Questions for the anti-war crowd: is it possible to “love the troops” who actually believe in what it is they’re fighting for in Iraq unconditionally? Or is such “love” predicated on the (generally unspoken) assumption that the brave young men and women who hold such beliefs have been duped by neocon fictions, or else are prisoners to their own pride, in denial about the economic pressures that forced them into an indentured military servitude they continue to insist was a function of (illusory) free will?
And finally, are any of these questions rhetorical?
If the pickled peppers make you write stuff like this, we should just all pitch in and send you an industrial sized container of them.
Lefty: If they had our level of self-awareness, they’d see themselves just as we do.
Hell yeah, they’re rhetorical! Surely you don’t expect us to to have thoughtful answers to that kind of stuff.
Just the last one.
well, as I learned from Wes Clark this morning, troops are trained for their specific military jobs and not policy, so you really can’t listen to what they have to say about larger issues. so the answers are. no, yes, and not so much.
Makes me want to fly to D.C. and feed Murtha a big shit sandwich. I mean a real shit sandwich (with real shit) and force feed it into his big hoggish gob.
I’m on this intense high fiber diet, so it’s fecal or nothing.
So is the good general “Last Train of Thought to Clarksville” suggesting that military people who do their military jobs but believe in the mission should just STFU or that we shouldn’t listen to them because their commitment/belief to the mission is irrelevant to them just doing their military jobs?
It frightens and amazes me to the very core of my being that this dope commanded NATO.
BJTexs, I think it was mostly, “nobody is as smart or experienced as me, so you should do what I tell you.” or “Only my uniform gives me absolute moral authority. and buy my book!”
There’s an anti-war person reading this blog? Dammit, I thought we got rid of all those people months ago!
Who cares? It’s all a pack of lies, anyhow.
Are they proud of our troops? No. They think they are creating more terrorists and raping little brown girls. They think our troops are like totally embarrassing, and would like NOT go to the mall with them dressed like that.
“well, as I learned from Wes Clark this morning, troops are trained for their specific military jobs and not policy, so you really can’t listen to what they have to say about larger issues.”
Said the man who wanted to be President, just before Ike climbed up out of his grave and slapped him down like a bitch.
Whenever I feel despair for the future our country, I will think of men like Travis Manion, and be comforted.
And humbled.
by the way, you can download the show with the interview here for now. Gen. Clark got most annoyed at being asked to support his opinions.
Slartibartfast,
I’ve seen you wrestle with those pigs at OW before. You don’t get much mud on you, but why do you bother?
Ace has a post up today that answers the question with some sweet KOSsy song stylings. Note well the incredibly astute reply #11.
Yea, well, what else is new. Quite a new concept for the Last Train of Thought; enter politics and actually support your opinions with demonstratable facts.
I know. RADICAL!
I’ll never forget Last Train’s pereformance on CBS … CNN(?) in the run up to Iraqi freedom. He was so insistant that there weren’t enough troops for the job and units were going to take heavy casualties and they were going to be bogged down for months in a war of attrition, wee, wee, wee. If I closed my eyes and drifted he began to sound more and more like Edith Bunker.
I would read his book if I was paid to right a review.
maggie –
Agreed 100%. If you get a moment, I’d love if you’d leave your comment up at INDC Journal, so Manion’s family can see the sentiment.
I heard an interview With Lt Manion’s parents on Michael Smerconish’s show. His mom and dad were dignified and clear headed in their memories of their son and their assessment of his mission. Their combination of of dignity, pride in their son and their love of country (the dad is a colonel in the Marine Reserve) brought tears to my eyes (whcih was really inconventient as I was driving at the time.)
Godspeed, Travis. You really were the best and the brightest.
OK. So.
If you are not in uniform and you support the war, you’re a chickenhawk who has no skin in the game and therefore are careless with other people’s lives.
If you have skin in the game, especially your own, you support the war because you’re possessed of a false consciousness brought on by military brainwash and desperation to Find Meaning In Life.
Or you’re a psychopathic baby killer who is pissing off the poor widdle jihadis and Making Things Worse.
And when you die, you become a pair of empty boots whose presence in protest display proves that the war is costing too many lives.
Got it.
1) Yes. 2) No. 3) No.
reality based, if you can handle it (or understand it for that matter – apparently saying you don’t like MoveOns ad is stifling MoveOn and lefties speech — all speechified in a blog post of course)
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/20/bipartisan-warm-and-fuzzy-condemnation-of-moveon/
As a confirmed Anti-War Person, I’d start asking my own questions somewhere around the phrase “love the troops.” Is that where we’re at now? It’s no longer good enough to support the troops or pray for the troops or keep the troops in your thoughts, we’re escalating (sorry, “surging”) to love? Or was that “love” as in “I love kalamata olives” or “I love reruns of the Andy Griffith Show” kind of love? I’m not really sure which is worse, now that I think about it.
Either way, it sounds like a bitter custody battle to me. Just let them decide for themselves, man! (/end hippie)
Your just mad cause your application to join the North American Citizen-Troop Love Association was rejected.
I haven’t felt much love from “anti-war” folks. Ever.
*You’re*
But really, it’s the “Support the troops. Bring them home” disconnect that I’d like to hear an articulate liberal take on.
I don’t consider them pigs, just a bunch of people whose opinions are basically orthogonal to mine. The thing that mystifies me is how it absolutely lights up some of them when I question the…call it groupthink. And instead of arguing the point, they indulge in various forays into sarcasm, insult and other things that pretty much bounce off of me.
Pooh, I think, is just stalking me. As if I give a rat’s ass what she thinks about me.
Why do I do it? I’m a cockeyed optimist, I suppose, that someday, one or two of them will realize that there is in fact some defensible middle ground between mindless support of everything done by the administration and/or the military, and mindless lambasting of same. And that maybe their positions are even more faith-based than they insist that mine are, if that makes any sense at all.
And I get wierd stuff from the more reasonable of them, too. Once, Gary Farber stated that, in effect, Horatio Alger was basically a key part of the conservative movement, and as evidence cited a couple of conservatives who had Horatio Alger on their bookshelves, and possibly one more who was founder of the Horatio Alger Society, or some such. Horsepucky, of course; at most, conservatives tend to think that one can advance oneself by working hard, not that one can get rich, working hard. In fact, Alger’s books are mostly about people moving up from lower class to upper-middle class through hard work and ingenuity. Certainly a possibility; never a guarantee. And certainly there are ways of getting rich that don’t involve hard work, but books about lazy scions who don’t ever amount to much are boring. I was bored of Paris Hilton pretty much from the start, and I promise never to read her biography.
Or I could be completely out of touch with the modern conservative movement, and be the only one without even one Alger book on the shelf. Possibly. Unlikely, though. Anyway, I tend to lean toward that they’re treatises on the value of hard work and resourcefulness, rather than a promise that you’ll get Bill Gates wealthy if only you work hard enough. Gary worked himself into quite a lather over it, and I took my leave of the discussion.
And then, at the end, he declared himself right and victorious, and in so doing abandoned at least a third of his argument, but I didn’t really give a shit about convincing him. When saying something like X is nonsense, horsepucky, and right-wing myth, be prepared to be challenged on the right-wing myth part, particularly when everyone pretty much agrees on the other two points.
It ain’t my formulation, Gabriel.
Farber isn’t near so smart as he thinks himself. And trust me: having met the guy, he thinks himself unusually brilliant.
I have always viewed the “we support the troops” stuff coming from the left as a sorry attempt to retain moral authority in the face of their obvious disdain for the military, especially using it for deposing Dictators, as opposed for what they truly want to use to for, which is a sort of massive transnational Meals on Wheels program to prop up failed Marxoid third world states.
I am not a “support the troops; bring them home” espouser. What good would that do anyone? I opposed this war from the get-go, but this bell can’t be unrung. I absolutely support the troops in the mission as they understand it (I sure as hell don’t). No, the troops aren’t the issue; the civilian leadership is.
What I don’t support and in fact *hate* are these cowboy private security contractors ripping around Iraq terrorizing and killing the civilians. I am still fuming about the latest Blackwater atrocity. In my opinion, these uncontrolled bozos are doing much more harm than good with respect to our troops; so much for cultivating goodwill.
Lt. Manion was a brave and honorable soldier. I don’t for a moment doubt his fierce committment to the cause.
IIRC, after the Civil War, and after the Sampson-Schley controversy post the Span-Am War, the upper ranks of the military (with exceptions – MacArthur, I’m lookin’ at you; you too, Admiral Burke and Billy Mitchell) became shy about getting involved in current political fights. Especially those who were still on active service. There has never been a blanket rule covering enlisted troops, other than what their orders permit. IIRC.
Use this little observation as you will.
slart-
Gary worked himself into quite a lather over it, and I took my leave of the discussion.
Did he get any of that froth on his “Will Blog for Food” sign?
Yes. That’s the kooky disconnect. The whole “troop-centric” thing, I don’t think it sounds particularly genuine from either side, and also it doesn’t have any logical force either way. I like the troops well enough, but if they started bitching and whining en mass I’d turn on them in a minute. I’m just that way.
All the more reason to preserve these fine souls so they can continue to fight. It is not for us (out of harms way) to sanguinely chalk up their sacrifice to the altar of lost causes, then mourn their loss as though it were incontrovertible. You might need (for conscience sake) to justify the wrong-headedness which led you to the cul-de-sac of intransigence, but this isn’t about YOU, is it?
It would really solve a lot of problems if we could find some way for people over here to join the Iraqi army. Maybe have them make a foreign legion. People who want to go fight, can. And those who want the US to leave will have the US leave. Everybody wins.
You mean do away with the volunteer military in favor of a kind of mercenary force hired on by other nations?
Or are you talking about giving those who’ve joined the volunteer military the right to opt out of particular fights?
Or is what you’re really getting at some kind of veiled chickenhawk argument — one that has the added bonus of not taking into account that we have an all volunteer army to begin with, rendering the chickenhawk argument silly and desperate?
Not enough people here speak Iraqian, andy, and someone would have to make up the wage differential, but that’s a nice idea.
By, you know, removing them from where the fight is.
Good. Because it is not “we” who are chalking up their sacrifice to the altar of “lost causes.” That’s what YOU are doing. Some of us — and most of them (who, I’ll remind you once again are a volunteer force made up of adults) — don’t consider the cause lost, and so they don’t wistfully regret the sacrifice offered on an altar your erected before the fight even started.
No. Because evidently it is about YOUR righteousness — which you show by making arguments on behalf of those who don’t want them in defense of positions they don’t hold.
Because, well, you just know better than they, don’t YOU?
“You mean do away with the volunteer military in favor of a kind of mercenary force hired on by other nations?”
No no. They go and volunteer for the nations that they believe in and want to fight in. We keep our volunteers here too. Mercenaries? yuck. I think Iraq is sort of rethinking those. But maybe something like the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. We could have telethons and Move America Forward caravans to fundraise, etc…
So basically, you’re for democratizing the CiC position — because voting for one isn’t good enough, given that he might do things you don’t agree with.
Gotcha.
Though maybe we should just hold votes on everything — try out a genuine democracy.
Although I must warn you, I have a feeling Sheehan and Hamsher, for instance, would’ve already been voted off the island.
I think andy is looking for someone to take up the slack for the UN, he apparently doesn’t realize the US military is one of the legitimate powers granted by the Constitution. All those smoke and mirrors that are his stock and trade are bound to get confusing at times.
Jeff: I argue for nobody but myself. You are invested in us staying indefinitely in the Middle East until we clobber it into submission. So that’s where the “fight” is. Is it really? The war we are presumably fighting is “global,” right? Can you honestly aver that we have scoped in on the Islamic kooks as the worst enemy? Detailed cites not required; just a sense.
“What I don’t support and in fact *hate* are these cowboy private security contractors ripping around Iraq terrorizing and killing the civilians. I am still fuming about the latest Blackwater atrocity. In my opinion, these uncontrolled bozos are doing much more harm than good with respect to our troops; so much for cultivating goodwill.”
Cynn, I made multiple trips as a contractor to Iraq after my days in the Army ended. I’ve left that job behind as well, but I’m proud of the time I spent, and saw it as just an extension of my service to the country, as most of the contractors feel, despite your opinions.
In my times there, I was shot at, mortared, rocketed, nearly blown up twice by IED’s, was in two vehicle accidents and had friends I knew (Iraqi and otherwise) killed. I wasn’t a security contractor, but worked as an Arabic translator. I’m a little sick and tired of people talking about the various contractors over there as a bunch of bloodthirsty mercenaries. Many of these guys (and gals) are long-service veterans not only of the US military, but other coalition militaries as well. I guess for you and others, their years of valuable service were negated once they got their honorable discharges and chose to make a little extra cash on the outside. Remember, every one of the four Blackwater contractors burned and mutilated in Fallujah (you know, of Markos “screw them” fame) were veterans of the US Navy and Army.
I would agree that there were times when some of them got a little trigger-happy. But in the defense of most of them I would say that when they go outside the wire, they are by and large on their own, with little chance of QRF support from the US or other coalition forces unless something goes down in the general proximity of a specific unit. If they get in an ambush, they have to keep moving, and shoot their way out if necessary. In addition, these “bozos” and “cowboys” as you call them are protecting convoys carrying construction materials, food supplies, etc. in addition to participating in various PSDs. Not only in Iraq, but in Afghanistan as well, as I’m sure Maj. John can confirm.
As for the latest Blackwater “atrocity,” all I can say is that the jury is still out, in addition to the fact that neither one of us was there, and therefore do not exactly know what happened. Although I have no doubt about your sincerity in professing your admiration of the troops, once again you have opined on something which you know little or nothing about, preferring instead to rely on whatever cartoonish notion you’ve read about these men and women being akin to Rolf Steiner, Paul Denard, Jacques Schramme or other more infamous mercenaries in recent history.
But, I guess my opinion doesn’t really matter. Apparently my years of service as a soldier was chucked in the shitter when I joined the private sector. By your standards, my presence in Iraq at the same time as my nephew did more to harm his reputation than anything else. Please don’t tell him, because he’ll be very shocked to find this out.
I don’t argue with strawmen, cynn. I don’t know who the “them” are that you’re talking about. I also recognize that not all of the “them” that I think we are fighting are located in the middle east. I expect that we are fighting on other fronts in different ways. But for the time being, the major battle is in Iraq — which is why Iran and Syria and al Qaeda are working so hard to undermine the project.
“So basically, you’re for democratizing the CiC position  because voting for one isn’t good enough, given that he might do things you don’t agree with.”
Its not really democratizing in the sense that we all vote and then have to live under the majority opinion. The CiC still exists and runs our volunteer army. But under my plan, majority/minority doesn’t matter. If a minority wants to go defend Grenada, for example, they can.
“In addition, these “bozos†and “cowboys†as you call them are protecting convoys carrying construction materials, food supplies, etc. in addition to participating in various PSDs. Not only in Iraq, but in Afghanistan as well, as I’m sure Maj. John can confirm.”
A service which theoretically should be provided by those noted humanitarians in the UN Peacekeeping forces. Unfortunately politics and cowardice have prevented them from stepping up and doing the right thing.
Thank you for your service, cjd.
You don’t have a plan, andy, those are hallucinations.
“You don’t have a plan, andy, those are hallucinations.”
The abraham lincoln brigade was for real. And it certainly wasn’t majoritarian. It was much more the libertarian ideal.
CJD, I don’t mean to diminish your time in Iraq; I blast the feral “security forces” I’ve heard about. I could be misled.
Cynn — Yeah. You ‘heard about.’ I’m curious. Do you ever visit Michael Yon’s site? Or Ardolino’s? Or Roggio’s?
The Abraham Lincoln Brigade. Interesting. How did they get passage to France and then Spain? How did enough get over there to make a sizable military unit? Who paid for all of that?
Like the AVG in China. Who paid to have three squadrons of first-line U.S. fighters delivered to China, and then cut loose enough trained military pilots to man them? Let alone pay their way to China?
Like the Eagle Squadrons in the RAF. Someone paid, and paid very well, to get those men over no matter their motivations. A trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific trip wasn’t cheap then, even third class; and first line fighter aircraft, no matter the day, aren’t cheap things to acquire in bulk and aren’t the things a nation lets go to the highest bidder.
Someone organized the A.L. Brigade, paid for their passage (what, you’re gonna wait for a couple hundred or thousand men to scratch together the coin to travel over during the Great Depression so that you can slowly build up a brigade? Or are you gonna pay the freight to get them all together so that you can deploy them as a stand-alone force?)
Welcome to reality, especially military reality; and foreign politics reality.
“Someone organized the A.L. Brigade, paid for their passage (what, you’re gonna wait for a couple hundred or thousand men to scratch together the coin to travel over during the Great Depression so that you can slowly build up a brigade? Or are you gonna pay the freight to get them all together so that you can deploy them as a stand-alone force?)”
We could have telethons, and even start 527’s to fund it! It could be the right wing move on. Ask Scaife for money, etc…
My personal take on this latest Blackwater “atrocity” is similar to cjd’s. I also note (taking a page from Hot Air) that in spite of the large presence of such contractors in Iraq, there has never been any attempt by the Iraqi government to license them….unless a suitable bribe was paid. Which they weren’t, apparently.
From that, I think that it’s possible this latest incident has been exagerated by either the Iraq Interior Ministry, anti-Coalition forces, the MSM, or some combination thereof. The Ministry because they want extra cash, the ACF to defang a very potent pro-Coalition force, and the MSM for the usual reasons (i.e., a combination of the above).
Having said that, I want to move back on topic….
The reality is that you can’t support the troops without supporting the mission, as they are there for the mission. If a task is not worthy of your support, it’s hypocritical to support those performing the task. It’s like telling a police officer, “Hey, I respect you, but I hate laws, and I’m against you enforcing any of them, so why are you out in your patrol car?”
There is no respect for the people involved. How can there be? For example, I keep on hearing (from the left, natch), how the troops signed up because they “had no choice”, economically speaking. Either the soldiers are being pitied for their becoming, I dunno, indentured servants of some sort, or they were fools (or tools) for signing up anyway. I concede that this is not the opinion of all lefties, but it sure is a common enough meme.
And without respect, how can you support them? It’s an oxymoron of classic proportions.
Unless you are an adherent of a philosophy wherein definitions may be twisted such that black becomes white, cold is hot, and up is down, of course. I name no names, but I’m sure Pelosi and Reid are happy to see such oxymorons accepted on a global scale.
Now, I will offer one litmus test for those that say they support the troops, but not the mission. It’s neither original nor easy, but it should be (re-)considered.
Let the mission go on unhindered. Commit yourself to the completion of the mission, as defined by the Federal government within the framework of the Constitution, and stop throwing road blocks up.
How does this work? Simple: Wars are not won by weapons, but by the wills of the people using the weapons.
The enemy is listening to this debate. Every time Congress has another anti-war vote, the enemy is encouraged to continue their campaigns. Every. Time. And that drags the war out. That kills and wounds more people (including civilians!) as surely anything else.
While the anti-war types aren’t squeezing the trigger of the weapons to kill people, they are surely encourage the terrorists to continue to do so. In my sight, that puts them both on the same level, morally speaking.
I’m effectively going back a couple of years in the debate in bringing this up. But it remains as true now as it did back then. I just thought I’d dig it out of the back drawer.
“CJD, I don’t mean to diminish your time in Iraq; I blast the feral “security forces†I’ve heard about. I could be misled.”
Cynn, no sweat, and thanks for your and B Moe’s comments. I don’t think it’s a question of whether you (or anyone else) is being misled. I just ask that folks not make broad, sweeping judgments about contractors anymore than about the troops. Everyone working over there is in harm’s way to varying degrees.
“Let the mission go on unhindered. Commit yourself to the completion of the mission, as defined by the Federal government within the framework of the Constitution, and stop throwing road blocks up.”
Throwing up roadblocks is within the framework of the constitution.
Sorry, I just think the contractors operate outside of appopriate laws, and applpicable restrictions. I understand that they face extraordinary circumstances. I think I would rather see regular military provide security than these irregular forces.
“Throwing up roadblocks is within the framework of the constitution.”
Yup, dumber than a sack of retards, this one.
‘Andy’ is putting out Alphie Strength stupid.
“Yup, dumber than a sack of retards, this one.”
Some roadblocks certainly aren’t proper though. That shit is treason yo.
Why, you got someone worse in mind that you would support going to war against? Or is this just a “against war qua war”/”there’s nothing worth fighting for” attempt at an argument?
Really? Prove it. Article, Section and Paragraph.
Or STFU on topics you don’t understand.
Throwing up roadblocks is within the framework of the constitution.
No, the Consitution provides a framework for government using a democratic process. Democracy operates on the premise of agreement, not obstructionism.
Unless you’re a leftie throwing a tantrum because you aren’t getting your way. Then obstructionism is just fine. Isn’t it?
Don’t let ’em get you down, Andy. It’s still a better idea than the Mile High Berm™
“Sorry, I just think the contractors operate outside of appopriate laws, and applpicable restrictions. I understand that they face extraordinary circumstances. I think I would rather see regular military provide security than these irregular forces.”
This is essentially the reason that I despise the idea of American soldiers serving under UN command.
Ever.
but Synova, those helmets…. they’re such a pretty shade of blue.
Our buddy Andy keeps mentioning the Abraham Lincoln Brigade as an illustration of his brilliant idea without mentioning that they, you know, fought on the losing side.
That, and the fact that they were a bunch of pinkos.
“CJD, I don’t mean to diminish your time in Iraq; I blast the feral “security forces†I’ve heard about. I could be misled.”
Utter and complete crap, cynn.
Misled, deluded, willfully and permanently ignorant of facts–call it what you want.
klrtz1: Don’t forget the balloons.
And of course we have the Blackwater Reaction, or Haditha 2, Electric Boogaloo.
“Oh, geez I wasn’t trying to be judgemental when I called y’all a bunch of mindless killers…”
Oh, crap. There goes my career as a blog commenter. And probably 95% of everyone else’s, to boot.
Speaking of alphie, he seems to have infested Patterico.
My personal take on the contractors is there need to be rules in place, enforced by either the DoD or the Iraqi government. I’d prefer to not, for instance, see contractors
, because in that capacity, they are in fact mercenaries. If they’re security forces, as advertised, then they ought to playing pure defense.
And of course there are grey areas; the grey areas are what I’m less comfortable with.
Ah, crap. Link.
None of which should be construed as this sort of commentary. For one thing, I don’t tend to punctuate with my eyebrows.
“Really? Prove it. Article, Section and Paragraph.”
Like Amendment I? Or plain old school house rocks how a bill gets made? I’m not quite sure what the roadblocks are that you are complaining, but it is certainly part of our constitution that bills to reverse policy get proposed and voted on.
“No, the Consitution provides a framework for government using a democratic process. Democracy operates on the premise of agreement, not obstructionism.”
Thats not quite what federalist 10 promised.
andy,
When the only complete sentences in your comment were those that were cut-and-pasted, you immediately forfeit your right to cite “Schoolhouse Rock”.
“The war is lost” – Harry Reid
“We’ve asked you to come here and report on the surge General Petraeus, but we refuse to believe anything you say” – Lantos, Clinton
“America is bad. We’re fighting an illegal war” Kucinich in Syria.
Pelosi in Syria.
All roadblocks.
“Comment by andy on 9/20 @ 7:30 pm #
The abraham lincoln brigade was for real. And it certainly wasn’t majoritarian. It was much more the libertarian ideal.”
“The Abraham Lincoln Brigade was made up of volunteers from all walks of American life, and from all classes. Many of the people who volunteered for the Abraham Lincoln Brigade were official members of the Communist Party USA or affiliated with other socialist or anarchist organizations. Members of the Industrial Workers of the World (“Wobblies”) were also represented.”
-Wikipedia
Them there is some weird “libertarians”, andy.
Sorry I spent the night passed on Nyquil:
cjd is right, as contractors are present in large numbers, and very valuable in Afghanistan.
andy – the point of being a “roadblock” is not utilizing free expression, it is trying to destroy that which our representative system has already agreed to. Refusing to accept results (why is 2001 coming to mind?) and using that as basis to try and undermine the legitimacy of that which you oppose is far outside any part of what the Founders intended or the Constitution provides.
“We could have telethons, and even start 527’s to fund it! It could be the right wing move on. Ask Scaife for money, etc…”
Nah.
I’m all for the Draft myself, but only if it’s targeted with a point system, the more points you get, the more likely you are to get called up, thus:
1. Anybody going to College and working towards a Liberal Arts Degree of any sort gets 10 points.
2. Anybody enrolled in any class that contains the words: “Cultural Margilization”, “Marxism”. “feminist”, “gender”, or “American Imperialism” gets 5,375,031 points.
3. Anybody that participates in any kind of Campus Protest gets automatically called up, since they’ve already demonstrated their “bravery” in standing up to “adversity”.
Rhetorical questions are on topic, right?
Does AEI want the Korean Nuke Deal rescinded?
Does AIPAC want the Korean Nuke Deal rescinded?
Did they BOTH want us to go into Iraq?
(are those rhetorical questions?)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/20/AR2007092002701.html?hpid=topnews
We’re already in Iraq, cleo.
“We’re already in Iraq, cleo.”
Just sayin’, they seem to get what they want.
This is the same Wesley Clark who wanted to attack the Russians in the Balkans. On the one hand, I respect his service. On the other hand, his judgement – not so much.
I wanted us in Iraq, too. Guess I got what I wanted. Must be my insane amount of Congressional access.
I don’t think “supporting the troops” and disagreeing with the mission are any more or less incongruous than “supporting the troops” and agreeing with the mission, because they are not, and this may come as a shock to some people, directly related. That they have become linked together is an unfortunate result of the fact that our political discourse has been whittled down to a finite and pathetic pool of bromides akin to that hoary old chestnut, “Think of the children!” and there appears to be a pretty broad section of the populace who don’t even realize that that’s a bad thing.
As to the police analogy from further up the page here, I would offer civil disobedience, which is practiced not out of hatred or disrespect for cops, but out of disagreement with certain laws. Now if someone were to call on soldiers who had signed up to desert their posts, THAT would be disrespect of the military, because it would be directly harmful not only to those who didn’t agree with it, but also to the contract between soldier and state. But to characterize calling for the return of our forces as somehow disrespectful ignores the fact that the army is not sacred, it is a group of people who signed up to execute the political will of the United States, and if that will changes, so can the mission. To pretend that the poor dears can’t do their jobs if there is political disagreement at home strikes me as awfully patronizing, because as Jeff said, these are adults who volunteered to execute the political will of the US, and if they are so deluded that they can’t abide a shift in the political winds, why then you’re making the same argument as those who say they are too precious to be put in danger for a failed mission, i.e. that these killbot dullards just don’t GET what kind of situation they’re in.
Speaking of alphie, he seems to have infested Patterico.
THE ALPHTARD™ was booted by Jules Crittenden. He’s getting desparate for attention, I suppose.
Cleo – coincidental correlation is the achilles heel of most bad analysis.
A little off topic, but to illustrate the point.
Putin is visiting Iran. This is a chess match of gargantuan proportions. The Russians see an opening to wrest back the former Soviet satellites from US influence by arming and funding Iran to slow bleed the US.
The Russians have sophisticated weaponry that could make any SEAD mission costly to US air and naval powers and they are publicly letting us know that they will distribute these assets to the Iranians and Syrians.
Negotiating leverage to get us out of Georgia, Balkans, Ukraine, etc.
We let loose our local dogs – Israel – to punch out a site that was ringed with the latest in Russian air defence systems. Its called a countermove. There is no end goal in the form of a single decisive event. More a series of moves each designed to keep the otherside off-balance once they show their hand. Then u wait for the market forces to force the weaker economy out. Russia is not a democracy, neither is it a capitalistic society (alto it may look like it on the surface). it is driven by commodity wealth and these things move in cycles. I give them 5-7 yrs and then the cracks in the foundation will show.
Read about the analysis at Stratfor-punto-com. I don;t agree with their conclusion, beacuse I don;t think they consider the possibilities of France as a wild card or how truly dangerous we can be if cornered.
Extension:
This all changes if we have Hillary and Co in the whitehouse. (Viva Jimmy Carter of the 21st century). They do not know how to play this game and play it badly a la the 70s and 90s. it takes adults to play a serious game of chicken. Thats why I have posted that 08 may be a forgone conclusion for the dems unless there is a miracle somewhere (dead girl, live boy scenario). If Hillary thinks she can waltz in and expect the market forces to subsidize her socialist ambitions, she is dead wrong because that cycle is OVER, regardless of what the FED did this week. Expect the economy to get fvcked (not beyond repair mind you, but enuff to swing middle dems in 4 yrs), expect the military to get short changed. The real unknown is after we emerge from this socialist experiment is whether we will be the pre-eminent military and economic power in the world.
Etc, Etc, etc. So its all bit a pieces and they tend to move erratically. Stupid Humans! So its the fault of Neo-cons and Jooooos?
We are all reacting.
As to the police analogy from further up the page here, I would offer civil disobedience, which is practiced not out of hatred or disrespect for cops, but out of disagreement with certain laws.
True, but not a valid comparison. I’m speaking of the call for withdrawal from Iraq, as trumpeted by the current Dhimmicrat leadership in and out of Congress (e.g. Murtha), regardless of the consequences. Your analogy assumes disagreement on selected points, which is acceptable if done appropriately. That’s not what we are discussing here.
Now if someone were to call on soldiers who had signed up to desert their posts, THAT would be disrespect of the military, because it would be directly harmful not only to those who didn’t agree with it, but also to the contract between soldier and state.
Correct, but I guess you don’t get out much. There’s a vocal minority that actively calls for exactly that. And you’re the first person on the left that I can recall speaking against such behavior. Further, attempting to prevent people from entering into such contracts through coercion or disruption is equally disrespectful because that behaviors denies the potential soldier his or her choice….and is very common. Yale and ROTC comes into mind. Or certain schools banning military recruiters, either directly, or by not slapping down disruptive students.
Point being, such disrespect is very common, far more than your statement assumes. So it’s a bigger problem than you imply.
But to characterize calling for the return of our forces as somehow disrespectful ignores the fact that the army is not sacred, it is a group of people who signed up to execute the political will of the United States, and if that will changes, so can the mission.
Of course the mission can change. The point of my post is that how that change comes about should stay within the framework of the Constitution. And that’s something the Congresscritters (of both parties) are guilty of. Like Pelosi snuggling up to Assad.
To pretend that the poor dears can’t do their jobs if there is political disagreement at home strikes me as awfully patronizing, because as Jeff said, these are adults who volunteered to execute the political will of the US, and if they are so deluded that they can’t abide a shift in the political winds, why then you’re making the same argument as those who say they are too precious to be put in danger for a failed mission, i.e. that these killbot dullards just don’t GET what kind of situation they’re in.
In a word, nuts. You disregarded or failed to read where I said:
“How does this work? Simple: Wars are not won by weapons, but by the wills of the people using the weapons.
The enemy is listening to this debate. Every time Congress has another anti-war vote, the enemy is encouraged to continue their campaigns. Every. Time. And that drags the war out. That kills and wounds more people (including civilians!) as surely anything else.
While the anti-war types aren’t squeezing the trigger of the weapons to kill people, they are surely encourage the terrorists to continue to do so. In my sight, that puts them both on the same level, morally speaking.”
And your completely disregard the effect of propaganda in both directions. The phrase “Giving aid and comfort to the enemy” includes “encouragement”. Al Quaeda wants us out of Iraq now; so does Reid now. Their reasons may be different, but the result is exactly the same. Whether Reid is in league with terrorists is immaterial; everytime he opens his mouth on this subject, he offers the terrorists hope that they will prevail.
Imagine, instead, if the Dhimmicrats held a press conference and said “Look, we were wrong about Iraq. It’s a good cause, and our sacrifices there are worth the objectives laid out by President Bush. We support the mission, and will act accordingly.”
(Not likely, I know. That’s why I said “Imagine”.)
What effect would that have on the terrorists? They just lost what they likely see as a valuable ally! The US is showing some backbone, and their current strategy has to be completely rethought. Major problems for them, with just one joint statement from Pelosi and Reid,
That’s exactly what happens to our troops every time the Dhimmicrats open their pieholes, whether you care to believe it or not.
OTOH, if AIPAC is powerful enough to get “YEA” votes to authorize war on Iraq from Senators Clinton and Kerry as well as Rep Edwards (as well as some guy named Murtha and, what’s this? Waxman?), then why isn’t it powerful enough to get cleo an advance on IQ points?
So you’re saying that the war on terror requires those of us who see the war in Iraq as a colossal and continuing distraction and hindrance to the war on terror, such as it is, to pretend that we don’t see it as a colossal and continuing distraction and hindrance and to say so publicly, and then things will get better?
What, we don’t even have to clap our hands or click our heels three times?
I mean, as long as we’re abandoning our principles and subverting our wills to some imagined need for ideological conformity, why don’t we suggest that Bush and Cheney hold a press conference and announce “We’re going to pull all our troops out of Saudi Arabia and acknowledge that there is no god but God, and Muhammed is his prophet.” The terrorists would lose a HUGE part of their recruiting campaign! We’d really have them THEN, wouldn’t we? Think of how much better the troops could do their job if they could just say “Hey! Salaam, my Muslim brothers! Aren’t things wondrous now that the Great Satan is out of the Holy Land? Give me a hand building this hospital, will you?”
Gabriel, I can definitely sympathize with you in regards to the battle in Iraq, as I was against it myself (pre invasion, but now see the value in doing it right), but I have to ask you. Why do you think that it is a “distraction” and “hindrance” in the overall war against islamic jihadists? A colossal one at that?
It’s a bit of a tangent, and we went into that from another angle earlier in the week, but to boil it waaay down, I think that by invading Iraq and continuing to expend all the energy that we have/are on it, we have created a weakness for our country where one did not previously exist. We have tied ourselves to the anchor of internecine strife in an accidental country in the heart of some of the most disputed and valuable territory on earth. Secondly, while taking on impossible challenges is part of what we do, I don’t think that we approached this one correctly, given the seriousness of the foreseeable consequences of failure. I think we set ourselves up for heartbreak, and I think that the planning was so flawed that continued effort is just a waste of time, a postponement of the reckoning that will come when we leave.
It’s not the kind of thing that you can really get excited about, as positions go. Not a good rallying cry.
OI – They still cannot get their brains around the concept that Iraq is a front in the GWOT. Fighting terrorism is a bumper sticker slogan for them. They fight every strategy & tactic, but claim to support us in Afghanistan. When they say this shite, they clam up when you ask them what additional troops are needed for. it is their magical complaint, for all fronts, regardless of circumstance. At some point, they have to voice their strategy for victory, rather than just arguing that W is wrong, or their euphemism for surrender.
we need mor troops to take care of more important problems than Iraq. Just look at Iran and NoKo.
We should be invadin….aeeahh. F8k8ng Bushitler war for oil!
> I mean, as long as we’re abandoning our principles and subverting our
> wills to some imagined need for ideological conformity, […]
Christ. We really are fucked if this is what a reasonable leftist believes. That Lincoln could fight a war and hold together the remaining portions of the Union with the same sorts (back then, the Copperheads) is really an amazing accomplishment.
I’ll grant that it is now a front, but it is a front that we were foolish to open because it does not lend us the advantage and we were not forced into it. For example, on wednesday night I got into a dispute with a 100lb rottweiler over a bag of beef jerky and, in the larger sense, our respective places in the hierarchy of authority at my friend Chuck’s house. This a worthwhile effort, because it was my beef jerky and I need this dog to know that I’m higher on the food chain or he’ll walk all over me. Due to a failure in planning, I engaged him with my face about 6 inches from his. While my goals were worthwhile, and the dispute was worth prosecuting, I engaged on a front where his strengths were more prominent than mine; I have a big brain and can reason and grasp things with my opposable thumbs, but as he pointed out, he can fit my entire neck and the lower half of my face in his mouth, and with considerable speed, and he has huge, sharp teeth. So while I left the house with my jerky intact, I did so to head to the hospital to get stitches. Have I ceded control of the place to him? He thinks so, but I recognize that I’ll be back there next thursday after they take the stitches out of my jaw, and I will engage in a manner that plays to my strengths, i.e. standing up and with a little more advance planning and cooperation from the local authorities (Chuck). Even so are we now in Iraq, tangling with an inferior force in a situation that maximizes the effectiveness of their force and minimizes our considerable natural advantages, and the president is saying that we should not back away from the beast’s gaping maw and regroup, but that we should continue trying to punch him till he stays down. Furthermore, he characterizes any talk of heading to the emergency room as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. If I had tried that strategy on wednesday, I would be dead, or at the very least not in possession of nearly as much of my face as I am now. Do I feel like less of a man because of the situation? Of course not, I just feel stupid for getting into it in the first place, and if I had continued to engage on those terms any longer than I did (about two or three milliseconds, I would guess) I would feel even stupider.
See what I’m saying?
Whoa, jdm, I said that in the context of the earlier suggestion that Reid and Pelosi should stop criticizing the war even though they disagree with it, not as a general take on the state of things. I don’t want my “reasonable” status revoked over a miscommunication.
And without respect, how can you support them? It’s an oxymoron of classic proportions.
I respect and support the Democratic candidtes for President. I won’t vote for them, or give them money, and I want them to fail in their political aspirations and goals. But I like them, think they are good people and want them to be healthy and happy. I just wish Mrs. Clinton, for example, would go back to practicing law.
Of course people who support the troops and want an immediate withdrawal are supporting the wishes of those troops who just want all the troops to go home now. I believe that’s a small minority.
At some time in the future, that small minority might become a large majority, in which case those of us, like me, who don’t support an immediate withdrawal won’t be supporting the wishes of the troops.
I don’t think that’s going to happen though. I read about a poll of Vietnam veterans who didn’t support getting out. 80% wanted to win the Vietnam War, not leave and cut funding.
Yours,
Wince
Gabriel, I’ll try to boil it down in simple sentences.
1. The citizens of the United States elect their representatives, every 2, 4 and 6 years.
2. Once that election has happened, and settled by the rules and laws in place at the time, “We The People” have spoken, and handed over authority to those representatives. They have it, and can exercise it until the next 2, 4, or 6 year election.
3. At that point, if a majority of those elected representatives agree, for WHATEVER reason, to pursue a course of action, then they are acting with our authority we gave them.
4. If you want to revoke that authority, well, you can. However, you need to realize that at that point, there are Consequences to that revocation. Hint: having an enemy commander sound like your political party’s platform might be a sign you’re wrong.
Yum beef jerky. Gabriel that analogy was as lame as it was sleep inducing, but now that I’ve splashed some cold water on my face permit me to add a wrinkle.
The dog steals your jerky. Your whole family wants the delicious dried meat. Your overbearing, ugly, fat, gluttonous, shrill, narcissistic, stupid, vengeful, childish wife ties your hands behind your back right after she helps push you into the room with the dog.
GF, I’ll repeat, we’re fucked if you’re reasonable. The Democrats lost the national referendum on the CiC’s policies in Iraq and “the war” in general. The least they could do is acknowledge this as official party policy while working to win in 2008 and reverse policies. I don’t even find it bitterly ironic that the Democrat leaders sound exactly like our sworn enemies. And your counterexample took this all one step further and stated we should just acknowledge the correctness of Islam.
There used to be a saying that our disagreements end at the waters edge or something to that effect. It was probably never as true as one might like, but nowadays the inverse seems more true with the recent behavior of Pelosi and Reid.
…..I forgot “slutty”
Gabriel’s grasp of metaphor is… well, it’s not a grasp, if that helps.
The fundamental problem with this debate is that the time for “what should we dos” was 2001 and 2002. And we came to a decision. Immediately after we were committed, the left (as is their wont) began, practically at the speed of light, to begin attacking the position they had previously (though certainly not unanimously) at least conceded to if not supported.
The fact that American politics has occasionally allowed the left “do-overs: when they lose should not have taught them that The World Works That Way.
No savegames. No do-overs. Alea iacta est, baby.
Bay of Pigs. Vietnam. And if you trot out the NPR meme that Vietnam is “just fine,” may the ghosts of a few million innocent victims rise up and punch you right in the effing pie-hole.
All these temper-tantrums have consequences. And that’s what they are, temper tantrums. They want something that isn’t, and they’re willing to lie on their back and scream until they turn blue, and to hell with everyone who depends on not screwing this up.
And as far as Pelosi et. al. are concerned, if you can’t tell the difference between criticism and going to Syria to deliver Assad a media handjob, then you have far, far more serious problems than I or anyone else can help you with.
To re-iterate: The discussion is tedious because this is no longer about ideas, it’s about consequences. No, we can’t know what all the possible consequences will be, we can only look to the past.
And the past is pointing its finger at you, baby, and it looks pissed.
Gabe did you ever consider that you might be wrong in your opinion of Iraq? How come you disregard the AQ leadership declaring that Iraq is the central front in their Jihad? Despite the media “sectarian strife for 1000s of years” meme, Iraq hasn’t really always been like that and it didn’t take a Saddam to brutally supress it. In fact, one of the more striking things I remember is talking with Iraqis, both Sunni and Shia, that say Iraqi nationalism is ultimately stronger than the sectarian differences. I see this borne out in the Anbar awakening and other areas that are turning against the AQ, Mookie Sadr notwithstanding.
While I am “pro-overthrow the despot” and have fought in Iraq, I have gone back and forth on some strategies and tactics, but, once you commit troops, you go all the way, unless the other side kicks your ass and kicks you out.
The fundamental problem with this debate is that the time for “what should we dos†was 2001 and 2002. And we came to a decision. Immediately after we were committed, the left (as is their wont) began, practically at the speed of light, to begin attacking the position they had previously (though certainly not unanimously) at least conceded to if not supported.
Exactly right, Merovign. And it’s the primary point that GF dances around because, IMHO, he’s trying to throw a tantrum while sounding reasonable about it. Bottom line is, he isn’t getting his way, so it’s time to quit and go hame. Who said Attention Deficit Syndrome was just for kids?
Hint: having an enemy commander sound like your political party’s platform might be a sign you’re wrong.
There y’go again, SDN, pointing out facts and such to GF. You are spot on, but it’s a wasted effort for GF, as this doesn’t match his narrative, and thus is excluded from all subsequent thought processes.
Gabe,
It is a downer to hear your polticos back home decry your endeavor as something evil, cooked up on a ranch in Texas, lost (without ever explaining why), fought by Nazis operating torture chambers, etc.
We’re human beings, Gabe. Humans general react negatively to a nonstop stream of defecation upon their endeavors.
I will admit the dKos type killbot, mercenary, dumb poor and no other choice stuff is good for comic relief.
From Craigslist
http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/309485032.html
I’m having the worst damn week of my whole damn life so I’m going to write this while I’m pissed off enough to do it right.
I am SICK of all this bullshit people are writing about the Iraq war. I am abso-fucking-lutely sick to death of it. What the fuck do most of you know about it? You watch it on TV and read the commentaries in the newspaper or Newsweek or whatever god damn yuppie news rag you subscribe to and think you’re all such fucking experts that you can scream at each other like five year olds about whether you’re right or not. Let me tell you something: unless you’ve been there, you don’t know a god damn thing about it. It you haven’t been shot at in that fucking hell hole, SHUT THE FUCK UP!
How do I dare say this to you moronic war supporters who are “Supporting our Troops†and waving the flag and all that happy horse shit? I’ll tell you why. I’m a Marine and I served my tour in Iraq. My husband, also a Marine, served several. I left the service six months ago because I got pregnant while he was home on leave and three days ago I get a visit from two men in uniform who hand me a letter and tell me my husband died in that fucking festering sand-pit. He should have been home a month ago but they extended his tour and now he’s coming home in a box.
You fuckers and that god-damn lying sack of shit they call a president are the reason my husband will never see his baby and my kid will never meet his dad.
And you know what the most fucked up thing about this Iraq shit is? They don’t want us there. They’re not happy we came and they want us out NOW. We fucked up their lives even worse than they already were and they’re pissed off. We didn’t help them and we’re not helping them now. That’s what our soldiers are dying for.
Oh while I’m good and worked up, the government doesn’t even have the decency to help out the soldiers whos lives they ruined. If you really believe the military and the government had no idea the veterans’ hospitals were so fucked up, you are a god-damn retard. They don’t care about us. We’re disposable. We’re numbers on a page and they’d rather forget we exist so they don’t have to be reminded about the families and lives they ruined while they’re sipping their cocktails at another fund raiser dinner. If they were really concerned about supporting the troops, they’d bring them home so their families wouldn’t have to cry at a graveside and explain to their children why mommy or daddy isn’t coming home. Because you can’t explain it. We’re not fighting for our country, we’re not fighting for the good of Iraq’s people, we’re fighting for Bush’s personal agenda. Patriotism my ass. You know what? My dad served in Vietnam and NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
So I’m pissed. I’m beyond pissed. And I’m going to go to my husband’s funeral and receive that flag and hang it up on the wall for my baby to see when he’s older. But I’m not going to tell him that his father died for the stupidity of the American government. I’m going to tell him that his father was a hero and the best man I ever met and that he loved his country enough to die for it, because that’s all true and nothing will be solved by telling my son that his father was sent to die by people who didn’t care about him at all.
Fuck you, war supporters, George W. Bush, and all the god damn mother fuckers who made the war possible. I hope you burn in hell.
Track her down and Beauchamp her, guys
Using other peoples grief and despair for political gain is your gig, dude. We prefer reason to emotion over here.
“Have I ceded control of the place to him? He thinks so, but I recognize that I’ll be back there next thursday after they take the stitches out of my jaw, and I will engage in a manner that plays to my strengths, i.e. standing up and with a little more advance planning and cooperation from the local authorities (Chuck).”
Regardless of the validity of the analogy, it seems to me your friend Chuck is not the local authority and you should proceed with caution in your plan to engage this dog. By your account Chuck has already ceded control to this dog, and unless you understand dogspeak and are willing to seriously back up any negotiations it could turn out badly.
You are one of the few sane lefties around, so please don’t take this dog on if you don’t mean it.
Moral Authority means never having to explain yourself.
There’s another thing to be sick of.
I’m not quite clear on the whole “track her down and Beauchamp her” thing: does that mean that if one were to examine the writer of the piece in question and discover that she was making the entire thing up out of whole cloth, for motives that are questionable at best, that it would be a good thing or a bad thing to mention this fact? And why would that be? Please advise.
U. Pendragon wants his nick back.
Just kidding.
Assuming your question is genuine (it just seems an awful obvious point), think of it this way, anyone who uses “Beauchamp” as a verb is likely referring to the “outing” of Beauchamp as a fabulist. The imperative to track “her” down and “Beauchamp” her can only semantically be taken as a desire for the exposure of this author as a fabulist.
Me, I don’t care, because as much as I’d like to see liars face some sort of sanction, the best-case scenario here involves more publicity for propagandists and the whackjobs continuing to carry water for the story long after it’s disproven.
I actually had a ‘bat raving about how GW got out of the draft because of his daddy respond in shock when I pointed out that GW was a fighter pilot who requested to be transferred to Vietnam, only his flight hours weren’t high enough before the draw-down. They admitted they didn’t know a God-damned thing about the accusations they were making, and then to deflect from their idiocy they accused me of being a “fan” of GW (that’s an insult, don’t you know).
So, in short, it’s better to make a truth known than to quash a lie, ’cause you’ll never run out of liars.
Note also that the best-case scenario involves this story being a fake because when things like that happen, it just plain sucks.
“All roadblocks.”
And all perfectly within the constitution.
“And all perfectly within the constitution.”
Not true.
But maybe something like the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.
Hint: their side lost.
Maybe you consider that a feature rather than a bug.
“Not true.”
I’ve said that there are certainly things which are not allowed. Like treason.
“I’ve said that there are certainly things which are not allowed. Like treason.”
Dropping a non-sequitur like that does not change the fact that you are wrong about roadblocks.
If andy’s not actus, it’s a remarkable facsimile!
Yes, I’ve certainly considered the possibility that I might be wrong. It’s a complicated situation and I’m getting all my info second hand, at best. You would have to be crazy to be 100% certain, which is why such people can be fairly easily discounted. However, in my opinion, military commitments have to be continually justified, and with stronger reasons than “we’re already there” and with unsupported and universally pessimistic guesses about what will happen if we leave. The fact that we’re already there may be a strong logistical argument for staying, given that it would be difficult to pull out and then realize that we need to stay in and go back, but inertia is only so persuasive, and is not a basis for policy, only a secondary factor. So far, we have the prediction of the president that pulling out would be disastrous, but his track record for predicting events in Iraq is not so strong, on the macro or micro levels. We have the testimony of the commanding general, who says that he thinks improvement is feasible and currently recognizable in some areas, but who, by his own admission, is working solely on the practical problems of his mission, and is not concerning himself with the relevance of the mission to greater national goals. We have several years of direct experience in the theatre and a mass of largely relevant historical evidence, both long-term and short-term, all of which indicates to me that our involvement, should we continue on our present course, will be lengthy, painful, and at best only marginally successful.
If we only look at the situation in those basic terms, and leave out any information we have about the president’s competence as an administrator, overall political goals, or personality traits vis-a-vis management style, all of which are negatives in my opinion, but which are certainly up for debate, our choice is either to keep our armies there with only guesses as to whether they will be able to improve the situation in any sustainable way, or pull our armies out with only guesses as to whether that will lead to any sustainable improvement. That’s not a persuasive argument for war.
And to address the helpful primer on American political election cycles and the idea that we all agreed on a course of action in 2002 that some people are now trying to back out of, I would like to point out that a significant amount of people agreed to that choice on the basis of information that later turned out to be incorrect. I don’t know how representative I am, but I was against it then because the intel presented to me was spotty, inconclusive, and freighted with political calculation, and the foreseeable results (Iran ascendant, US diplomatic capital squandered, large indefinite military commitment) were unfavorable. As comforting as it is to forget that our current leaders were on television waving the spectre of the clear and present danger of nuclear attack around in order to galvanize support for their policy and that the New York Times was marching in lockstep with them and reporting Chalabi and his cousin’s (nephew’s?) breathless propaganda as fact, that was the environment in which the decision to invade was made, so condemning those who voted to give the president the authority to use force after he made the argument that he needed to have a credible threat in order to wage effective diplomacy and then subsequently disagreed with the manner in which that authority was used is pretty disingenuous. I’m not arguing that the Democrats were/are immune to the the same kind of crass political calculation that the Republicans have championed so effectively in the past decade, but to claim that they have no right to condemn Bush’s policies because we’re at war and it is harmful to the morale of the people who are executing those policies in Iraq is plainly ridiculous. Good intentions and happy talk don’t make up for sound and complimentary public policy and military strategy, and we have yet to see, throughout this war, both of those things at the same time.