In a “triumph for Democrats,” the Senate voted to end the war, with a 51-46 divide. You don’t need to be a mathematician to know that many of the same Democrats now voting against the war voted for the war in 2003. In other words, having opportunistically voted in 2003 to set the “war ball” in motion, these same cynical Dems, knowing in advance that they’re protected by the President’s veto, are opportunistically voting to end that same war.
Let me put it even a little more clearly: when it was politically smart to do, these people signed on to a policy that they knew would inevitably lead to sending American troops overseas, putting those troops at risk of death or injury; that was intended to topple a tyrannical government; and, importantly, that would unlatch the Pandora’s box of open warfare in the Middle East. Now, for no other reason than that same political opportunism, precisely the same people are voting to end the war, knowing that if the President weren’t there to make their votes meaningless at a practical level, the inevitable results would be chaos, anarchy and massacre on a Cambodian/Vietnamese scale.
Their cynicism is breathtaking. The American people, a fundamentally moral and decent people, should be on their knees giving thanks that their President is also a fundamentally moral and decent person, and will spend his political capital, not to swell his poll numbers and pander to his base, but to keep people from dying. (And, I might add, that it will keep, not just Iraqis, but Americans, from dying. To announce a time table for withdrawal, with a hugely touted decrease in funding, is to turn our troops into sitting ducks.)
UPDATE: One of Michelle Malkin’s readers has a wonderful idea, which is to send members of Congress white feathers, since the white feather has long been a symbol of cowardice during war. Malkin even has a link for their purchase.
UPDATE II: During a conversation, DQ expressed some surprise that I was so vitriolic towards these Democratic Senators. He pointed out, rightly, that I’ve had a complete political conversion, and thought that I might be more sympathetic to those who change their minds. I often am sympathetic to people who rethink their positions, but I’m not here.
I’m vitriolic here because I don’t perceive these people as genuinely wanting to win a war they voted for. (And please keep in mind that, unlike the Senators, I’ve never had the power to effectuate my political views so, one could argue, I haven’t had to live with the consequences.) Once you go to war, you’ve got to see it through. That is, war is binary, in that you win or lose. The fact that you may regret having gotten into the situation does not give you license to walk away from a mess to which you contributed.
As it is, with their noisy base turning against them, the Democrats are leaping into losing, and it’s manifest that they’re doing it, not because it’s the right thing vis a vis America or Iraq, but because they can score points against Bush by doing so. They’re also doing it now because they know they can make a whole lot of noise without any actual repercussions. Bush’s veto will ensure that a move even they realize is suicidal will be nothing more than symbolic drum beating. They’ve taken a matter of national security, and reduced it to partisan one-upmanship. I have no truck with that. To me, it’s Vietnam all over again, and that was a Democratic withdrawal that resulted in the deaths of millions.
That’s why the vitriol. I strongly doubt the motives of many of them and, even if they have regrets, they’re taking a step that has no practical use for the situation they got us into, but that can only be intended to score political points.
Bookworm,
Would that it were simple cowardice. If it was simple cowardice, that would be plain and naked for all to see. Instead what we do see is a bunch of squid ink, as if that’s seeing.
I am convinced that the Democrats in Congress are not cowards per se.
We are seeing the fruits of subjectivism come to full fruition in the Left/ Liberals. This past couple of weeks, we have witnessed some pretty astounding things. Bill Moyers accusing Foxnews as being “political pornography” on camera and then flatly denying it on camera. He also said that Bill O’Reilly was too chicken to come on his show. This is a completely, categorically contradicted by the transcripts of their conversations.
Then we have Harper Collins, that illustrious publishing company, is deleting or re-writing Christianity from C.S. Lewis’s work. When confronted with this, they flatly denied it, even though various people had official correspondences with the company contradicts that. Their internal memo spoke of “sheering Lewis’s persona and works away from the term ‘Christian apologist’.” Still, they flatly deny it.
I think what we are seeing with the Democrats is the utter divorce of their minds from reality. Subjectivism allows people to hold to contradictions in their heads simultaneously, and it is nowhere more apparent than in the Leftists at the moment. They are for the troops as they de-fund them. They are for national security as they’ve consistently gutted it for 40+ years.
Cheney critizes this Congressional bill for the withdrawal of troops, and the Democrats are bringing articles of Impeachment against Cheney for “Undermining National Security”. Dennis Kucinich filed the papers just earlier this week.
God, I hope they pull back from the brink because make no mistake, the liberals aren’t cowards. They are just utterly divorced from reality.
I can understand that they would want to return to the pre-9/11 status quo. That’s a valid position to take. But just say it flat out rather than use all these smarmy tactics. I’d much rather someone come up and directly punch me in the nose over someone conniving and manipulating what I think and directing how I should think it.
What if Kerry had been elected, Book?
[...] [Discuss This Article With Bookworm at Bookworm Room] [...]
[...] Malkin and Co (sheeps here, here, here, here and here) are promoting the suggestion that "white feathers be sent to the [...]
No, Thomas, I don’t think they are divorced from reality - if they were, their actions would be random. They just live a very different reality for us, a dark, dark reality to which they are wedded and for which we will all pay the price.
The liberals are cowards, Thomas. They are cowards and thoughtless/unimaginative also. They, the alleged Senators and Congress”people” on the Democrat side, are being swamped by the e-mails of the far left. “Do what we elected you to do.” “Get out of Iraq.”"Impeach Bush.” It is almost a waste of time and type to say to them that pulling out of Iraq prior to victory will only invite the enemy here. And if suicide car bombs do strike Hollywood, or Manhasset, or Martha’s Vineyard, the Security Act which Reid, and Kennedy, and Murtha ram through a quivering “Congress” will make President Bush”s
Patriot Act look like, well, the Constitution.
Al
In one sense it is true. That the Left fears violence and belief in true things so much, that their fear is making them do certain things. Both politicians and the grassroots network. But fearing violence doesn’t mean you aren’t doing violent things. Their repression of that fear simply makes things worse for the rest of us.
But in another sense, they are not afraid or acting on fear, because they don’t believe Al Qaeda is a threat. Whether this is through mass hypnotic self-delusion or not, doesn’t seem to matter. They believe it. So long as it is true for them, can they really be said to be operating under a fear they won’t even recognize? Repress something hard enough, and as 1984 said, you can make it disappear. If not in reality, then in what matters.
As for courage is acting inspite of your fears, what if the Demos don’t have fear of Al Qaeda? What if they just fear losing power? Or moveOn and Daily Kos?
It just seems to me that before you can have courage, you need to have something, a belief a person or an object, that you are willing to kill or die for. And I don’t think the Left has anything like that, not even their pursuit of power counts as such.
What I fear is not that the Democrats voted to end the war, but that they instead voted for a much, much bigger, longer and costlier war. We and much of the rest of the world will pay a terrible price.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/04/friday_freefly__2.html#comment-67837452
That is my attempt at the bigger picture. Not tactics, or strategy, or even logistics. But everything combined. Attempting to pierce the Fog of War.
Hi Bookworm, DQ, et al., I try to drop by here about once a week or ten days to see if anything’s changed. I see, once again, it hasn’t. Meanwhile . . . .
Here’s my headliner as opposed to BW’s:
“We convinced the Democrats and American people to put their faith in us and go to war without a strategy that could win (and without considering the long-term consequences of our actions), and now we have to stay there forever, if you don’t continue to support us, you are with the terrorists”
Democrats have voted to end the war. It wasn’t a “slam dunk” as repeatedly promised by Republican war-supporters, it did not last 6 months as said by Rumsfeld, the insurgency is not “in its last throws” as said by Cheney, major combat operations in Iraq are not over contrary to what Bush stated more than 3 years ago. Maybe if the Bush Administration was not living in a fictional world 4 years ago, maybe if everything they’ve said did not demonstrate such terrible judgment (or flat-out dishonesty), maybe, just maybe, I’d have sympathy for anyone still backing Bush. But in reality, the war continues 4 years later. Saddam is dead, and can not hurt anyone ever again. The Iraqi people have gone to the polls and chosen Democracy. What is our objective now?
To me it seems, according to the bloggers of this site, that our objective is now: Stay in the region to avoid all-out middle-east instability(AS IF THIS PLACE HAS EVER BEEN STABLE FOR THE LAST 2,000 YEARS, HAHA).
Ok, so, please then, just admit it: We can never leave Iraq(at least for decades, if not centuries).
There is no “staying until we finish the job”, because the only way to finish the job is to stay forever and hope for the best.
Democrats are saying we should not do that, we should cut our losses and get out now. I honestly don’t know the answer to solve this huge problem—but I don’t think staying in the Middle-East is going to improve anything over the long haul.
What a mess this all has become…what a terrible and obviously ill-conceived decision by the Bush Administration to campaign for this war in the aftermath of 9-11.
Yes, they campaigned for this war, and many Democrats and Americans bought into their campaign for fear of future 9-11’s.
Have you ever bought into a campaign, voted for something you thought was for the best, and realized later you made a bad choice?
No matter how you spin this, it was the Bush Administration who pushed for this war and justified it to the Democrats and the American people.
The Democrats made a mistake, they’ve admitted it, and they are sincerely trying to mend their ways.
When will the Bush Administration admit their monumental mistake?
Be honest Neo-Cons —- quit acting like there is some near future date when everything is going to be OK and we can leave Iraq. There is not.
Come by to see me, BigAL. Lots going on in the big world.
It will never be OK to leave Iraq, without serious threats to American security….no matter if it’s next fall, or next spring, or next year, or next decade, or next century.
So unless you’re OK with staying forever, at some point, you’ll be a cut and running terrorist appeaser.
It sound like we really need Operation Yellow Elephant sending white feathers to all the young Republicans supporting the war but staying home for other priorities.
Why hasn’t Malkin enlisted? Maybe she should be sent a white feather. She’s of age…
According to the dems plan, we pull BACK, not OUT. That’s what the plan is here people, regardless of what bookworm here posits. So, the “terrorists” aka the iraqis we are to be spreading democracy to, or was it with, slow down and “wait us out”. Wow, that’s sounds terribly like they won’t be killing our people any more. AND, they might just have enough of a break in the killing for the so called Iraqi govt. to get up and do something for their own people.
the best line here: The American people, a fundamentally moral and decent people, should be on their knees giving thanks that their President is also a fundamentally moral and decent person.
Fundamentally moral and decent people don’t start wars based on lies and fabrications, or depend on drunkards for information when sending a country to war.
Why isn’t Malkin enlisted?
GO MICHELLE! SIGN UP TODAY! QUIT BEING A COWARDICE!
I agree with Orson Scott Card on this. Like it or not, we are going to fight this war no matter who’s going to sit in the White House. Mark my words, the same people demanding that the war end will be the same people demanding blood later on.
The only thing we are deciding, the ONLY thing, is how big this war is going to be and how many casualties we are going to be taking and how many casualties we will be inflicting on the enemy.
The causalities we’ve been suffering will be small fry.
You know Book, when you said that you had found acceptance and a place amongst conservatives, of all people, I sort of understood what you felt. I understood how we treated you, and how you can feel that that is a good thing to have, acceptance without the bitterness and rage. Discussion without the attempt to undermine, poison, and destroy. But I never quite could think up an example outside of the Neo-Neocon stories, about what it is like fearing being shunned by the Left for having a different view.
But now a I do, more than I used to anyways. Corporal Sanchez helped. Pamela Hess helped. Neo-neocon helped. You helped. As well as the Left. Helped me see what? What we see here right now, in the comments about Book and Michelle.
#
Hi Bookworm, DQ, et al., I try to drop by here about once a week or ten days to see if anything’s changed. I see, once again, it hasn’t. Meanwhile . . . .
Comment by helenl | April 27, 2007 | Edit
They never stop, they never tire. They pound on you and try to break down your defenses, and they will not stop even if they need to follow you into Hell to do it.
Retreat will never appease them. Many people are kind hearted. It did not stop them from pursuing their goals. It did not stop them from making mistakes as to who to follow.
Hell is always paved with good intentions, perhaps we are blessed in that the Left never admits to Bush having any good intentions. At all.
I have a little treat for people, because one of Neo’s commenters succintly demonstrated the real meaning behind the “enlist or else” argument of the Left. Stay tuned.
The shameful thing about chickenhawks is that the chickenhawks, that is people who have not served in the military themselves (i.e. have never risked their lives for their country), feel no qualms about sending other people’s children into war. (The even more shameful thing about chickenhawks in the case of Iraq is that this particular war was an unnecessary one, initiated under false premises, and one that has devastated our prestige in the world’s eyes.)-Reply
To apply logic to this, we must conclude then that even if the people that disagree with the Left politically, were to enlist, they would still not listen to the military. It seems like a very interesting Casino rule. Either you join and become voiceless because you are now military, not civilian, in foreign policy. Or you don’t join, stay out, and be called a chickenhawk that is for a war.
Nobody said the Left was fair. Not even the Left themselves. Equality was always their false slogan. And indeed it is equal. The only correct policy to the Left is whatever policy they decide.
ymarsakar - kinda like the right, eh? So, we started a war of choice with a country that is no threat to us without proper planning, equipment, or troop levels (remember, repubs are the only serious foreign policy people), while letting the guy go that was obviously a threat to us, and now you dirty fuggin dems don’t want to play? Why, you must be with the terrorists! Why don’t you move to france you surrender monkey?
Either you join and become voiceless because you are now military, not civilian, in foreign policy. Or you don’t join, stay out, and be called a terrorist lover for opposing a cause that isn’t being prosecuted seriously.
Nobody said the Right was fair. Not even the Right themselves. Equality has never been their slogan. And indeed it never will be equal. The only correct policy to the Right is whatever policy Gdub, the C+ student, drug addled, dry drunk, awol president decides.
Thomas,
I have to completely disagree with you. You and others are wrongly implying that Democrats and people who are pushing for this withdrawal are calling for the end of the war on terrorism. That is not true.
I, for instance (and this is all my opinion and the way I feel), am extremely upset because all the Iraq war has done is continually give more momentum to the radical extremist terrorist cause(and now, a disorganized place to launch and plan attacks from and an ever present target — the US military). So, the Iraq war, in my opinion, has been one HUGE BOOST for radical terrorists.
Osama bin Laden was a smart man (at least smarter than Bush), and sadly, Bush fell right into his trap. He knew, that if al Qaeda could get America’s attention with one major terrorist attack(which was 9-11), that it would most likely lead to America’s military invading middle-eastern countries, being seen by most of the world (especially ME Muslims) as occupiers and murderers, and leading to hundreds of thousands of Muslims to choose the path of extremism and join his cause against the infidels with the hope of sharing in the glory of international jihad.
We fell right into his trap. Everything we’ve done has been predictable and is pretty much making things worse. We are losing the war on terrorism for many reasons, #1) being the complete incompetence of President Bush.
Comment by Dennis | April 27, 2007 | Edit
Can’t people like you and Big ever come up with anything original for yourselves? Must it always be a product of staring in your never ending mirrors of narcissism?
The simple lack of brains that goes into saying that Bush fell into Osama’s trap by forcing Osama to run like mad to safety after Afghanistan was invaded, is… totally not reasonable. It’s like the Karl Rove mastermind plot. It’s so masterful, it makes no sense.
That’s why the vitriol.
I don’t think vitriolic is the right way to describe your response, Book. Disgusted and disillusioned might be better choices.
So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained.
Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less
I cannot trust a man to control others who cannot control himself.
Whiskey - I like it, I always did, and that is the reason I never use it.
My chief concern is to try to be an humble, earnest Christian.
Obedience to lawful authority is the foundation of manly character.
It is well that war is so terrible — lest we should grow too fond of it.
[W]e made a great mistake in the beginning of our struggle, and I fear, in spite of all we can do, it will prove to be a fatal mistake. We appointed all our worst generals to command our armies, and all our best generals to edit the newspapers
[T]here is no more dangerous experiment than that of undertaking to be one thing before a man’s face and another behind his back.
bullet
You must study to be frank with the world: frankness is the child of honesty and courage. Say just what you mean to do on every occasion, and take it for granted that you mean to do right.
bullet
With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword…
A true man of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help humbling others
My experience through life has convinced me that, while moderation and temperance in all things are commendable and beneficial, abstinence from spirituous liquors is the best safeguard of morals and health
The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong he may have committed against him. He can not only forgive; he can forget; and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which imparts sufficient strength to let the past be put the past.
The education of a man is never completed until he dies.
We failed, but in the good providence of God apparent failure often proves a blessing.
What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world.
You can have anything you want - if you want it badly enough. You can be anything you want to be, have anything you desire, accomplish anything you set out to accomplish - if you will hold to that desire with singleness of purpose.
Get correct views of life, and learn to see the world in its true light. It will enable you to live pleasantly, to do good, and, when summoned away, to leave without regret.
bullet
Never do a wrong thing to make a friend or keep one.
bullet
They do not know what they say. If it came to a conflict of arms, the war will last at least four years. Northern politicians will not appreciate the determination and pluck of the South, and Southern politicians do not appreciate the numbers, resources, and patient perseverance of the North. Both sides forget that we are all Americans. I foresee that our country will pass through a terrible ordeal, a necessary expiation, perhaps, for our national sins.
bullet
You cannot be a true man until you learn to obey
bullet
My trust is in the mercy and wisdom of a kind Providence, who ordereth all things for our good
They aren’t up to Lee’s standards, Book. And that is sad and disgusting at the same time.
Can’t people like you and gdub ever answer a question truthfully, or deal with a subject tossed to them, ever? Must it always be a product of staring into the moral abyss that is the right? And what was it the Osama said he wanted from us - Out of Saudi Arabia (done), for us to waste or prestige and money fighting ghosts (done), and for us to help him recruit (done). The facts seem to point to the direction of us falling into a trap, not Rovian dreams of matermindishness. You have facts that say otherwise ymar?
Sorry, BigAl, we will just have to disagree on this. I think the response to violent insanity, the variant that declares, “Look at what you made me do!”, is not the return to a defensive strategy. If this insanity operates on a macro/national level, our only response to this should be to proactively stop them at any cost before their insanity envelopes the world.
Our invasion of Iraq probably did increase the fanaticism of some Middle Eastern factions, but the fanaticism was already there to begin with. Our invasion did not cause the fanaticism. It only brought it up to the surface, like kicking a hornets nest. You can burn it and get it over with (the hornets would necessarily be angry and sting the hell out of you) or you can wait until their hive gets so large that the cost to you, should you decide to destroy it, would be higher if you wait.
The alternative I hear from Bush’s strategy is to resume the defensive positions of the 1990’s, the pre-9/11. I’m not even saying the Democrats want to surrender. I think they want to build fixed fortifications in a maneuver war, and if we don’t watch, we might wake to find ourselves surrounded by enemies, and they won’t just be the radical Muslims by then.
What must happen to Israel should we withdraw back to North America and conduct only covert operations? What must happen to our interests worldwide, since most nations WILL perceive our withdrawal as another American defeat? It doesn’t matter what we are calling the withdrawal here at home. Our enemies are already saying (Assad in particular) that they will attack Israel because America has no staying power and we abandon our allies.
If Syria follows through with that threat, it will just be the first fruits of our withdrawal, or if you rather, our redeployment back to the States.
China would probably jump Taiwan, and Japan, South Korea, and Singapore will sue for terms or fight as a consequence. (Our enemies think we won’t stand by our allies, right?) Russia will willy-nilly weigh into Eastern Europe, especially the Ukraine and Poland. Iran will begin moving south.
Now understand, I’m not saying this is what our intentions will be, but intentions will be moot past a certain point.
http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2007/04/23/history-of-war-opposition/
I have the links to Lee’s quotes and Sherman, at my blog post.
Can’t people like Y ever come up with anything original for himself/herself.
GOOOOOSSHHHHHHHH FRICKIN IDIOTS!
One last thing. Osama bin Laden believed us to be paper tigers who will retreat once the casualties get too high. He thinks we don’t have the stomach for it.
This is not a happy theory on my part. This is what he overtly said in one of his tapes.
Bin Laden’s strategy has been to wait us out, let us bleed, and watch us retreat. That’s his stated strategy.
and then he quotes Gen. Lee, of the Confedracy, who lost. i wonder if you read this part:
[W]e made a great mistake in the beginning of our struggle, and I fear, in spite of all we can do, it will prove to be a fatal mistake. We appointed all our worst generals to command our armies, and all our best generals to edit the newspapers
[T]here is no more dangerous experiment than that of undertaking to be one thing before a man’s face and another behind his back.
Truer words have not been spoken in some time, IMHO.
1984 says that reality is what you believe it to be, Thomas. I’m certainy some people can make Laden’s strategy whatever they believe it to be. Without a final judgement, what does it matter what happens in reality? They will be safe here in the US, for their lifetimes, if not their children’s.
#29 - so far seems to be going as planned. Had we been serious about attacking a country that was no threat to us and deposing their despot of a leader, we would have followed the Powell doctrine from the beginning.
Truer words have not been spoken in some time, IMHO.
Truer worlds have not been spoken in some time about the Left, certainly.
Y - what are you smokin dude, that’s some heavy duty stuff. You should probably step away from the bong now. Reality is the only thing that matters, what’s going on here and now. Your final judgement doesn’t mean boo here. If this administration, and the 30%ers would move to the reality based world, we’d be much better off.
#33 - sorry pal, but those words are in direct reference to the way we started and sold this war - nice try though.
Thomas.
I agree on disagreeing and I appreciate your response.
I do not discount the possibilities a withdrawal will bring for disaster. I also don’t discount the possibilities for as big or bigger disasters if we stay as an occupying force.
The bottom line: don’t kick a hornet’s nest unless you have a good plan to deal with the consequences.
Or else everyone just gets stung!!!—conservatives and liberals alike.
Bad decisions bring bad consequences
Bin Laden’s strategy has been to wait us out, let us bleed, and watch us retreat. That’s his stated strategy.
That’s not a strategy, that’s a consequence or result of what happens when you are successful at destroying an enemy.
or beating an enemy. if you watch them retreat you obviously don’t destroy them.
Maybe that’s a weakness we should take note of, maybe bin Laden really won’t follow us home or destroy us. Like you said, he just wants to watch us retreat.
it’s like Bush saying:
we’re gonna get ‘em on the run, and find them, and kill them.
That would be a desired result, not a strategy.
A strategy would be: we’re going to do the following things, and if we are successful, the result will be them being on the run, us finding them, and killing them.
W]e made a great mistake in the beginning of our struggle, and I fear, in spite of all we can do, it will prove to be a fatal mistake. We appointed all our worst generals to command our armies, and all our best generals to edit the newspapers
That is great Dennis, I will have to remember this one.
Big doesn’t even have a plan and he is talking about bad ones.
There’s more than that that you would benefit from remembering, B.
That’s not a strategy, that’s a consequence or result of what happens when you are successful at destroying an enemy.
When I referred to bin Laden’s statement as a strategy, I misspoke. It is a tactic. Clausewitz’s On War says that one tactic a defending army can use is to trade space/land for time. That is exactly what bin Laden and his fellow travelers did.
We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq while al Qaeda and the Baathists withdrew trading the territory they held in Afghanistan with the Taliban for time. Time was on their side, but not on ours.
As Ralph Peters and Victor Hanson has pointed out, democracies are great at revenge, but not lousy on pre-emption.
It’s like Bush saying:
we’re gonna get ‘em on the run, and find them, and kill them.
That would be a desired result, not a strategy.
A strategy would be: we’re going to do the following things, and if we are successful, the result will be them being on the run, us finding them, and killing them.
I don’t fault Bush much with these kinds of statements. It’s a given that the Bush Administration has a natural reticence for any kind of communication, but I don’t find that a handicap when it comes to these kinds of matters.
We are fighting an intelligence war. Most of our actions must be, of necessity, covert. And as such, we should broadcast our strategies across the airwaves. It’ll be like telling a cockroach, “Stay right where you are ’cause I’m gonna squash you like… like a cock-a-roach!” More than likely, your targets will conduct evasive maneuvers and you’d have to come up with something else.
Personally, I want my President to be vague in discussing these matters. I just wish President Bush was more articulate in front of the camera…
It seems we disagree fundamentally about how to conduct this war, BigAl, and we advocate two very distinct strategies on how to go about it. One strategy advocates keeping the war at a low level conflict, the other strategy advocates a broader conception of the war. However, perhaps we can agree that Radical Islamic Fundamentalism is bad and must be stopped. Perhaps we can also agree that this will be a long drawn out war (even if it is conducted out of sight on a strictly on a covert operations basis).
BigAl, I’m trying to find some common ground here. There has got to be some things we agree about in this war, right?
Opps. I said, “And as such, we should broadcast our strategies across the airwaves.”
I meant “we should not”.
Thomas,
I agree with the fact that we must stop radical extremist terrorists(and Islamic fundamentalists are the biggest problem of this type that we currently face in the world).
Those people are crazy man!
Dennis and Big Al seem to forget that Libya’s advanced nuclear program (and Kahn proliferation network) were exposed and halted because we went into Iraq. The oil for food corruption was only exposed after Saddam was gone. The world was not all sunshine before.
Provide a plan B. How many men are you going to send after Bin Laden, what kind, with what weapons and ROE, on which orders?
If Bush’s “strategy” is off in your expert opinion, provide a better one. Or is nagging a strategy?
Since you ‘agree’ with the 2nd Ammendment, what would be your solution to VTech, big?
Nothing but hot air breezing around, it seems. And not even the air of Michelle’s aura.
Baal’s got nothing. Why does that not surprise me.
[...] a mistake — or making a new one? Last week, I wrote a post that was very, very hostile to the surrender Democrats, many of whom had voted in 2003 to begin the War in Iraq, and almost all of whom are now demanding [...]