I encourage y’all to read the entirety of Ronald R. Griffin’s editorial today on OpinionJournal.com. Like Cindy Sheehan, he lost a son in Iraq, but she does not speak for him — nor for many of the parents of our fallen heroes.
One of my readers claimed it was “immoral and down right vicious” to try to attack the grieving mother of a dead soldier. By that argument, it would be vicious to attack Mr. Griffin, a grieving father, who supports the President’s leadership in Iraq:
Thirty-five years ago, a president faced a similar dilemma in Vietnam. He gave in and we got “peace with honor.” To this day, I am still searching for that honor. Today, those who defend our freedom every day do so as volunteers with a clear and certain purpose. Today, they have in their commander in chief someone who will not allow us to sink into self-pity. I will not allow him to. The amazing part about talking to the people left behind is that I did not want them to stop. After speaking to so many I have come away with the certainty of their conviction that in a large measure it’s because of the deeds and sacrifices of their fallen heroes that this is a better and safer world we now live in.
Mr. Griffin spoke with a number of
parents and loved ones of fallen heroes in an attempt to find out their reactions to all the attention Mrs. Sheehan has attracted. What emerges from those conversations is an empathy for Mrs. Sheehan’s suffering but a fundamental disagreement with her politics.
One parent believes Mrs. Sheehan “is dishonoring all soldiers” while the author’s wife says. “She is no more important than any other mother.”
She’s right because each one of the parents of our fallen heroes is important. Mrs. Sheehan no more speaks for all of them than does Mr. Griffin. Each parent, each widow, each relative left behind should have a place in our heart for the loss they have sustained. We should acknowledge as well the quality of their children, individuals who volunteered to serve in our armed forces, aware, when they did, that they could lose their lives defending our freedom. Mr. Griffin is right to ask for “equal time to other loved ones of fallen heroes. Feel the intensity of their love, their pride and the sorrow.” As we feel that intensity, we should be ever sensitive to their grief as we honor the service of their sons and daughters.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
Dan, are you implying that Mrs. Sheehan believes she speaks for the parents of all of the fallen? She has never said that, and you cannot produce an unedited statement from her to that effect.
But I do agree with you that we need to honor all of the parents who have sacrificed their children, regardless of their political viewpoints — something the other Collaborateuras here apparently do not believe, evidence being their attacks on Mrs. Sheehan in the other threads.
But, reading this and other recent posts (and comments) on Mrs. Sheehan, the war, its purpose, etc., I’m struck by one glaring fact — it is that NONE of the regularly eager supporters of this war on Gay Patriot (yourself Dan, Bruce, EMP-ty, Joe, Tiffany, NDT, Pat-cie, etc.) — NONE of you are planning on joining this war, are you?
Why is that Dan? Bruce? EMP-ty? Joe? Tiffany? NDT? (Pat-cie may be a little long in the tooth, so we’ll forgive him.)
Have you “other priorities”? Why not put your money where your mouths are every day and enlist? All of you, save perhaps Pat-cie, appear to be young enough to qualify. You all rant on and on about the validity of the war, you all ignore the declining enlistment rates, you rage against opponents of the war; yet not a one of you considers the war important (or noble) enough to join it.
Until you do, you remain, in the apt description by Senator Frank Lautenberg (a veteran), just a bunch of Chickenhawks — albeit, Gay Chickenhawks, the most offensive variety.
Well, she does speak for David Duke.
Let’s spend a moment contemplating the wit and wisdom of Mother Moonbat, the searing insight that won David Duke’s Nazi racist heart.
On those evil conniving Jews.
On who was really behind 9-11:
On terrorism.
On her son’s mission.
And her feelings on America.
Reader-
Do you actually not understand the difference between schoolyard taunts and reasoned argument? Or is it just that you prefer the former?
Dan, are you implying that Mrs. Sheehan believes she speaks for the parents of all of the fallen? She has never said that, and you cannot produce an unedited statement from her to that effect.
Nobody ever said that Mrs. Sheehan is speaking for them, did they? No. They and the WSJ is doing what liberals don’t have the balls to do. They are differentiating themselves from the liberal kooks that are doing their damndest to hijack this country. We are aware that she has never stated that and that’s why there’s no “undedited statement from her to that effect” and you damn well know it.
But I do agree with you that we need to honor all of the parents who have sacrificed their children, regardless of their political viewpoints — something the other Collaborateuras here apparently do not believe, evidence being their attacks on Mrs. Sheehan in the other threads.
How dare you. How fucking DARE you. Everyone has the same access to the same constitution. When you have freedom to make asinine statements in public, you can bet that you will be responded to. Playing a “get out of jail free” card just because you’re a grieving mother doesn’t wash and you know it. You make retarded statements in public, you better bet your ass that those who have a problem with it are going to say something. NOTHING excuses the hate and slander that she’s spreading.
But, reading this and other recent posts (and comments) on Mrs. Sheehan, the war, its purpose, etc., I’m struck by one glaring fact — it is that NONE of the regularly eager supporters of this war on Gay Patriot (yourself Dan, Bruce, EMP-ty, Joe, Tiffany, NDT, Pat-cie, etc.) — NONE of you are planning on joining this war, are you?
Why is that Dan? Bruce? EMP-ty? Joe? Tiffany? NDT? (Pat-cie may be a little long in the tooth, so we’ll forgive him.)
Have you “other priorities”? Why not put your money where your mouths are every day and enlist? All of you, save perhaps Pat-cie, appear to be young enough to qualify. You all rant on and on about the validity of the war, you all ignore the declining enlistment rates, you rage against opponents of the war; yet not a one of you considers the war important (or noble) enough to join it.
Once again, how fucking dare you. You’re tired and worn out liberal talking points arguement that nobody can support the war unless they serve is FUCKING BORING. It’s tedious. What the fuck difference does it make whether or not we serve? Not a damn bit of difference. On the other hand, how can you NOT support the war if you’ve not had your pussy ass there and don’t have a clue what’s going on? I demand you answer that. Why don’t you grow a fucking pair of balls and enlist so you have a fucking clue what’s going on instead of sucking on Fat Bastard Moore’s cock to tell you what’s going on?
Why don’t you yank that fucking tampon out of your bleeding gash and enlist? Then maybe you can tell us how horrible it is.
Until you do, you remain, in the apt description by Senator Frank Lautenberg (a veteran), just a bunch of Chickenhawks — albeit, Gay Chickenhawks, the most offensive variety.
You, sir ( and I’m pretty sure I’m using the term loosely) are more offensive than anybody on here. Also, you can take that “Chickenhawk” liber bullshit talking point and cram it up your bloody cunt.
BTW, Bruce & Dan, I stand by this post. If this sick sonofabitch wants an answer to his liberal fucktard questions, by damn he’s got it. If he wants to run around like a bleeding gash and bitch about how his feelings are hurt, I say Tough shit. Deal with it. You want fucking freedom of speech without accountability “Reader”, you got it. You ask offensive questions (and you set out to offend us), you get offensive answers.
Clint said,
Reader, Do you actually not understand the difference between schoolyard taunts and reasoned argument?
There is no evidence that Reader does. Which is why I have found one can scroll over his comments and be no poorer for it.
Mrs. Sheehan no more speaks for all of them than does Mr. Griffin.
Exactly, and that’s why she’s been asking the MSM, insistent upon creating some kind of symbolic martyr, to focus more on the message and less on the messenger.
On the other hand, you have people like Michelle Malkin who are completely comfortable speaking like messengers of the dead telling Cindy Sheehan what her own dead son’s feelings are. That’s disrespectful.
Once again, how fucking dare you. You’re tired and worn out liberal talking points arguement that nobody can support the war unless they serve is FUCKING BORING.
I think the point being made is that individuals, removed from the immediacy of the casualties of war, should defer to those individuals who through circumstance have no choice but to be concerned because of the involvement of family and friends.
For example, a bunch of snot-nosed college kids at a young Republicans convention, rallying behind the war cries of the party as long as they’re not part of the human collateral damage, should perhaps stop to quietly consider the sacrifice of the 1800+ soldiers killed and their families and really think about the issues before they say stupid things like “I serve the war better by my participation and support here in the US.”
They’re not big on the put up or shut up view of life. My first cousin is serving. Our family takes the attitude that he’s doing his duty and we’re all very proud of him but we’re also disconcerted, confused and worrying what this conflict is really all about. What it is, what it was and what it may become have never really jived.
I do not object to anyone disagreeing with the woman’s views. And indeed I do not agree with her myself. I do object however to the instant absolute vilification that occurs whenever anyone dares to question the wisdom of the current GOP powers that be. The Left uses her as a martyr, the Right calls her a traitor in order to dismiss any possible criticism. There is no moral standing for either position. Both are equally guilty and equally deficit of any common decency or humanity. Screw them one and all.
right-wing thug, Larry Chad Northern, a Waco real estate agent and gun nut ran his pickup truck over hundreds of crosses bearing the names of heroic Americans killed in Iraq. Will supporters of Bush call him anti-American? In fact the don’t even acknowledge this incident.
Reader needs to expand his reading list.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/112583.php
On the other hand, you have people like Michelle Malkin who are completely comfortable speaking like messengers of the dead telling Cindy Sheehan what her own dead son’s feelings are. That’s disrespectful.
She didn’t. Put down the Kool-Aid and actually read what she said. To vomit the liberal BS that she did is disrespectful.
I think the point being made is that individuals, removed from the immediacy of the casualties of war, should defer to those individuals who through circumstance have no choice but to be concerned because of the involvement of family and friends.
The point is that “Reader” came on with an agenda to spread the usual leftist putrid vitriol with the same tired, worn out arguement other lame brained bastards have used before. It didn’t work then, it doesn’t work now. Besides, how do you or “Reader” know if any of us have served before or not? He’s going to lambast us as “chickenhawks”? I don’t think so. I for one won’t let you or anybody else get away with that weak BS anymore.
For example, a bunch of snot-nosed college kids at a young Republicans convention, rallying behind the war cries of the party as long as they’re not part of the human collateral damage, should perhaps stop to quietly consider the sacrifice of the 1800+ soldiers killed and their families and really think about the issues before they say stupid things like “I serve the war better by my participation and support here in the US.”
Exactly who has said that and why do feel it’s best to lump us all together with that person? Do you presume to tell us what they’re thinking? If so, why is it that you can, but Malkin can’t do what you allege?
Hell, by your arguement, you can’t support police, firefighters, EMTs etc. if you’ve never been one, can you? You can’t support teachers, factory workers, pilots, doctors, lawyers etc. etc. etc. if you’ve never been one.
Hey! Wanna bitch about President Bush? Have you ever been president before? If you had, you’d know that it’s best to keep your mouth shut even if you do want to bitch, that is if you have any class. Wanna bitch about the war on terror? Why don’t you try running one.
“Will supporters of Bush call him anti-American? In fact the don’t even acknowledge this incident.”
Actually, Laura, Michelle Malkin, myself and a whole host of others have condemned his actions. Maybe you and Reader should do some reading together.
I do object however to the instant absolute vilification that occurs whenever anyone dares to question the wisdom of the current GOP powers that be.
I’m not aware of anybody who has said that she’s a traitor.
Secondly, if she’s going to lie, slander and make anti-Semitic remarks in public, they’re free game to be held accountable.
BTW, you don’t think glorifying Lynne Stewart and cozying up to Code Pink to be a little questionable at the least?
To focus back on the issues that the protesters raise, John Derbyshire, at NRO, links to this piece, Global democratization: the unasked questions by Lawrence Auster, that he thinks every conserservative should read:
http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4734
As to the chickenhawk charges, I agree with Derbyshire that it “is nontrival.”
I would say that this is the most salient point to the argument made between the posts from Reader and from Gay Cowboy Bob
“I think the point being made is that individuals, removed from the immediacy of the casualties of war, should defer to those individuals who through circumstance have no choice but to be concerned because of the involvement of family and friends.”
Now, if one reads that, the assumption is obvious — that none of us who support the war have friends or family involved. Why? Because if we did, like Cindy Sheehan, we wouldn’t support it.
Now, if you are standing here and tell us that you know as an absolute certainty that none of us have friends or family involved when you don’t even know who the majority of us are, who our family members and friends are, where they are, or what they do for a living, then you’re willing to make a stand on stereotype far greater than most people in the reality-based universe do.
Meanwhile, as to the “chickenhawk” comment, perhaps you should explain to us your reasons for avoiding war, even as literally millions of Iraqis were starved, tortured, mutilated, imprisoned, and murdered.
No one likes or wants to go to war. However, when it’s the best of bad alternatives, it must be done. Precisely because of the Left’s resistance to any type of military action, hundreds of thousands of Rwandans lost their lives. The same mistake didn’t need to be perpetuated in Iraq, where eleven years of international indolence and cowardice from the likes of Lautenberg had created far worse.
ND30, so we (as a nation, not you or I through actual combat of course) are forever to wage war throughout the world for “humanitarian” reasons?
Patrick, I don’t think our views are all that far apart, at least on this one except that you are wrong to say that “the current GOP powers that be” instantly vilify anyone who dares question their wisdom. I just don’t see that. Indeed, I see quite the opposite. I see much more vilification coming from the left, particularly of the president, his closest advisors and those who support him.
Indeed, in many of the postings on conservative blogs and other websites, I have read much sympathy for Mrs. Sheehan’s loss, but disagreement with her extreme views.
Where we agree is that there is no moral standing for the position of calling her a martyr or calling her a traitor in order to dismiss any possible criticism.
At least one Democratic official, Florida Senator Bill Nelson, has called her a “symbol for all parents who have lost children in Iraq.” I have yet to see such a high-ranking Republican call her a traitor.
Reader: “But I do agree with you that we need to honor all of the parents who have sacrificed their children…”
That’s truly an offensive and idiotic statement. If you believe that, you don’t understand the definition of the word “sacrifice”. Of course, it serves the Left’s interests to pretend that our military was forced into fighting the War on Terror and that none of the soldiers actually made a conscious decision to enlist, Casey Sheehan included.
I think most Americans already realize what outright liars these radical Leftists are so this kind of rhetoric shouldn’t come as a suprise to anyone. But it needs to be challenged by truth, fact, and logic wherever it occurs.
Actually, anon, I think that the more we intervene, the less it will become necessary.
To use an example, when I used to teach horse training, my very first lesson to my students was to take them out into the pasture and have them watch their horses, which had just been turned out with each other for the first time. As one quickly notes, horses have a hierarchy that determines who goes first and who gets to do what they want among themselves, and the first establishment of it involves a lot of kicking, squealing, rearing, and general chaos.
The next day, I brought them out just before I fed and asked them to watch what happened. As they saw, the horses, as they jockeyed for position at the feeders, had replaced the violence of the previous day with a warning nicker, bared teeth, or laid-back ears. When another horse didn’t respond to the first warning, they escalated the threat, and there did end up being a few kicks and rears, but not nearly as many as there had been at first. When I brought them out the next day and did the same thing, there were hardly any actions above or beyond dirty looks; indeed, if you weren’t watching closely, you would have thought I had trained them on which feeder they could use and in what order they could use it.
The lesson, as I showed my students, is that it takes very little with horses to get what you want, as long as they respect the fact that you can do far worse to them. Thus, as I put it, if something needs to be done, ask nicely first, less nicely second, and not nicely at all last. Hitting a horse carries the potential for several bad consequences and should be avoided, but if it’s necessary to stop them from running you over or taking you through a barbed-wire fence, it must be done.
Some horses by their nature never require much more than a gentle ask. Others require a knock-down, drag-out battle to do the simplest things. The secret to being a good trainer is twofold; first, being tender enough to gently ask first and being tough enough to battle when necessary, and second, knowing when something is or isn’t worth battling over.
In the case of American diplomacy, the entire insurgent strategy and Saddam’s strategy before it is based around the lessons of Vietnam and Somalia — Americans will not tolerate any casualties and will back off if they get sufficient negative publicity. In short, back to the horse analogy, all we will do is gently ask — and when a horse knows that, they obey you at their leisure. Similarly, countries know that there will be no consequences for defiance, and they act accordingly.
I do not agree with her myself. I do object however to the instant absolute vilification that occurs whenever anyone dares to question the wisdom of the current GOP powers that be.
Gryph, grow the hell up. If people are going to rant about neo-con conspiracies and wars for Israel, then they should be willing to take the heat for their “positions.” The left needs to stop whining any time one of their idiotic conspiracy theories is ridiculed. If you can’t stand being criticized, then maybe you should stay out of the arena of ideas.
LOL. I can’t forget how initially shocked I was when I saw my Dad slug our horse one time because she kept reaching around and trying to bite him when he was cinching the saddle pad. It wasn’t a very hard slug, it wouldn’t have hurt me, but I was morally indignant about it for a few days. Until she started trying to bite me in the ass too….
To those here who lie about what Mrs. Sheehan says, here are her own words (posted this morning):
“Another thing is that the Israel thing has not died. I did not say that my son died for Israel. I have never said it, I don’t think it, I don’t believe it. It is just another lie, smear tactic from the right. It needs to die right now. It’s not the truth. I stand by everything that I have said. But I will not stand by things that I haven’t said. I am not anti-Semitic. I am just anti-killing. George Bush is responsible for killing so many people, but nobody scrutinizes anything he says, especially leading up to the war. Since there is nothing to smear me about with the truth, they have to tell lies. A former friend who is anti-Israel and wants to use the spotlight on me to push his anti-Semitism is telling everyone who is listening that I believe that Casey died for Israel and has gone so far as to apparently doctor an email from me. People have to know that he doesn’t speak for me. ABC Nightline can’t confirm his email is real and therefore any reporting on it is irresponsible. That is not my issue. That is not my message and anyone who knows me knows it doesn’t sound like me.
I’m focused on my mission in Crawford: to meet with the President and demand answers. That’s it. I have spent enough time on that. Enough is enough.
So, tonight was a great night with the vigil capping it off. There are so many good things happening around the country. I love the people of America, especially after seeing the most amazing stories from the vigils across the country.”
The chickenhawk epithet is especially offensive because it amounts to nothing more than a crass attempt at bullying other people who support the war effort. The conduct of a war falls under the rubric of public affairs. Members of the public are free to comment on public affairs whether they are personally involved with them.
I, for one, am not personally affected by abortion, but I’m certainly free to comment on it, because it falls into the category of public affairs. So do agricultural policy (I’m not a farmer), foreign policy (I’m not a diplomat), and immigration policy (I was born in the United States). Just because I’m not personally involved does not preclude me from participating in a public debate about these issues. Even if I’m gay.
The “gay chickenhawk” slur is incredibly irresponsible. One reason I never joined the military is that I’m gay, and gay men are not legally allowed to join the military. I’m 50 years old, so I couldn’t enlist if I wanted to, and even if DADT weren’t in place.
Any opponent of the war who is so conceited as to think that he can bully me with cheap insults into keeping quiet about the most important issue of our time is sadly delusional.
Here’s an interesting sidepoint. The lefties are going around putting up fields of crosses with soldiers’ names on them and such and in many cases, they don’t have the permission of the soldiers’ familiaes to use their names that way. Is that right?
Cindy Sheehan whines: It is just another lie, smear tactic from the right.
What a phony she is. I’ve got one word to say about her: Moo.
Oh, okay I lied. I’ve got a few more:
Cindy Sheehan is an arrogant emotionally manipulative self-righteous Marxist/John Lennonist.
Well ND30, you need to transfer your horse training skills to nation-building on the battlefield. Let us know how it goes. Are we the world’s horse trainer? Are other nations horses that be bought and moved to our ranch? How good are you with zebras? Do you have to slap each horse, or can you just slap one as an example to the rest?
…other nations that [we] bought and moved to our ranch…
She didn’t. Put down the Kool-Aid and actually read what she said. To vomit the liberal BS that she did is disrespectful.
Well actually she did. Here’s the video footage to prove it. And here are some of the comments from the Young Republicans who lack the zeal for enlistment.
No one likes or wants to go to war. However, when it’s the best of bad alternatives, it must be done. Precisely because of the Left’s resistance to any type of military action, hundreds of thousands of Rwandans lost their lives.
And that’s precisely what’s at issue here. We did have options that were not exhausted when the descision was made to invade. It’s unfortunate that the administration made such an erroneous assumption (highlighted by Bush’s PR spectacular aircraft carrier speech) that the conflict would have a quick resolution like the previous Kuwait conflict and that we also chose to relegate our former allies to irrelevancy by our actions. What a better position we’d be in all around if we’d had better, less assumptive planning and we chose to keep the world community involved.
And as far as your Rwandan comment, I could name a list of countries practicing genocide or human rights abuses but we don’t eschew our allies and gallop in like the Rough Riders to “liberate” these countries. Places like Saudi Arabia, the prime financial center of Al-Queda and profligate human rights abuser, do we?
Lots of replies for you.
She didn’t. Put down the Kool-Aid and actually read what she said. To vomit the liberal BS that she did is disrespectful.
Well actually she did. Here’s the video footage to prove it. And here are some of the comments from the Young Republicans who lack the zeal for enlistment.
No one likes or wants to go to war. However, when it’s the best of bad alternatives, it must be done. Precisely because of the Left’s resistance to any type of military action, hundreds of thousands of Rwandans lost their lives.
And that’s precisely what’s at issue here. We did have options that were not exhausted when the descision was made to invade. It’s unfortunate that the administration made such an erroneous assumption (highlighted by Bush’s PR spectacular aircraft carrier speech) that the conflict would have a quick resolution like the previous Kuwait conflict and that we also chose to relegate our former allies to irrelevancy by our actions. What a better position we’d be in all around if we’d had better, less assumptive planning and we chose to keep the world community involved.
And as far as your Rwandan comment, I could name a list of countries practicing genocide or human rights abuses but we don’t eschew our allies and gallop in like the Rough Riders to “liberate” these countries. Places like Saudi Arabia, the prime financial center of Al-Queda and profligate human rights abuser, do we?
V-K,
I don’t think people need to give permission for public memorials.
Otherwise this site would not exist.
http://www.morethananumber.org/
Such sadness.
Excuse me, but don’t I get a chance to rebut those people on here who’s statements on here are factually wrong?
The point being made, anon, is that, if you want to ultimately have to use the minimum amount of “ask” to get what you want accomplished, it needs to be made clear that you will use the maximum if necessary.
Teddy Roosevelt used to say, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” That works for as long as people believe that you just might use that stick if necessary; once they realize that you won’t, it makes no difference.
Are we the world’s horse trainer?
Not necessarily. However, we are the ones with the best facilities and the most skills.
Are other nations horses that be bought and moved to our ranch?
Who says you have to buy or move anything? I’ve trained other peoples’ horses on their place and left them alone there.
How good are you with zebras?
LOL…..the question one must always ask when working with zebras is how much you are willing to give around the zebra’s schedule. If you don’t mind having something that’s damn near untrainable around the house, so be it, but when it breaks down the fence….
Do you have to slap each horse, or can you just slap one as an example to the rest?
In general, the latter applies, especially if you’re in a herd situation. Horses make their living by keeping their eyes open and always being aware of who’s in charge.
She didn’t. Put down the Kool-Aid and actually read what she said. To vomit the liberal BS that she did is disrespectful.
Well actually she did. Here’s the video footage to prove it. And here are some of the comments from the Young Republicans who lack the zeal for enlistment. http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/090304X.shtml
No one likes or wants to go to war. However, when it’s the best of bad alternatives, it must be done. Precisely because of the Left’s resistance to any type of military action, hundreds of thousands of Rwandans lost their lives.
And that’s precisely what’s at issue here. We did have options that were not exhausted when the descision was made to invade. It’s unfortunate that the administration made such an erroneous assumption (highlighted by Bush’s PR spectacular aircraft carrier speech) that the conflict would have a quick resolution like the previous Kuwait conflict and that we also chose to relegate our former allies to irrelevancy by our actions. What a better position we’d be in all around if we’d had better, less assumptive planning and we chose to keep the world community involved.
And as far as your Rwandan comment, I could name a list of countries practicing genocide or human rights abuses but we don’t eschew our allies and gallop in like the Rough Riders to “liberate” these countries. Places like Saudi Arabia, the prime financial center of Al-Queda and profligate human rights abuser, do we?
The juvenille snide remarks are typical of the extremism on both sides. No matter how we got into this mess (sloppy intelligence, a bellicose administration, etc.), both Republicans and Democrats supported an invasion of a soveriegn nation on false pretenses. Now that we’re in, how in the hell to we get out, and soon?
We certainly aren’t endearing ourselves to the people in the Mideast. We certainly aren’t unified at home. We have no legitimate reason for the invasion in the first place. Nearly everyone agrees that the war is grossly undermanned. We’ve lost 1800 soldiers. We’ve maimed thousands more. And all we’ve done thus far is capture and kill the Husseins. In other words, things aren’t going right. And there’s no hope on the horizon for things to get better – short of a pull out.
Our Commander thinks we can “export” freedom and democracy like apples and computers to a belligerent, third-world nation overnight. LOL. These people haven’t a clue of what that means, let alone any practice in self-determination. One cannot export democracy and freedom like commodities. They have to be earned, and I don’t see Iraqis all that endeared to earning anything (unless they think they get the spoils after this fiasco is over, which is highly probable).
So unless someone can give a “real” reason for being in Iraq NOW, I think the growing consensus by Republicans and Democrats alike that we made a grievous error and to withdraw is merited.
From the story with the misleading title “Young Republicans Support Iraq War, but Not Willing to Join the Fight”:
“Would you be willing to put on the uniform and go to fight in Iraq? In more than a dozen interviews, Republicans in their teens and 20s offered a range of answers.”
So, some teenagers interviewed for the article would be willing to enlist and others do not. Who might have imagined!
To those here who lie about what Mrs. Sheehan says, here are her own words (posted this morning):
Actually, “Reader”, she wrote it in a letter to Nightline and ABC News confirmed her signature. Guess she didn’t put that little tidbit on Fat Bastard’s blog, did she?
#1 and #4 –
ThatGayConservative……Reader is someone I have learned to not respect or bother with, normally. However, the “ChickenHawk” accusation seems to be flying more, and this one time I will consent to make a response.
First, I don’t presume to decide where our troops should be sent.
What I do is (1) THANK our troops for their service in the noble cause of defending us in Afghanistan and in Iraq; and (2) DEFEND them from slanders of the ignorant who claim our troops are not engaged in a noble cause – and who, to make their own case, misrepresent facts or sometimes just don’t know certain facts.
That’s what my comments on these “war” topics are about.
It is a sad comment on today’s world that occasionally – very occasionally – the speaker doing the ignorant slanders in category (2) may themselves be a servicemember, or a crazed mother of a servicemember. Statistically, it stands to reason. We have literally millions of servicemembers (and parents). It stands to reason, statistically, that 1% or 2% of them would not know their own business very well, and would ignorantly choose to join in the far-Left slanders on their fellow servicemembers. I don’t care. I’m interested in defending the 98% of servicemembers who know their business and are resolutely doing a fantastic job for America, in thoroughly noble causes.
Now, as to whether I have volunteered for the military?
Let’s say that I have moved in that direction at a couple points in my life, and military people warned me off it, because of a biological condition. No, you don’t get to know what it is.
Let’s also say, again, that I have never urged our troops to be sent anywhere; not even to Iraq. I’m not in that business. My self-appointed business, again, is merely (a) educating myself about their mission and why they were sent, and (b) sharing what I know when appropriate to defend them from the Left’s ignorant slanders. I figure, if they’re over there, and if I can’t be, then providing them some kind of cover in political debate is the least I can do.
And that’s quite a bit more for them than what Reader does. Enough about Reader.
“The lefties are going around putting up fields of crosses with soldiers’ names on them and such and in many cases, they don’t have the permission of the soldiers’ familiaes to use their names that way.”
(Snark): Well, at least they’re getting closer to God! (Not snark): Maybe the actual meaning of the cross won’t be lost on them even though they’re degrading it by making it into a political prop. (Snark again): Wonder how that’ll play when they try to get through the Pearly Gates? (Not snark again): Or how it’ll play when they’re forced to confront the families of the soldiers who’s memories they’re exploiting?
We did have options that were not exhausted when the descision was made to invade.
Then I’m sure, Bob, that you are willing to admit the following:
— Saddam was not in compliance with ANY of the prior UN resolutions passed against him, including those governing weapons-building, inspections, support of terrorism, and human rights abuses.
— Saddam’s combination of torture, maiming, imprisonment, starvation, and outright murder was killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis annually
— Several attempts had been made to overthrow Saddam; all had failed and been brutally repressed, i.e. the Shi’ites and the Marsh Arabs.
— Saddam was imprisoning and killing entire families for the crime of political dissidence, including toddlers.
— Saddam threatened anyone who would accurately report on conditions in Iraq, i.e. CNN, with death for their local sources and workers, not to mention their own staff.
— Top UN and government officials from around the world were receiving bribes, kickbacks, and “gifts” from the Ba’athist regime for the specific purpose of ignoring Saddam’s misdeeds, conditional on them sabotaging any attempts to bring Saddam to heel.
You see, one cannot judge the veracity of options if one refuses to acknowledge that Ba’athist Iraq was, by all accounts other than Michael Moore’s, a hell of Dante-esque proportions.
Places like Saudi Arabia, the prime financial center of Al-Queda and profligate human rights abuser, do we?
Saudi Arabia has done two things; started their own liberalization process and cracked down hard on al-Qaeda. To go back to my horse analogy, they didn’t respond when we asked nicely, but they responded when we asked less nicely — and when they realized it was in their best interest to cooperate.
Personally, given that it appears that the head of the UN itself, as well as most of the officials related directly to Iraq, were on the take from Saddam in some way, shape, or form, I fail to see why the Bush administration should be held accountable for failing to sway the minds of people who were being bribed against that eventuality. I also would say that it gives an ironic twist to the left’s cries of “No blood for oil,” when it appears obvious that they were more than willing to trade the blood of millions of Iraqis for Saddam’s oil money.
#21 – “George Bush is responsible for killing so many people, but nobody scrutinizes anything he says, especially leading up to the war.”
That, right there, is a delusional statement. (George Bush isn’t “responsible for killing so many people”. And EVERYONE scrutinizes EVERYTHING he says; in fact, the Cindy Sheehans of the world lie about Bush outright. And still aren’t in prison…like they would be under Saddam…..because this *is* America. An irony lost on them.)
Well actually she did. Here’s the video footage to prove it. And here are some of the comments from the Young Republicans who lack the zeal for enlistment. http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/090304X.shtml
Actually, GayCowHumper, she didn’t. Here’s the quote they used:
Michelle: I can’t imagine that Casey Sheehan would approve of such behavior
Here’s the whole quote that you and the other liberal ass clowns refuse to show:
She has aligned herself now with Michael Moore, who considers those very Iraqi terrorists Minutemen. That’s what he calls them. He’s likening them to the American revolutionaries and considers them heroes. I can’t imagine that Casey Sheehan would approve of such behavior, conduct, and rhetoric.
As far as the other crap you posted? You’re going to smear all Republicans based on the comment of ONE 18 y/o girl? Are you REALLY that vacuous? Seriously.
Besides, she did say that she’s willing to work to support the effort from here. Further, she may not be able to serve. Did you think of that? NO. You’re so full of hate that that doesn’t matter a damn to you, does it. How about the fact that women generally don’t go out of the Green Zone except on special details? What would you have her do there?
Last I checked, despite the liberal left’s best efforts, we still have a volunteer military.
“Nearly everyone agrees that the war is grossly undermanned.”
Who? (Who is “nearly everyone”?)
“In other words, things aren’t going right. And there’s no hope on the horizon for things to get better – short of a pull out.”
You’ve certainly got the MSM line down. Maybe that answers my question.
Not claiming that Iraq is a bed of roses, but reports from people on the ground are different.
“So unless someone can give a “real” reason for being in Iraq NOW, I think the growing consensus by Republicans and Democrats alike that we made a grievous error and to withdraw is merited. ”
What “growing consensus”??
But, on to the REAL reasons to be in Iraq NOW:
Because if we withdrew NOW, the Baathists (Saddam regime elements) and foreign jihadists (al Qaeda in Iraq) would regain control. Not only would we be consigning the Iraqi people to millions of deaths, but Iraq would once again become a safe haven (as opposed to a dangerous place) for terrorists, including but not limited to al Qaeda, and actively pursuing the development and supply of WMD as they breed resentment among their own people. That would be against our self-defense interests. You’re free to support it or vote for it. I’m not going to join with you.
(Snark): Well, at least they’re getting closer to God! (Not snark): Maybe the actual meaning of the cross won’t be lost on them even though they’re degrading it by making it into a political prop.
I stumbled across a blog earlier that pointed out that the crosses are on public property. Last I saw, that was a no-no.
#40 🙂 Yeah, liberals are a funny bunch. If a conservative did the EXACT same thing, nothing any different – just go to public property, put up a bunch of temporary crosses honoring our fallen dead soldiers by name – there wouldn’t only be some lone angry liberal driving over it; there would be ACLU lawsuits.
Our Commander thinks we can “export” freedom and democracy like apples and computers to a belligerent, third-world nation overnight.
Hmmmmmm. I don’t recall him ever saying anything like that. In fact, I recall that he’s made several statements to the contrary.
So unless someone can give a “real” reason for being in Iraq NOW, I think the growing consensus by Republicans and Democrats alike that we made a grievous error and to withdraw is merited.
Comment by Stephen
So you can’t see the forest for the trees. How about the fact that Khadafi(sp?) has folded? How about reforms in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Jordan, Kuwait etc. Do you think they Syrians got bored and left Lebanon?
How about if we tuck tail and run away (again), it will further show the terrorists that we are a “paper tiger”. How about the fact that if we left now, thousands will most likely die there and the country will spiral into a mess that, most likely, we’ll have to go back and fix?
Regarding WMDs, all we’ve done is confirm that the large amounts aren’t in Iraq. We have not proved that they never existed. There’s still speculation out there that they exist elsewhere to be retrieved at a later time.
So, do you feel like rolling out the welcome mat for more attacks here in the United States? Do you think we should just hang out here until Iraq is worse than it is now and then take a gamble on how many lives will be lost later? Or should we fix it first?
I heard a good analogy the other day. If the police SWAT team bursts into your house and wrecks the place and then learns they had the wrong address, would you want them to totally leave or would you want them to fix everything?
33. — Apparently, the original email was posted on the internet over three months ago, but for some reason, Mutha Moonbat didn’t see any need to disavow it then. But, considering how she changed her story about her first meeting with Bush, why should anyone believe her when she tries to cover her ass now?
38. — This blatant distortion of other people’s words is just the latest in a series — Michelle Malkin, John Roberts, Rick Santorum — is another flesh wound in the gradual bleeding out of what’s left of the left’s credibility.
And unlike those guys, Mutha Moonbat’s quotes actually look even worse in their full context.
Here’s the whole quote that you and the other liberal ass clowns refuse to show:
Using the whole quote doesn’t change the effect. Michelle Malkin did not know Casey Sheehan. She never spoke with his friends or relatives and especially did not speak to Cindy Sheehan. She is speaking on behalf of Casey Sheehan as if she knew how he felt about anything. And that’s a self-serving misrepresentation at best.
As far as the other crap you posted? You’re going to smear all Republicans based on the comment of ONE 18 y/o girl?
The point being made is that at these rallies of gung-ho young Republicans – very pro-war – of everyone they spoke to they couldn’t find anyone who had served or was initiating action to serve in the Iraqi conflict. All they found were convenient excuses or verbal runarounds. If these young Republicans so believed what we are doing was right, and they expect other people to die for it, why are they also not willing to die for it as well? It’s a simple question.
Last I checked, despite the liberal left’s best efforts, we still have a volunteer military.
Then you haven’t checked very recently. It’s this Republican administration that has already put together planning for conscription if necessary. It is also this administration that has liberally used a backdoor draft policy.
She is speaking on behalf of Casey Sheehan as if she knew how he felt about anything. And that’s a self-serving misrepresentation at best.
So you allege that a soldier serving multiple hitches in Iraq would have no problem whatever that his mother is supported by Chief Ass Clown, who considers the enemy he’s fighting are the real patriots?
You really are that vacuous, GayCow.
If these young Republicans so believed what we are doing was right, and they expect other people to die for it, why are they also not willing to die for it as well?
Here again, why does a person HAVE to serve to support the effort? Many Americans have supported previous wars without actually serving. Before the Neo-Socialist fucktards spun Vietnam into a failure, Americans were much more supportive of war efforts. WWII is a prime example. Makes you sick, don’t it.
I ask you: How can you oppose the war if you haven’t been over there fighting it? It’s a simple question.
As mentioned above, by you’re arguement, you can’t support the police unless you’re willing to become one. You can’t support teachers unless you’re willing to become one. You can’t support (or not) tax issues because you’re not willing to become a tax professional.
It’s stupid and you damn well know it.
It’s this Republican administration that has already put together planning for conscription if necessary. It is also this administration that has liberally used a backdoor draft policy.
Exactly what are these conscription plans? I have an idea what you’re gonna say, but do spin on.
Also, the “backdoor draft” policy is NOT a draft. Further, it’s been used “liberally” before. Most recently by your lord and master BJ. Did you whine, piss and moan about it then?
You’re going to reference some BS liberal spin that the following debunks, right GayCow?
On October 5, 2004, the House of Representatives voted 402 – 2 to defeat H.R. 163, the bill cited as proof that the Selective Service was preparing to reinstate a military draft. The vote made official what has been a reality since January 7, 2003, when H.R. 163 was introduced despite nearly total opposition in Congress to restoring the draft. Without Congressional support, the draft cannot be reinstated. A similar bill languishes in the Senate.
Both President George W. Bush and Senator John F. Kerry have stated for the record that they oppose a draft. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also has opposed the draft on numerous occasions.
Since 1980, the Selective Service System has discharged its mission of preparing to manage a draft if and when Congress and the President so direct. The House action proves that the Selective Service has gotten no such direction. That being the case, the Agency will maintain its readiness as required by law, and to register young men between the ages of 18 and 25. That mission has been reaffirmed frequently by successive Administrations and by Congress under the leadership of both parties.
http://www.sss.gov/
#44, #45 – Conscription was ended, and the volunteer Service established, by a REPUBLICAN administration. It’s the Democrats who are consistently draft supporters.
Kind of like the Kelo decision (ending property rights as against eminent domain) and the medical marijuana bans having been passed by the Court’s LIBERALS, and opposed by the Court’s conservatives, you know? But I digress.
Last year, Kerry tried to say “They want to bring the draft back” but of course it was a total lie. There were a couple of conscription bills before Congress – *proposed and supported only by Democrats*. (One bill was Charles Rangel’s, I think…..)
#31, Stephen and others – Here is a link for you to check out: http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/08/good-news-from-iraq-part-33.html
There have been 33 in the series. Study them all.
“The point being made is that at these rallies of gung-ho young Republicans – very pro-war – of everyone they spoke to they couldn’t find anyone who had served or was initiating action to serve in the Iraqi conflict. All they found were convenient excuses or verbal runarounds.”
Actually, let’s view the source directly:
“In more than a dozen interviews, Republicans in their teens and 20s offered a range of answers. Some have friends in the military in Iraq and are considering enlisting; others said they can better support the war by working politically in the United States; and still others said they think the military doesn’t need them because the U.S. presence in Iraq is sufficient.”
Of course, you notice the headline: “Young Republicans Support Iraq War, but Not Willing to Join the Fight”
Of course not. Some of them weren’t even of age. But, even taking that into account, how can you say that people who were considering enlisting were “not willing” to join the fight?
It also makes one wonder what their point in asking was. Given that the headline is an outright lie, who’s to say they didn’t casually omit the people that they found? I find it amazing that they poked around the Young Republicans convention, but couldn’t find a single ROTC member or person who was already in the National Guard, and I have it on good authority that there were people there who met both counts. Perhaps they made sure to stay the hell away from anyone who even looked remotely like they were in uniform or had a short haircut.
When the liberal left tries this tripe, the response is simple; when do you intend to stand before the Iraqi parliament and tell them they deserved everything that they got under Saddam and that the millions killed by Saddam doesn’t justify a whit of American action?
P.S. ThatGayConservative, I appreciate your anger and have agreed with your posts here, but could we cut back on the hateful-sounding foul language? I don’t want this place to become like Kos. thanks!
“Marine’s Mother: Support the Fight”
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/17/marine.funeral.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest
This is a different person from the WSJ article that Dan originally referenced.
“GI Gives Matt Lauer the Answer that He didn’t want to hear”
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/08/gi_gives_matt_l.html
Short, but to the point.
I realize some reactionary critics don’t believe a word the MSM has to say, thinking it’s all a liberal conspiracy against them. These same people probably have guns under their pillows in case the government should intrude into their bedrooms while having same-sex relations. I’m generally skeptical of ALL media, unless attribution is made. For example, in today’s NY Times (I know, that bastion of left-wingers) reports:
“WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 – A stream of bad news out of Iraq, echoed at home by polls that show growing impatience with the war and rising disapproval of President Bush’s Iraq policies, is stirring political concern in Republican circles, party officials said Wednesday.” But this article HAS attributions. Sorry folks, the tide is definitely turning against our stay in Iraq.” In this article, Republicans ARE named.
But let’s get a grip. Nearly every military person — not currently in government, conservative and non-conservative — thinks the number of people on the ground in Iraq is woefully deficient. If not, why is the military doing everything possible to increase the number of volunteer enrollees? That enrollment and re-enlistment numbers are dramatically down, I suppose, has nothing to do with our men being undermanned and less than fully protected. Is that why are military personnel are refusing direct commands to do suicide missions? If military personnel are so excited by their endeavors in Iraq, why aren’t enlistments and re-elistments up, instead of down? Not everyone is a fool.
Finally, someone reiterated the reasons for HAVING been in Iraq, and I’ll concede these reasons have merit (whether it’s worth 1800 dead and thousands more maimed, I can’t say). But what are the reasons NOW for being in Iraq? To have theocrats write Islamic law into their “democratic” constitution? Hell, I wouldn’t put my life on the line for that at all. Instead I’d give the ingrates the middle finger and walk away.
Maybe that’s why 63% of the American public no longer supports are Commander — the lowest ratings since LBJ. Even that quack of a politician Jimmy Carter is more esteemed than GWB. No. We’ve been on the wrong track since this war was initiated BEFORE 9/11 (see the Downing Street Memos if you doubt it). Every action has its unintended consequences, and maybe the “short-list” of good done in the Mideast has nothing to do with our invasion of another soveriegn nation. But what good can be garnered in the past is no reflection on the future, and the future indeed looks bleak.
“More Red-on-Red”
http://billroggio.com/archives/2005/08/more_redonred.php
Red-on-red violence is the increasing phenomenon of Iraq’s Sunni insurgents turning against Iraq’s foreign al Qaeda insurgents. Which is good for the Iraqi people, if you need it spelled out, and us.
Ah, “reactionary”, the R-word! I knew some liberal would roll it out eventually. That and the N-word, “Nazi”, are their predictable resort to when losing an argument.
“Nearly every military person — not currently in government, conservative and non-conservative — thinks the number of people on the ground in Iraq is woefully deficient.”
Again – What’s your evidence? Cough it up.
“If not, why is the military doing everything possible to increase the number of volunteer enrollees? That enrollment and re-enlistment numbers are dramatically down, I suppose, has….”
First – They aren’t down. Your information here is antiquated. Secondly, military recruiters are always, ALWAYS going for more enlistees. It’s what they do, in a volunteer army. It’s called HAVING A VOLUNTEER ARMY.
Has it occurred to anyone that saying you’re not allowed to support the war in Irag unless you’re a soldier is like saying you can’t support law enforcement unless you’re a cop?
From the Roggio link I provided in #53 – This is too rich:
“We, al Qaeda in Iraq, announce that we will apply the religious punishment for apostasy upon whoever calls for creation of the constitution. You, preacher at the podium of prophecy, be a speaker of truth, doer of good and rallier for the rule of sharia,” or Islamic law, the statement said.
[Roggio continues:] In the eyes of al Qaeda, all who oppose them are infidel, even their natural allies such as Sunni preachers in Iraq who oppose the US presence. This will ultimately be Zarqawi and al Qaeda’s undoing, provided the West can muster the political will to continue the fight.
#56 – Right Vince – so, all those Democrats who supported Clinton’s plan to put 100,000 more cops on the streets, back in the 1990s, were chicken hawks up to no good, just lying and betraying our society. (cough)
So you allege that a soldier serving multiple hitches in Iraq would have no problem whatever that his mother is supported by Chief Ass Clown, who considers the enemy he’s fighting are the real patriots?
What I’m saying is that people join the military for many different reasons and serve with a variety of goals in mind. It is dismissive and self-serving for Michelle Malkin to interpret the reasons and goals of someone she’s never met, codifying them in a way that becomes a talking point of patriotism, despite the differing opinion of the mother of the soldier in question.
I think any mother would be very upset for some floozy of a political pundit to tell them what their dead son thought or felt.
Here again, why does a person HAVE to serve to support the effort?
The point is that these young people ALL had convenient reason not to serve. And some of them even sounded legitimate.
There are many soldiers serving or have served who have conscientious objection to what the United States is doing. But they followed their duty and responsibility. These young people are the inverse of that, caught up in the rhetoric of the Republican party, they are all ego and selfishness wrapped up in an American flag. They do not see our involvement as a horrible heavy-hearted burden like it is. As well, many adult Republicans are the same. Willing to “support” as long as someone else does the dying.
As mentioned above, by you’re arguement, you can’t support the police unless you’re willing to become one. You can’t support teachers unless you’re willing to become one.
If you have the cojones enough to cheer someone to their death, you should be willing to do the same yourself if you really believe in the reasons for dying, no? There shouldn’t be much more to understand.
The military isn’t some corporation that we’ve hired to take care of our international problems, the children of this nation some expendable tool. We are putting their lives at risk for something the administration has said is important enough for the safety and well-being of America for people to die resolving. If Republicans truly believe that, they should not only be willing but feel duty-bound to send their sons and daughter to serve.
I stand partially corrected on the draft issue. It was Republican senators who voted to kill a draft bill, and Senator Rangel was a supporter, but so was Senator Hagel.
So, anybody who isn’t willing to personally bust into a crackhouse full of armed drug dealers obviously doesn’t believe that fighting crime is worth the effort and risk to life.
Anybody wanna look up the statistics for how many cops have been killed in the line of duty over the last few years? Fighting crime is a quagmire! And who benefits from the “war on crime,” Jewish business owners! End the neo-con war on crime! Support the cops by shutting down the prisonso!
#59 –
“It is dismissive and self-serving for Michelle Malkin to interpret the reasons and goals of someone she’s never met…despite the differing opinion of the mother…”
Casey Sheehan re-enlisted in August 2003, knowing and intending he would go to Iraq. You think actions don’t count? You think a person’s true beliefs and goals can’t be read from their actions?
Casey Sheehan’s family (grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins) has published an open letter in which they disavow Cindy Sheehan and assure us she is *not* representing her son’s views and goals accurately, only her own. Got it?
“The point is that these young people ALL had convenient reason not to serve.”
Because they were carefully screened/selected that way by the author, as someone pointed out. Not a single ROTC member mentioned and there were a bunch at the convention.
“If Republicans truly believe that, they should not only be willing but feel duty-bound to send their sons and daughter to serve.”
Somebody refresh my memory – did Clinton send Chelsea to Kosovo? She was old enough.
Also, are you aware that Bechtel is not only one of the CORPORATIONS involved in the “rebuilding (i.e. IMPLERIALIST INFRASTRUCTURIZATION)” of Iraq, but is also a major player in prison construction and privatization?
See, law enforcement is a quagmire, a phony war designed to enrich CORPORATIONS and advance the NEOCON agenda! End law enforcement! Stop putting our children (because cops are somebody’s children, too) in harm’s way to ebnefit BECHTEL and HALLIBURTON! Shut down the prisons! Support the cops by making them unemployed!
To those who doubt the sincerity of those of us who support the War in Iraq because we do not serve with the military there, I would to point out some simple math. The fact is that from our country of 300,000,000 people, 135,000 are serving with the military in Iraq. That translates to .045%, or 1 person out of every 2,222 people in this country. I am not there because I know I am not soldier material. That is a job for people who I admit are braver than I am. But the least that any one of us can do for the members of the magnificent minority called the US Military is to support their efforts, sacrifices, and noble cause.
And in every case where a cop died putting a crook in prison – That prisoner should be released IMMEDIATELY, because putting them behind bars was not a noble cause and the cop died in vain! in VAIN!!!
If you have the cojones enough to cheer someone to their death, you should be willing to do the same yourself if you really believe in the reasons for dying, no?
Who’s cheering? I know a lot of people who support the war, but not a single one who is happy about it. The cheap chickenhawk slur grows more obnoxious by the day.
And the men and women who enlist aren’t “children”; they’re patriotic adults who deliberately enter into a contract to serve in America’s armed forces. They’re usually a lot more intellectually mature than your typical MSM reporter. Why patronize our volunteer warriors? They deserve better.
Is there a single Liberal on here who will admit to knowing what the term “Useful Idiot” means – and that they are one?
It’s a term that Lenin coined. “Useful idiots” were those gullable, well-intentioned people in Western democracies who became apologists for the, shall we say, excesses of the new Soviet regime. You know, things like murdering dissenters, torture, rape, etc. They helped Lenin and friends deflect any criticism over things like carrying out three times more political executions in three months than the czars had from 1825-1917. But then as Stalin pointed out, “One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic.”
Today the term is used for members of the America-is-always-wrong club who most recently have been enablers for Saddam Hussein – a brutal murdering thug responsible over a lillion deaths.
And after eleven year and the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of cops, we still have not caught the real killers of Nicole Simpson and that waiter guy. If we had stayed focused on finding the real killers, we could have caught them by now, but our incompetent police forces took their eye off the ball and went investigating other crimes. Clearly, law enforcement has failed. (And no one can say law enforcement is worthwhile unless they actually are a cop. Preferably one that died in the line of duty.)
Well Vince, that magical “everyone” (hah hah) KNOWS the cops are horribly understaffed, right? We should have at least double the number of cops in our society. But as you point out, NO ONE should ever say that who isn’t a cop. (zing!) Our leaders have failed. Because they have failed to obtain double or triple the number of volunteers for a profession that no one should ever ask anyone to be in, a profession that isn’t a noble cause.
Is it possible that Karl Rove murdered Nicole Brown Simpson because she knew he planned to out DoubleSecret SuperAgent Valerie Plame?
Stephen-
According to recent reports, the Constitution will be out next Tuesday.
You write: “But what are the reasons NOW for being in Iraq? To have theocrats write Islamic law into their “democratic” constitution? Hell, I wouldn’t put my life on the line for that at all. Instead I’d give the ingrates the middle finger and walk away.
”
Would you be willing to go on the record, now, saying that your opposition to this point will have been mistaken if they don’t come up with a Sharia-based Constitution?
To be serious for a moment, Mother Moonbat is claiming people are lying when they quote her as saying that her son died for Isreal. This email, dated March 18, 2005, in Google Groups Says Otherwise. It contains the exact quote she denies making.
(Somebody cache this before it disappears.)
This supports the idea that her denial this morning was as dishonest as at least oneof her statements about Bush’s demeanor at their meeting.
Wow, I didn’t know it was so easy to stir up the hornet’s nest here.
So let’s be real here. Cut the rhetoric. You guys will never get it, and I’m pretty sure I will never get you. This is my last say on this particular thread. I’ll let you rip it at your leisure.
Is it important to support police and teachers and the like? Yes because what happens to them and because of what they do affects us on a daily basis.
Was it important for us to invade Iraq and create regime change? I honestly cannot answer that. And I am very very angry when I say this but that’s really all I really want to know. Why did we invade Iraq? Without all the chest pounding and posturing and political agenda, without your snide condecension, without the made up noble causes after the fact and the inumerable made up reasons at the beginning can someone tell me who’s stupid stupid stupid idea it was to make this happen and what they really thought would come out of it?
I could support a war if it were first and foremost to remove a horrible dictator. But it wasn’t about that at first. I could support a war that removed the possible threat of WMDs to our allies. Problem is there weren’t any. I could support a war that removed the threat of terrorism, if only the terrorism was being supported by that country. I could support a war for many, many reasons – for example the First Gulf War – but this one I can’t because of the ever changing reasons for the invasion in the first place, the consistent mistakes in planning and lack of an exit strategy, and the blythe attitude of the administration all along – business as usual. I know you’ve heard it before but I still can’t believe Bush has yet to attend any military funeral. Not one f***ing funeral.
In any case fellows, you’re in the minority now and it’s unlikely the tide will turn back. Sad that this quagmire will be the President’s legacy and will overshadow all those vacations of his to come in the future. He’s got to get on with his life after all.
My, what a dustup we’ve had here today. Still, as night falls some 70+ additional posts later, there’s been nothing written above to change the observation that this is a site populated primarily by modern day Gay Chickenhawks — i.e., men (on the whole) dedicated to the proposition that a good war is one that is fought by someone else. This observation was confirmed by one comment in particular — a comment that none of you in the Keyboard Commando Battalion disagreed with: “Actually, anon, I think that the more we intervene, the less it will become necessary.” Truly the ding-ding-ding comment of the day.
But, I’ll give you guys credit for two things: 1) none of you tried to lie about your lack of service (though there was one particularly tortured excuse for it); and 2) none of you took your Gay Chickenhawk label the wrong way (as I had feared you might). So, see, you’re not all bad.
Dustup? It’s called spirited debate.
As for the gay chickenhawk slur, you’ve about worn out that tired old cliche.
Was it important for us to invade Iraq and create regime change?
Yes. Because there are only three options in the War Against Global Jihad.
1. Defeat the jihadis
2. Exterminate the jihadis
3. Surrender to the jihadis (Or appease them, which is the same thing and is the alternative favored by the left).
Establishment of a democratic alternative to the oppressive regimes that characterize the Middle East is a cornerstone of Option 1. That’s why success in Iraq is important, (even if we don’t immediately get a Norway out of the first draft of Arab democracy). It is also why cutting and running from Iraq would be disastrous. Iraq was the logical place to begin. The Saudi Entity is certainly worse, and Iran is certainly worse in terms of supporting terrorism. But neither of those countries were in violation of seventeen UN Resolutions to disarm.
My son looks forward to the opportunity to serve in the military when he is old enough, and I support him. His best friend also intends to serve and is doing JROTC explicitly for that reason.
A most interesting and entertaining thread guys and gals. Special thanks to GayPatriot and GayPatriotWest (for the blog;) V the K and glisteny (for some good chuckles,) That Gay Conservative, North Dallas Thirty, joe, Clint, Butch, Robert, Dave and all the other gay patriots I have read on this blog.
GayCowboyBob-
What is it about complete paragraphs that you are incapable of processing?
Original quote: “In more than a dozen interviews, Republicans in their teens and 20s offered a range of answers. Some have friends in the military in Iraq and are considering enlisting; others said they can better support the war by working politically in the United States; and still others said they think the military doesn’t need them because the U.S. presence in Iraq is sufficient.” (as NDT cites above in comment 48 — citation).
The sentence before his quote, just to make it clearer: “But there’s no such unanimity when they’re asked a more personal question: Would you be willing to put on the uniform and go to fight in Iraq?”
You persist in summarizing this claim with: “The point is that these young people ALL had convenient reason not to serve. And some of them even sounded legitimate.
” (comment 59).
Either you are incapable of distinguishing between the logical assertions “all x are not y” and “not all x are y”, or you don’t have any interest in the truth.
It seems wasted on you to point this out, but someone else might be interested — the “chickenhawk” line is a new classic example of argument ad hominem — You present no argument to show that the war in Iraq is bad, instead you respond to other’s arguments that it is good with the assertion that they are cowards and hypocrites if they aren’t actually risking their own lives in combat in Iraq. Ironically, this is exactly the same kind of faux argument that would be made by a hypothetical conservative who responded to a reasoned argument against the war by calling you a traitor or a terrorist.
The obvious fact that most of the conservative commenters on this site are openly gay — and thus would not be welcome in the military — only adds insult to injury.
All of here are, I’m sure, familiar with the Left’s canards about Iraq that they like to repeat like mantras, perhaps because hynoptic repetition is the only way to maintain belief in the face of evidence. (Several examples above.)
One such canard is that Saddam/Iraq were somehow unconnected to terrorism. Here is a website I learned about today, reviewing some (not all) of the connections in a nifty summary with photos:
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
Without all the chest pounding and posturing and political agenda, without your snide condecension, without the made up noble causes after the fact and the inumerable made up reasons at the beginning can someone tell me who’s stupid stupid stupid idea it was to make this happen and what they really thought would come out of it?
Actually, it was Democrat’s idea to make it happen, but they didn’t care enough to actually put it in motion.
And V, I think it’s safe to say, by GayCow’s logic, you can’t be gay if you don’t go to the parades, or hang out in the Tea Room, go to the bars etc.
#77 – You nailed it, Clint – “chickenhawk” is petty ad hominem; “at best” trying to get a rise; more likely the mark of intellectual desperation.
It’s a beautifully hypocritical ad hominem, given that lefties had no qualms about electing a Vietnam draft dodger in ’92/’96, who proceeded to send the military all kinds of places we didn’t need them to be….while the current President served faithfully for 6 years during the Vietnam era.
After having a draft evader as their most recent President, *now* all the sudden the Left wants to claim that no leaders can send the military anywhere unless they’re in it. But wait….there’s something about that…something it would violate…like maybe some sort of constitution or something? I don’t know, it would be nice to live in a country that had such a constitution, or had civilians ruling over the military, dontcha think? Oops, wait a tick, I do.
#79 – That’s exactly right. In 1998, Congress passed something called the Iraq Liberation Act, which mandated – yes, legally mandated – that the sitting President (then Clinton) pursue an active policy of Iraq regime change. Democrats thundered, then, about the real and present evil of Saddam’s WMD and links to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Bush came into office under a law of Congress that *ordered* him to pursue Iraq regime change.
Democrats thundered, then, about the real and present evil of Saddam’s WMD and links to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Bush came into office under a law of Congress that *ordered* him to pursue Iraq regime change.
Exactly. BJ clearly wasn’t interested in dealing with Hussein because our “allies” were making way too much money in the process. However, we get a president who whips his dick out on the table, says “this is what we’re gonna do”, and the liberals go apeshit spicey gonzo. It’s all a sad attempt to protect what little lord BJ can claim as a “legacy”. That’s all the attacks on Bush is about. They can’t understand a president who actually does what he says he’s going to do.
As far as the “chickenhawk” slur, well that’s just liberal cum catchers like Reatard and GayCow desperately justifying their hatred of the military.
Plus which, there is honest suspicion that liberal Democrats want America to be defeated in Iraq is because they are so deranged with being out of power that they want America to lose so they can bring down the party that is in power.
And what’s all this spooging over NJ Supreme Court appointed Frank “The Lout” Lautenburg? Who gives a flying crap about that lying partisan hack, “Reatard”?
G’morning ‘hawks – that bugle is sounding “Revelry”:
First, Pfc. Clint reports in with: “You present no argument to show that the war in Iraq is bad…” OK, Private, let’s get Sergeant Chuck Hagel over here to talk to you — from this morning’s news: “Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska on Thursday (8/19) said the United States is “getting more and more bogged down” in Iraq and stood by his comments that the White House is disconnected from reality and losing the war.” (Stung by this perceived betrayal, our Gay Commandos pivot, re-load and prepare to fire away at Chuck Hagel.)
And Pfc. Joe is up with the chickens today (npi), saluting Bush’s – get this – “6 years of faithful (Vietnam military) service” and once again peddling the utterly debunked Bush Administration lie that Saddam did 9/11. Private Joey’s laying waste to all that earlier pretense at objective observation and thought (cf. the July threads). (BTW, isn’t it time someone said “Pfc. Joe, meet Pfc. NDT” and vice-versa?)
Finally, as our Gay Commandos fall into formation and start weeping about “ad hominem attacks”, we summon the ghost of Gen. George S. Patton to toughen them up with those famous words: “Now, I want you to remember that no dumb b’tard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb b’tard die for his country”.
(Yes, the General’s language has been softened here; something GP should consider for several of the offensive posts that preceded this, which might force some of the amateurs here to take it to a higher level.)
One other thing. Has anyone noticed a nauseating pattern here.
Leftist: “Bush is a liar! Bush and his neo-con oil cabal started this war for oil and Israel through lies! lies! lies! All you theo-con right-wingers are STUPID and EVIL. 9-11 would never have hjappened if we had signed the Kyoto Treaty. Bush is a Nazi! Bush should be assassinated! Bush enriches his OIL BUDDIES and laughs while soldiers DIE! Saddam was NEVER a threat to anyone. Saddam and Valerie Plame were in fact working together to rid the world of WMDs. And Saddam loved puppies. Karl Rove strangles puppies!”
Right Winger: “I think you have to look at Iraq in the context of solving the global problem of Islamo-fascist terrorism… and some of what you say sounds a little kooky
Leftist: There you go again, viciously vilifying anyone who expresses the slightest criticism of your agenda.
V, a propos of that……Single best comment I’ve come across on Cindy Sheehan:
If she doesn’t know the difference between good and evil why does anyone think she knows the difference between right and wrong?
Reader-
As entertaining as you must find such posts to type — you merely demonstrate your inability or unwillingness to reason.
The problem with arguments ad hominem isn’t that it might hurt our feelings. (It doesn’t. That would require us to respect your opinions.) It’s that they are the entirety of what you perhaps believe to be an argument — while in fact, all they provide evidence of is of your immaturity.
VtK (88)-
Sadly, yes. I love to debate politics, but it’s getting harder and harder to find anyone on the other side who understands the concept of debate.
“This observation was confirmed by one comment in particular — a comment that none of you in the Keyboard Commando Battalion disagreed with: “Actually, anon, I think that the more we intervene, the less it will become necessary.” Truly the ding-ding-ding comment of the day. ”
Actually, Reader, that quote was mine, and you completely missed the point I was making in the referenced post — which is simply that the more people know that we WILL act when threatened, the less likely they will be to threaten — or to allow threats to — us.
The reason nobody disagreed is because that’s simple logic. If a burglar knows you have a gun and aren’t afraid to use it in the defense of your house and others, s/he has two choices — either figure out how to take you out first or leave you alone for easier pickings elsewhere. However, if they know that you will do anything possible to avoid using the gun, including handing over your belongings, your house is the first one they will hit, regardless.
Now, perhaps if liberal foreign policy weren’t based on avoiding the use of the gun at all costs, including ignoring threats against the United States made by someone who had already carried out terrorist attacks against it, this wouldn’t be nearly the issue that it was. Indeed, it would have been far easier to remove Saddam the FIRST time he decided not to comply with the UN and to threaten other countries after the Gulf War.
What I find amusing, Reader, is that liberals were more than willing to allow millions of Iraqis to be starved, imprisoned, tortured, mutilated, and the like as long as it didn’t get a single American killed, just like they did for Pol Pot and for Ho Chi Minh and their respective countries. They were more than willing to bomb Yugoslav civilians in the Kosovo conflict as long as it didn’t get any Americans killed. But as soon as Americans were killed, they went running from Mogadishu. Actually dealing with the Taliban and bin Laden directly, rather than firing cruise missiles at empty camps, would have virtually ensured American deaths, so it wasn’t even an option.
This, quite simply, leads to thugs and butchers like Saddam and bin Laden acting with impunity against the United States and its allies? Why? Because they know we won’t act unless they win a huge victory, and even then, we can be repulsed by them simply killing a few Americans. The liberal left won’t let the military be used until thousands of Americans die, and the minute we sustain casualties, they’ll demand a “pullout”, just like they’re doing now.
The anti-Christers using the symbol of the Christian cross to represent their own memorial to those fallen soldiers whom the anti-Christers believe are, in their own words, “baby killers” has got to be the most obvious emotional manipulation of the unwashed masses yet seen since the 1960’s. I take that back, since forever!
Some “moral authority” Mother Sheehan represents:
Factually vacuous, emotionally-manipulated plague of anti-American totalitarian Stalinists.
geez, to think….thirteen year old girls must be allowed the right to abort without parental knowledge BUT…..an adult man volunterring to serve his country is simply a child kidnapped from the cradle by that ever evil military industrial complex.
At this point it is impossible to debate the insane for all they hold dear is insanity.
#90 Of course Clint 🙂 ……but follow to the logical conclusion….. Leave Reader in his/her/its private world.
Morning, Private Reader!
So sorry you find some of the other posts here offensive. Of course, you’re a tough guy, so I’m sure you can just suck it up.
By the way, did you serve in the military? Just curious because someone taught you how to lob a canister of vomiting agent and run for cover, and it wasn’t your mama.
I’m curious about what General Patton’s quote has to do with ad hominem attacks. The good general wasn’t being personal when he uttered those words. He was trying to win a war. Sort of like we are now, in Iraq.
The chickenhawk issue is nontrivial. I think I read that 25% of the troops are not US citizens. Plus we are spending outrageous amounts of money on “private security.” Our marketing costs are going up $4,000 per recruit next year. Whole swaths of American society are under-represented in our military. Caring for the vets will be an enormous cost. And because of chickenhawk guilt, will probably be astronomical.
As GayCowboyBob said
“The military isn’t some corporation that we’ve hired to take care of our international problems, the children of this nation some expendable tool.”
This “new” conservatism is taking our country into very dangerous territory.
The number one duty of the Government is to defend it’s people.
I purpose that we citizens of the United States demand free entertainment (ie….movies, music, art yeah barbaric Streisand and Michael mudhead I’m talking about you etc,etc,etc) so that all our hard earned dollars can then be used to pay for those actually performing the most important service to all Americans, that being, defending the people of the United States.
Afterall, We the People have the right to free entertainment!
The progressive ‘old’ Stalinism has already taken America into dangerous territory.
Here’s a suggestion: No liberal democrat should be allowed to support Mother Moonbat unless they go down and join her in the ditch in Crawford.
anon-
Hard to follow your logic.
Is it your position that it’s more important that the military be “representative” of every swath of American society than it is that it be effective militarily?
Would you support equal-access for the disabled in our Marine Corps? How about the elderly?
If the “Chickenhawk” issue is nontrivial, perhaps you would deign to put into words what exactly the issue is.
Also, just in passing, “I read somewhere…” isn’t a particularly effective citation. A few facts relevant to the question of non-citizens serving: According to the AP, of the 1800 or so U.S. casualties in Iraq, 140 were non-citizens. This would seem to imply that about 9% of our soldiers are legal residents who haven’t yet qualified for citizenship — unless non-citizens are routinely shuffled into non-combat positions (which might, in any event, be relevant for your hypothetical argument, if you would deign to tell us what it is). According to the U.S. Office of Citizenship and Immigration Services there are about 12 million legal permanent residents in the U.S. (a little over 4%). Estimates of illegal aliens vary, from perhaps 5 million (verifiable minimum?) to more than 25 million. Let’s guess that there are 15 million of them.
So: Non-citizens make up perhaps 9% of the U.S. population, and around 9% of the U.S. military. Sounds representative to me. What’s your beef?
#95 – Your particular version of the so-called “chickenhawk issue” is trivial.
I enjoy “thinking things through”, so here is an answer that, as an exercise, is as complete as I could make it. Anyone who can say it better/shorter – feel free!
First, there are no chickenhawks. It’s a cheap slur, soon to lose all value (if it hasn’t yet). Nobody likes or wants war. I hate that Americans are dying in Iraq, and never said they should be sent anywhere.
Second, it is normal (or nothing wrong) for a society to have a division of labor. Less than 1/20th of 1% of Americans get to serve in Iraq. The military gets to choose who goes there. I knew a military guy who tried for years to serve in combat zones, and couldn’t.
Third, the people who sign up and re-up for the military (and who are accepted), like Casey Sheehan, are usually mature young men and women who know what they are doing. There is always the occasional whiner who signs up and only discovers the hard way that he’s not soldier material, but they’re the exception. Most know the risks and choose them, like Casey Sheehan did. They are heroes (a concept anathema to the far-lefties – more on that below). I support them as best I am able with tax dollars, extra donations at http://www.AnySoldier.com, respect and my gratitude. So should you.
Fourth, “whole swaths of are society under-represented in our military” is a myth long since debunked…..Unless, of course, the swath you’re talking about is gays who are still officially banned, and, far-leftists 😉 I agree that far leftists are likely to be under-represented. They are often snotty rich white kids, so they might cause some dip in the overall representation of snotty rich white kids as well; but whites in general are thoroughly represented.
Fifth, of course the military isn’t a corporation we hired. It’s a volunteer army. Volunteer armies, unlike conscript armies, have to PERSUADE volunteers to join….i.e., market and recruit. Deal with it. Having a volunteer army or having a conscript army are your 2 choices in this world. Pick one.
Sixth, the real “tendency” or end conclusion of your arguments is, of course, that we should have a conscript army. That’s why liberal Democrats in Congress (e.g., Charles Rangel) are the supporters of bringing back a draft. All good collectivists/socialists believe that (a) a person’s life is the rightful property of the State, therefore conscription is right; (b) we shouldn’t have any heroes – we should have a society of mediocrity where all can be replaced by all, at any time. I reject both doctrines. Consequently, I oppose all forms of conscription as profoundly wrong in moral principle.
As someone else put it better in another forum,
“One of the ways that libs display their contempt for the military is to suggest that everyone ought to do it via a draft. Logically, if everyone can do it, then anyone can it, therefore, the job has no value because it takes no special gift, no talent and no intelligence to do it. Thus, the common lib lie that the military is a refuge for those at the bottom who can’t get other work. We must constantly reinforce the voluntary and selective nature of the U.S. military. Not everyone can be a soldier, or a cop, or a doctor, or a teacher, or a musician, or anything else worthwhile. The Marines have made their reputations and their lives by emphasizing that they are a FEW GOOD MEN. Losers need not apply. And the last thing our busy drill instructors need is a bunch of whiny mall-rats, not to mention the fact that the guys who are there to become good soldiers have to put up with their valuable training time being wasted on the unwilling conscripts. It’s a Charlie Rangel recipe for disaster.”
Finally, if there were any “chickenhawk issue”…it would more likely reside with far-liberal Democrats, who, not really understanding or appreciating the military, don’t hesitate to send it places where the defense of America is *not* involved….and then tie its hands in ridiculous ways (so it can’t win). Several examples under Johnson and Clinton.
His beef is an attempt at the usual liberal canard that the poor and minorities are the ones bearing the brunt of the war, which GP pointed out has been largely debunked.
What this really boils down to is that the left will do anything and try anything to justify their opposition to the removal of someone who butchered millions of people.
I notice that the people first to fling the “chickenhawk” accusation turn tail and run when asked to publicly admit Saddam’s crimes, or when confronted with how exactly it is that they know all of us here who support the war have no family or friends in it.
That is because there is no defense for a stereotype — except to run from it.
Oh, and this may be most important – another implication of the worthless “chickenhawk argument” is that only people who are, or have been, in the military should have any say in where/how it’s used.
On that argument, President Bush is eminently qualified to lead the country. (Something far-leftists forget, deny or distort.)
Another implication of that argument is that we should either live in a military dictatorship outright, or at least a Robert Heinlein “Starship Troopers” society where only veterans have the right to vote. I seriously doubt that far lefties want that (and I sure don’t), so once again we see the pathetic vacuousness of their arguments….attempting to fling arguments that they in no way support, or that pretty blatantly contradict their other arguments.
I tried to say it yesterday with humor; today, spelling it out for our slower members.
NDT, your point was quite clear and while there may be some logic to the big-stick-all-the-time argument in the case of animals and local criminals, it’s not extendable to a great nation’s foreign affairs (not unless you’re a fantasy-driven Neo-Con – and we can now say that that group of strategists have been completely discredited due to their horrendous mistake in Iraq; history will know them as “the flowers and candy crowd”).
As to the rest of your comments, you’re all over the place and starting to take your worn “Democrats are bad for the country and bad for the world in all cases” argument to extremes I never expected from you. And doing it, I should add, with breathtaking revision of both history (e.g., inexplicably linking the Bush I disaster in Somalia to the Clinton I success in the War On Serbia) and domestic liberal argument against the Iraq Folly.
And I think you’ve confused the conservative and liberal labels when it comes to foreign policy. Your side are the foreign policy liberals today, much like the foreign policy liberals of the early 60’s who propelled us deeper in SE Asia and on into the Vietnam War (and they were Democrats, in the main, and oh so mistaken). My side are today’s foreign policy conservatives, who believe in a measured, realistic approach to international affairs and that Americans should be sent to protect us only when the danger is truly imminent (and not imagined or cooked up) and the purpose noble (as in Iraq ’91 or Afghanistan), and only when the mission is defined and the long-term implications of it at least reasonably clear (as in Iraq ’91 and Serbia). At least some of us learned some lessons from Vietnam.
I realize this will confuse some here who are limited to thinking of the lib v. con labeling as they know it domestically, and that they are not going to take kindly to being known as liberal in any sense, but they are when it comes to foreign policy.
Re: comment #103 and its description of the term “Chickenhawk” as “worthless”. Not to Bruce and Dan, it’s not.
Joe-
Great point about the inherent disrespect for the military in some of these arguments.
I was thinking about mentioning Starship Troopers as well, but you beat me to it.
Reader-
Arguments “from authority” are no more persuasive than those “ad hominem”.
Are you working from a list of logical fallacies? Are you perhaps working on a project to study how the conservative blogosphere deals with each of the canonical logical fallacies, and how blatant they have to be to be explicitly identified?
This could be a fun exercise — please proceed.
Actually, Reader, if you ever read “Black Hawk Down”, what you will find is that our mission in Somalia went wonderfully in its initial stages. The main reason the US intervened in the first place was because the warlords were preventing the distribution of relief supplies and harassing relief workers, and as long as our mission stuck to both, we weren’t taking a lot in the way of hits or casualties.
When it switched to “eliminate warlords”, that was where the problems came into play. Eliminating the warlords was certainly a good idea, and would most definitely have assured the long-term stability of Somalia, but it carried an enormous risk of casualties, and the Clinton administration would not tolerate any. They tried to run a half-assed war, paid for it, and instead of learning and adapting, ran. That taught a valuable lesson to the world….Americans are pansies and can be run off by tribesmen with rifles who manage a lucky shot.
When Serbia came along, the Clinton administration did as one might expect from one paranoiacally afraid of casualties…..they launched cruise missiles first and high-altitude bombings. After two weeks, they were forced to admit that it wasn’t doing squat in terms of stopping Milosevic, mainly because they weren’t hitting their targets, because the weather was so lousy (DUH, Yugoslavia in spring!), and, most damning, they couldn’t bomb the Serbian armed forces because the Serbian armed forces were right in the middle of the Kosovars that they were trying to protect.
If you read reports on the air war, you figure out real fast that the Serbs not only knew what we were doing, but precisely how to neutralize it. They knew we weren’t going to land and come get them, so they kept on killing with impunity, rationalizing that if the Americans dropped a bomb on them while doing it, it had the same effect of killing Kosovars that they wanted. They also knew that politics would prevent NATO from waging anywhere near all-out war, and that any civilian deaths would get NATO to back off. The only way to truly protect the Kosovars would have been to use land forces to flush out and destroy the Serb units among them — in other words, to separate Serbs from Kosovars — but the Clinton administration was too insanely paralyzed by Mogadishu to do the logical.
Same thing with Afghanistan and bin Laden.
Don’t try, Reader, that “I supported war in Afghanistan” trick. As I cornered you before, you KNEW bin Laden was a threat, you KNEW the Taliban were working with him and protecting him, and you KNEW it would take a full-fledged invasion to deal with it. More importantly, you KNEW all of this in 1998, if not sooner. But on September 10, 2001, you and yours would have screamed bloody murder if Bush had said we need to invade Afghanistan to deal with a real threat to the United States.
At least some of us learned some lessons from Vietnam.
Yes you did; namely, that if it would cost one American life to save thousands of non-American lives, it’s neither justified or necessary to do so. Now, as it turns out, you’ve generalized that to it being unjustified and unnecessary to remove a threat to thousands of American lives if it would cost one American life, and 9/11 is the inevitable result.
In short, Reader, your intervention in Kosovo did nothing to stop the murder of thousands of Kosovars, and your non-intervention in Afghanistan did nothing to stop the murder of thousands of Americans. That is because, in both cases, you let your paranoiacal fear of casualties and bad press prevent you from doing what needed to be done.
To summarize, your “measured” behavior comes from an inability to act; your “realism” and demand for “definition” are rationalizing your failure to act; your “noble cause” applies to saving the interests of white Europeans; and your definition of “imminent” is “after thousands have already been killed”.
Clint, what Reader is trying to justify, in a nutshell, is the hopeless racism and partisanship of the left that allowed ineffectual intervention in Serbia on a humanitarian basis, but opposed the same when the humanitarian issue was exponentially larger in Iraq.
“The progressive ‘old’ Stalinism has already taken America into dangerous territory.”
Correct. And some of them have now morphed into neo-cons. The others should know better.
Reader (#104):
Let’s parse.
“NDT, your point was quite clear and while there may be some logic to the big-stick-all-the-time argument in the case of animals and local criminals, it’s not extendable to a great nation’s foreign affairs…”
Assertion — to be followed by evidence.
“(not unless you’re a fantasy-driven Neo-Con – and we can now say that that group of strategists have been completely discredited due to their horrendous mistake in Iraq; history will know them as “the flowers and candy crowd”).”
Argument ad hominem — only a neocon would believe such a thing, and history will surely mock them as I do!
“As to the rest of your comments, you’re all over the place and starting to take your worn “Democrats are bad for the country and bad for the world in all cases” argument to extremes I never expected from you. And doing it, I should add, with breathtaking revision of both history (e.g., inexplicably linking the Bush I disaster in Somalia to the Clinton I success in the War On Serbia) and domestic liberal argument against the Iraq Folly.”
Assertion that NDT’s arguments are stupid, without explication. A few arguments from emotion (“I’m shocked! — Shocked! I say.”) Not sure of the taxonomy on this fallacy. Anyone know?
Further, factual problem: President Clinton indeed made the decision to withdraw from Mogadishu, as NDT stated. Calling a citation of this fact “historical revisionism” is odd, to say the least. While it might be possible to make an argument that GHWB was to blame for everything that went on in Somalia, simply saying that he was isn’t persuasive.
“And I think you’ve confused the conservative and liberal labels when it comes to foreign policy. Your side are the foreign policy liberals today, much like the foreign policy liberals of the early 60’s who propelled us deeper in SE Asia and on into the Vietnam War (and they were Democrats, in the main, and oh so mistaken). My side are today’s foreign policy conservatives, who believe in a measured, realistic approach to international affairs and that Americans should be sent to protect us only when the danger is truly imminent (and not imagined or cooked up) and the purpose noble (as in Iraq ’91 or Afghanistan), and only when the mission is defined and the long-term implications of it at least reasonably clear (as in Iraq ’91 and Serbia). At least some of us learned some lessons from Vietnam.
I realize this will confuse some here who are limited to thinking of the lib v. con labeling as they know it domestically, and that they are not going to take kindly to being known as liberal in any sense, but they are when it comes to foreign policy.
”
If this hasn’t been explicitly identified as a fallacy, it should. I hereby dub it the “I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I” argument. NDT was arguing that liberals had done some bad things and conservatives had done some good things. Reader responds with “I’m not a liberal, you’re the liberal!” as though the “liberal” and “conservative” labels, rather than the policies pursued by those cited, were the point of NDT’s argument.
For the record — I’m proud to be known as a liberal, if by that you mean a supporter of individual (as opposed to collective) rights, or if you mean someone who thinks we should support the rise of democracy abroad, even to the point of military intervention (when the concrete benefits to us are sufficient to justify the costs).
Also… forgot to point out…. except for the initial ad hominem, no evidence was presented to contradict NDT’s restatement of “Big Stick” foreign policy.
Clint, you’re awesome 🙂
Personally, I don’t care if someone labels me conservative, liberal or what. I am pro-capitalist and a registered Independent. Generally that puts me in bed with liberals on social issues (e.g. medical marijuana, gay rights, early-term abortions), and with conservatives on small domestic government and on having America’s foreign policy actually be pro-freedom and pro-American (rather than pro-Saddam, pro-French or whatever).
The conservative/liberal “inversion” in foreign policy since 9-11 has been noted so often, it’s practically a cliche. Judging from your comments, Reader has tried to “spin” it the wrong way. It’s something the liberals ought to be ashamed of. I mean really, deeply ashamed.
Why? Well, for years, liberals said (and I know, because I definitely was one until 2001), “We have to stop supporting these evil dictators, like Saddam Hussein. It is only going to breed resentment against us.” And they’d take the Wilsonian position that we should be advancing human rights, democracy, freedom. Well, that position was correct back then (assuming it was kept within rational limits, of course) and is still correct today.
9-11 made the Republicans wake up. 9-11 made the Republicans go, “Shit….you’re right. We can’t just cruelly and cynically support dictators….America has to start fixing some of these awful dictatorship countries that are only breeding terrorists.” And many liberals – from pure spite, resentment and partisanship – and to their SHAME – then abandoned Wilsonianism.
So, Republicans are now the good guys in foreign policy – looking to replace dictators with democracies. I don’t care that it’s Republicans and not Democrats. It’s just the right foreign policy, the one I’ve always believed in (again within rational limits).
Dear Libs, just because you choose to ignore, forget, or disbelieve the reasons clearly stated by the President for the Iraq War does not mean they were not clearly stated. They were clearly stated, were many, and are sited regularly at various times. To the uninformed Liberal this may seem like “constanlty changing reasons”. But the fact is Liberals have either not been paying attention or they’re deliberately and wrecklessly spinning the facts. Let’s take a statement from Cindy Sheehan as an example claiming that Iraq was never a threat to the United States. This is patently untrue and makes my point that, like other Liberals, she is either a liar or an ignoramus.
*blush* Thanks, Joe. Always nice to hear.
Personally, I think the real shift wasn’t 9-11, but the end of the Cold War. Ronald Reagan was by far the biggest target of the kind of rhetoric you’re talking about. And it must have pained him, because I’m sure he agreed — it was just that the Soviet Union was a much bigger evil and a much bigger threat, and if making sure Communism fell meant supporting dictators in much smaller, less threatening countries, like Iraq… we held our noses and did it. I can’t imagine that Reagan wouldn’t be right here with us, a proud, loud neo-con, if he were still with us. Certainly GWB’s best rhetoric on these topics echoes the Gipper.
I know someone will probably point out GHWB as a counterexample — post-Cold War and still Realpolitik over idealism…. but…. with hindsight it’s easy to forget just how tenuous our Cold War victory seemed back then. Anyone remember a certain summer’s day when the Cold War sprang back full-formed, while GHWB calmly reminded us that “Sometimes coups fail.”? Whatever else you may disagree with him about, you have to love him for that moment.
Also, in my opinion, quite a number of liberals were… how shall we say… being a bit disingenuous about their priorities back in the ’80s. The same people who were declaring that we should support freedom abroad were in the Jimmy Carter camp of “communism=freedom” and “anti-communist=fascist” post-Orwellian definitions. Think back to our support of freedom fighters in Nicaragua… our installation of a democratic government in Grenada… etc, etc, etc. What they really objected to wasn’t that we had to support evil people in order to contain Communism — many of them were really objecting to the fact that we were trying to contain Communism at all.
“What they really objected to wasn’t that we had to support evil people in order to contain Communism — many of them were really objecting to the fact that we were trying to contain Communism at all.”
You’re right, of course…That distinction didn’t become clear to me until the last few years.
Kerry and all of today’s “far Left” cast were, and in their hearts probably still are, out to support socialism/communism in some form.
I remember Jimmy Carter’s remark that we had to lose (or finally had lost) our “inordinate fear” of Communism……a sick, hateful ideology that had murdered at least 110 million people worldwide since 1917, at last count.
Joe, not to mention Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, who opined that America was putting itself on the wrong side of history by opposing the spread of communism.
Man, there’s a whole flock of ‘hawks perched here today. Let’s see:
First, three of you are pretty impressive at this, in your own way, even you, Joe-Who-Never-Reads-Reader-But-Sure-Does-Spend-A-Lot-Of-Time-Doing-It. Niceties out of the way…
Clint, I’m enjoying the fact that you’re following me around, furiously checking your sources for that one term – god just that one perfect term – that will establish your credentials as a logician. And what does Wikipedia call the preceding comment, Clint? Ad hominem attack? Burden of proof shifting (remember that one)? You loaded down the site with examples of your own, so let’s look at a couple of them (just, as you say, for fun): (1) Clint says: “assertion – to be followed by evidence”. Evidence = Iraq today (and didn’t you see that coming). (2) Clint says: “Argument ad hominem — only a neocon would believe such a thing, and history will surely mock them as I do!” You got it. And since you later identified yourself as a “loud, proud Neo-Con”, you’ll always have to live with the policies you promote. How are you feeling about those policies so far?
NDT: I’m going to try to be serious here. Your earlier post leapt in one sentence from Somalia to Serbia and implied a linkage that would suggest anything a Dem President touches will turn out bad. (Dems all bad; GOP all good – runs counter to logic, doesn’t it, Clint?). Bill Clinton had been President, what, about a month longer at that point than Bush had been on 9.11; yet, NDT, have you ever blamed 9.11 on Bush? No, I think you put it on the guy before him. And, while I agree with you that Clinton chose an air war in Serbia rather than risk casualties from the ground, you try to make the outcome of that effort look like utter failure. Be reminded that after 79 days of air war, Milosevic gave in, peacekeeping forces occupied Kosovo and, while we can all nitpick at any part of that campaign and outcome, you’d be hard pressed to sell that as a counter to the outcome to date in Iraq. BTW, you called Clinton’s administration “paranoiacally afraid of casualties”, but did you feel the same about the decision of Bush I to stay out of Baghdad in Gulf I? On a personal note NDT: your comments about my position on Afghanistan are disappointing, because what you call “cornering” was my admitting I mis-read your 9.10 date as 9.11 (not many people write in terms of 9.10, you know). As I did long ago on another issue (the public debt), I admitted my mis-read. You generally admit your own mid-reads so far as I know (most recently, after your insistence that a straight guy here was gay). For you to come back months later on my views on the Afghanistan War and try to say they’re one thing when they’re another (and have been stated as such over and over since), is not even argumentative; it’s just downright deceitful and unbecoming of what I’ve known of you this past year. I won’t even get into your comments about my interest being focused only on “white Europeans”.
Say, Clint: weren’t you monitoring all comments for errors in logic? How come you didn’t recognize NDT’s ploys as “building and attacking a straw man”? Weren’t looking for it, were you? Which makes you an expert in yet another field: Selective Logic.
“Your earlier post leapt in one sentence from Somalia to Serbia and implied a linkage that would suggest anything a Dem President touches will turn out bad. ”
When I start condemning FDR for how World War II was conducted, then you can start making that statement, Reader. However, making my statements say that “anything a Dem touches will turn out bad” is a falsehood.
You have plenty of people in the Democratic Party who are capable and understand the good use of the military — Joe Lieberman is an excellent example. However, Bill Clinton is not among them.
As for my statements on Serbia, read the report. You will find that the air war did very little to deter Milosevic from killing, mainly because, as I pointed out, bombing where his troops were actually at — in the middle of the Kosovars — would have killed thousands of them as well.
BTW, you called Clinton’s administration “paranoiacally afraid of casualties”, but did you feel the same about the decision of Bush I to stay out of Baghdad in Gulf I?
That’s a rather odd comparison, Reader. You’re comparing a complete unwillingness to use ground troops whatsoever, with a resulting ineffectual action, with a massive commitment of ground troops that repelled and chased off with spectacular speed what had been the world’s fourth-largest army. It took you over two months’ worth of bombing to get Milosevic to withdraw; it took mere DAYS to do the same with ground troops to an army over five times larger.
If the Dems had been in power during Gulf War I, they would not have authorized military action against Saddam — remember how many Dems voted against it?
And as I said on another post, Reader, in regards to Afghanistan, Cindy Sheehan already outed you on that matter.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 20, 2005 @ 4:32 pm.
>Your earlier post leapt in one sentence from Somalia to Serbia and implied a linkage that would suggest anything a Dem President touches will turn out bad. ”
“When I start condemning FDR for how World War II was conducted, then you can start making that statement, Reader. However, making my statements say that “anything a Dem touches will turn out bad” is a falsehood. You have plenty of people in the Democratic Party who are capable and understand the good use of the military — Joe Lieberman is an excellent example. However, Bill Clinton is not among them.”
>>You know, of course, that we were talking about Dems in a more recent context than FDR. But, if we’re going back that far, then your use of Lieberman as your sole example qualifies you for “Dems 99.99% bad” rating.
“As for my statements on Serbia, read the report. You will find that the air war did very little to deter Milosevic from killing, mainly because, as I pointed out, bombing where his troops were actually at — in the middle of the Kosovars — would have killed thousands of them as well.”
>>You continue to leave the impression that you think the war only made Milosevic worse in his killing and that he’s still at it today.
>BTW, you called Clinton’s administration “paranoiacally afraid of casualties”, but did you feel the same about the decision of Bush I to stay out of Baghdad in Gulf I?
“That’s a rather odd comparison, Reader. You’re comparing a complete unwillingness to use ground troops whatsoever, with a resulting ineffectual action, with a massive commitment of ground troops that repelled and chased off with spectacular speed what had been the world’s fourth-largest army. It took you over two months’ worth of bombing to get Milosevic to withdraw; it took mere DAYS to do the same with ground troops to an army over five times larger.”
>>Could we dispense with the personal attribution of our government’s actions? I had nothing to do with the length of the air war in Serbia. These are things our government does. Sometimes we support our government in its actions (as you do with Bush II in Iraq); sometimes we don’t (as you apparently did not in the case of Clinton in Serbia).
“If the Dems had been in power during Gulf War I, they would not have authorized military action against Saddam — remember how many Dems voted against it?”
>What do we have here? An assumption. Didn’t think you liked to trade in assumptions NDT.
“And as I said on another post, Reader, in regards to Afghanistan, Cindy Sheehan already outed you on that matter.”
>And I’m outing you (again) as deceitful in your insistence that I did not support the War In Afghanistan.
Ever so fondly…
Good Lord, Reader…
I hardly know where to begin.
You only address two of my points — but in both cases you merely reassert the same fallacy. You asserted that “big stick” theory doesn’t apply to international relations. Your evidence was an ad hominem (neocons believe this; neocons are evil; therefore this is false). Today you attempt to counter my pointing that out by presenting evidence to support your claim. I know joe, who only reads your posts through my responses, will be on tenterhooks at this point, agog with anticipation at the brilliance of the logical argument that took you a week to create, and so I quote it in its entirety:
“Evidence = Iraq today”
Brilliant!
As to my second, you cheer at my paraphrase of your ad hominem and reassert it.
I don’t think you understand the nature of debate.
(should be anticipation _of_…)
Reader-
One other thought, re: “Big Stick” and foreign policy….
To suggest that “Big Stick” foreign policy is a “neo-conservative” idea mostly indicates a significant ignorance of American history.
The term is a reference to the pithily stated policy of Teddy Roosevelt. To suggest that he was a “neo-con” is ludicrous on both accounts. He was not a conservative, but a progressive. He called himself a progressive, his opponents derided him as a progressive, the papers called him a progressive, and the history books call him a progressive. Heck, he basically founded the Progressive Movement, and did found the Progressive Party! And he’s not a neo- anything, though it wouldn’t be unreasonable to note that many of the ideological foundations of neoconservatism do come to us through TR.
You know, of course, that we were talking about Dems in a more recent context than FDR. But, if we’re going back that far, then your use of Lieberman as your sole example qualifies you for “Dems 99.99% bad” rating.
Could you explain that one to me again? I said there are “plenty of people” and cited Joe Lieberman as an example. Where did I say he was the only one?
You continue to leave the impression that you think the war only made Milosevic worse in his killing and that he’s still at it today.
I think it should be remembered, as the report cited, that the war did very little towards its objective, which was to stop the murder of the Kosovars. Furthermore, it should also be remembered that Milosevic wasn’t removed by us — he was removed a year later by his own pissed-off electorate and armed forces because of his bumbling.
Make no mistake, I wholly supported military action against Milosevic to stop him from butchering the Kosovars. However, when we fight, we should fight in the best way possible, as our armed forces tell us, rather than the way that is most politically expedient. That’s also my biggest criticism of the Iraq war; quit letting shrieking moonbats keep us from sending an army big enough and comprised of what we need to get the job done.
Could we dispense with the personal attribution of our government’s actions?
Done.
What do we have here? An assumption. Didn’t think you liked to trade in assumptions NDT.
Over on my own blog, Reader, one of my regular commentors has been kind enough to provide me with what I lovingly call a list of spins Democrats were making six months after Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, reports of his brutality there, and after the UN and an international coalition had ASKED us to intervene.
Also keep in mind that Boxer and Kerry, among others, voted against it.
And I’m outing you (again) as deceitful in your insistence that I did not support the War In Afghanistan.
Go right ahead. I already pointed out your deception.
First off, Reader, I think you missed something in my original statement about Democrats.
When I start condemning FDR for how World War II was conducted, then you can start making that statement, Reader. However, making my statements say that “anything a Dem touches will turn out bad” is a falsehood.
You have plenty of people in the Democratic Party who are capable and understand the good use of the military — Joe Lieberman is an excellent example. However, Bill Clinton is not among them.
You continue to leave the impression that you think the war only made Milosevic worse in his killing and that he’s still at it today.
Again, read the report. You will find that the air war did very little to stop Milosevic from killing Kosovars. Furthermore, please always remember that Milosevic was removed by his own electorate a year later, not particularly because of what we did.
For the reasons Clint lined out elsewhere, I think intervening in Bosnia and Kosovo was wise from a humanitarian and strategic standpoint. However, both wars were fought in a Vietnamesque style — doing things because they appealed to the public, not because they were militarily sound — and that has repercussions, not the least of which that troops are STILL being shot and killed in both countries.
Could we dispense with the personal attribution of our government’s actions?
Done.
What do we have here? An assumption. Didn’t think you liked to trade in assumptions NDT.
Not really. One of my regular commentors over on North Dallas Thirty was kind enough to provide me a list of the desperate spins the Dems in Congress were making in early 1991 to explain their blocking of military action against Saddam, when he had invaded Kuwait five months earlier and an international coalition and the UN were asking for our help.
That’s also why nobody believed John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy , or the other moonbat Democrats who said they would have supported the war had we had UN approval — they already had their chance in Gulf War I and still voted against it.
And I’m outing you (again) as deceitful in your insistence that I did not support the War In Afghanistan.
(shrug) Fine. You can continue to defend your desperate spin that the Hardball transcript was lying and that Cindy Sheehan never said she opposed the Afghan war. However, as I already pointed out, the facts are not in your favor.
Say Cindy Sheehan was wrong, and I might believe you. But I don’t think you’re capable of doing that, because admitting that Mother Moonbat is wrong in one place opens up the can of worms that she’s not the infallible, nonpartisan voice you tried to make of her, and instead is a Democratic shill — even more likely, when you consider from where Daily Kos’s funding comes.
Reader-
In reviewing to respond to your claims about NDT’s posts, since you’ve asked for my comment, I noted a comment which you directed at me, which I failed to respond to.
In post #87, you responded to my call for some argument or evidence to back up your assertion that “the war in Iraq is bad” — and you responded with a quote from Senator Hagel, and a victory dance.
Bonus question to anyone who’s interested: What is the name of this fallacy?
Reader-
Re: logical criticism of NDT’s posts….
I’m pretty sure I don’t follow your logic here —- Criticizing the logic of your posts doesn’t require me to criticize every logical error in every post anyone puts up. Primarily, I argue against things I disagree with, and don’t argue quite as often against things I agree with. I’m not sure why you think there’s anything at all unsavory or even unusual about that.
As you’ll note in other threads if you actually pay attention, I do freely disagree with joe and NDT and others when I think they’ve gotten something wrong. That doesn’t necessarily mean that anything I don’t criticize is something that I support.
Since you’ve asked my opinion about some of NDT’s posts, I’ll try to help you out.
The only thing I can find to criticize is NDT’s assertion about Cindy Sheehan “outing you” on Afghanistan. I’m not sure what he means — it sounds like a reference to some previous debate the two of you have had about Afghanistan, but I don’t know the details. It’s perfectly conceivable that this contains a logical fallacy — for example that he’s overstating an argument about “imminency” and the analogy between the Iraq war and a hypothetical Afghan war preceeding 9/11… but all I can really say is that it’s unclear.
The only strawman I see is the argument that “Democrats are bad for the country and bad for the world in all cases” — but that’s the strawman you’ve created to attack, rather than addressing NDT’s actual point (about the negative consequences of withdrawing our troops from Somalia, and of our unwillingness to commit ground troops against Serbia — specifically, that it convinces the bad guys that the big stick behind our back is made of styrofoam.) The only way I’ve seen you address that point is through characterizing it in a dismissive manner (“inexplicably linking the Bush I disaster in Somalia to the Clinton I success in the War On Serbia“) — which, again, is not an argument.
(Now if you’d asked me to criticize TGC’s comment number 4…… or some of glisteny’s posts…)
Anyway, those are my thoughts. Thanks for asking. With hindsight, I suspect I should have just responded:
“Say, Clint: weren’t you monitoring all comments for errors in logic?”
No, Reader. I was debating the validity of some of your “points”, but nice attempt to change the subject.
Actually, as someone much smarter than I put it, the lesson of Serbia was that, if there were injustice and ethnic cleansing going on anywhere in the world, Bill Clinton would bomb the country adjacent to where it was happening.*
* Offer not valid in Africa or Southeast Asia
Thank you Clint. What a great post.
Again with the crickets chirping….
?
Your blog is very interesint
Smoking Gun
Hair Punk Style