I have respect – not much, but some – for some of the Republicans who are coming out now and saying “I can no longer support this, it’s gone too far”, because at least they were willing to give it a chance. OTOH, some of the same Dems who voted “yes” on the use of force in Iraq resolution have done whatever they can to hammer the President ever since the first shot was fired, before things in Iraq started going lopsided. It’s very, very clear the agenda of some of the louder b-tchers in the Democratic party, and that was/is to bring down the President, even if it comes at the expense of exaggerating or outright lying about what he’s said, and what our troops have and have not done in Iraq.
The assertions I’ve made in this post might be painful for some of the perpetual anti-Iraq war whiners to handle – so be it. The fact of the matter is that both sides have a role to play in how this war has played out both on the frontlines and in the information ‘war’: the President for not listening to people he should have when things started going south, Republicans for assuming we were going in the right direction1, and Democrats (Congressional and otherwise) who have treated the President as though he was/is the bigger enemy than Al Qaeda – even before the Iraq war. The first two have taken responsibility for their actions, but the third one never will. They will continue to deflect and lay every single bit of blame for the erosion of support for this war at the President’s feet, rather than take a shred of responsibility for how their actions and rhetoric influences people here, our troops, and the enemy.
The left simply cannot accept any responsiblity for their words and actions because that would mean that they’d have to admit their share the blame, and oh no – we can’t have that. Anyone who asserts things like these is, of course, automatically thought of by the anti-war left as a “Bush shill” “Kool Aid drinker” even after it’s clear that many of the people who make the assertions about the far left have also admitted that our policies in Iraq have been flawed and that we have to shift gears if we want to win because what we are doing isn’t working. Many of them just don’t air their criticism of the CIC in the same manner that the anti-war left does – apparently they only way a conservative can be viewed by the anti-war left as a ‘credible critic’ of the President’s policies in Iraq is if, instead of saying that Bush clearly made mistakes, went down the wrong path, and needs to change strategies, the ‘credible conservative critics’ have to call him an ‘incompetent liar who sent young men to die for oil’ and so many other other of the lame-a$$ed excuses we hear routinely from the anti-war left when criticizing the President’s Iraq policies. Sorry, this Bush supporter won’t criticize the CIC in that manner, because I know that at least the President wants to win in Iraq because he understands what will happen if we don’t.
I save my most vocal criticism for 2 groups: 1) Islamofascists and 2) certain Democrats who apparently still, after all these years, would rather view and treat the President as the biggest threat to our safety and security rather than the actual enemy who was around long before President Bush was ever “selected.” The left, on the other hand, saves their most vocal criticisms … for the President.
It’s all about ‘priorities’, you know.
—-
- See comments section for my clarification on this point. [back]
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
27 Responses to “Random thoughts on the anti-war left, their rhetoric and how some would rather see us lose”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
The left was anti-war until Stalin said war was good, until Stalin got control of East Europe then the left resumed anti-war especially when Stalin sought to gain other territories. Now with the USSR gone only the US is seen as a threat by the left. They will never learn.
” Republicans for assuming we were going in the right direction,”
I’m not sure I follow this exactly. I think be staying and working to achieve our goals then we’re going in the right direction. If you meant that the exact strategies need reworking, then I agree. But with your conclusion I could not agree more.
“If you meant that the exact strategies need reworking, then I agree.”
Yep – that’s what I meant.
You know, once again I am amazed at how many of our problems occur because people aren’t “raised right” as my dear old Southern Mother and Granny would say. I was raised that, no matter what the knock down, drag out fight or argument you were having in the family, it stayed in the family. You didn’t air your dirty laundry in public, you put on a unified face in public, and solved your problems in private. Obviously a lesson the Democrats and liberals, who seem to be stuck in a perpetual adolescent time warp, never seemed to learn. Debate, argue about tactics and strategies, but politics needs to end at the waters edge, as it used to in happier times.
I have respect – not much, but some – for some of the Republicans who are coming out now and saying “I can no longer support this, it’s gone too far”, because at least they were willing to give it a chance.
You are more tolerant than I, ST. For my part, Republicans like Hagel, Collins, etc. are like surgeons who start a dangerous operation, find out it is not going according to plan, throw down their instruments and slink out of the operating room leaving the patient to die. If they have no intention of saving the patient, then they should not operate. If they will not fight Islamofascism, than be honest and admit it up front – and face the consequences when the Islamofascists bring their war to our shores.
What if, during the Cold War, Ronald Reagan had spent his time in office blaming Roosevelt for dealing with Stalin during WWII rather than deal with Soviet imperialism? After all, half of Europe ended up in the Soviet Empire after 1945. Detraction seems to be all antiwar Democrats and RINOs like Hagel want to do.
Hagel and Co. have a choice – they can offer a strategy to win, or they can cut and run. In either case, they must act like leaders and accept responsibility for what happens afterwards. Whatever one thinks of President Bush and his strategy, that is what he has done.
But then, “responsibility” is a dirty word to folks like Hagel and Co. So they will cut and run, lie about the nature of what they are doing, and boot the consequences of their actions into the future hoping someone else gets blamed.
Mark Steyn has some words that should trouble Hagel & Co.
Paul Reynaud, who became Premier of France shortly before the German invasion of 1940, had a conversation with the writer Andre Maurois about the long-standing feud between Reynaud and Eduard Daladier:
“Nevertheless,” (Maurois) said, “Daladier is certainly a man who loves his country.”
“Yes,” Reynaud said, “I believe he desires the victory of France, but he desires my defeat even more.”
I think there are a lot of Democrats who desire the victory of the US, but desire the defeat of George Bush even more. (And there are more than a few among the Democrats and their “progressive” allies who do *not* desire the victory of the US)
I’m becoming increasingly concerned that this may end the way it did for France (though not of course in precisely the same form)
But who are these Americans who want to see GWB defeated even at the expense of their country? Is it anyone who opposes the war and says so openly? Maybe the people who oppose the Iraq war truly believe that it’s harmed our country. Isn’t that a perfectly valid opinion? You don’t have to agree with that opinion, but I don’t see why it’s fair to accuse people who hold that view of being anti-American. I think if you’re going to imply that a large swath of the country is anti-American, that you at least have to say specifically who you’re referring to. How ’bout naming some names. What about me?
Bob asked a 4 year old question, “Isn’t that a perfectly valid opinion?”
Disagreeing with a 4 year old decision is not a reason to create a humanitarian crisis by removing security while a country’s government is formed and becomes stable. Move to the present situation. It was a VALID opinion before the invasion to be against the invasion – but now “quitting” or “cutting and running” or “re-deployment” isn’t an option if the job isn’t done. It is understandable that surrounding countries do not want a prosperous democratic nation next door improving muslims’ lives. It would be harmful to their very way of teaching and impoverishing outlook.
Harpping on the 4 year old decision does nothing for today’s debate about how we move forward.
If you are not for victory Bob what are you for? Addtionally, what do you think would be the result of “re-deployment” or lack of victory? Do you think it is a “VALID” opinion to think a humanitarian crisis would result from the Democrat plan of moving foward of re-deployment?
What I’m saying, Baklava, is that it’s fine to disagree about whether withdrawing US troops sooner rather than later is a good idea. You might think that anyone is wrong to suggest a too-soon withdrawal of troops, for the reasons you mention. You might think it’s a terrible idea. But all I’m trying to say is it’s a disagreement over the best course of action, not an indication that anybody wants to see the US fail just to make GWB look bad. People who oppose the troop surge (probably a majority of Americans) do so out of sincere concern that it’s just going to mean more American lives thrown away on a pointless cause. You can disagree with that view all you want, but I think it’s unfair to essentially accuse them of being anti-American.
Bob wrote, “What I’m saying, Baklava, is that it’s fine to disagree about whether withdrawing US troops sooner rather than later is a good idea.”
You mean before or after victory?
Bob wrote, “not an indication that anybody wants to see the US fail just to make GWB look bad. ”
Sure there are those who want victory but you can’t deny there are leftist/Democrats who wat immediate “re-deployment”. Does that mean we achieved victory already in those people’s minds? No. Especially since they have proclaimed that Iraq “is not winnable”. Congressmen have said that. I can’t speak to those congressional people’s “wants” but it isn’t an indication of them wanting to “win” is it?
Bob wrote, “People who oppose the troop surge (probably a majority of Americans) do so out of sincere concern that it’s just going to mean more American lives thrown away on a pointless cause.”
The characterization of pointless is what many troops serving disagree with. It matters to them and it matters to many who do not want a humanitarian crisis. That would then become the point. Additionally the terrorists have produced videos proclaiming what they would do after “winning” in Iraq and gaining the oil resources. On to the EU and the U.S. after making an Islamic Caliphate. Woo Hoo Let’s enable them !
Bob wrote, “You can disagree with that view all you want, but I think it’s unfair to essentially accuse them of being anti-American.”
Which of my posts did that?
Baklava, the “anti-American” part is referring to ST’s comments, not yours. I think it’s part of this theme making the rounds in conservative circles that there are “some Democrats” who are so petty and so consumed with hatred for GWB that they would actually welcome a defeat in Iraq just to make the president look bad. As she puts it:
I just can’t swallow this idea. Who are these Democrats that we keep hearing about? Why do liberals have to keep hearing from conservatives that they’re “traitors” (Coulter) and “enemies” (D’Souza) just because they had the good sense to oppose the Iraq war? It’s fine to disagree with people, but who is it really who’s putting out the hate for their fellow Americans?
Her opinion has basis Bob.
I understand YOU can’t swallow the idea. But we’ve seen too much over the last 4 years. Criticism with no solutions for VICTORY. What else can you surmise but what ST said?
First of all – some Democrats have even gone further and said Iraq is un-winnable. They see ONLY failure. Logic 101. Winning is not an option for America to them.
I’m sorry you have to ask who are these Democrats we keep talking about. Maybe head in the sand is bliss but it surely isn’t due diligence. It’s LAZY behavior – not calling you lazy – I’m talking about your behavior.
You morphed your last paragraph into an anti-Coulter and D’Souza rant. We understand you like Democrats. It’s ok. Keep the head in the sand and be blissful with defeat !!
We’ll save America for you.
“Had the sense to oppose the Iraq war”
Move to present day Bob. That decision was 4 years ago as I’ve said before to you.
Seeing failure in Iraq might be a litmus test for sanity at this point, Baklava. It’s fine if you and ST want to continue living in George W. Bush’s fairy tale land and believe for the tenth time that final victory is just another six months away. How long ago did Dick Cheney talk about “turning the corner?” How much longer ago was “Mission Accomplished?” I get so tired of pompous lectures from simpletons who keep believing the same BS over and over. You’ll save America for us? Before, or after you teach GWB to tie his own shoes?
I understand YOU can’t swallow the idea. But we’ve seen too much over the last 4 years. Criticism with no solutions for VICTORY. What else can you surmise but what ST said?
It’s amazing isn’t it Bak? Bob has absolutely no problem, and is eager even, to assume the worst about anyone who disagrees with the global warming hysteria. They’re shills, they are wingnuts, they are being paid off by big oil, they used to work for big oil or big tobacco or whatever, they are dishonest! He is quick to tar intelligent, ethical, and learned scientists with all manner of insults and character assassination, but puts on this wide eyed incredulous face when anything is said about his liberal idols (gods would probably be a more accurate description). “Why, how could you say such a thing? Democrats, want to fail rather than see Bush succeed? Impossible!”
Hypocrisy at its finest ain’t it?
Seeing failure in Iraq might be a litmus test for sanity at this point,
Seeing that it is a mess is one thing, how you react to it and what you propose to do about it is a measure of character, or the lack thereof. When confronted with a critically important conflict, one that has ramifications that will resonate for decades and affect not only the US but the entire region, not the least of which are the Iraqi’s themselves, what one decides to do, how one wants to handle the problem, is very telling. Liberals and Democrats want to run away and pretend the whole mess isn’t important, regardless of the facts. They don’t care that probably millions will die if we pull out precipitously (as in Vietnam), they don’t care that it will weaken the US, they don’t care that it will embolden our enemies. It’s haaaard, they whine, and want to turn their backs on it and the problem. Republicans and conservatives know that, when times are hard, running away isn’t an option that solves anything, it’s time to buckle down, and keep hammering at the problem until you do get it right, the result of not doing this is just too horrific to allow to happen.
Loyalty, perseverance, sacrifice, duty, and honor all seem to be alien concepts to liberals. No matter what the issue, whenever it gets hard or inconvenient, liberals want to jump ship. Unfortunately, the world isn’t like living in your parent’s basement, sooner or later you have to face the fact that YOU are the adults now, and giving up and letting someone else take care of you and the problem is no longer an option. The liberal ideal of an all encompassing, fuzzy big daddy named government that will take away all the hurt and take care of you is a demented pipe dream of those who are too lazy or worthless to take care of themselves. Self indulgence, or self sacrifice, only in a liberals mind does the former become a virtue and the latter a character flaw.
Bob wrote, “Seeing failure in Iraq might be a litmus test for sanity at this point, Baklava.”
It definitely wasn’t the Bobs of the world with their cute little bumper sticker phrases that helped us win WW2. Where we lose men Bob would be there to say I see failure seeing failure might be a litmus test for sanity. The men on Iwo Jima would turn and knock your teeth out – or they would be men and leave you alone to make more idiotic statements but shake their head in disgust.
The point is Bob – we are the folks that are INTERESTED in victory and will not be uttering demoralizing phrases as your side has done since the month after 9/11. Oh – it’s too cold in Afghanistand, the Soviets fought for years and didn’t succeed, the winters are too much for us, oh, Iraq is Vietnam, oh, oh , oh. We are torturers – and it’s come from the highest levels. uh huh – You guys want victory and your actions speak loudly towards wanting victory.
You know bob – you either find a way or get out of the way – but don’t expect us to swallow your rhetoric as being a solution for victory any time soon.
Bob states:
Seeing failure in Iraq might be a litmus test for sanity at this point, Baklava.
Am I being elected to something that I didn’t know about that I need a litmus test?
It’s fine if you and ST want to continue living in George W. Bush’s fairy tale land and believe for the tenth time that final victory is just another six months away.
Your not being truthful to yourself or others with this statement bob and you know it. It isn’t a fairy tale to want people to be free and yes many seem to be against the war, but some are against the way the war is being run. The fact that we tie the hands of our troops, and they essentially have to consult a lawyer before they have to shoot is redicuous, and many are against that.
No one ever said victory is another six months away. No one. I do not know where you seem to have gotten that idea, but I do know this president and the administration said this would be a long time battle, this war on terrorism. No one ever said it would be six months and we would ‘win’.
How long ago did Dick Cheney talk about “turning the corner?” How much longer ago was “Mission Accomplished?”
Actually the mission was accomplished. Saddam was removed from power which was the main goal, after which it was to bring about a stabilized Iraqi Government ruled by the people – something in which that is slowly taking place.
Just because he stated mission accomplished doesn’t mean ALL the missions are accomplished. Once one was done, others had to take take place.
I get so tired of pompous lectures from simpletons who keep believing the same BS over and over. You’ll save America for us?
I know the feeling bob, really I do. Having to deal liberals who armchair quarterback with 20/20 hindsite is frustrating, becaue any fool can do that.
Or having to listen to democrats meet with the enemy, or go to foriegn soil to denounce America and it’s leadership on foriegn soil.
Or leaking classified information to the media to try and undermine the administrations ability to protect americans.
Or the one-sidedness of the media when it comes to this administration. How much of the good reporting have you seen on the economy? The gas prices? Job? Unemployment rate?
I truly believe the poll Newsbusters put up, “Would the Media Support Iraq War If Democrat Had Started It?” So far 90% (2608 votes) say YES, it would be different. 6% (170 votes) say No, and 4% (105 votes) were not sure.
Before, or after you teach GWB to tie his own shoes?
Yes, yes, just like a typical liberal we must insult the president as being stupid, right bob? I mean it wouldn’t be a liberal screed if you didn’t insult the president along with anyone who supports him or the troops, right?
Yes, the president is stupid, but he outsmarted all the democrats in voting for a war before they voted against it, or some other such nonsense. He is hitler, or a chimp, or stupid, or a puppet….
Can liberlas ever come to a concensus on this please? You make yourselves look incredibly ignorant when you say things like this, not just because of the hateful way you and others say them, but because you and others are not even consistent with it.
Here is an idea, use an M16 or sniper rifle. You have single shots (unless put to full auto), each round you put out should be sited, direct and hit your target. Each round is a coherent thought, has a straight path of tragectory and hit the target that you aim at.
What I see from liberals mainly are the use of shotguns to try and hit something, anything downrange. Perhaps a pellet from the shotgun might strike a target somewhere or hit something, but it is useless and ineffective weapon to use and doesn’t do well to get the point across if you can’t directly hit your target and stay on tragectory.
Sorry for the analogy, but one I am former US Army and two I used to be an Armorer. [chuckles] Yeah, I was the prick that kept sending the wepaons back to be cleaned….
Rather than trading more insults, let me just lay out my feelings on Iraq as succinctly as possible:
I was in favor of the Afghanistan campaign to take out the Taliban and still think it’s a good and necessary thing.
I was opposed to the Iraq war openly since before the invasion, thinking that deposing Saddam Hussein was not worth the effort and the risk.
After the invasion was a fait accompli, however, I have wished that we would achieve victory and stabilize the country, even though it has never seemed very likely.
A major turning point for my feelings has been the realization that most of the Iraqi population hates the U.S. and wants us to leave. They want us to leave? Fine with me.
I currently don’t really care too much about the “advisory” anti-war resolutions in Congress. We already know who’s for the war and who’s against it. We don’t need to waste time on further political posturing when it makes no difference on the ground.
Nobody has ever interfered with the Bush administration’s conduct of the war. They have had complete control of all operational matters, and have executed their strategy as they wished down to the smallest detail. The latest “troop surge” plan will be executed as they plan it, and nobody will get in the way. Fine. As all their other plans have done, this latest one will succeed or fail based on its merits. I hope it works, I really do. But I doubt it’s enough to make a difference in a situation where too much of Iraqi society is caught up in self destructive ethnic hatred.
Even though I’ve always thought this war was a huge and beastly expensive mistake, I have only ever wished that we would succeed. That doesn’t mean I have to keep quiet about what a stupid mistake it was, and saying so openly doesn’t mean I (or any other person who’s opposed to the war—a majority in our society, by the way) want us to fail.
My issue in this thread has been that it’s fine to disagree about Iraq war policy, but I think it’s unfair to question the motives of people who oppose the war. You guys seem to be the ones complaining about character assassination, but isn’t that exactly what you’re doing in your criticism of people who oppose the war? There’s a bit difference between sincerely believing that this war has neither been worth the expense nor likely to succeed, and wishing that it were so.
Bob wrote, “I was in favor of the Afghanistan campaign to take out the Taliban and still think it’s a good and necessary thing.”
Yes – But there were those (95% liberals) who were against it and even took out ads in the NY Times urging Bush not to.
Bob wrote, “ I was opposed to the Iraq war openly since before the invasion, thinking that deposing Saddam Hussein was not worth the effort and the risk.”
Now that 4 year old decision has been made it’s best that the liberals of this country support the mission as best as possible to SHORTEN the job. Being unified is one sure way to give the enemy no aid and comfort. The 14 month long “rush” to war in Iraq was the time for debate and the lying Senators right now who are saying their “yes” vote meant something different only shows their lack of reading comprehension more than the president’s misuse of power. Currently, we should be a responsible nation and help the government of Iraq get on it’s own two feet just like we helped Germany and Japan after WW2.
Bob wrote, “ A major turning point for my feelings has been the realization that most of the Iraqi population hates the U.S. and wants us to leave. They want us to leave? Fine with me.
Unfortunately there are major consequences that many see including myself to leaving. The terrorists taking over the region and gaining oil resources and obtaining their goal of a middle east Caliphate and moving on to the EU and U.S. is their objective. We need to HEAR them. Liberals need to hear them. Conservatives need to hear them. The media needs to hear them. They have stated their goals loud and clear. They leave no ambiguity. Why don’t you hear them bob?
Bob makes mistakes with this comment, “ Nobody has ever interfered with the Bush administration’s conduct of the war.”
The Pentagon and Defense Department conduct the war. All purchases and procurements and disciplinary actions for soldiers’ misconduct and reactions to the enemy tactics are ALL done by the military. The criticisms by the left including you Bob are mistargeted and you guys don’t even realize that you are acting smarter than our own officers (generals and commanders) on the ground. Bush does NOT micromanage and that is the way it should be. He has simply given the military the support they need. Unfortunately we do have some PC officers who have gone pansy and kept our troops from offering the most firepower into an area to clean out these terrorists. We have guys on trial for conducting war in split second decisions and conservatives backing these guys up and liberals at war with our troops basically.
Additionally, liberals HAVE indirectly interfered with the conduct of the war by continually giving the hope to the enemy that we may be this close “” to pulling out with their incessant campaign at trying to pressure Bush (who is acting like a leader and not driven by polls) into pulling our troops out. It is a horrible tactic.
Bob finally says something of hope and support by saying, “I hope it works, I really do.”
That should be the end of your post and beginning of your post. Really – that’s my opinion. You destroy that thought with everything else you write.
Bob wrote, “That doesn’t mean I have to keep quiet about what a stupid mistake it was,”
And it doesn’t mean we have to keep quiet about how we think your words are supremely unhelpful to our efforts.
Bob should apply this thought to the environmental debates, “but I think it’s unfair to question the motives of people who oppose the war”
Don’t do it anymore to conservatives who do not want to implement leftist leaning (punishing hard work and prosperity) solutions for the environmental issues.
Hope I made sense to you this time. I honestly gave it a go.
Since when was democracy a pointless cause?? Seems to me if you would honor the lives of these men and women in the same manner that we would honor the Founders of this very country, you would correct your attitude. The Founders themselves would have considered anyone who believed the spread of democracy to be a pointless cause, as an anti-American. Seems to me with that kind of logic their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor went to a pointless cause. – Lorica
I addressed the “pointless” word also Lorica sweetie.
I wrote:
You need the latest Democrat/liberal NewSpeak dictionary Lorica. “Pointless” = hard, unpleasant, difficult, or something that a Republican wants.
Thanks for replying to me Lorica . . . dude. I’m glad you didn’t give up on me completely. As for the rest of you guys—screw all of you (I’m just kidding).
But seriously, Lorica. I say “pointless” because I don’t think that Iraqi society is ready for it. God bless the soldiers who believe in their mission (I say this as a non-religious person, but I really do mean it)—I don’t fault them one whit for the job they’ve done. But I think the Iraqis have completely blown what was a golden opportunity to better their society. They did so not just willingly, but with a shocking degree of callousness, sadism and malice. Not all of them, of course, but enough.
Someone said that the president never micro-managed the war. Maybe he didn’t personally, but Rumsfeld sure as heck did. He was infamous for it. In any case, it’s perhaps too easy to second-guess specific decisions regarding the conduct of the war, and try to play armchair general. And I think it misses the point that the major issue has probably never been about military strategy or tactics. The problem has been that this was a grand experiment in nation building that was probably too much of a longshot to have invested so much in the first place. Baklava is fond of saying “that was four years ago!” The problem is that the decision to invade and take de facto responsibility for the festering problems of Iraqi society set this whole mess in motion. Nothing can un-do that disastrous decision. None of you can guarantee victory, and in a war of choice like this one, if we couldn’t guarantee victory (the way we did in wisely limiting our strategic goals during the first Gulf War), then we shouldn’t have started it. Even if we eke out a win, it still won’t have been worth what we put into it.
This is not WWII. We didn’t have to get involved in this way. Fate may well have been sealed all those years ago when we invaded, and it may not matter at all what any of us says, thinks or does. The future of Iraq is up to the Iraqis, not us.
Bob wrote, “Someone said that the president never micro-managed the war. Maybe he didn’t personally, but Rumsfeld sure as heck did. He was infamous for it.”
So goes the accusation. You obviously haven’t spent much time in the Defense Department. I served 6 years in the Navy and while I wasn’t in a war area I can tell you that at that level the Secretary of Defense and President are almost irrelevant to the day to day operations. The president and secretary of Defense were offered plans by the Pentagon that were drawn up YEARS ago. They chose a plan. The plan exectution is completely operated by the military and procurements and reactions to enemy tactics are executed by the lower echelons. Officers much lower were already aware and taking disciplinary actions to those soldiers who were deemed as needing disciplinary actions (in a variety of episodes) and Bush and Rumsfeld could only wince in pain at hearing the news.
Soooo you are telling me a society that is 1000s of years old, is not ready for democracy, but a society that is hundreds of years old is?? Also, if they can’t handle it there, why do so many of them come here to live under it???
I disagree, I don’t think the Iraqis have blown anything. Is this why they are presently taking part in joint operations with our military, and winning them from the lastest news reports??? Cuz they are callous?? Bob that is one of the most horrible assumptions I have ever heard.
I am not going to disagree, Rummy had an ego, I agree with Bak, it is up to each command, Cent Com in this case, to divise plans for operations in that strategic area for any given situation. Rummy and the President choose the plan and it is modified accordingly. They just didn’t modify it well. He did alot of good for the military, and this is from a guy whos job is moving from the place where I was raised to some place in Ohio. /shiver The only bright spot is that I will be that much closer to Dear Sweet Sister. /purrs
The decision to invade comes after years of do nothing resolutions, and hundreds of millions of dollars attempting to contain a very evil man. This war is a resumption of action taken on by us for the UN. Sadamn Hussien was not keeping to the Surrender Agreement. I cannot stress this enough. In part we did this to, give the UN some teeth. It is assinine to believe that we were able to contain this enemy, when EVEN OUR ALLIES were in cohoots with this very evil man. This was not a disastorous decision. It was the only decision. How many more resolutions?? How many more attempts to shoot down our jets in the no fly zone?? How many more threats to Iraq’s neighbors?? He had weapons and equipment that, per the surrender agreement, he should not have had. Some sold to him by our Allies such as France, Germany, Russia and China. With friends like these…. who needs enemies. He had the programs in place, and was just waiting for the sanctions to drop before he started making serious trouble. HOW many of Iraq’s scientists pee’d their pants when they saw Hans Blix roll into their compound?? Not cuz of Hans, but because he was being escorted by some of Sadamn’s worse jail keepers. But yet Hans never figured it out. What an idiot.
Soooo we can kick their asses out of Kuwait, but it is impossible for us to win here??? I am sorry Bob but that just doesn’t make any sense. It is obivous that you watch way to much nightly news. But we are winning this war. We are the ones on the offensive, not our enemies. They are desperately trying to replace command staff that keeps getting killed. Granted nothing is certain in war, but it doesn’t mean you stop when things aren’t going your way. How would the Union ever have maintained if we had such an attitude of surrender?? Remember the South kicked our asses for the 1st couple of years.
Your right this isn’t WWII. Our military far exceeds the military of that time, and that doesn’t include our nukes. We got involved because Japan attacked us, so why did we attack in Europe??? Japan and Germany were an alliance of convience yes they traded eqiupment secrets, but that still doesn’t mean it was only for the end goals.
I am sorry Bob, but this war is very winable, and we are going to win. On that day, people on the left are going to look like raving fool idiots, because the deception they are under is going to completely control them. I wish you luck, but even more I hope that you find a greater relationship the the Lord. – Lorica
Soooo you are telling me a society that is 1000s of years old, is not ready for democracy, but a society that is hundreds of years old is?? Also, if they can’t handle it there, why do so many of them come here to live under it???
Just part and parcel of the usual, “soft” racism so endemic in the left. You see the same thing over and over again, when they make excuses for minorities, when they assume all members of a minority should think and act the same way (witness their vitriol for any minority who happens to be a conservative).