[Conor Friedersdorf]
Apparently Bob Dole has written a scathing letter to Scott McClellan.
An excerpt:
In my nearly 36 years of public service I've known of a few like you. No doubt you will 'clean up' as the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm. When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.'
As an American taxpayer I'd like to think that I am the hand that fed Mr. McClellan, along with my fellow citizens. He owed loyalty to the United States of America, our constitution, laws duly enacted by our legislature and our citizenry. It may be that Mr. McClellan betrayed some of those loyalties, but the mere fact of criticizing the president after having left the administration isn't "biting the hand that fed" him.
Strangely, the Bush Administration thought that Scott McClellan was the best spokesperson they could find to articulate their policies. They hired him because they thought it was in their best interest, not as a personal favor to the erstwhile press secretary. Insofar as his book is accurate they've got no grounds to gripe, and the country is better off for having another account of what happened.
Much the same can be said of Bill Richardson, by the way -- James Carville is wrong to call him a Judas for serving in Bill Clinton's administration and later endorsing Barack Obama. As a writer, whose name escapes me, aptly asked, if Barack Obama is elected should we expect every member of his cabinet to pledge their support for President Michelle Obama in 2024?
this post has my seal of approval.
I always had considerable respect for Bob Dole, so this is a disappointment.
Possibly the long-term effects of Viagra on brain functioning need further study.
McClellan is getting paid with our taxes, correct? I doubt he has to take any oath of office(unless President Bush). Speaking of oaths of office. Someone should remind Bush what his is. It isn't to defend the people of this country. His oath(which I am sure he forgets), is to protect and defend the Constitution.
I know MM doesn't care, but loyalty counts to middle Americans like myself. SM's loyalty was to President Bush, not the American people. That's just the way it is.
JKC:
Any President that fails to defend the American people from foreign aggression to dot the Is and Ts of the Constitution will find himself duly impeached. Or political reality isn't your forte.
The thing I don't understand is that no one, but a completely naive imbecile, takes the job of White House press secretary and doesn't understand that lying, manipulation and withholding truth isn't one of the major job duties. And yes, that goes for whoever is in office - I'm sure Lincoln's secretary told the people the Civil War was about freeing the slaves.
Esher,
At least we found slaves when we went into the South during the Civil War.
I think Bob Dole was referring to disloyalty to this nation, not to this Administration. I think he meant that by undermining (or attempting to undermine) the war effort, an attempt to protect this country (whether one agrees with that premise or not), McClellan was biting the hand that fed him.
A loyal American would not have acted as McClellan did. Whether he disagreed with the Administration at the time or does so now, loyalty consists in trying to make the best of the situation, not sabotaging efforts to do so (whether one subscribes to those efforts or not). Note that Dewey resisted urgings to attack FDR's handling of WWII on precisely those grounds.
Enjoy your money, Scott.
Yes, McClellan was paid by the taxpayers, but he was paid to be an adviser and assistant to Bush. If he had serious doubts and concerns, didn't he have an obligation to express them internally, at the time? To actively support policies at the time, in private, and then to denounce the same policies later, in exchange for money, is disloyal to say the least.
"Insofar as his book is accurate..." But his book seems to be opinion and speculation. What objective, verifiable facts have come from it?
When he was paid to be part of the Bush administration, he claimed to have one set of opinions. Now, he's being paid to express a very different set of opinions. Given that all he offers are opinions, we can't evaluate his book without considering the circumstances.
"But his book seems to be opinion and speculation. What objective, verifiable facts have come from it?"
I suppose that depends on your definition of "verifiable." Certainly the war has been a mistake argued for by this administration on shifting rationales, some outright false, and none of which have proved to be very compelling or so far achievable. Certainly the press proved themselves, with some exceptions, to be generally reluctant in the run up to the war to say anything that resembled criticism or skepticism of the administration (see Glenn Greenwald for a great read and Moyers for a great documentary on the topic). These are objectively verifiable, open to public scrutiny, and supported by several other sources.
As to the other observations that McLellan makes, all I can say is that what he has to say sounds a lot like what several other observers with solid access to this administration have had to say, i.e., it is generally cloistered, group-thinking, intolerant of dissent, wishful, magical thinking mess of a group of people whose effects can be readily seen to most of the US public and internationally.
Yes, well, when somebody hires me to work for a public company, I work for the stockholders and not my boss and, in theory, I owe him nothing. In practice...well, remind me -- what species is it we're talking about here? I don't know what politics would look like without coalition building, exchanges of favors, mutual support, loyalty, and betrayal -- but it would have to be Vulcan rather than Human politics.
As for Scott McClellan -- from the reports, he's said nothing really new or interesting. The only novel aspect is that he's the one saying it. Of course, he'll be persona non grata among Republican politicians, and I don't think Democrats will trust him or have any use for him when this episode is over. But he's had a chance to get back at a few old adversaries, he'll be back into the limelight for a while, and -- judging by his Amazon ranking -- he may earn enough not to give a damn that he has no future in politics.
Sorry, I disagree, on all counts.
And citing Greenwald and Moyers? Good God. OK, Fidel's indisposed, but was Kim Jong Il out of the office?
Leave the Democrats out of this. They’ve got enough trouble figuring out how to run a primary without looking like Laurel and Hardy trying to paint out of the same bucket.
Occam: I think your reading of whose hand, exactly, is being bitten may be true, but I don't agree.
In the letter, Dole mentions his 36 years of public service, and saying he knows of people like Scott. I think it is clear he thinks of Scott as a mercenary social climber with no loyalty except to himself. So mercenary that he's willing to burn his former colleagues because it is now lucrative for him to do so. Sort of an Any Rand Avatar, really.
In other words, I think Dole is referring precisely to loyalty to his former employers in the Bush White House, not Americans at large.
Still, as someone who has taken the time to actually read "What Happened", I don't think those criticisms make sense (it is a pity Dole said he wouldn't read the book). Scott basically says that, during his time in the WH, he largely accepted uncritically all the arguments he made. He bought into the world view that Saddam was the next Hitler, mere months away from causing a nuclear armageddon. He says that looking back, he's ashamed for such willing suspension of disbelief. In other words, he's horrified by his own shallow thinking and naive acceptance of the rationale for war.
Well, that's a story to which I can related, because it roughly tracks my own. I wish I could say I was against the way because I saw how flimsy the evidence was. But I wasn't until about 6 months in or so, when buddies started dying and we didn't find any WMD, and it was clear the locals just wanted us to get out. I trusted my government and I'll very likely not make that mistake again.
Occam: I think your reading of whose hand, exactly, is being bitten may be true, but I don't agree.
In the letter, Dole mentions his 36 years of public service, and saying he knows of people like Scott. I think it is clear he thinks of Scott as a mercenary social climber with no loyalty except to himself. So mercenary that he's willing to burn his former colleagues because it is now lucrative for him to do so. Sort of an Any Rand Avatar, really.
In other words, I think Dole is referring precisely to loyalty to his former employers in the Bush White House, not Americans at large.
Still, as someone who has taken the time to actually read "What Happened", I don't think those criticisms make sense (it is a pity Dole said he wouldn't read the book). Scott basically says that, during his time in the WH, he largely accepted uncritically all the arguments he made. He bought into the world view that Saddam was the next Hitler, mere months away from causing a nuclear armageddon. He says that looking back, he's ashamed for such willing suspension of disbelief. In other words, he's horrified by his own shallow thinking and naive acceptance of the rationale for war.
Well, that's a story to which I can related, because it roughly tracks my own. I wish I could say I was against the way because I saw how flimsy the evidence was. But I wasn't until about 6 months in or so, when buddies started dying and we didn't find any WMD, and it was clear the locals just wanted us to get out. I trusted my government and I'll very likely not make that mistake again.
szr,
You may be right. I don't know.
FreedomLover - I think this was by Conor Friedersdorf, not MM
I agree with many McClellan critics that he would have better served the country by coming forward earlier.
I disagree , however , with those who say he should have at least waited until Bush was out of office. We've seen a lot of drum-beating about Iran recently that's reminiscent of the pre-Iraq propaganda he describes , and to whatever extent that his book lessens the chance that the American people will be similarly duped in the months ahead , it is valuable indeed.
I think you might be on to something there. There are all sorts of people who while on the public payroll are political appointees that “serve at the pleasure of the President.” In order for those people to do their jobs effectively, they have to have the trust and confidence of the President which includes the confidence that if you’re made privy to information about the decision-making process, that you’re not going to leak it to the press without authorization or turn around and stab the people in the back who trusted you enough to be willing to be candid and sometimes think aloud around you.
If a President or any other leader thinks that they cannot trust the discretion of the people around them, they’re going to be less likely to trust those people, less likely to seek their counsel and include them in the decision-making process. The problem isn’t just that if McClellan had an objection, that he should have raised it when he was in a position to do something about it. The problem is also that by stabbing his boss in the back, particularly when he was still in office, to make a quick buck with a “tell-all” book, he has just made it that much more difficult for every future president’s advisor to be able to do their job effectively.
"Sorry, I disagree, on all counts."
So then let me reverse that statement for you Occam. Instead of:
"Certainly the war has been a mistake argued for by this administration on shifting rationales, some outright false, and none of which have proved to be very compelling or so far achievable."
I'll change few things and see if you agree:
"Certainly the war has been a sound decision argued for by this administration on one sole rationale, which was true, and which has proved to be very compelling and achievable."
That better? Should we have a show of hands for who endorses this?
As to the second part, it's a little "I know you are but what am I" don't you think? plaaaaaaaayed.
I'd say a more (ahem) nuanced take would be that the Administration made a decision in good faith on what at the time seemed to be in the best interests of the US, and may in time turn out to be vindicated in that assessment.
Recall that Truman was excoriated for not winning the Korean War, instead pursuing a policy of containment of communism, so that its internal contradictions would have time to destroy it, while avoiding a possible nuclear war.
Many (e.g., MacArthur) viewed Truman's policy as hopelessly flawed, yet events have borne out the wisdom of his (at the time) unpopular policy. Can we agree on that?
Conversely, Europe rejoiced when Chamberlain returned from Munich, but events have borne out the folly of his (at the time) wildly popular approach. Can we agree on that as well?
The point is that the timescale on which to judge such decisions is not the month, but the generation. The soundness of a decision is often not apparent for quite a while after it has been made.
I made the last quip because in response to a tendentious and ridiculous straw man, which stopped just short of attributing cloven hooves to the Administration. The remark could equally well (or poorly) apply to the Democrats.
And admit it: the Democratic primary does resemble Laurel and Hardy painting out of the same bucket.
As an American taxpayer I'd like to think that I am the hand that fed Mr. McClellan, along with my fellow citizens. He owed loyalty to the United States of America, our constitution, laws duly enacted by our legislature and our citizenry.
Wow. What an incredibly narrow view of loyalty.
Remind me to trust Conor Friedersdorf with nothing. Ever.
"I'd say a more (ahem) nuanced take would be that the Administration made a decision in good faith on what at the time seemed to be in the best interests of the US, and may in time turn out to be vindicated in that assessment."
So what would it take to be bad-faith? Do you honestly believe, and when I say honestly believe I mean bet money on, the idea that this administration really believed that Iraq was a then-current threat to our national security that would necessitate a pre-emptive attack? Would you bet money on it? And if so, how much?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/reports/intelligence/story/8546.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/29959.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/reports/intelligence/story/30172.html
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/05/27/times/index.html
And in regard to the best interests of the US and how this will be understood in the future: What have we gained, now, materially or strategically, as of this day? I'm not talking about what *might* be understood in 20, 50 or 100 years, I'm talking about what you see now. The way we have to interpret US actions is what they most look like now, not whether history will twist and turn in such a way that this all looks excellent later given a certain set of bizarre and unforeseen events that finally give this fiasco and its effects a logical context for having been launched.
The proponents of this war never said the effects would only be understood further down the line, they said they would be now, and actually a good deal of time before now, when we a) stopped the non-existent nuclear program; b)retrieved the non-existent chemical and biological agents; and c) brought a real democracy to Iraq which appears to be more difficult than the much vaunted purple fingering that we've all been so proud of.
So again, what seems more likely today as of this moment? That this war has been a mistake, launched on ginned-up intelligence, and then argued for based on a shifting set of rationales and deliriously optimistic predictions, none of which will be accomplished, if at all, without the enormous expenditure of money and blood; or that it was essentially a good idea for good reasons and not in any way irresponsible both to the US and Iraq citizenry?
And when you evaluate this, just for a second forget that you supported this war all along and now, deep down feel a little embarrassed thinking back on that lapse in judgment.
Whoa, easy there big fella. Calm down.
Yes, I absolutely believe that the Administration acted in good faith, and thought there was a growing threat that needed to be nipped in the bud before it became an imminent one. I think a lot of people, on both sides of the aisle, and both sides of the Atlantic, thought so too.
Turn the question around: what did the Administration have to gain by invading Iraq? Remind me of the Presidents who benefited from entering into wars. How did going to war work out for Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy/LBJ, or Bush 41? Only an idiot would willingly bet his whole Presidency on such a chancy proposition unless he thought it was unavoidable.
Bad faith would be undertaking the war knowing full well that Iraq posed no threat whatever, but portraying it as one for some purpose unrelated to the decision-maker’s considered judgment of the best interests of the United States. Similarly, bad faith would be impugning the motives of the decision-maker and the results of his decisions, not out of a sincere belief, but merely for one’s political aggrandizement. Can we agree on that?
My point earlier is that right now is much too early to tell. To take a prosaic example, I recently dug up my backyard to install a sprinkler system. While I was doing so, the yard looked like hell. But now, it’s finished, the system works great. Works in progress are almost invariably a mess.
No, this is exactly what we must not do. By that standard, one would never have a broken bone set, because doing so will cause greater pain right now. A wise man would ignore the short-term view, and consider ultimately where our long-term interests lie, and act accordingly. Put another way, by the here and now standard, one would never invest in the future; why forego short-term consumption for long-term benefit?
That straw man has been taking some serious steroids. First, the requisite events are not at all bizarre and unforeseen. We invaded Germany, Japan, and Italy, deposed fascist dictatorships in all three, and rebuilt them as democracies (from extremely unpromising raw material, in the case of the first two). We now count them as friends and allies (to some extent, at least). So why is it so bizarre and unforeseen that we might do the same thing a fourth time?
As for intelligence failures, everyone thought Saddam had WMD, and/or an interest in developing them and a capability to do so. Everyone. Bush, Clinton (both of ‘em), the Republicans, the Democrats, the UK, France, Germany, everyone. (If you like, I’ll burn some bandwidth with a plethora of links.) Hell, Saddam had already used them on the Kurds. Most likely Saddam did his best to sustain this impression regarding his WMDs as a way to bluff the Iranians.
But turn your argument around. Suppose, as was the case, that everyone believed that Saddam either had or soon would have WMD, that Bush poohpoohed it, and, say, Manhattan suffered a chemical or biological (never mind nuclear) attack. Can you honestly tell me that you wouldn’t then be howling for Bush’s head on a pike, saying “But everyone knew about Saddam’s WMD program! What an idiot for not taking action!”
I thought the war was a good idea in 2003, and I think so now too. I don’t feel the slightest embarrassment. Quite the contrary, I knew back when that this would be a long haul, and that steadfastness would be required. I live outside a major military base, and periodically chat with troops returning from Iraq. They don’t consider the war a mistake, are proud of the work they’ve done there, and believe in finishing the job. I’m with them – 100%.
first - remember to tell me how you block quote, your posts are much easier to read.
second - it's easier to feel calm if you don't think anything's wrong.
third - still not convinced. I think any reasonable view right now is that Iraq is in a shambles and will continue to be for a long time. I also think that it is in a mess after the US but moreso the Iraqis have paid a huge price in maiming and death - and money. I also think that at this time we've gained very little and that the gain for Iraqis if at all will be much further down the road and at considerable hardship in addition to what they have already suffered.
"To take a prosaic example, I recently dug up my backyard to install a sprinkler system. While I was doing so, the yard looked like hell. But now, it’s finished, the system works great. Works in progress are almost invariably a mess."
Prosaic indeed but understood. To this I would just say that it's not your yard, you're not the one doing the digging, you don't really seem to know what you're doing in any event, in the process you've torn down your neighbor's house, your neighbor seems to have more of an interest in brewing his own beer than in gardening or lawn care right now, and your wife is firmly against it for various reasons including her suspicion that you're really after your neighbor's old lady.
"We invaded Germany, Japan, and Italy, deposed fascist dictatorships in all three, and rebuilt them as democracies (from extremely unpromising raw material, in the case of the first two). "
We acted to stop a credible and *demonstrated* threat to our allies and Germany's neighbors that if unchecked could have had serious consequences - and even then we went in kicking and screaming only after being provoked, and we actually went to war with the countries that attacked or harrassed us, not with, say, China.
". . . wise man would ignore the short-term view, and consider ultimately where our long-term interests lie, and act accordingly. "
But again this was never sold as a long term investment in blood and money. This was about finding wmds, then taking down Hussein, then installing a democracy, not as sequential goals but as serial reasons for the same action - invading Iraq.
Beside this, using your logic, anything can be rationalized. In fact, you may want to rethink that sprinkler system for a variety of reasons I'm imaginging right now - I won't go into details but I think history will prove it was not a good idea.
"Quite the contrary, I knew back when that this would be a long haul, and that steadfastness would be required. "
So knowing that, why did you choose *this* fight instead of really sinking in to Afghanistan and trying to secure things there? In the same time that we have not seen improvement in Iraq, we've had plenty of time to watch our blunder in Afghanistan unfold. In other words, let's say your right about 20 to 50 years down the line this turning out just great, what about all the other places that are hostile, have dictators, might have wmds, and seem like easy take downs until you try to occupy them? Why Iraq over those other places?
"I live outside a major military base, and periodically chat with troops returning from Iraq. They don’t consider the war a mistake, are proud of the work they’ve done there, and believe in finishing the job. I’m with them – 100%."
1) I wouldn't believe it was a mistake either if I were them.
2) I also would rightly feel proud.
3) I would also believe in finishing what we started.
But I'd only be right about (2).
And finally, in relation to those soldiers, it's easy to say "hey wait a bit and this gets a lot better," or, "it's like a sprinkler installation" or "it's like a broken bone," but around 4000 of us and untold numbers of Iraqis won't be around to wait for anything good or bad. I don't see one thing that we've accomplished that would make even one soldier's death seem worthwhile.
(You can blockquote by enclosing the quote with (blockquote)quote here(/blockquote), just replace the parentheses with angle brackets.)
Frankly, I’m less concerned about Iraq and Iraqis than I am the U.S. and Americans. (I fully expect that order of priorities from any country, btw.) If the Iraqis wanted to slaughter each other ad nauseam, and I were convinced that they’d keep it to themselves, I’d pretty much leave them to it. Call it the Darfur plan. Sure, send some stiff letters, condemn the slaughter in speeches, but let it go at that. If our national interests are not involved, then our nation shouldn’t get involved either.
If we can help some other people while not harming ourselves, then I’m all for that. But if it’s our interests or theirs, it’s ours. Sorry, but I think that’s how it’s got to be. If the shoe were on the other foot, I’d expect them to do the same thing.
I’d say a more precise analogy would be your neighbor throwing garbage into his yard until flies, wasps, rats, rattlesnakes, and other vermin set up housekeeping in it, and the problem threatens to slop over to harm your family. There comes a point when a man has to take action to protect his family, the approval or disapproval of others notwithstanding. This is not to say that Iraq was necessarily in that state; reasonable men can differ on that. But if it were in fact the case, then taking action to deal with the threat would be fully justified, indeed mandatory, in my opinion.
How many people died because we sat on our hands until the last moment? William Shirer, in Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (which I strongly recommend reading), points out that Hitler’s generals considered him a dangerous lunatic (can’t imagine why) whom they considered removing as soon as he stumbled, but he kept winning his bluffs (to their astonishment).
I lived in Europe for quite a few years, and was periodically upbraided as an American for not helping, e.g., the Brits, until forced to do so. They didn’t appreciate being left to their fate until the decision was forced upon us.
Doesn’t matter. No one of normal intelligence expects any war to be short or painless, even if it is sold that way. Barbara Tuchman’s Guns of August makes clear that troops mobilized in August (after Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination in June) expected to be home a month. Not even close.
Easy. Afghanistan doesn’t matter, for a variety of reasons.
A big part of the problem is Arab disaffection (with Israel, the Palestinians, the infidel presence in Saudi Arabia) driving Islamic fundamentalism and terror. Afghanistan is not Arab. It’s pretty much where God would stick the nozzle if He were going to give the world an enema.
Iraq, on the other hand, is the most promising place to shift the historical trajectory of the Middle East from authoritarianism to a pluralistic, liberal capitalistic, republican democracy. Besides the threat posed by Saddam Hussein (I think we can agree he was a threat, even if we disagree about its magnitude), Iraq has the most cosmpolitan, educated, and secular culture of the region (after Lebanon), as well as oil to help it become prosperous. It’s not theocratic, destitute, or backward, and it’s centrally located. No other country has such potential to show the Arab street that a viable alternative to theocratic or strong man rule exists, and can make their lives better. It has the potential of being the Arab world’s Hong Kong, a model of what can be done.
It’s a gamble. No two ways about it. Even a long shot, I’ll grant you. But I think our long-term interests lie in trying to break the vicious cycle in which the Middle East fails miserably, blames others for its failures, and thereby guarantees it will fail again. Israel has shown that successful nations can be built in the Middle East, but we need an Arab example.
One upside to taking down Saddam Hussein is that the next time an American President (one perceived as having some cojones, anyway) squints at some tinpot dictator and says, “We don’t like what you’re doing,” that dictator has got to ask himself whether he feels lucky (pace Eastwood). If he miscalculates, he just might end up with a ten foot drop with eight feet of rope around his neck.
That’s why, I suspect, Khaddaffi ‘fessed up to the IAEA about his own nuclear program (which they hadn’t known about). Taking out Khaddaffi would be child’s play relative to Saddam. Even the French could have done it, and he knew it. (Three million people, almost all living within 20 miles of the coast.)
It’s not possible to negotiate with someone who feels he has nothing to lose. Thanks to Bush, every dictator now has to worry about what he might lose.
Matter of opinion. They’re there, on the ground, and see it all. They pay the price, and they think it’s worth it.
I have to respect that.
And I do.
well at least now we're revealing our selves.
I know I might be demonstrating Godwin's law here, but you are saying that if *all* the Germans did was to push for genocide of the Jews but not invade other countries (or maybe a few), so long as it did not affect our national interest you'd be alright with that, correct?
so if Iraq was as it was described by the individuals agitating for war, then what we did would be worth it. that's kind of the central point of contention here I think.
of course a matter of opinion - who else pays the price are the Iraqis, but they're apparently not up there on the priority list. And I would add that there would be good evidence to suggest that those who are "there," "on the ground," and paying "the price" would be the last ones to ask about whether the exercise was worth it. mainly based on Leon Festinger.
thanks for the block quote tip btw.
Of course. We can’t right every wrong in the world, so we need to pick our fights. At this point in world history, the U.S. is the major force for good in the entire world, and generally, the only serious force for good in the world. (Letters, speeches, reports, committees, etc. don’t count; I’m talking about actually doing something.) And if the U.S. doesn’t take the lead – see, for example, Bosnia, right on the impotent EU’s doorstep – then nothing will be done. Zip.
Nope, not necessarily. I live in the real world. Injustice occurs, and sometimes needs to be rectified. But the converse is not true: that the United States needs to rectify every injustice. We need to choose in which occasions it is appropriate to expend American lives and treasure. One what basis should we make that decision? When American interests – broadly defined – are involved.
Let me put it this way: if we were drafting liberals to go to Darfur, would they enthusiastically agree or violently oppose that idea?
I think we both know the answer.
Absolutely.
This is simplistic. There are Iraqis and then there are Iraqis and then there are people who are in Iraq. I too grieve for innocent Iraqis killed. I really do.
On the other hand, some of the people in Iraq, or who came to Iraq, wanted killing. I don’t grieve for their deaths, nor should you, nor should any other decent person. Killing those who torture others with electric drills, and send mental defectives into souks with bomb vests, to impose their brutal and deranged “religious” views, is an undiluted good, in my opinion. To quote total death counts in Iraq, a fundamental tenet of contemporary communist agitprop, is to conflate the innocent with the guilty, and is morally repugnant. It is no different than adding the number of concentration camp victims to SS casualties to arrive at the number of Germans killed in WWII, and equally repellent, and for the same reason.
The last ones? Seriously? I don’t take their opinions as Holy Writ, any more than I take anyone else’s, but I take them as worth more than those of leftist agitators and soft-headed liberals who need to be saved from their own silliness. I think we are in a fight to shape the future, and to avoid an Islamic Dark Age descending on Western Civilization – no less. It’s not a fight we can afford to lose.
notice that I did not make any reference to the right or conservatives or wingnuts or what have you, just debated on the merits. but it's good to have a few back and forths to the point where the pus begins to excress.
Agreed. But what do you think the ratio really is of out of towner terrorist to innocent civlian deaths. Just because it feels better that way doesn't mean it's true. The likelihood is that between shock and awe and 5 years of occupation and terrorisism from insurgents the death toll is between around 80,000 (IBC) and 150,000 (WHO) not counting outliers like the Hopkins study (around 600,000), of course that's agitprop to anticipate your talking point.
I suppose I'm just always amazed that people won't just admit that this has been a hard-on adventure allowing the true patriots to "support the troops" and be "proud to be an American," festoon their cars with bumper stickers and ribbons, and generally jerk off in some patriotic snuff fantasy in place of realism about what we're doing in foreign, sovereign countries in the name of the United States.
Of course that's contrary to the realists out there who believe we're "in a fight to shape the future, and to avoid an Islamic Dark Age descending on Western Civilization – no less."
At this point in world history, the U.S. is the major force for good in the entire world -- Occam's Beard
Fortunately I believe most Americans are finally starting to recognize that this is an idiotic thing to say. Not to mention incredibly anti-Christian.
Anti-Christian? Are you saying that with approval, or have you converted?
I'll go further: the United States is the only force for good in the world.
That's not exactly true. Britain and Australia get a look-in there too. But it's close enough to being true to make it a non-risible proposition.
Let me expand on what I mean. I mean that when people somewhere need help, they look to the U.S. If the U.S. doesn't help, no one will (or can). Ask any Kosovar, Bosnian, or tsunami victim.
Fair enough, but my point was that troops returning from Iraq are rather better informed than most about the situation there, and certainly better informed than pontificating lefties. So I would give the former’s opinions far greater credence than the latter’s.
No idea. But the correct ratio to consider is terrorist- and terrorist-perpetrated deaths vs. innocent civilian deaths for which we are responsible.
And you’re partially correct in thinking that I consider reporting total death toll figures as agitprop, for the reasons I mentioned above. One could make exactly the same arguments against invading Germany. Michael Moore could have produced a movie showing young Germans flying kites, flowers in bloom, young lovers walking hand in hand, and then cut to scenes of Berlin after the war, and solemnly intoned that 7 million Germans died.
Absolutely true, and absolutely misleading rubbish, for several reasons. First, it invites the conclusion that had we not invaded, none of those people would have died. Second, it lumps together the deaths of young Schicklgruber and of the war criminals hanged after the war with those of the anti-Nazi resistance and the poor slobs in the death camps. Third, it misses the point that killing many of those Germans was precisely the idea.
So for that reason, I couldn’t care less about the total number of deaths. We are not responsible for deaths caused by the terrorists – they are. We are responsible for the deaths of terrorists, and rejoice in our actions. We are responsible for the deaths of some innocent civilians, and regret our actions in those cases.
It’s nothing of the kind. Those of us of a certain age (ahem) remember the way troops were vilified by the left during and after the Vietnam War. That’s why you see explicit displays of support, to avoid the left demonizing the troops yet again. (It’s why veterans – to a man – detest John Kerry. He was the messenger of agitprop in 1971 with that “babykiller,” “rapist,” “war criminal,” and “murderer” crap. It was a flat lie, and he knew it, and propagated solely for his personal aggrandizement.)
The “jerking off” as you eloquently put it, is on the left. Aging Aquarians with their gray ponytails trying to relive their salad days, their numbers swelled by Gen X and Yers who regret having missed the 60s and think that this is their Vietnam (not to mention that striking a fashionably lefty pose is a great way to get laid), each outdoing the other in positing the most ludicrous positions, and thereby to “outcool” the other. Meanwhile, hard-core leftist idealogues (of the Ayers, the forrmer terrorist bomber, ilk) yank the strings.
You’re bright, but obviously young. Someday you’ll awake, and realize that you’ve been had.
I did.
But point to where the troops are being vilified now. This, as you rightly say, is *not* another Vietnam, so while those on the left that are allegedly hoping for a big take down of the US - although I certainly don't want that and haven't met anyone of any persuasion that wants that - are wrong to see this as a refighting of that war, so are those - and I believe you to be one of them - who think this is where we'll finally get it right and leave all that shame of bungling and anti-American leftist bs behind.
The reason I say that I would ask the returning soldiers how they think it's going last is simply for the fact that they're too forcibly emotionally invested in what's going on over there. The more time put in, the more personal witnessing of bloodshed, the more pain and hardship, the more they - and any of us - are likely to see whatever the purported goal is as being that much more worthwhile - just basic psychology 101.
I think that the body count is important to attend to, and I think we'll see that we will be responsible for a significant number (that's [deaths with our invasion]-[deaths without our invasion]. I'm not a fan of Michael Moore, and I think that he has done more against what I believe than for it by making all of this into some kind of grand theater. I am very happy and proud to be a US citizen but wish the current administration didn't represent me. I think that the deaths of people in general are to be counted and not sorted solely by country or us and them.
I'm doing fine on the getting laid front, am married, and 39. I don't trot my political views out to be "cool" or "with-it" and in fact feel a little to the left of most my compatriots. I am on my own. I think the rehashing of history is happening with other people.
Anyway, I have to say that this has been one of the more sensible and sane comment discussions I've had the pleasure of having with someone I could not be more at odds with ideologically - and thanks for not taking anything I said as being unduly personal or ad hominem because I certainly didn't mean it that way.
Relationships might be looked at for their ambivalence. McClellan seemed to strugle to be effective as the PR guy for the White House. In his reflection, I think he misapportioned the blame, his own limitations vs. those of Bush. Bush has his limitations, but I think he wanted as president, as any general would, to avoid having our military and economy destructively encircled by enemies. How the 'personally negotiate with enemies and disengage from forward positions' approach will work is presently unknown. To return to McClelan, it seems he has restored his self esteem by identfying with the aggressors in the press corps and expanding on his negative ambivalence toward the president. I think what Dole was looking for was to find McClellan say to himself, "I fought the good fight (in spite of my limitations which might not have been so evident if the president hadn't been a Daddy's boy)." Instead he has become brilliant to himself and the president's opponents which might eventually be advantage foreign enemies.
oh good lord give it a break. bush will be in office for a handful of months more. can anyone take a breath without equating anti-bush with pro-terrorist? anyone? but the tone was perfect for its "I'm a reasonable guy but this Mclellan might have in the future subverted our national security" kind of tone. bravo
I semi-differ there. I’m more worried about Americans, then Iraqis, and positively thrilled to learn of the deaths of terrorists.
timex, fair enough, and same here. Any ad hominem cast to my comments was unintended. I actually wasn't referring to you personally, but speaking generically to usual dramatis personae on the left, but that probably wasn't apparent.
Your environment sounds as though it comprises only patriotic, loyal, a bit left-of-center Americans. Again, fair enough. The problem is that they’re not driving the bus. Hard-core straight-up Marxists/ Leninists/ Stalinists/ Maoists/ Castroites/ Trotskyites/ what-have-you-ites are driving the bus. There’s not a scintilla of good faith to be found among them. Their goal – which they (privately) make no bones about – is to undermine this country, and its institutions, so that they can ultimately build a socialist utopia run by …uh…them.
I had the advantage of fetching up at Berkeley for grad school lo these many years ago, when I was 21 and all this left-wing crap was just taking wing. In three months I went from a fashionably lefty type to the conservative curmudgeon you (virtually) see before you today. Much like watching sausage and laws being made, seeing left-wing political positions being made (and implemented) is repellent, and I think would you, too. To get a rough idea of the atmosphere, go to www.zombietime.com. Things haven't changed much. Zombie is hated for photographically chronicling the cesspool of Bay Area leftist politics because leftists know people will reject them if they learn more about them.
(I had a bunch of links to leftists vilifying the troops, but for some reason can't post them. I'll try again later.)