December 6, 2005
Howard Dean compares Iraq not just to Vietnam, but to Watergate.
Here. We've heard the stock comparison to Vietnam many times, of course, but why bring up Watergate -- except to let the world see that you're drooling over the idea of impeachment? Doesn't the chairman of Democratic National Committee have something better to do -- like inspire confidence that Democrats can be trusted with national security?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
57 comments:
A more grievous error is his declaration that we've lost, Iraq is unwinnable, etc. Low intensity conflict is fought in the hearts and minds of people where the fighting occurs, and in the hearts and minds of the citizens of the assymetric "great power." An insurgency never ends, and is not end-able, until one side or the other gives up. Runaway Howard's declaration that we've lost and it's unwinnable is significant because as DNC chair, he "represents" the voice of roughly half the country. This kind of statement gets noticed by AQ and the Baathist scum and the criminals and plain old insurgents, and it encourages them to fight harder. War is a battle of the wills, and the material "teeth" of a nation can only be as strong as its will to win; and against an enemy that cannot win tactical engagements, the will to win is everything. Dean's statements will encourage the folks we're up against in Iraq to think "Hey, look, the Americans are beaten. Let's seize everything we can from them and kick them in the butt on the way out the door." The fact that he doesn't grasp this fundamental bit of political theory, voiced by every martial philosopher from Sun Tzu and Musashi through Clausewitz and Hart and Marshall, tells you everything that you need to know about Dean's fitness to lead the nation, or one of the nation's two major political parties. Unbelievable. Then again, from Runaway Howard, maybe nothing is beyond belief.
That's really all you've got to rely on for your Bush vote, though. He inspired your confidence more than Kerry or the Dems, and that was the most important issue to you at election time, right?
(Don't get me wrong: I've read comments where you threaten to censor people who misunderstand or disrespect you: 12/3 9:40am Alito oath post. I'm just trying to see where your analysis is coming from.)
Perhaps this is a reason that conservative bloggers -- more advocates than journalists often -- tend to downplay negative reports of success in Iraq, and still have a strange confidence that this administration is spending billions effectively.
If you can't win on the merits of Bush administration success, at least point out how horrible things would be with the Dems in power. (And I like the way you worked in drooling -- jism and assorted bodily fluids rock!)
ps. I think the Vietnam comparison is more applicable to the "what now" feeling going through society, then any true comparison of strategies or policies.
Thanks for hearing me out. Strange times this holiday season; you think a pre-emptive strike on Iran is possible?
Al: But isn't it also true in military analysis that when you've lost the will of the people to fight, then you're in for a rough battle?
Sorry for the follow up, but the next question to Al would have to be:
Have Howard Dean and the Dems become so influential that you think they are the cause of the loss of the will of the American people to support this fight?
Or could it be a distinct lack of confidence in this president and his Administration brought on independently of anything the minority party has said or done?
Red state/Blue state may win you an election or two by a close margin; it's not enough to win you the support of your people necessary to win a prolonged fight. But then I 'spose, you could always blame the liberal media and the Dems until people catch on to that.
I rather liked Governor Dean's record, but then he became candidate Dean. And for a while, that was okay; he was kind of shouty and anti-war, a hysterical liberal in training. But inevitably, and you can blame Joe Trippi for this as much as anyone, candidate Dean realized that the mob was cheering for his anti-war speeches, not his economic management, so he played to what worked, and drifted left. So I liked candidate Dean rather less than Governor Dean. And then he started running for Chair of the DNC, and he began to show disturbing potential to turn into a full-fledged hysterical liberal, which he in due course became. So now he's Chairman Dean, and really, he's a bit of a dick, and you can see that the more smart Democrats - Bayh, Herseth, Clinton - are positively embarrassed by him.
Mary: So you're saying inspiring confidence is a bad thing?
No preemptive strike, we should always allow our enemies to strike us first while we are singing Kumbaya.
The constant references to Vietnam and the dearth of reporting "good" works, efforts and the fact we are actually winning is often the reason for people to lose their will. It is possible to steer a people's will as is being done now; as it was done then, as it has always been.
And heaven of horrors, I'd like to see a return of The Draft too and a preemptive strike against N. Korea. No, Iran. No, Syria. No, Howard Dean's Headquarters, let's start with the most dangerous.
Mary:
You said "we have lost the will of the people" to fight and win. I am paraphrasing you and assume you are referring to recent poll results.
Unfortunately for you and the democratic leaders like Dr. Dean we don't run the country based on the latest poll...instead we have periodic elections. I understand you are probably gleeful when you read the poll results as you need to hold tight to any evidence that the voters were wrong in 2004.
Lastly, wait until the folks get wind of Senator Kerry's recent comments regarding the troops. I suspect even the the polls in Massachusetts will smack him around a whole lot.
Aj Lynch:
This is not really about Kerry or Dean anymore, though. They don't hold the power. The election is over. Your team won. You get to take the success, or the blame, for the choices you make.
I don't follow polls, just talk to people I eat with and see regularly. A united country with everyone pulling together -- I just don't see it right now.
Where is the leadership? Dean and Kerry and Kennedy are out. Who's up?
Paul: No. Inspiring confidence = good thing. Where has it been in this administration? Trust has been lost, and I don't see much effort to regain it. (Cheering happy doesn't count.)
If we're "winning" the fight against terrorism, show me don't tell me.
"It is possible to steer a people's will as is being done now; as it was done then, as it has always been." Well, is someone asleep at the wheel? The administration in power -- why aren't they steering us?
Cute Kumbaya reference. By assuming I'm a peacenik, you missed your chance to sell me on our country supporting another's pre-emptive strike on Iran.
Lose that Red State/Blue State mentality, and get to work steering. Honest appraisals from people in the know, not just political cronies. You have to re-earn trust and unite people to fight wars, not just win by a hair.
Maybe it's just a different mentality that hasn't yet been grasped by this administration and its supporters. I'm optimistic though.
I'm beginning to think a bunch of Republicans got together and pulled an elaborate 'reverse Moby' and skewed the post Katrina polls wildly against the President. (The Rasmussen Robo-polls never moved that far from where they've been since before the election)
The goal being to get the pretend moderates within the Democratic party to once again embrace their fringe.
Once the Democrats drop the moderate charade the majority of Americans (who are more moderate to conservative than they are moderate to liberal) will be so turned off by this group of crazed folks that the red states will get redder, the purple states will get redder, just as the blue states go from blue to shocking blue.
And patriotism still counts to a lot of people, the President is both a person, an office, and a symbol. The constant belittling of a president didn't do Conservatives much good when Pres. Clinton was the target and it has only harmed Liberals with Pres. Bush as boogeyman.
(you'd think they'd have learned their lesson with the constant derision of Pres. Reagan only to have him be viewed as one of the greatest Presidents of all time by many, many citizens)
>>>Al: But isn't it also true in military analysis that when you've lost the will of the people to fight, then you're in for a rough battle?
Yes, it's true, but the relevant question on a day when John Kerry calls our troops terrorists isn't *whether* you've lost support, it's how or why. When the leadership holding the trust and confidence of one half of the country repeats unceasingly that it's a lost cause, the people who vote for them will tend to believe it. That's why they call people like Runaway Howard political "leaders." And if they scream and shout long enough, eventually even the supporters will become dispirited.
>>>>>Have Howard Dean and the Dems become so influential that you think they are the cause of the loss of the will of the American people to support this fight?
No, not the entire American people. Just 49% or so. And they will wear the rest of us out because frankly, we're tired of arguing with you tendentious people who would just as soon lose an important battle in a long war, if it meant you could score some points in the polls for a couple months.
>>>>Or could it be a distinct lack of confidence in this president and his Administration brought on independently of anything the minority party has said or done?
I like the "independently" qualification to your question - as if repeating "Bush Lied People Died" and "no blood for oil" and "Bush is a miserable failure" for three years as a party mantra happened in a complete and utter vaccuum, and had no effect on the world. Might as well conclude that the Johnstown flood occurred solely and "independently" because a dam failed, and the nature of water and hydrodynamics had nothing to do with it.
>>>Red state/Blue state may win you an election or two by a close margin; it's not enough to win you the support of your people necessary to win a prolonged fight. But then I 'spose, you could always blame the liberal media and the Dems until people catch on to that.
The morale of the people is something largely propped up or driven down by leadership actions. Bush is to some extent responsible - but to discount the constant harping from the left, and the MSM's utter inability to report anything other than bad news is irrelevant, shows an amazing blindness to context that is stunning. You know how Bush's speech at Annapolis was reported? No, of course not, because you didn't see any mention of it, save for a CNN shot of sleeping midshipmen parked in the auditorium an hour before the speech; or in a NY Times article talking about how the "cadets" received the speech - a fundamental error comparable to comparable to discussing how the Pope governs the Baptist Church. Come on Mary, they can't even tell Cadets from Middies. You want me to say their war reporting is accurate, especially when I have friends (including people I served with) over their right now telling me the MSM is lying to me? I was born at night, but not last night.
Besides, this third argument is utterly inconsistent with your first two. Your first two arguments are that it's wrong to blame the Dems for undercutting the war effort, because the Dems just don't matter. This argument is that it's not a red or blue thing, because public opinion is move-able.
Mary:
Inspiring confidence = good thing. Where has it been in this administration?
We are winning. The proof is everywhere, you refuse to admit you were wrong and see it and our liberal media refuses to tell it and our educators refuse to teach it.
We are trying to show you we're winning; the soldiers involved are trying to show you. You just refuse to see.
My Kumbaya reference is in effect challenging you to explain how the American people should be protected? You are a critic, fine. Do you have a plan, a general idea? I'm not asking for specifics. What is it?
I would much rather be steered by my ideas, and those of my neighbors than a government, thank you. My press should give me information, without agenda toward promoting one political party over another and let me decide and people should not use falsehoods to overthrow an election they did not like.
Maybe the money quote is "He said the Democrat proposal is not a 'withdrawal,' but rather a 'strategic redeployment' of U.S. forces."
But his point that we should "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately." would reduce the troop strength in Iraq by over half and sounds like cutting and running to me.
I think the Watergate point was gratuitous. That was the high point of many Democrats' political experience, and they no doubt want to repeat it. Unfortunately for them, the Iraqi WMD intel mistakes are not going to end up with the impeachment of President Bush.
Rather, if they concentrate too hard on it, the country is going to be reminded that the real failure was with our intelligence gathering apparatae, and, most notably, the CIA, which had been hobbled by the last two Democratic administrations, esp. as to its covert (i.e. actual spy) operations.
Besides, there is the politics involved. Nixon faced a Democratic Congress. Clinton faced a Republican one. Bush faces one controlled by his own party, which is not about to give the Democrats this satisfaction, short of really heinous High Crimes, etc.
Mary:
You said"This is not really about Kerry or Dean anymore, though. They don't hold the power. The election is over. Your team won. You get to take the success, or the blame, for the choices you make."
I don't expect credit or blame- I just want America, our country, to do great things and that includes winning in Iraq. Can you say the same?
NY Times columnist Frank Rich did a similiar link in his July 10th column. I blogged on it here.
http://thefloridamasochist.blogspot.com/2005/12/are-howard-dean-and-frank-rich-same.html
The former Vermont Governor says the silliest things. I wouldn't pay much attention to him. Except for hardcore democrats, I don't think anyone finds him credible.
Bill
OK, upon reflection, Chairman Dean's historical analogy deserves another.
Had he been in charge at Bastogne when with the Germans demanding unconditional surrender, I doubt his reply would have been, Nuts!.
(Though, Nuts, can be applied to Chairman Dean in another context quite readily)
Mark said "...There's ZERO evidence of "winning". Citing elections doesn't cut it, unless you count as winning helping to form a totalitarian radical Shiite state like Iran....."
This assumption about Iraq becoming the next Iran is common for critics.
I will concede that the the Iraq policy was mostly a failure if a totalitarian shia Iranian type regime emerges in Iraq. However, if a totalitarian Shia state does not emerge in Iraq within the next few years, will you concede that you were wrong.....
Who wants to wager.....
Is Dean being tactical? Or undisciplined? Has he simply gone round the bend?
"[I]dea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong."
Why do some politicians write the TV commercials for their opponents?
"....Comparing the war in Iraq with WWII is the same as comparing apples with buildings. I.e., nothing in common...."
There are plenty of worthwhile historical comparisons of similarities and contrasts between Iraq and World War II. To ignore them is folly.
What then would you compare to the Iraq war.
"...Bush is to some extent responsible..."
I'm going be optimistic, and take this as "we're making progress here."
OK folks, off on a business trip. Thanks for making a chilly morning a little warmer, and have a good day. (No lie; I really mean that. God bless us everyone, everywhere... how does Kumbaya start again?)
Regarding Deans prounouncement about Iraq, would that a high level Al Qaeda member would publicly state that he believes his troops can't win the war -- it would raise the morale of *our* troops tremendously.
But say what you will about them, even the leaders of Al Qaeda know better and would not stoop that low...
Mark, I agree with you that most of the comparisons with WWII and Iraq are moral. However, World War II is similar in scope and scale to the war that we would have had to fight 15 years from now, but for our invasion of Iraq.
Iraq is only similar to Vietnam in the reaction to it by the press and leftists back home. Otherwise there is no comparison.
Afghanistan is a bad comparison to Iraq because, again, that was another superpower proxy war.
It is true that America is hoping to spread American ideology to Iraq, that being democracy, freedom, and individual liberty. These are values that were not the purpose of the Soviets in Afghanistan, nor was this necessarily the goal of the U.S. in Vietnam or Korea. In Vietnam and Korea, we only wanted to stop the soviets and were willing to support "friendly dictators." This is the realist view of foreign policy.
Bush does not hold this "realist" view...(which is the view of Brent Scocroft, a common GWB critic). Bush now argues that democracy and freedom are the only way to limit the proliferation of Nuclear weapons. We can no longer just rely on a friendly dictator for our defense. In that sense he has combined the wilsonian view of spreading freedom with a self defense argument. This freedom /defense combination is essence of the Bush Doctrine. This doctrine underpins the entire Iraq policy.
You can agree with it or not. However, it is the best idea I have heard to date about dealing with the future proliferation of WMD.
"....The fact is neither socialism nor democracy can be imposed by force from abroad...."
Except that we imposed democracy on Germany and Japan. Oh and that I would like to har of a historical examplwe where democracy did not arise because of the assistance of a foreign power....
Regarding Socialism.... Socialism is ALWAYS imposed on the people, either from abroad or by a minority at home.
Mark wrote: "A country should "grow" to be ready for democracy, especially in the Middle East."
That sounds all warm and fuzzy and all, but given that the totalitarian regimes predominant in the middle east tend to want to remain in power, and given that the predominant religion provides a very powerful set of tools to maintain the status quo, and given that most of what people living under these regimes learn about the world is directly controlled by their government to benefit that government, just *how* do you propose they "grow" out of such a situation?
Iraq is a perfect example. Do you seriously contend that the people of Iraq - who are *clearly* demonstrating that they want - and will support by voting in large numbers - a democratic form of government, would have "grown" out of Saddam's ruthless and brutal control by now?
Your platitude is simple and laughable.
sloanasaurus, you stated heart of the matter extremely well without resorting to political platitudes or partisan talking points. I've rarely heard it stated more succinctly. Good job.
We've heard the stock comparison to Vietnam many times...
Shorter Ann, "LA LA LA LA LA I AM NOT LISTENING TO YOU LA LA LA LA LA"
You contribute a lot to these discussions, Quxxo! Maybe next you'll paste some quotes from some people!
It's the classic sophomore fallacy: mistaking sarcasm and irony for intelligent commentary.
As for the Watergate thing, can you imagine the administration actually thinking it would be valuable to break into the DNC offices in this day and age? It's laughable. If you stole the current DNC playbook, you'd discover that it was a notebook with a bunch of bumper stickers pasted on the pages and some daisies doodled on the cover.
Please everyone pray for Howard Dean and his allies. Their hatred has blinded them so. According to the Holy Spirit's message on The Christian Prophet blog, the U.S. has already achieved great spiritual victories in Iraq. We need a strong and spiritually tuned-in Democratic Party. Please pray for clear seeing.
Mark, you have sour view on our chances of success in Iraq.
Yes, we stayed in germany and Japan for many years, but those socities were also more or less completely destroyed, and the cold war was beginning.
The elections in Iraq are more unique than other experiences.
they have already had two elections and people are taking the results seriously. It is very possible that we found a formula that worked in Iraq.
You argue that once we leave, the people will vote in dictatorship. You premise that with the following:
"...
a) Shia majority in the parliament; b) close alignment of radical shiites with Iran; c) Shiites wanting autonomy to control oil in the south of Iraq; d) growing resentment of Sunnis;..."
There are just as many arguments the other way, For example, there may be a shia majority in parliament, but they may not all agree (you already have parties and coalitions). You assume sia will join with Iran, yet Iraqis are arab not persian. You say Shia want autonomous control of oil in the south. What if the shia who live in baghdad and northern Iraq also want some of that oil. they can join with sunnis and Kurds to spoil the southern shia. You argue growing resentment of sunnis... what if it is the other way, what if sunnis have already reached their maximum resentment and are fallign abck in line (particpating in elections).
Maybe it is all a dream. But, it was dreamers who founded this country, not realists... the realists were with the Torys.
Even if it all fails, we still suceeded in getting rid of Saddam who was arguably the worlds most dangerous individual because of his unique concentration of power, wealth, and personal insanity.
Your comments about democracy are wrong. Some countries in Eastern Europe are democratic because of the support by the United States Military in defeating the USSR. Ask anyone in Eastern Europe and they will tell you this is so.
Russia may be a unique example... yet the jury is out on the future of that democracy.
The false pretenses argument is tiring, because it's a false argument. To think that 75 senators were duped by George W. Bush is outrageous and a view with eyes shut.
Sez Mark:
anyone who voted for Bush in 2004 forfeited any right to complain about the state of national security.
Sorry, but it has been possible to dislike the entirety of Bush-policy but see little more than a null set when looking to Democrats for other ideas.
Indeed, the predilection toward the angry, tomato-throwing reply to Bush foreign policy has done the country a disservice. A mature, coherent opposition is vital, and I await it with much anticipation.
Mark: "It sounds fuzzy and noble and good to impose democracy, but we see the result in Iraq. In Algiers, they had free democratic elections in 1992, only to have islamic radicals won the majority of the seats. SUbsequently, the vote was annulled and military dictatorship seized power. What we'll have in Iraq is a) Shia majority in the parliament; b) close alignment of radical shiites with Iran; c) Shiites wanting autonomy to control oil in the south of Iraq; d) growing resentment of Sunnis;
e) civil war."
Mark, you are an intelligent person. But you are writing broad aphoristic statements to support your world-view that amount to no more than well written conjecture. Your comparison to Algiers is spurious at best. You can't just compare one very complex and nuanced situation with another of equal or greater complexity and completely different contexts and use that to project a "result" with any semblance of accuracy or veracity. The dynamics in Iraq are not the same as in Algiers. Alleging such to draw conclusions is a very weak form of resorting to authority to buttress your argument and it does not hold water. Further, your abc's do not give any credit to the Iraqi people that they just might find ways to resolve their differences and live together in some relative harmony. I'm not saying they will, I'm saying they might, but you are saying they won't. Contrary to what you might think, these are intelligent people who want to just live their lives and be free to enjoy their families, friends, and work. Freedom can change how people deal with each other - I'd suggest you give the Iraqi people - and freedom - a chance to work.
"... but we see the result in Iraq."
Well what is that result? You go down the list of accomplishments discount seemingly every achievement by our troops and their leadership, and the Iraqis themselves, while conjecturing that what exists today is the ultimate result of the war in Iraq and that it can only get worse. Well you and your ilk were saying that same thing before the first election and things have not gotten worse. Mark: There is a war going on in Iraq. There are some very, very bad people trying their best to undo the effects of the elections, usurp the democratically elected government and establish a Taliban like dictatorship there. These bad people are very smart, very dedicated, and very, very evil. They do not give up as easily as Howard Dean - by a long shot, so they are not easily defeated. But that does not mean that they can't and won't be defeated - they will if we continue to prosecute the war against them in a relentless, dedicated, and unyielding manner.
"It's very hard to experiment with imposition of democracy from abroad, especially in the middle east, especially in largely artificial states as Iraq."
You know all this how? You are just making this up to support your claims - such a contrived sentence substantiates nothing. It is no more accurate (and probably less so) that me saying, "It's very hard to experiment with going to the moon, especially from Cape Kennedy, especially in a state like Florida." The statement is made to support my opinion but proves or disproves nothing - beyond proving the silly lengths I will go to in a grasping attempt to be right.
"but to unilaterally attack a country under false pretenses and then claim that even if our main stated reason for getting in Iraq was false,"
For in billionth time, we did not "unilaterally" go into Iraq. Coalition Mark, coalition... As to false pretenses, Saddam violated many, many UN resolutions and the intelligence consensus at the time was that he was pursuing WMD. None of that was, or is, false. Mark, "intelligence" is not, repeat not, the same as judicial proof. Never has been and never will be by its very nature. Mark believe or not, our leaders have to make decisions based on intelligence that is less than perfect and does not meet the rigor of judicial proof. But those decisions must be executed. There are always going to be more than one perspective present in intelligence reports, that does not mean that the one you like is good, and the others bad.
"Yes, people would have overthrown Saddam eventually."
Had the Coalition leaders not chosen to go to war against him, Saddam Hussein would have accomplished something that no other leader in the ME could: He would have succeeded in backing down the US and the UN (admittedly no significant accomplishment in backing down the UN, a stuffed bunny could do it) on what is inarguably the most important matter in the world today - WMD. He was within months of having sanctions lifted via his manipulation of votes on the UNSC. Had those events occurred, his perception as the most powerful man in the middle east would be solidifed and embellished. And that is exactly what his gambit was all about: Power. His stranglehold on the people of Iraq would have tightened by an order of magnitude rendering your statement above pitifully moot.
"...About your comment of Iraqis being Arabs; it's true but still I think that the allegiances of most Iraqi shiites are much closer to Iranian shiites than to Sunnis. Many of the leading Shiite imams are former Iranians...."
Or in otherwords, you are really only speculating. To speculate, howeve,r you have to ignore that Iraqi shia have been arabs with their sunni arab brothers for thousands of years.... but, they have been shia only since the 19th century.
You ARE too much of a realist.
Realists are relativists in sheeps clothing. They are responsible for maintaining the most abhorrent institutions in the world such as Communism and Slavery.
Neither Lincoln, JP II, or Reagan were "realists."
So...the Democrats take the guy THEY decided was too crazy to be president, and instead they make him the head of their party...
Yessiree, THAT certainly sounds like a recipe for success.
The question isn't why Dean makes such preposterous statements -- it's why anyone is surprised.
I am sorry, but Communism empire collapsed because of economic reasons and because of Gorbachev. Reagan or not, the Soviet Union and its satellites would have collapsed anyway.
Wow, this seems like a really limited view of the events of the 1980's. Even assuming it's true, the list of American influence is too long to simply haze over. Pershing missiles. Missile defense. Radio Free Europe. CIA + Solidarity. Reagan's language.
Would they have fallen eventually? Yeah.
For purely economic reasons? Debatable.
Would they still have collapsed by '89? Debatable.
As for whether Poland would have resisted an invasion, I would argue they would not have after '80 or '81. Solidarity makes the cover of Time in '80 and is banned in '81. Regardless, even with CIA assistance, a righteous cause, an active Pope and a corrupt system, it took an additional 8 years of living under tyranny. Sorry, but systems that strong don't just blow away. They need a good shove.
Here lies the real opportunity for Democrats -- that is, to advocate an all-inclusive opposition to Islamic Looneyism, a la our approach to Communism. Militarily. Culturally. Economically. I hear Bush constantly speaking of (exporting) democratic values, but Dems have forgotten these words. The general Democratic theme is that we are/Bush is making more terrorists.
Democrats have seized upon the wrong opponent. I think Dems would be back in power rapidly if they chose FDR as their role model rather than JEC (James Earl Carter).
Joe Baby:
I disagree...it fell due to the combined efforts of Reagan, The USA, The Pope and heroes like Lech Walesa.
While interesting, discussions about whether Iraq is like Afghanistan, Vietnam or Poland have gotten a bit off-topic (he said, as one who derails more than Amtrak). Can Democrats be trusted with national security?
Well, it's hard to see how if the heart of the message is doom, despair and defeat. "Our army is broken. Our soldiers are terrorists. And Iraq is an unwinnable quagmire." How do you think this plays to the military ("Whom we support totally, of course! Even though they're incompetent, terrorist killbots"). I just posted on this this morning.
When Reagan called the Soviet Union the "Evil empire" all the realists fell out of their chairs.
Of course I agree with you to some extent. Being a visionary doesn't mean ignoring realities, and visionaries can often hippocritical. However, visionaries are the ones that move us in the end.
The Stuff about Bush believing he is God's chosen one is High School. Bush is no more religious than FDR, Truman, or any other President who read the bible.
When making such comparisons, Mr. Dean might wish to recall that Vietnam was an adventure of the Democratic Party.
Mark: "However, you have to concede that the USA won't be there for 20 years; whether we want it or not, US public simply won't accept our staying there for that long."
How long have we been in Japan? In Germany? In Korea? Too long maybe, but longer than 20 years that's for sure.
Americans will tolerate us being in Iraq assuming acceptable reasons for doing so. No problem.
However I don't think even democratically governed Iraqi's will want us infidels there that long given the slow but inexorably increasing radicalization of Islam. Iraq is so holy to Islam that only a truly tolerant, moderate Islam would allow our presence there for extended periods even if we provide a stabilizing and peaceful influence.
Mark: "It's far from clear that Al Qaeda will be able to win in Iraq anyway. Most Shiites will never support this predominantly Sunni group."
Why is not at least plausibly clear given recent history? Saddam's Baathist minority ruled Iraq before in spite of its lack of support by other factions. Al Qaeda has already demonstrated that it can and will take over a country and convert it to a hardline sharia ruled nation - regardless of what the citizenry wants.
Mark said:
Very unfair and misleading comment. Democrats never said that military are "terrorists", "incompetent, terrorist killbots" or any of the other stuff that you accused them of saying.
Okay, "killbots" was just cribbing from the Simpsons. But the rest? Dean: "We can not win in Iraq." Our soldiers can't beat terrorist thugs? How good are they? Kerry: US soldiers are going into homes "in the dead of the night, terrorizing kids and children and women." Murtha: Our army is "broken," "worn out," and "living hand to mouth."
The problem is the Commander-in-Chief.
Funny how the vast majority of soldiers on the ground don't think so. Do you think most of the military agree with Bush, or with Dean, Murtha, Pelosi and Kerry? Who is the problem?
coco, your post is taken in the vein it was meant - no offense taken at all.
Your observation is valid in that sloan did exercise conjecture in scoping a war 15 years hence, but I see a critical difference in sloan's and Mark's statements.
Mark is creating statements purporting to summarize today's ongoing events as well as recent history. Statements that ignore much of the reality of the matter, have little if any factual basis, and only support one perspective.
Sloan's war 15 years hence is not a key element of the discussion but (as I read it) more a rhetorical element to provide scope and perspective.
Comparing the two, sloan's war 15 years hence is certainly not a keystone upon which the rest of her argument rested. Mark's statements are keystones of his position and have as a basis the aforementioned aphoristic and well written conjecture.
I don't want a fight either, but I would take issue with your statement that my description of Mark's writings apply "equally, (probably more) to Sloanasaurus' comments".
But that is a difference in perspective no doubt, and not worth a discussion - especially given the gravity of everything else going on in the world.
Again, back to Dean and his beliefs (if one is to believe that he really believes what he is saying).
If a leader of a significant segment of our enemy (call him Abdul Al Dean) were to say the same thing Howard Dean said, but about his own troops and their ability to win the war, no one would question that such a statement is defeatist and that it would result in the raising of his enemies morale.
Also, I'm sure that while I and many like me disagree with Mr. Dean vehemently, I'm sure our enemies leaders applaud his statement and want him to continue. He certainly is not hurting our enemy when he speaks that way.
Someone explain at what point dissent becomes disloyalty and what responsibility dissenting anti-war leaders have in tempering their rhetoric such that they do not in any way provide encouragement to our enemy?
What statement would an anti-war person have to say that would categorize them as disloyal and disparaging of our military? Where is the line, that once crossed, renders one disloyal and potentially traitorous?
Does such a line even exist in the minds of the left, or do they believe they can say anything as long as it helps to achieve their ends?
geoduck2, I do not want to suppress dissent. I neither said nor indicated nothing of the sort. You are stretching for something that just isn't there. Why don't you address my question?
Mark:
The truth is that statements by a leader such as Dean do have effects beyond our shores, and can and do impact our enemy for better or worse. Do you disagree? If so please explain.
Dissent is wonderful and a duty. Yada, yada, yada. Platitude. That is not the issue. The issue is when does dissent transgress into something else, something harmful to the wellbeing of our military?
Or maybe the issue with the left is that they believe dissent bestows the ultimate in patriotism and loyalty, and (no doubt approved) dissenters can by definition never be disloyal - much less worse.
Are you telling us that there is no such thing as speech that is disloyal to the nation? That, as long as one hides under the noble umbrella of dissent that one can say or do literally anything?
If that is not what you are saying, then there is a line, however narrow or broad, that separates dissent from disloyalty.
I am asking you to tell me clearly if such a line exists don't equivocate, be clear - it does or it doesn't. If you believe no such line exists, then please explain to me and the forum why dissent means the ability to say or do anything as long one classifies what they say or do as 'dissent'.
Last things first, and first things last.
The military is fighting against an insurgency, an ideology of hatred, and opinion at home.
All these fronts suffer when propaganda is handed to our enemies. Chairman Dean's statements have great propaganda value for the enemy. He (and Mark) feels they embody dissent. But in the definition of treason that Mark quoted there is this, "or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies".
The Marks and Deans and CodePinks of the world don't feel any responsibility for their words or how those words can be used by our enemies (and our enemies don't differentiate Republicans from Democrat, Liberals from Conservatives, we all deserve death in the eyes of those willing to kill). What Dean said as an important official of the major opposition party in the world's last superpower isn't out and out treason, but his words are treacherous and that kind of thinking will lead to a self fulfilling prophecy of defeat and slaughter.
Now back to that first thing, I was specific in my analogy. Bastogne was a stand made by American forces during a war that was largely over. The losses were huge (81,000 casualties, 19,000 dead for the U.S. alone) and the military cost of accepting surrendering or retreating wouldn't have been as big as the psychological blow to the Allies and the psychological boost to the Germans would have been had someone with Chairman Dean's philosophy had been in command instead of a person like General McAuliffe.
I was referencing that one incident in that one battle, and I stand by my analogy. Sometimes a tactical withdrawal is called for, but not when the war has already been won.
The crazies in Iraq have been defeated, that they still are capabable of killing many Iraqis and Americans doesn't lessen the fact that they hold no attraction to the majority of Iraqis (even the Sunni).
To declare defeat now that the fruits of victory are being realized is absolutely nuts in my opinion.
And as I know that Mark is inflicted with a horrendous case of last-wordism I know he'll take 5 paragraphs to say the same things he's already said many times over, but have at it, it's a FREE country (as will Iraq be, the first of many in the region).
Mark: "It's ridiculous that I need to explain basic difference between dissent and treason.
Dissent and treason have different definitions, last time I checked."
It is ridiculous because that is clearly not what I'm asking. I don't need a lecture on dictionary definitions, I'm know the difference quite well.
Here is what I wrote:
"I am asking you to tell me clearly if such a line exists don't equivocate, be clear - it does or it doesn't. If you believe no such line exists, then please explain to me and the forum why dissent means the ability to say or do anything as long one classifies what they say or do as 'dissent'."
XWL wrote quite eloquently about the fact that words have power and can help or do damage to our military in wartime.
Do you believe it is impossible that the words spoken by Chairman Dean could be used as propaganda by our enemy to the detriment of our troops?
The question is simple, and the answer is yes or no. It is either possible or it isn't.
Is Howard Dean's statement treasonous? I don't think so, because I don't think he made the statement to help the enemy. I think he made the statement to help the Democratic party and hurt the Republicans - especially Bush. I don't think he cares a rat's ass about the military or the nation - beyond what's in it for him.
I do believe Dean's statement shows disloyalty to the military and to the nation. If Mark or geoduck2 want to say the war in unwinnable they are welcome to do so. But then they are not a leader of a significant segment of the political population of the nation - Dean is. Al Qaeda won't score a lot of propaganda points by quoting Mark or geoduck2, but they can score big time if Dean provides them with juicy quotes.
For Dean's statement to be treasonous, it would have to be provable that he made the statement as part of an effort to help the enemy or somesuch. Though I believe him to be a self-centered, cretin I don't think he is outright working for the enemy.
Though I do believe he helped them out a lot with his statement.
Here's the rub for me. I believe in dissent. But I believe that during times of war those choosing to dissent about the war have a responsibility to do so in a manner that does not provide aid, comfort, or propaganda for the enemy.
Is that difficult to do? Yes it is. Impossible? No, and not by a long shot. No one said being a responsible citizen in a democracy is easy.
There is no law, rule, or principle that "dissenters" can say or do any damn thing they want with no regard for the potential damage to the nation from their choice of words and/or actions.
There is responsible dissent, and then there is... What? Irresponsible dissent? There is no such thing.
When a dissenter makes irresponsible statements that can damage our military or civilians who we've tasked with prosecuting a war, they cease being dissenters and become something else altogether. Disloyal at best, treasonous at worst. The choice is theirs to make.
I agree with Mark, Dissent is important during war. Although sometimes I wish Democrats would criticize things that matter for victory such as the effectiveness of our weapons or the spending and corruption in the Pentagon. Instead they just redebate the original vote to go to war. This is counterproductive. Why redebate this vote over and over again.
Also, I think people have the right to call Dean a traitor. Its freedom. I have the right to my opinion to call him a traitor just as Dean has the right to make his comments.
Therefore, my opinion is: Dean is a big fat traitor.
Murtha, (while not being a traitor like Dean) is a wingbat. He cares more about the plight of the individual soldier than the country. In Murtha's mind, sending our troops off to war is a stupid idea because the soldiers might get hurt. He reminds me of General George McClellan, who was afraid to use the army for fear that it would get hurt.
"....Even you have to concede that calling the USSR an evil empire (BTW, Reagan took it back during his visit to Moscow in 1987) and invading Iraq is not nearly the same....."
I agree, they are not the same. However, my point about the "evil empire" comment was that Reagan was obviously abandoning the realist detente position for dealing with the USSR. Reagan also used more than words, he restarted the arms race.
The realist view at the time was that the USSR was here to stay and that we should accept that and therefore we should have a moderate position when dealing with them. Reagan disagreed with the realists and thought that the USSR could crumble if we took a more aggressive posture.
The realist view on Iraq was containment; i.e., we should recognize that Saddam and other dictatorships in the middle east are the status quo and we should attempt to contain them. Bush abandoned this realist belief with his pressure and subsequent invasion of Iraq.
Containment was clearly failing as a policy by 2000. If it wasn't for September 11 occurring when it did, Saddam would have cut loose from UN sanctions and would be a world menace today. Sept 11, however, gave the U.S. the political capital and Bush the confidence to deal with the Saddam issue - a window of opportunity had opened on Saddam following Sept 11 and Bush took it.
be thankful that he did
For those who still think Bush lied, I offer this: Why did Saddam not comply with the UN requests to interview his scientists outside of the country. And why did Saddam impede the effort of the inspectors generally. All Saddam had to do was comply with the UN Inspector requests and he could have avoided the war, stayed in power, and further would have had the sanctions dropped. What is Bush supposed to do then.. If Bush was only 50% sure that Saddam had WMD, it would be folly for Bush to go home after Saddam refuses to cooperate. Saddam's non cooperation is the VERY BEST confirmation that Bush could have ever gotten that Saddam had something to hide.
"...Bush is by far the most religious of US leaders and he does see himself as God chosen. Even Woodward talked about it in his book, based on his interviews with Bush..."
This paranoia about Bush is common with the secular left. They have a general misunderstanding of religious people, particularly evangelicals and somehow think that such people are insane and hear voices from God, etc... It's a load of crap. I am not an evangelical, but I know plenty of them, and they are normal people.
I read Woodwards book. Bush is no more religious than other U.S. presidents. FDR used to give his own written sermons to troops and his staff. I don't recall Bush doing this.
Besides, we want a President who is religious and at least believes that there is a truth, otherwise we will be stuck with a relativist - a president who makes up the truth for his own uses.
Geoduck, I am not expressing a legal opinion on treason. I personally think Dean is a traitor even if he doesn't meet the legal definition.
I think Jane Fonda is a traitor also. So is John Kerry.
However, of the three mentioned above, only Fonda should be actually tried for treason. What she did is an absolute disgrace, no different than Axis Sally. (maybe Kerry too if he actually met with the North Vietnam reps in Paris).
"....It's interesting that the same pundits don't have the balls to accuse Murtha of "treason" or "disloyalty". Perhaps they do have some sense of decency...."
Murtha is only arguing that we should pull out, because he thinks that is a better strategy than staying. That is stupidity, its not treason.
Mark: "So, according to him, leaders of the opposition have fewer rights to dissent than ordinary citizens because (he claims) it will embolden the enemy."
That is not what I said. Our political leaders have every bit as much right and duty to dissent as anyone else - but because of their power positions they have greater responsibility to temper their dissent such that it does not harm our troops physically or psychologically.
Their words have power beyond our shores. Do you not understand that?
"Of course, there is no evidence that Al Qaeda pays any attention to what opposition leaders are saying, and more importantly IT DOESN'T MATTER."
I guess you don't. You have got to be kidding. No one can possibly be that naieve. It most certainly does matter. Anyone who thinks Dean's words can have no positive effect on the morale of our enemy in this war, they are at best terminally naieve about war.
What about the effects of Dean's words on our military? Do you think Dean's words emboldened our troops, raising their morale and increased their belief in what they are doing?
Reagan is an idiot for saying what he did about Dean.
But at least his words do not serve to embolden the enemy.
It is clear that the Democrats are ratcheting up their onslaught against Bush and the war. But let's face it, that's all they have to work with - because they have positioned themselves that way.
The Democratic leadership has put the party in a position such that they have no vested interest in any kind of positive outcome in Iraq. Every iota of progress toward a free and democratic Iraq it is a blow to the Democratic party in America.
Clearly, the Democratic party has a vested interest in America's defeat in Iraq. If not true, then someone explain how the Democrats (beyond the few who *truly* support the war) will benefit by America not being defeated in Iraq.
Kerry's remarks that our troops terrorize Iraqi women and children, and Dean's remarks in question here are not random. The party thinks they smell blood in terms of the poll numbers on the war and they are going for it in a frenzy.
Democrats will benefit greatly by victory in Iraq. If there is no foreign threat on the table, its much easier to elect doves to the government. THis is how Clinton was elected.
Post a Comment