I haven't looked around much to see if anyone else has said this, but Sen. Bob Corker deserves a lot of credit for his committee vote (here) on the Democrats' Non-surge Resolution.
First, it is a non-binding resolution, and will have very little impact on the President's execution of the war. Liberals and Democrats' have already tried a 24/7 roast over the past six years so trying to vilify him toward doing what you want him to do isn't likely to work, right? Republican Senators Lugar and Coleman offer examples of "loyal opposition" during time of war, I'd say.
On the other hand, passage of this resolution will certainly embolden our enemies, particularly in Iraq. It is certainly arguable that there are better ways to wage the GWOT, and debate is certainly a touchstone of democratic republics, but hopefully you can forgive Bush for perhaps missing those earnest suggestions over the "War Criminal" chorus. And if you know ANYthing about history, you'll appreciate that a loss of 3,000+ soldiers in pursuit of a worthy objective is far from extraordinary. Losing a thousand soldiers per year would probably not be acceptable if one couldn't foresee a breaking point in this global struggle, but I'm not sure that is the perspective held by most critics of the war.
Hello world!
7 years ago
19 comments:
A thousand soldiers killed a year?
Sure... as long as it isn't my kid. Great news from a soldier in the "sanctity of life war." This BS about emboldening the enemy... did the Republican Congress that vigorously opposed Clinton's war plan in Kosovo embolden the enemy? Did they hinder Clinton from winning the war in 100 days without loss of American life? Rubish. Sounds like another Cheney talking point.
If you're an average citizen, who you gonna get your legal advise from, a veteran lawyer of many court cases or a businessman with no legal experience. In matters of war, a decorated vet (Hagel) or a businessman (Corker)? This isn't an appeal to authority, it is an appeal to experience and competence. It is an appeal to common sense.
"I happen to know that Pentagon planners were on their way to Central Com over the weekend -- they haven't even Team B'ed this plan.... There is no strategy. This is a ping-pong game with American lives.... We'd better be damned sure what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more lives into that grinder." - Sen. Hagel
But if it's up to Mr. "Sanctity of Life" Williams.... 3 soldiers killed every day, no problem, why sweat the small stuff?
William,
Why do you visit here so much?
I'll be blunt and say you're sorely lacking in understanding of logic. If every person in an argument has "experts" to whom they can appeal, it is a fallacy to appeal to the fact that "an expert" thinks like you as proof of your point.
And your emotional arguments are amusing (sort of). Yes, soldiers die in wars. If it is a "just" war, then such deaths are justified. And, yes, relatives of servicepeople killed in a war are going to feel that loss and pain MUCH more than I would . . . do we therefore not ever endanger servicepeople?
"BS about emboldening the enemy" . . . it's one thing to think that such a consequence is acceptable, William, but I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to assert (even moreso to disprove) that us abandoning the fight in Iraq will not "embolden" Islamists (and even just run-of-the-mill Anti-Americans) across the globe. Right?
Oh, and being passionate or articulate or forceful or sincere about one's argument doesn't affect the truth of the argument.
I disagree with abortion on demand as court-imposed law. Yes, I believe in the "sanctity of life." But that doesn't mean that I am a pacifist or unwilling to execute a threat to society.
I've already addressed your Kosovo claims/assertions in some other response to one of your previous comments.
But here goes, perhaps a little bit more explicitly: Kosovo was more of a humanitarian mission than the Iraqi War; Kosovo is still a dangerous place; (Liberals and the Democrats liked the Kosovo war); the Kosovo war was fighting back an aggressor (incidentally, whose Muslim "enemies" were armed and able to defend themselves with a little help from the ol' US); not to mention, how much brilliance did it take to pulverize a small country with bombs?
Though I didn't explicitly oppose the Kosovo campaign (I may be too willing to go along with global use of force).
And I love the name-calling, it's got to be some type of fallacy . . . maybe the fallacy of immaturity?
Corker did have a point, what's the use if it's non-binding? Hagel is just saying congress has a responsibility to debate this.
Looking at the two arguments above, one for escalation vs the other against escalation and a different strategy, the history of the past 4 years in Iraq has clearly shown who's 'wisdom has been vindicated' here.
And I agree that it's common sense to take law advice from a lawyer and war advise from a soldier (instead of a developer/businessman/war profiteer, etc...).
Yes, what's the use, especially since it will almost definitely embolden the enemy, right?
But what "wisdom" has been displayed? Bush is changing strategies . . . to a strategy that was advocated by Kerry/Pelosi et al until they realized that Bush was less afraid about "escalating" the war than taking whatever steps were necessary to win it.
And, surely you know that being a good soldier, even a brave soldier, even an experienced soldier, doesn't prove that you can devise military strategy or make wise policy decisions (or be above opportunistic political ploys).
How is this strategy different than the June strategy called "Together Forward" where an escalation was tried and resulted in a new spike in violence but no gain? Show me where Pelosi put forth plans for a surge as you mentioned. Why would Colonel Oliver North, a staunch conservative and supporter of President Bush say that the proposed escalation won't work shortly after returning from Iraq? Why would General McCaffrey who commanded our troops in the first Gulf War call this escalation "a fool’s errand" ? These are not 'just soldiers' - these are former officers, commanders with a lifetime of military experience. Are they just cut and run losers who want to embolden the enemy and see America fail?? Does everyone who disagrees with you and Bush an ally of al Qaeda?
Didn't you hear? We're increasing troop levels by 22,000.
Pelosi? how 'bout here?
Hagel is just a soldier.
Now you think Ollie North is wise?
Is Ollie North the CinC? McCaffrey? Pam?
You don't want to win in Iraq, Pam . . . it might vindicate a decision by Dubya.
We will win in Iraq, certainly not under Bush's watch or his 'strategy.' We are not at war with Iraq. If a terrorist WMD goes off in the US, who do we retaliate against? We gonna nuke Iraq?
"He’s tried this two times — it’s failed twice," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says of President Bush’s excalation plan. "I asked him at the White House, ‘Mr. President, why do you think this time it’s going to work?’ And he said, ‘Because I told them it had to.‘" Pelosi then asked, "Why didn’t you tell them that the other two times?"
How are we going to win? Are you rascals keeping the secret from us? Wanting to make sure you get the credit?
I'm not sure what we'll do if a nuke goes off in the U.S. . . . blame Bush, right? If we keep them on the defensive and hiding in caves and fearing for their life when they place calls to cells/sympathizers in the U.S., it seems we're less likely to have that happen.
I guess you've got no comment on Pelosi's prior comments?
It appears Pelosi would rather make pithy comments to reporters about her discussions with the President than comment about her discussions with Tim Russert.
Why are y'all so eager to quit, Pam? Pelosi thought "more boots on the ground" would improve the situation way back when, why not now? Circumstances have likely changed over the past two years, but I haven't heard Pelosi say that. All I hear is her taking whatever position on any given subject is perceived to undermine Bush.
Look; we disagree about whether all Republicans are evil and whether all Democrats (except Lieberman, of course) are omniscient saints.
Ned, I guess I visit you often cause I'm new to your blog, and I find your views unsual, extreme and baffling. A real challenge to understand, but I'm trying to learn.
To answer Pam's question - "Does everyone who disagrees with you and Bush an ally of al Qaeda?" No, he answered this previously, they are immature.
P.S. Cheney's finished. He's in deep, it's a pattern, he'll likely resign. Others will be implicated, probably Rove, maybe Bush. Feingold and Conyers have just announced hearings on Bush.
William, people can read your name-calling and finger jabs and draw their own conclusions.
We'll see about Cheney. Not much of a case, considering that no law was broken, except perhaps under months of grilling about a non-violation of the law in the middle of a media feeding frenzy about Wilson.
But who do you think will be appointed as VP when Cheney takes his leave? That Karl Rove is smarter than I thought!
Have you read that actual transcript of the link you gave me?
Tore up notes about a conversation about a discussion with a reporter "in which he CONFIRMED that Plame was a CIA agent." Hmmm, doesn't sound like they broke any big secret.
Do you think that Patrick Fitzgerald is taking orders from Cheney?!? Why didn't he charge Cheney, or even Libby, for outing a CIA agent?! What business does Dick Cheney have telling Libby whether he can talk to the press, and how to handle an issue with the press?!
And then there's this myth: "The prosecutors talked about the State of the Union speech where the president made a false claim about reasons for war with Iraq — the idea that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger." It actually was completely true. British Intelligence DID tell us that, and they ONLY said that Saddam had "sought" yellowcake--a theory that Wilson's tea-sipping junket (hey, maybe he was doing a Columbo?!?) did not disprove.
How's that for baffling?
Bush and co. made five uranium claims. The Libby trial will document a pattern of deception by the admin beyond the Plame issue. Why do suppose Ari Fleischer has received immunity to testify? If you're interested in legalese, here's an explanation of the US Criminal Codes violated by Bush Co.
Boy, they sure do use a lot of legal sounding, impressive language . . . but the assertion (all five times it was made)--based on information from our arguably closest ally, that Saddam had sought yellow cake from Niger was accurate.
Haven't heard about Ari Fleischer.
But you do understand that the only thing a very aggressive federal prosecutor was able to indict was purported misleading statements to FBI agents, don't you?
Now Rove and Bartlet have been subpoenaed.
Is that a surprise? Surely Fitzgerald isn't expecting to find something that he hasn't found in 2.5 years of unfettered investigations? Maybe someone called to testify will not have perfect recollection of every conversation they had concerning the "war room" response to a Dem Flack husband of a CIA Employee who purported to be a whistle blower.
That's what's fascinating here, William, is that you will have a hard time making a case of (a) knowingly (b) "outing" a (b) covert CIA agent with the facts that are known now. It was Armitage (wasn't it?) who disclosed this info to the NY Times reporter and that information was used to create a story.
Yes, but how many including Rove lied? Fitz knows, a very smart guy knows. A pattern of deception that goes beyond Plame, all with one over lying motive (no pun)... to justify an invasion that never should have occurred.
Perhaps . . . and such a strategy by Fitzgerald certainly could be smart if he were conducting a political maneuver (that's not what's happening, is it?).
But I forget, was this plausible syllogism about Cheney used in "Fahrenheit 9/11"?
Wisdom IS vindicated,
You'll see.
It has been so far, unfortunately.
I've enjoyed your blog, have a great day.
William,
I hope at least you were stimulated to think about what you believe and why.
I think I need to post an explanation of my blog's title--it means more along the lines of "honest consideration of all the facts will lead us to wisdom" (a sort of non-Relativist's phrase for "the truth is out there"). You have certainly contributed to airing out those different perspectives on things.
E ya,
Ned
Post a Comment