Click here to view/purchase all Roger L. Simon novels.

« "Papa Mao Mao Mao, Papa Mao Tse Tung!"

June 28, 2005: Comrade Trotsky Meets Mr. Jefferson (two endless revolutionaries)

Many have already read Wretchard's valuable commentary on a Michael Ignatieff piece in the NYT - Who Are Americans to Think That Freedom Is Theirs to Spread? My own views on this are pathetically simplistic and admittedly globalist - i. e. we live on one miniscule planet in a gigantic universe and our best hope for living together well (if at all) is democracy. Unlike Ignatieff, I don't care if that comes from the United States, "God" or whoever. Call me whatever you want, but don't call me late for the (democracy) lunch. Put another way, in the words of Chairman Deng Tsaio Peng, "I don't care if a cat is black or white, only that it catches mice." (Yes, I've quoted this before, but it's a great quote.) The mouse we must catch is democracy.

Speaking of which, some of us are waiting for President Bush's speech tonight, the one that is intended to put a weary public back on course in Iraq. I suspect it will not succeed, not because what Bush says will not be true or eloquent (he has some good writers and thinkers), but because he is surrounded by cacophony, some of it of his own making. By turning so rapidly and fully to his domestic agenda in his second term, he is partly responsible for redirecting attention from what is by far the major issue of our time - the modernizing of Islamic civilization before it becomes massively destructive to itself and others. For whatever its importance, history will regard fixing social security (and similar matters) as a rather minor problem by comparison.

(Just to be clear, I don't think for a moment democracy is a solution to all humanity's woes. It's just our only refuge from totalitarianism.)

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Roger,

Just to be clear, I don't think for a moment democracy is a solution to all humanity's woes. It's just our only refuge from totalitarianism.

Except for a tyranny of the majority.

Unless the power of government is limited, even democracy can serve totalitarianism. A democracy that willfully gives too much power to government won't last.

Posted by: HA at June 28, 2005 9:51 AM

Who Are Americans to Think that Freedom is Ours to Hog? Are we somehow more deserving of liberty and possibility than the other poor wretches on earth?

Posted by: c at June 28, 2005 9:55 AM

"A democracy that willfully gives too much power to government won't last."

Amen.

Posted by: Oyster at June 28, 2005 9:59 AM

Are we somehow more deserving of liberty and possibility than the other poor wretches on earth?

No, that's the Euros who believe that. The American repertoire is limited to

- sandbag the borders and keep the little swarthy folks at bay (which, thankfully, never even opened on Broadway let alone played in Peoria)

- You wanna play Create Some Wealth?! Kewl, Dude. We like this game and we're pretty good at it, so this will be fun for all!

- You pissed me off now, Jack, and I don't care what spidey hole you hide in, I'm gonna tear you out of it by your freakin' hair and slap the snot outta ya.

Posted by: Knucklehead at June 28, 2005 10:04 AM

It will also help if the networks broadcast the speech. Last I heard, only ABC has made the decision to do so. Draw your own conclusions.

Posted by: chuck at June 28, 2005 10:10 AM

Door #3 looks like a winner, Knucklehead!

Posted by: c at June 28, 2005 10:10 AM

“Ignatieff's oddest choice of words is to characterize Kerry as a realist and George Bush as a gambler, as if there were any certainty to be derived from sitting back passively”

I would advise everyone to pay special attention to the above quote. It succinctly highlights the underlying myth embraced by the utopian liberals. Deep in their guts, they believe that there are no real risks if one opts for pacifism; only the use of military force will push us into an awful war. It might also behoove you to read Winston Churchill’s “The Gathering Storm” concerning the naive pacifist response of Stanley Baldwin and others to the growing threat of Adolph Hitler in the late 1930s.

Posted by: David Thomson at June 28, 2005 10:10 AM

Here's the link. From Drudge.

Posted by: chuck at June 28, 2005 10:11 AM

It will also help if the networks broadcast the speech.

Why should the networks televise a speech whose sole raison d'etre is sagging poll numbers? A press conference, perhaps, but not a speech.

Further, apparently, the President will not be speaking from the Oval Office, but surrounded members of the military...the man never tires of his props, does he.

If the President levels with the American people, and is finally honest about the sacrifice necessary to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis, he may make an impact. How some of us long for a statesman to ask the American people that they must tighten their belts, Jack, 'cause we're in a pile of shit over there.

As it is, it looks like another speech with superficial platitudes and symbolic visuals, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Posted by: The Truth at June 28, 2005 10:19 AM

As it is, it looks like another speech with superficial platitudes and symbolic visuals, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Ah, the paradox of the self-referential.

Posted by: chuck at June 28, 2005 10:21 AM

Chuck,

Don't begrudge them. Since it's Woody Allen Day here at Roger's Place remember - for them masturbation (even the mental sort) is sex with the only person who loves them.

No... wait... our erstwhile phlock of phreudians explained how they don't actually like themselves very much, didn't they. I withdraw my comment.

Posted by: Knucklehead at June 28, 2005 10:29 AM

"full of sound and fury, signifying nothing": Yawn. The Trite needs a little bit of better patter.

Posted by: c at June 28, 2005 10:29 AM

David Thomsen,

You're so right. That quote is very revealing of the liberal mind-set. What amazes me about Ignatieff's observation is not the part about Bush being a gambler - in a sense he is. But to characterize Kerry as a realist is to turn rational thought on it's head. How anyone can think that pretending, assuming, imagining, that everything will be alright in an increasingly dangerous and predatory world, if we just leave things as they are, post-9/11 - is simply beyond me.

Posted by: Swede at June 28, 2005 10:32 AM

“'cause we're in a pile of shit over there.”

I categorically reject this premise. The war in Iraq has already been won. We are merely dealing with the very dangerous aftermath. Our enemies have virtually no chance of victory. Things are continually improving. The country has a population of around twenty six million people. The terrorists are not even killing an average of 300 Iraqis a week. The total at the end of the year is less than 16,000 victims. Hell, does somebody need a reality check? This is far less than one percent of the total population. Our own troop loses are next to nothing compared to the carnage of World War II and other major conflicts.

We must do what we can to change the hearts and minds of the Arab world. Altruism has next to nothing to do with it. Our very lives are in jeopardy if Islamic nihilism is not destroyed. Liberating Iraq was mandatory if we are to accomplish our goal. This is the second domino after Afghanistan. Perhaps Syria will be next?

Posted by: David Thomson at June 28, 2005 10:33 AM

Roger;

Much of the left are situational realists. As much as I hate Buchannon's isolationist America first and only type of foreign policy at least he is consistent. The left has been screaming at and scolding both democratic and Republican administrations for the stability for oil policies of America towards the middle east. They loved to point to Human rights group reports and moan "Oh how can America support these dictators who suppress the freedom of the middle east citizens." And this was usually followed by a "if they were white Europeans this would not be allowed to stand" so the standard racist charge could be hurled. But when President Bush decided to change the decades old stability for oil policy the left suddenly adopts the Arabs are not ready for democracy and this attempt is a fools errand. Suddenly the Buchannon policy that was derided as racist and ancient is suddenly progressive and wise. The American left has been called out. Their policy of crying for human Rights and leaving it up to a U.N. that has proven that they would prefer to talk about it and then skim money from the oppresed people of the middle east is now exposed for everyone to see. If you count on the left and the U.N. for relief from opprresion you can be assured that they will feel your pain but not lift a finger to help you.

Kevin Peters

Posted by: Kevin P at June 28, 2005 10:43 AM

The country has a population of around twenty six million people. The terrorists are not even killing an average of 300 Iraqis a week..."

I made the same point over at Belgravia Dispatch earlier:

http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/archives/004650.html#015036

I'd add that the risk of death from insurgent actions to the average Iraqi (per year, at the present rate of killings) is approximately the same as the risk of death from driving 18,000 miles on American roads.

Posted by: Morgan at June 28, 2005 10:43 AM

How to Lose the War!

Roger,

I agree. The MSM is no longer relevant. We in the Blogos who know differently must report the objective info on the GWOT directly to the American people.

See this anthology of comments I started over at Discarded Lies.

Bloggers see how you can personally help win the GWOT by countering the disinformation reported by the MSM.

Posted by: Ron Wrght at June 28, 2005 10:52 AM

David T & Morgan,

You are trying to discuss numbers with the innumerate. It's a waste of time. Math is too hard for them. You need to try simpler concepts like, "run away from" and "go home to".

How 'bout we try it this way... How come wherever the UN "peacekeepers" show up there are refugees? Even for a small place like Bosnia the refugees are thick upon the ground in all the standard places refugees run to. Ask a Swede. Anybody got any newly minted Iraqi or Afghani refugees?

Posted by: Knucklehead at June 28, 2005 10:55 AM

Well, it's like Tony Blair said in his wonderful, eloquent 2003 Address to Congress:

We are fighting for the inalienable right of humankind--black or white, Christian or not, left, right or a million different--to be free, free to raise a family in love and hope, free to earn a living and be rewarded by your efforts, free not to bend your knee to any man in fear, free to be you so long as being you does not impair the freedom of others.

That's what we're fighting for. And it's a battle worth fighting.

And I know it's hard on America, and in some small corner of this vast country, out in Nevada or Idaho or these places I've never been to, but always wanted to go...

I know out there there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, "Why me? And why us? And why America?"

And the only answer is, "Because destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do."

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at June 28, 2005 11:05 AM

We can lose this struggle with the latest group of fascists only if we quit. They can't beat us, and Iraq is proof of that. You want a disaster? I'll tell you of a disaster - Savo Island, 9 August 1942. A Japanese surface force surprised the invasion fleet. Heavy cruisers USS Astoria, USS Vincennes, USS Quincy, and HMAS Canberra were sunk. USS Chicago was badly damaged. 1270 men were killed, 708 wounded. That was a disaster. By any objective analysis Iraq is not a disaster, unless we falter.

This is our rendezvous with destiny, this is our mission. We owe it to ourselves, our children, and the world to persevere so that even our enemies' descendants will thank God the Americans were victorious.

If not us, who? If not now, when?

Posted by: Mikey at June 28, 2005 11:12 AM

I don't think for a moment democracy is a solution to all humanity's woes. It's just our only refuge from totalitarianism.

Democracy and the rule of law. I don't think that either is more important than the other. In a way, they correspond to the height and width of a rectangle; the rectangle's area depends on both, not on one or the other.

Posted by: Silicon valley Jim at June 28, 2005 11:12 AM

I now can name "The Truth" in less than 10 notes.

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at June 28, 2005 11:21 AM

If you count on the left and the U.N. for relief from opprresion you can be assured that they will feel your pain but not lift a finger to help you.

And here is a prime example of that feel your pain/don't lift a finger response to a crisis by the UN:

THE arrival in Zimbabwe of a United Nations special envoy to investigate the State's demolition of the "illegal" homes of up to a million people did little to interrupt President Mugabe's bulldozers.

Mrs Tibaijuka said that the UN wanted to "see the impact of the operation called Murambatsvina [clear out the rubbish] and how we can assist the affected".

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at June 28, 2005 11:38 AM

Bush's original plan in seeking the Presidency was to institute reforms, including much reform in the executive branch. A lot of that got delayed on 9/11/01. Why does he still pursue it?

His degree is in business, he's very businesslike, and he thinks and acts in terms of the big picture. Bush couldn't be an effective President on any level if he did not address domestic problems, including long-range ones. He could well have not been re-elected. And he knows that the USA must be on a long-term path of financial and economic stability and growth, and he must build a pattern and tradition of responsible action with the economic long-term in view. Among other things, the USA must do this in order to be able to maintain its power and influence, to continue the anti-terrorist war and the democratization policy, and to be able to withstand any further major terrorist attacks on US soil, not to mention the possible global shocks of successful major terrorist attacks elsewhere.

* * *

I wondered where c went. How come no longer at Tim Blair's site? You should go there today and read about Mark Latham.

Posted by: ForNow at June 28, 2005 11:39 AM

The speech isn't for us. Nor is it for the true believers of Pravda.

Posted by: someone at June 28, 2005 11:42 AM

Roger:

The truth already has it's talking points lined up. It doesn't need to hear the speech to argue. And of course it will stride in to tommorrows post, dump it's load of bile, and then refuse to defend it's idea's.

Kevin Peters

Posted by: Kevin P at June 28, 2005 11:52 AM

No need for you to read about this speech tomorrow! I have a pre-cog version of the recount from the Associated (de)Press(ed). Here are the first two paragraphs:

In an attempt to shore up sagging support from a weary public that is increasingly skeptical of the United States' mission in Iraq, President Bush last night delivered a forceful defense of his Iraq policy.

Despite the fact that more than 1,700 U.S. servicemen have been killed in the Iraq war, and that sectarian violence amidst the strengthening and deadly insurgency threatens to plunge the country into a civil war, Bush claimed that coaltion forces were making progress.

Sound about right?

Posted by: Fresh Air at June 28, 2005 12:10 PM

Yes, Fresh Air, it does. They're probably writing that lede as we speak.

And, ForNow, like all good businessmen, Bush puts the focus on results, not process (as a matter of fact, I hear he has limited patience with people who are all about "process", as well he should).

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at June 28, 2005 12:22 PM

Kyda-- Maybe you will like this alternate universe version:

Rejecting the criticisms of the media, Congress and American leftists, President Bush last night delivered a forceful defense of his Iraq policy, saying, "Y'all are bunch of ignorant, asshat reactionaries who couldn't conduct a one-car funeral."

Democrats and their mouthpieces in the mainstream media took issue with Bush's defense, and appeared to retreat to their hoary old talking points. "This is an illegal war. Iraq is a quagmire, just like Tet," said Edward "Drunken Zeppelin" Kennedy (D-Mass.). Nina Totenberg, "reporter" for National Public Radio, at one point appeared to take ill during the president's speech, and oxygen was administered.

Supporters of the war. however, including prominent Democrats, cheered themselves hoarse, and rejected proposals to close the Guantamo Bay, Cuba detention facility made by House Minority Leader Nancy Pellosi (D-Moonbat) in her tiresome, screechy rebuttal to the president's speech.

"I don't care if he is a fellow senator, Dick Durbin can stuff his Hitler Stalin Pol Pot analogies," said Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), referring to the ridiculous remarks made last week by Senator Durbin of Illinois. Conservative Democrat Zell Miller, meanwhile, reiterated his desire to "beat the living snot" out of Chris Matthews on national television.

Posted by: Fresh Air at June 28, 2005 1:04 PM

I imagine a terrible stormy night with a slurring Teddy K., in his socks and boxers, teetering atop a bluff on family compound, troubling deaf heaven with his bootless cries of "QWAGMYUH! QWAG-[hic]-MYUH!"

Then the amused voice from above: "Blow wind, Crack your cheeks!."

Posted by: Bruce W. at June 28, 2005 1:14 PM

Rejecting the criticisms of the media, Congress and American leftists

Which, apparently, includes the nearly 60% of American people who believed the administration either lied or exaggerated the Iraqi threat, 51% of the American people who believe this war is a mistake, 70% of Americans who believe American casualties in Iraq are unacceptable and the 56% of Americans who believe the President has bungled this war.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll062705.pdf

Your types are in the minority of American opinion, and any more pronouncements such as "We've already won the warâ€ (tell that to American soldiers who continue to die, Iraqi civilians who continue to die) and y'all will be relegated to the Freeper fringe.

Posted by: The Truth at June 28, 2005 1:19 PM

Ohh, we're back to how Americans "feel?"

I'm interested in what they know, not what they "feel."

Posted by: Sandy P at June 28, 2005 1:29 PM

...and "TheTruth's" poll is from that bastion of support for the war, President Bush and the U.S.A., the Washington(com)Post.

If it comes from the NYTimes or the WashedUpPost, I'm not buying it.

Posted by: JenLArt at June 28, 2005 1:31 PM

The Truth--

Oh thank you for enlightening us with your supreme intelligence! Now, just for the record can you tell me what percentage of colonists were in favor of the Revolutionary War.

Was it:

(a) 100%
(b) 75%
(c) 50%
(d) 33%

Give up? I'll give a hint: it was less than 50%--and that was before the thing started! Gosh, by your logic, we should still be a British Colony.

Whether or not your polls are accurate, they are not a measure of the justness, necessity or successes of the war. Nor do they reflect anything more than the mercurial vicissitudes of the public that is beat upon like a hammer with bad news from our ridiculously biased, America-hating mainstream media. One more thing: Following the polls is what Bill Clinton did; that's what bought us 9/11.

Your comment about "bungling" the war is a canard. Like every other rhetorical point you attempt to make, this one is question-begging while also disengenuous. Moreover, what would constitute an "unbungled" war? Ever read Catch 22? Your lack of historic perspective and sheer ignorance is breathtaking.

"Freeper Fringe"? Please...I know you lurk about this site quite a bit, but WTF that does that mean, exactly?

And please cut it out with the faux tears for our soldiers. We've heard this B.S. before.

Posted by: Fresh Air at June 28, 2005 1:35 PM

I won't know if this particular, and my guess now is one-of-a-kind, leap of faith (regime change in Iraq) has been worth the expenditure of men, dollars and good will until a couple of years after the constitutional (rule of law, rule of law, rule of law) government, whatever its type, asks the allies either to withdraw the bulk of their forces or to station them in large numbers at leased bases of operation in country.

Ever the optimist.

Posted by: Patrick Tyson at June 28, 2005 1:38 PM

I wondered where c went. How come no longer at Tim Blair's site?

You have an amazing memory, ForNow, because it's been over a year. I still read TB and commenters who couldn't be funnier about neo-illiberals and their worldview. Saw the post on Mark L. Tragic how the Latham/Gore/Kerry/Dean/Schroeder/Chirac anti's staked out their side of History and now are unhappy where they find themselves, sidelined, parochial and bitter. Even sadder is how their minions keep grasping at specious polling data, The Truth be told.

Good point you raise about how Bush's business must also include keeping the country strong and on track wrt the economy and domestic "structural" issues.

Posted by: c at June 28, 2005 1:40 PM

What Fresh Air and JenLArt said.

Posted by: Bruce W. at June 28, 2005 1:47 PM

Patrick Tyson:

I won't know if this...has been worth the expenditure...

Neither will I. Risks don't always pay off. But some are worth taking anyway.

And I'm quite hopeful. Every day the Iraqis move incrementally closer to being in a position to do as you suggest.

Also the optimist.

Posted by: Morgan at June 28, 2005 1:50 PM

For those needing additional info on just what is at stake in the GWOT

See my update at Discarded Lies:

Link Here

Posted by: Ron Wrght at June 28, 2005 1:51 PM

Patrick--

You are right. Ultimately, we won't know for several years whether this grand experiment was worth it. I, for one, am prepared to wait.

If I am wrong, I will admit it. But I will not admit defeat now or sound the alarm just because some people have ants in their pants. It's why we elect leaders.

Posted by: Fresh Air at June 28, 2005 1:51 PM

Bruce W.,

You mean that at only 497 days until the next election you're not concerned about poll results generated by the Quisling press? Don't you remember how the NYT/WaPo/DNC push polling swung the election and threw out the Reps in '04?

Neither do I.

I read the Ignatieff piece. Is he the best Harvard can afford? You could grab the culls from a Zinnfest and come up with a better thumbsucker. Good enough for the Times, I suppose. I'd reccommend it for anyone with a moderate IQ who was suffering from insomnia.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 28, 2005 1:59 PM

"...the underlying myth embraced by the utopian liberals. Deep in their guts, they believe that there are no real risks if one opts for pacifism..."

Mr. Thompson, sir, you are exactly, pithily, correct.

They suffer from riskophobia; their favorite pose is head in sand, butt in air. And they wonder why we can't resist kicking them.

When they're not posing, they switch to the Henny Penny dance --the one where you run around claiming the sky is falling, or the famine is coming, or the population is perilously climbing, or that the only thing the environment needs is to get rid of all the people. 'Cept them, of course.

Meanwhile, in reality, as the population drops in peace-torn Europe, the wolves are beginning to return (per Fjordman).

Posted by: Dymphna at June 28, 2005 2:00 PM

The War on Terror has been compared here first to WWII and, now, The Revolutionary War. I'm almost surprised the War between Heaven and Hell has not yet come up as an analogy, Mr. Bush the glorious St. Michael, casting Islam as portrayed by Satan into the fiery chasm.

The real analogy, of course, is to the War on Drugs: a perpetual war waged on a concept, with no known victory conditions and no known exit strategy.

And of course the President does not follow polls. Why, today's speech has nothing to do at all with falling poll numbers; the timing is pure coincidence (and when Rich Lowry, looking at the same pinko-commie poll I linked to says, "Public Opinion on Iraq - It Could be Worse," he is being facetious).

By all means, continue to stick your fingers in your ear, shouting at the top of your collective lungs "We've Won the War! Last Throes! Last Throes!"

The fact is the American people -- finally -- have woken up to what the President's foreign policy actually means: the occupation of American military personnel in Iraq for at least a decade.
They're mad as hell. It remains to be seen whether they're not going to take it anymore.

Posted by: The Truth at June 28, 2005 2:17 PM

Kyda:

8 notes.

Posted by: Bruce W. at June 28, 2005 2:28 PM

Truth:

Our trype?

I once was you. But when liberals started ignoring North Korea so that they could have a cow because the Butcher of Baghdad was not allowed to put babies in mass graves anymore I changed sides.

And I think a lot of the discouragement comes from the fatigue people feel not only at the fighting but the constant bitching of people such as yourself. They just want you to shut up and ending the war seems to be the only way to make your type crawl back under your rock.

You can say my type is in the minority but Bush won the election and your type keeps getting its ass kicked. The poll that counts is the one Bush won. And I believe he would win again today.

People say the president should be out talking to the people and then your type complains when he does just that.

I am so tired of listening to lefties chase their tails. I have a copy of the 9/11 Commission Report which makes it very plain that the real concerns about Saddam's threat were there in the Clinton years as well. Too bad they cut the military and intelligence budgets, maybe they would have had a more accurate picture.

But then again there is a trial going on in Jordan now in which Zarqawi [among others] is accused of planning a terrorist attack in Jordan that could have killed 80,000 people. Now, why do you think Saddam brought Zarqawi to Iraq? To teach pre school? I think there was a great deal of threat there or Clinton, Bush and Blair and Howard would not have taken such a political risk.

But I understand that your type is longing for the good old days of Saddam. But then your type thinks Gitmo is gulag but can not be bothered with real death camps. Too risky. Much better to preach and tell the world how wonderful you are and pass judgment than actually do anything useful.

Posted by: Terrye at June 28, 2005 2:33 PM

The Truth:

Go ahead and live by the polls. The same polls said Kerry would win. Polls go up and down. Until Gettysburg Lincoln was going to lose. TDemocrats had the opportunity to vote in Dean or Kucinich and were given a chance to vote in a "pull the troops out" slate. They chose Kerry and his multiple choice option Iraq policy. The american people had the chance to kick President Bush out, and we had a record turnout and Bush had increases almost across the board and won by 3 million votes. Go ahead and wallow in temporary poll dips and promises to throw us into a freep minority. Bush will continue to whip your butt and you can pour over the polls and wonder why it keeps happening. Keep singing the quaqmire chorus and when Iraq democratic government takes hold and begins the democratic renewal in the Middle East yyou can tell your grandchildren that you fought this attempt and tried your best to keep the Middle East in it's proper place, run by dictators and kept there by a combination of indifference and the U.N.

Kevin Peters

Posted by: Kevin P at June 28, 2005 2:34 PM

The title of the WaPo article on the push poll is: Survey Finds Most Support Staying in Iraq .

You need better straw, Pravda. You've descended from being annoying at times to being a full time buffoon to be mocked more than pitied.

Maybe we'll write a tune especially for you. (Too early in the thread but we can think about it.)

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 28, 2005 2:37 PM

From the Associated Press...4:50 PM Eastern Time...3 hours prior to GWB's speech...

Isn't it interesting how the media can report on events before they occur??? Notice the "past tense" in the article.

"FORT BRAGG, N.C. (AP) - President Bush on Tuesday appealed for the nation's patience for "difficult and dangerous" work ahead in Iraq, hoping a backdrop of U.S. troops and a reminder.... "

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050628/D8B0RG781.html

Posted by: Soldier's Dad at June 28, 2005 2:41 PM

"They're mad as hell," TT?
Funny, I don't see it.
The people I'm mad as hell at are the Dhimmicrats!
If they'd just shut up and sit down we might win this war and sooner, rather than later.
If it takes us a decade to subdue the terrorist killer dead-enders in Iraq, it will only be because the Dems have so tied the hands of our military on the battlefield (with all these domestic criminal charges of homicide) and in the prisons of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, that it takes us much more time, effort and trouble to achieve victory.

TT needs to remember the key difference between Vietnam and OIF: no draft.
Our troops are there of their own free will, fighting for freedom.
And God bless and protect them all!
(Also, we responded to being attacked. It wasn't a war of ideology that was started by Eisenhower, then escalated by Dems JFK and LBJ like Vietnam.)
While the number of casualties is upsetting--I hate to see one American life or limb given up for these piggish thugs!-- it is far, far less than the 50,000-60,000 dead of Vietnam.
OIF is a moral and winnable war and it's become the sinkhole of the swamp, sucking all the jihadis into the maelstrom where our soldiers can facilitate their journey to Muslim paradise.
Better Baghdad than Brooklyn, wouldn't you say?
On to Victory!

Posted by: JenLArt at June 28, 2005 2:42 PM

Truth:

You have no idea how long those troops will be there and most of the people I know are not half as mad at Bush as they are dickheads like Durbin.

And how about you being honest about what the alternative to this war was...

The US remaining in Saudi Arabia indefinitely so that the the US could continue paying billions to fly the no fly zones while Saddam shot at our planes.

The continuation of the crumbling of the sanction regime as Saddam refused to be compliant and bought illegal weapons technology with kickbacks and smuggling money.

The complete humiliation of the UN as we allowed Saddam to flaunt the the ban on weapons programs.

The complete humiliation of the UN as we ignored the resolution's requirments concerning human rights violations.

And most importantly the fact that sooner or later Saddam or his psycho sons would be right back where they started and that would have meant the continuing suffering of the Iraqi people with no hope or help in sight.

You can be mad all you want but how about facing a little reality yourself?

Posted by: Terrye at June 28, 2005 2:49 PM

Kick-ass Terrye!

I do like the AU version heaps better, Fresh Air. Please link to it tomorrow.

Okay, Bruce W, I'm working on getting it down to 6 notes.

Rick, I'm glad to see your comment. I expressed the same sentiment over at Wretchard's and was wondering if I was the only one who felt that way.

No guts, no glory. No pain, no gain. And no good deed goes unpunished. Now I'm sticking my fingers in my ears and shouting at the top of my lungs "We've Won the War! Last Throes! Last Throooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooes........."

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at June 28, 2005 3:01 PM

The Truth:

Your Bush hatred is poisoning your argument. You sarcastically fault the President for attempting to respond to negative poll numbers. Set aside the manifest problems with these polls and let's agree that they represent that to some degree the American people question the President's Iraq policy, a trend about which you no doubt rejoice.

Just what in hell would you have him do? Remain silent? The President answers to the people. If we are unhappy with his performance he must speak out. That's his job.

Posted by: Old Dad at June 28, 2005 3:05 PM

Well of course I remember you, c. How could I forget somebody who said that my explanation of the font issues in the phony Killian memos was as beautiful as a poem? Or whatever it was that you said. Seriously, I was impressed because your arguments at Tim Blair's site brimmed with comprehensive sets of forceful points yet were smooth and concise. I didn't quite put it together until I found that the comments there from "c" and a few other letters of the alphabet were all from you. When Tim did his one-letter post "j" I bet he was just trying to draw you back. Anyway, you're meant to blog. That's all, this comment will self-deprecate in 3 seconds, 2, 1 -- I've filled my summer quota of compliments.

Posted by: ForNow at June 28, 2005 3:08 PM

Kevin P., your post kicked butt (or to wit, TT's butt).
Thank you!

Posted by: JenLArt at June 28, 2005 3:13 PM

No one, not one single 'right thinking' person is frightened of 'THE TRUTH'. What we are frightened of are the CONSEQUENCES of NOT fighting this war, NOW!

I don't recall to many occasions (if any) where the President has said this is NOT going to be a long, tough road.

Posted by: ElCid at June 28, 2005 3:30 PM

Well of course I remember you, c...

After a long day, I needed that, ForNow. And now am torn between admitting you're the only one who would think what you said above or sending you some kind of remuneration and a thank you note on my very best stationery. Most kind and sweet of you, and you know you really did make the tediously technical most lyrical on that famous font post of yours!

Oh but it's only June.

Posted by: Not Jose Marti at June 28, 2005 3:58 PM

(Um, well at least it's true- I'm Not Jose Marti...)

Posted by: c at June 28, 2005 4:03 PM

C S Lewis argued that democracy is necessary, *not* because man is perfect, but specifically because he is imperfect.

Those who argue against the "unrealistic idealism" of spreading democracy are missing this point.

Posted by: photoncourier.blogspot.com at June 28, 2005 4:03 PM

I guess the Truth just wants Clinton back. Now there's a guy who knew how to follow polls. Maybe you cared what Don Kofi used to say, but not what he said last week as he tries to jump on the "let's take credit" bandwagon? http://instapundit.com/archives/023758.php: There's Progress in Iraq. By Kofi Annan:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/20/AR2005062001176.html

Posted by: Barry Dauphin at June 28, 2005 4:15 PM

Barry,

You can almost hear the whispered drawl in the background "Nah, Kofidofi, 'nt quat ha enuff. Jump agin."

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 28, 2005 4:29 PM

If I read the polls correctly only one in eight Americans wants to just yank the troops out of there.

But speaking of levelling with the American people, what about Kosovo? 250,000 dead and what is there to show for that? the place is still a wreck and the peacekeepers are playing pimp. what a disgrace.

Posted by: Terrye at June 28, 2005 4:59 PM

Rick,

"Yes, Mr. President."
Foreign ministers gather to discuss Iraq reconstruction: "Opening the conference, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said to the gathering of foreign ministers: "You send an important message which I hope is heard loud and clear both in Iraq and elsewhere: the international community supports the government and the people of Iraq, and we are determined that the reconstruction of Iraq... must succeed." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1664429,00.html

Posted by: Barry Dauphin at June 28, 2005 5:15 PM

So on the East Coast the NYT wants to know what right America has to spread democracy.

On the West Coast, the LA Times editorializes that "elections don't mean very much."

Must be the salt water.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at June 28, 2005 5:29 PM

Nah, there's us down here on the third coast, too. It must be the latitude mixed with the salt water.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 5:37 PM

I saw the president's speech and I thought he did well.

What right have we got to spread freedom? Is this coming from the same people that seem to think we are duty bound to feed and clothe the world, maintain the UN and assume responsibility for everything that could and does go wrong?

What right has the world got to make demands on us?

Posted by: Terrye at June 28, 2005 5:53 PM

Interesting range of critical commentary from the talking heads and generals embedded in TV studios. Either the problem is that we stayed in Iraq after winning and the populace resents the occupation itself so we should have left and we should leave on a time table now or we don't have enough troops to occupy the country and should send more now. Contradictory negatives, but all Chicken Littles. This is all beginning to sound like the histrionics last Fall prior to the Iraqi election-the election will be marred by violence, we should postpone the election, no one will vote, it's not good enough for Sistani, it's too good for Sistani, etc.

Posted by: Barry Dauphin at June 28, 2005 6:03 PM

Solid speech tonight. Russert was an insufferable shill for the Dems in his commentary. Most entertaining line was delivered by Pelosi who lectured Bush on adopting a "strategy of success". Sure, the Dems know a lot about winning strategies; that's why they win so many elections and wars. Don't believe she mentioned the Democracy word, but I could be wrong.

Posted by: c at June 28, 2005 6:16 PM

Wesley Clark was just with Brit Hume, and worked himself into that same corner: "We're creating more terrorists by being there, but we can't leave."

Hume asked, "But, if we're making the war worse by being there, why shouldn't we leave?"

Clark: "Well, that's the dilemma."

Duhhhh, thanks, General!

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 6:22 PM

Give thanks for the little things, Buddy...at least his eyes looked a little less crazy! LOL
(Didn't he sound wistful opining about a Commander-in-Chief who was a real leader and who supported his military men and their mission, so unlike you-know-who?)

Posted by: JenLArt at June 28, 2005 6:37 PM

IRAQ FOR DUMMIES

This Nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will take the fight to the enemy. We will defend our freedom.

To complete the mission, we will continue to hunt down the terrorists and insurgents. To complete the mission, we will prevent al-Qaida and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends. And the best way to complete the mission is to help Iraqis build a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.

As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.

Today dozens of nations are working toward a common objective: an Iraq that can defend itself, defeat its enemies, and secure its freedom.

We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed and not a day longer.

We fight today, because Iraq now carries the hope of freedom in a vital region of the world and the rise of democracy will be the ultimate triumph over radicalism and terror. And we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we will fight them there we will fight them across the world and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.

Might cut, paste and print that so that you can staple it to the forehead of the next nitwit with questions about why we're there and when we're leaving. It ain't all that complicated but half the people will always have IQ's of less than 100.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 28, 2005 6:40 PM

The Rhodes scholar General just isn't that smart in any commonsensical way. Which would be more forgivable had he not sold out his previous political beliefs for a shot to run in and beat out a field of weak Dem candidates.

"Well, that's the dilemma." Or, maybe he does have the intellectual mien befitting his current party (as currently constituted), after all.

Posted by: c at June 28, 2005 6:41 PM

I thought it was a great speech, answered all the Democrat quibbles. But then he was preaching to the choir in my case. I want more war, harder war, not a withdrawal timetable.

At the end, I was in tears, too, at the thought of our military and the job they have done for this world. I really cannot imagine anything that could bring Kerry to tears.

Posted by: PJ at June 28, 2005 6:51 PM

PJ,

Teresa going bankrupt.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 28, 2005 6:53 PM

Maybe some son of a bitch secret-service agent bumping into him on the boogie-board front?

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 6:55 PM

Thanks for the quote pull Rick. Yes, it is quite simple, not complex. And I admire the man for keeping it as such. And your last sentence makes a hell of a point. KISS. PJ, me too, re: the tears.

Posted by: Luther McLeod at June 28, 2005 6:58 PM

I know I sing second soprano in Dubya's choir, but I thought it was a terrific speech. When he started explaining why only a certifiable moron would announce a timetable for the withdrawal of troops, he shifted into high gear and stayed there. The emotion he showed at the end, sincere and heart-felt, welled me up as I'm sure it did those in the hall. The choice of the military audience was perfect. They've earned the right to be there, to have their CIC stand before them, and it was an important symbol. Carl Cameron said they were riveted on every word.

Busy in the kitchen after the speech, I was listening to things I normally wouldn't, like Alan Combs talking to Charlie Rangel. At one time, Rangel could be a reasonable man, no more. I thought the white coats might show up there for a minute. Really took the edge off my high, man.

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at June 28, 2005 7:02 PM

Alan Colmes makes me ill.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 7:18 PM

Tereeza divorcing his sorry ass.

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at June 28, 2005 7:20 PM

Kyda,

The Copperhead Dems will still be with us at the end of the war. There will be fewer of them but what they lack in numbers they'll make up for in noise. Rangel's going to die a bitter man because he will never, ever have the power he once had. Remember, we have driven them before us and part of our reward is listening to the lamentations after the battle. The desperation is going to rise, not subside, so learn to smile at the shrieks.

I thought the speech was on target, well delivered and without tactical flaw. There was really no place for the Dems to get a grip, which is why Clark looked more of a doofus than usual. All in all, an excellent performance by W. He's still throwing strikes - and from the rubber, too.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 28, 2005 7:24 PM

Rick, I was having a similar thought wrt the comments on Kerry. Kerry is not despised because he is a Dem or even a Lib. he is despised because long ago he chose to go for the top on the theory that he could pull it off. That's it. Nothing more. Just go for it to see if he could wing it on in there. He's not even a good Red--he just happened to invest in that faction when it was cool, and now he's sorta stuck.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 7:35 PM

Speaking of Kerry, was he separated at birth from Primo Carnera?

Compare and contrast.

HT: Steve Sailer.

Posted by: Fresh Air at June 28, 2005 8:00 PM

Buddy,

When the epitaph is written for the Democratic Party, 1968 will be the year chosen as the start of the infection that killed it. The adoption of Alinsky's "By Any Means Possible" tactics and their initial success in bringing down Nixon six years later with the attendant radicalization of the party was the beginning of the end. Clinton, Hillary!, Kerry, Kennedy and a cast of thousands are all Alinsky's bastard children and they are all responsible for the parlous state of a once great party. There is not a dimes worth of difference in the total lack of character displayed by Kerry and the Clinton's, all three of them are still hung on the 'will to power' and it is dangerous to be between them and their goal.

I believe that there would be a schism tmorrow in the Dem party if the moderates could figure out how to finance themselves. The problem with a party supported with votes purchased from rentseekers is that when you don't control spoils to be disbursed, you have no financial base. No power means nothing to sell and you can't really expect people from whom you've been buying votes to return the money.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 28, 2005 8:09 PM

Nobody would go into business with, go partners in a joint venture with, any of the crew you just named. You wouldn't even leave your chips on the poker table to go take a leak, without counting first. You wouldn't let one of them draw your contracts, baby-sit your kids, or house-sit if you went on a trip. You'd never let 'em broker a deal, or sell you a used car. And that's the truth. Yet they got to the top of their party. It's really rather fantastic, isn't it?

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 8:18 PM

The soi-desant Truth thinks that the timing of Bush's speech is suspicious. I would guess that this is because he does not have enough knowledge of history to be aware that one year ago today the initial provisional government took office in Iraq. Seems like a logical time for a review speech to me.

Posted by: triticale at June 28, 2005 8:26 PM

All the great ones throw from the rubber, Rick. That's what make the difference. GWB is a "redwood among mere sprouts" (I'll be interested to see who out there places that quote) and he makes me proud.

In the end it's all about power with the Dems, isn't it. That's the sad, pathetic thing, the lengths to which they're willing to go for the sake of being "Mr. Chairman" (I heard one of them--can't remember who--the other day snapping at a journalist about how "Mr. Chairman" was still the proper form of address for a former chairman. like I said, pathetic). Power is most corrupting during the drive to get it and keep it. I'd feel sorry for them, but they're playing with people's lives now, their futures, their nations' futures all for the sake of politics and I'm damn sick of it. And other than working towards another big win in '06, there's not a damn thing to be done about it.

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at June 28, 2005 8:30 PM

Triticale —Remember the concept of movable goal posts.

The first truth is, Bush doesn't level with the American people.

He what?

Well... the first truth is, Bush shouldn't have leveled with the American people now....

Posted by: richard mcenroe at June 28, 2005 8:39 PM

Scully

Posted by: Patrick Tyson at June 28, 2005 8:47 PM

Kyda,

Politics is blood sport on both sides. Conyers is the other yoyo you're thinking of and both Rangel and Conyers are truly livid because their "program money" (spoils) are being slowly strangled by being directly moved to the faith community. They are losing clout, respect and the ability to reward and punish. Those things have always been like air to cheap machine pols and losing them is a form of death.

The Reps play just as much hardball as the Dems, they just don't use the slash and burn language that the Alinsky lefties love. In one sense, it's always better to vote Rep because you don't have to be sickened by the obvious vote buying. In another sense, the Reps move just as much money - it's just quietly going into different pockets.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 28, 2005 8:58 PM

i'm watching Rangel on national TV (Hannity & Colmes) accusing the sitting president of having orchestrated the entire war in Iraq out of a personal grudge against Saddam. Is he really a Congressman?? The mind boggles.

Posted by: ex-democrat at June 28, 2005 9:19 PM

Went over to the National Review's blog, and noticed this interesting set of comments by John Derbyshire. Now why is it when I or some other liberal says things along this line, we're accused of being traitors or the like?

from "the Corner", John Derbyshire:

Good bread'n'butter speech. Just a couple of nits to pick:

(1) "There is no higher calling than service in our armed forces." That would ring a little less hollow if this country's ruling classes were better represented in the military. In fact the military is a lower-middle-class and working-class occupation, which U.S. elites avoid like the plague.

(2) The argument that we should not set a time limit on our presence in Iraq, because "the enemy would wait us out." Perhaps they would. There's another side to this, though. A reader whose work is to get franchise operations up and running tells me it's **KEY** to have some definite date when his guys withdraw and let the franchisee take over. If you don't do that, the psychological dependence never gets broken -- the training wheels never come off. That sounds right to me. Putting together a working army and police force doesn't take THAT long, if the motivation is there. Six month's training is fine for combat troops. Yet here we are in year three. Perhaps a withdrawal date would concentrate Iraqi minds. Frankly, they don't seem all that concentrated right now.

Posted by: markus at June 28, 2005 9:27 PM

Oh, I have no doubts the Repubs can't mix it up every bit as dirty and as for the money thing, well, that's just a lost cause. A politician of any stripe is still first and foremost a politican. But Republicans have spent most of their recent history out of power and they seem to be able to handle it with more grace (in fact, they could use a few lessons in the art of wielding power instead of this perpetual namby-pambying in the name of "well, someday we'll be in the minority again"--hey, dipwads, someday you'll all be dead. what's your point?). Anyhow, I just don't see Republicans as a group selling their countrymen or their country down the river for the sake of political gain. Sometimes it seems like the Dems are standing in line to do just that.

Right church, Patrick, wrong pew.

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at June 28, 2005 9:36 PM

Derb is losing his mind, Markus--anyone should be able to follow that the services are mostly working and middle class because the dadgum POPULATION is mostly working and middle class. what's the issue? And sure there are always many sides to everything--the POINT is that whatever advantages accrue to "date-certain" are meaningless in the face of the risk of the "wait-out". "Nits" is right.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 9:38 PM

markus,

You came into the China thread completely OT with enlistment figures presented in an inflamatory manner. Had you worled the language over and tied the comment in with less confrontation you would have had better success in generating a civil debate.

There is far too much "talking points" crap floating around and its general intent is seditious. If Roger puts up a post on "whither enlistment rates" you'd get a square debate.

Afterwards, you'll be taken out and shot, of course, but at least you will have had the opportunity to make your point.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 28, 2005 9:43 PM

markus sure is high maintenance.

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at June 28, 2005 9:50 PM

Ricky, Buddy, Luther, Kyda: you're all correct. :) Sad but true.

I think part of Bush's emotion is about himself. He's a boomer, like me, and sometimes I'm ashamed at how shallow I was back then. Maybe he is, too. Youth is only a partial excuse--the wonderful young people in our military (and elsewhere, too, but at a base you see the military) prove that it's possible to be both young and serious.

Bush has changed and grown--maybe that's what I like about him. All those idiot Dems care about is keeping their perks and their think tank sinecures when they leave.

Posted by: PJ at June 28, 2005 9:50 PM

Senator Warner made the point in an interview right after the speech tonight, that the quality of the rhetoric has simply go to change, that in preparations for his armed services committee meeting in the morning he has been meeting with theater-deployed line officers who are telling him that they are being pulled aside all over the theater by young troops wanting to know what the hell is going on back home. Sen. Warner said "These officers are troubled by what they're hearing, because the troops are troubled by what they're hearing."

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 9:54 PM

Old friendly Knucklehead had a melt-down over it, I just read it, looking back through old thread additions. Go back to "Those Who Forget" and read his 5:28 AM, near bottom.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 9:59 PM

Kyda?

Your stated interest was in place, not person. For future reference, forgo the "mere."

Regret is an inevitable consequence of life. —my favorite character

Posted by: Patrick Tyson at June 28, 2005 10:02 PM

buddy - i believe warner, like knucklehead, has tired of those that are objectively (or subjectively) aiding the enemy. me too.

Posted by: ex-democrat at June 28, 2005 10:05 PM

Kyda,

You have to look at the Democrats a little more widely. The "any means" group represents about 25% of the total seats they now hold. Those seats are rock solid - right in the middle of the blue castles with a well purchased moat of voters. Those are the ones whom I refer to as seditious - for precisely the reason that Buddy mentions.

If they keep up the seditious chatter the moderate Dems will pay the price. The seditious chatter is a requirement, though. The SBL, Ltd. boys, with the Ko$$acks, require a daily feeding of excreta in order to keep the always fewer dollars flowing.

What can the Dems sell to raise money? They don't have any power and their influence is greatly diminished. They're very close to becoming $2 whores who've lost their pimp. Whether the AFL-CIO cracks next week or not is almost immaterial. Sweeney has to give up blowing dues on losing elections or he loses the whole shooting match. Either way, the Dems lose another big source of funds.

There might be a way out that I can't see but it seems to me that the party is finished. It's not 1964 and the Republican debacle. It's 1856 and goodby Whigs.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 28, 2005 10:09 PM

Clearly, Patrick, in the realm of XF geekdom, you are the bigger geek--and also a black-lunged sob.

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at June 28, 2005 10:20 PM

me too, ex. That's all that bothers me about the state of politics. The rest is amenable to a self-reminder of the ephemeral nature of being, a thought that mercifully leads humor and tolerance. But, I can sit here and watch on TV the same news and views that the killers of our kids are watching, and I know for a fact that it can't BUT be invigorating for the terrorists. This is inexcusable, intolerable, even if it energizes only one bomb-builder only one time. But in truth, God only knows how much falls out of the steady flow of acid contempt for the war effort. It doesn't matter if it's 10 or 50% of this poll or that saying who cares not a fig for the mideast war stakes, what matters is the big chiefs of DC who run on and on. They're key. They know what their effect is. Nothing is accidental. They know exactly what they're doing.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 10:20 PM

Rick, I read a headline somewhere--just today--that the Carpenter's Union is ready to bolt the fold, too. Seems they're fed up with the Democratic party affiliation, and the danegeld they're paying to it through their union dues. this is a rather large development, the cracking labor front. Yay, America!

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 28, 2005 10:30 PM

Uhmmm. As for training an army, we can train recruits for six months and make them effective for many reasons, but the number one reason is that they are joining about 1.5 million already trained troops, many of whom have decades of experience. In Iraq we are training all of them at once. They have some with a little experience, but not many. The hardest positions to fill, in my estimation, are platoon sergeants and senior master sergeant or the equivalent. It's much easier to train officers.

Usually, the last advice given to a newly commissioned 2nd Lt is, "Listen to your sergeant."

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at June 28, 2005 10:32 PM

Kyda—

Don't you believe in miracles?

Posted by: Patrick Tyson at June 28, 2005 10:40 PM

There might be a way out that I can't see but it seems to me that the party is finished.

Well, you never know. You can make a nice living in the minority. Republicans did it for years. There's still time for the Dems to adapt. Perhaps another good drubbing at the polls will leave them sufficiently chasened.

It's like with Islam. The moderates need to make their voices heard above the din of the snake pit. Not an easy task. Takes courage for one thing. I understand, for instance, the Moveon crowd is after Lieberman's seat. I haven't paid attention so I don't know if they've gained any traction or even if there's traction to gain. But if Democrats like Lieberman, both Nelsons, Bayh don't stand up soon, the outlook is grim indeed.

You're on the money about the money thing though. Big problem, BIG problem. Regard Florida--portent of things to come.

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at June 28, 2005 10:46 PM

Buddy--

I would submit the patient being treated with a timetable to leave Iraq is the politician proposing it. If these liberals in Washington had any sense they would let the generals in theatre do all the timetable-setting.

As to Derbyshire, I don't see eye-to-eye with him on foreign policy--or a lot of domestic policy, either. His point about the "training wheels" that Markus (is he still around?) snipped for us is valid, but I don't think we the public (and the terrorists watching our media) need to know months in advance when the pullout will begin. In any case, it's likely to be a phased withdrawal; there will be no rooftop helicopter rides.

Rick B.--

Your posts remind me of the Twain quote: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself..."

Posted by: Fresh Air at June 28, 2005 10:46 PM

markus, if you read NRO on a regular basis, as I do and as I'm sure a lot here do, you'll find that Derbyshire is about the weakest link in the NRO/Conservative chain.
And no offense intended, but he's really British (I think he became an American citizen, though.)
Point 3: Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, leave the vicinity immediately.

Posted by: JenLArt at June 28, 2005 10:46 PM

I did, Patrick. Right up to Season 8.

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at June 28, 2005 10:52 PM

Astute observation, Jorg. It takes a while, years in fact, to build a master sgt and it's they who run the whole shebang. Building an army from scratch is tough work. So is building a nation. Everybody seems to want it done yesterday. Everybody needs to get a grip.

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at June 28, 2005 11:05 PM

JenLArt--

Derbyshire is almost always interesting to read, whether you agree with him or not. He is an old-school British Tory who believes government's job is to maintain the roads, deliver the mail, protect the shores and stay the hell out of people's lives. Still, his perspective offers an always well-composed take on what the Paleocons (I hate that term, BTW) are thinking.

Another bonus: He irritates the crap out of Andrew Sullivan. That fact alone makes him a keeper in my book.

Posted by: Fresh Air at June 28, 2005 11:33 PM

What is MOST important is limited gov't -- limited to respecting and protecting Human Rights (the negative ones -- those that cost nothing like Free Speech, Free Religion).

Democracy is the most sustainable way to get there; occassionally inferior in practice to benign dictatorship, but no dictatorship is sustainable over generations.

A World Without Dictators is achievable and desirable; and we can't have a world at peace WITH dictators.

The Leftists think we can.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at June 29, 2005 2:38 AM

Markus,

Some of the regulars, all of whom are much more astute than I am, seem to believe you are worth engaging. So, why not...

... noticed this interesting set of comments by John Derbyshire. Now why is it when I or some other liberal says things along this line, we're accused of being traitors or the like?

Because there is a difference between disagreeing with policy and methodology, as Derbyshire does, and being habitually, reflexively, "against" for no other reason than that it is the people you didn't vote for who are in charge and some sick desire to see the administration you voted against fail no matter what the cost. Derbyshire disagrees because he believes there is a better way to succeed. You disagree because you fear success. One is disagreement, the other is sedition.

Now, on to the Derb's points:

Derb has clearly embraced his adopted nation but just as clearly holds a very "British" view on this topic. British traditions of military service are for social elites to be a large portion of the officer corps. In the British view officers are made on the playing fields of their elite "public" schools, polo fields, fox hunts, and tennis courts.

US military tradition holds that the presence of social elites among the officer corps is an unfortunate byproduct of social elitism and is best minimized in so far as possible. Your average American grunt would, if he were to think about it an articulate it, strongly prefer not to be led into battle by some effete snob who grew up playing polo or shooting sporting clays off the back of the family yacht.

Military service is a working stiff's world and, quite frankly, the working stiffs engaged in it prefer to carry out their difficult jobs surrounded by folks just like them whose daily lives have shown them their own blood and drenched them in their own sweat and tears from time to time.

Fortunate Son was a good rock and roll song but it is anything but the basis for good policy when it comes to staffing our military.

In the British system gentlemen become officers. In the US sytem officers become gentlemen.

Sorry, Derb, but we ain't talking about running an Arby's or teaching children to ride bicycles. The matter at hand here is going right into the center of one the vilest cesspools of man's inhumanity to man and trying to change it into something a whole lot better and whole lot less dangerous over the long run.

Being attacked by sociopathic, muderous Salafist and Baathist scum determined to put them back into the hellhole their trying to escape will focus Iraqi minds just fine. Give them a date by which they, and we, know that they cannot possibly be properly prepared to carry on on their own would be irresponsibly counterproductive. Rather than focusing their attention and effort on learning what they need to learn to run a decent nation while fighting off sociopaths they'd be focusing their attention and effort on finding the exits and making sure they'd be among those running the wood chippers rather than being tossed into them.

As for the "six months training" silliness... The fact that the US military can adequately train a new recuit in "six months" and place that person into a valuable function is an attribute of the quality and professionalism of the organization. We couldn't build the US military from scratch in six months and we can't build an Iraqi military from scratch in six months. Derb should be embarrassed to even make this point.

In short, Derb is wrong. It may be that you, Markus, are merely wrong. Then again, you may be a seditionist.

Posted by: Knucklehead at June 29, 2005 7:16 AM

Anyone (Markus Oh Really? Us?) wanting to hear the truth bell ring, Tom and Knucklehead have tolled it.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 29, 2005 8:15 AM

...we ain't talking about running an Arby's... Yow!!!

(1) Did it not take more than a decade for the US military to rebuild after Vietnam?

(2) Could we see some data on composition of the armed forces prior to generalization about the composition of the armed forces?

(3) I've met a few Army and Navy officers. They were college grads, and some held an M.S. or a Ph. D. They're not ignorant; they're not dumb. What does it mean to say they're not elite? Sounds like a comment on eliteness, not a comment on the military.

(4) I think Derb's elite remark is meaningless. The definition of elite in America is operational, "one who need contribute nothing". American elites are out of touch, usually to comic effect. That's the point: we cherish the weakest and most useless members of society by letting them fill the vain apparatus of eliteness: prep schools, newspapers, seminars, foundations.

The rest of us do it. Sometimes the elite send one of theirs to help out. Great. If they help out on our terms, not theirs, what's the problem?

Posted by: timmah! at June 29, 2005 8:29 AM

"we cherish the weakest and most useless members of society by letting them fill the vain apparatus of eliteness: prep schools, newspapers, seminars, foundations."

Very well said.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 29, 2005 8:38 AM

No one takes the Dems seriously about foreign policy. So the only time we elect one is when we are feeling fat and happy and more concerned with welfare than war.

Here's an interesting article cited by oxblog. Leading progressives were asked about their favorite books. Note the lack of books about foreign policy or, for that matter, any issue beyond our (racist, corporatist, blah blah) shores. Shows precisely why we don't take them seriously.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=9730

Posted by: PJ at June 29, 2005 8:42 AM

Well said everyone. Just a question: who is Markus?

Posted by: yama-arashi at June 29, 2005 8:44 AM

Yama,

Either a seditionist provacateur or a well meaning if misguided lefty. We're still working it out.

Is there any sake left in Japan?

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 29, 2005 8:51 AM

Yama--welcome back from your pilgrimage. Hope you found some nuggets of gold. Markus is a lost soul who is likewise on a pilgrimage, and the commenters here are trying to help him--and help themselves (ourselves) learn tolerance, sympathy, and proselytation. Proselytization. Crap, "how to tell a story".

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 29, 2005 8:53 AM

Yama,

Let me echo the welcome back!

Rick of the Ballardeers asked, Is there any sake left in Japan?

I will presume the answer is "yes, I failed to find it all" and hope you will allow a followup question.

Why warm vs. cold when imbibing?

Timmah,

I've met a few Army and Navy officers. They were college grads, and some held an M.S. or a Ph. D. They're not ignorant; they're not dumb. What does it mean to say they're not elite? Sounds like a comment on eliteness, not a comment on the military.

Precisely! The elites who wish to understand (assuming elites actually have any interest in understanding) why they are underrepresented in our military forces should exercise some introspection.

Posted by: Knucklehead at June 29, 2005 9:03 AM

Rick, CNBC is running stories from inner-city real-estate markets. Compton, and Harlem, and Spanish Harlem so far. It is absolutely astounding how bouyant those markets have become in the last couple of years. JP Morgan and several other big lenders who red-lined the inner-cities decades ago are now in there competing to sell mortgages. And, this isn't "gentrification", this is the locals, minorites, working folks, moving from rent to ownership.

God bless George Bush.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 29, 2005 9:03 AM

Knucklehead --

Your comments on Derbyshire are interesting and astute, and I would love to respond. I'm particularly interested in your perspective because it is very clearly a (white) working class one, and as a Democratic Party activist extremely interested in answering Thomas Frank's "What Happened to Kansas" question, I take your views seriously.

However, that'll have to wait until we straighten something else out.

You obnoxiously and unjustifiably attack my character and my motives, and the character and motives of lots of people whom you don't know, based NOT ON FACTS, BUT ON PREJUDICE. According to you, Derbyshere is having an honest disagreement with you, but I'm disagreeing mainly because I have "sick desires" and want the United States to fail. And how do you know this?

What I notice is that people like you will thoughtfully respond to conservative criticism, but you prefer not to. You would much rather personally attack liberals and leftists, not about the merits of their what they say, BUT ABOUT WHO THEY ARE, IN YOUR OPINION. But when conservatives make the same points, you do respond thoughtfully, however grudgingly.

To me this is a dishonorable way to debate. More to the point: it's the mark of an asshole.

But I'm curious: what does it say about the country you love so much that so many people, maybe not a majority, but certainly a very large minority, are full of these "sick desires." Do you feel any solidarity with these fellow citizens? Or are you only a citizen of red America?

Anyway, I'll keep pointing out conservatives and moderates who disagree with President Bush, so at least you'll be forced to deal with the merits of the argument. You can start with pinko Chuck Hagel here, sent to the Senate by the Communists of Nebraska.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050620/20hagel.htm?track=rss

Posted by: markus at June 29, 2005 9:09 AM

USA shows intent to defend principle (military in Iraq) = global private debt-purchase capital flows to quality/safety (US Treasury obligations) = liquidity and downward pressure on long interest rates (affordable mortgages) = working stiffs in the inner-cities finally getting a friggin' break in life.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 29, 2005 9:17 AM

Sake. I've been dry for months. Seems like years. Japan's GDP has certainly taken a hit.

In fact I'm about to wake-up Uranari, I'm crashing at his place, and offer him a drink of his own stash. I'm generous that way. I'm glad there are some things in the floating world I can count on, not the least being that Rick, Knucklehead and Buddy (and others of course!) will be putting up a good fight on Roger's site.

I thought for a moment that this Markus cat was that guy from 'kos, which wouldn't surprise me, for you can imagine how he must be getting pretty sick of that gig. I mean you can only hang out with the crowd over there, not to mention being its ringleader, and lose mightily in election after election, for so long before it starts weighing on your soul. Few have the internal fortitude to remain such a sycophant forever. But I guess it was someone else.

Posted by: yama-arashi at June 29, 2005 9:20 AM

"(1) Did it not take more than a decade for the US military to rebuild after Vietnam?"

Yes, I believe it did. And, IMO, the largest and most difficult task was discarding the 60's & 70's leftist influence that had become pervasive in the ranks. Discipline and order had to be restored, but more importantly perhaps, was the restoration of confidence and pride in being a professional soldier/sailor/airmen/marine.

That's the hard work taking place in Iraq now. Yes, rote training may proceed apace, but its the values that have to be instilled as well. And I would have to say we started from a negative in that regard. It will take time.

Posted by: Luther McLeod at June 29, 2005 9:23 AM

JenLArt - "if you read NRO on a regular basis, as I do and as I'm sure a lot here do, you'll find that Derbyshire is about the weakest link in the NRO/Conservative chain."

Wrong. Derbyshire is one of the few original thinkers there. Most just toe the party line and operate as a kind of Leftwatch.com. If you want total conformity then yes I guess Derb is a weak link, but how interesting would that be? Surely those who support the GOP and the Iraq War can take some criticism from the Right, no? If you're not willing to consider different views you'll end up like those leftys who need to shout "racist" or "imperialist" every time someone disagrees with them. The weakest link at NRO is John Podhoretz as he operates as some kind of Soviet-style political commissar.

Posted by: Coisty at June 29, 2005 9:23 AM

Markus, lighten up and have a sense of humor. what do you expect, when you challenge a prevaling ethos? Of course you're gonna be funned around with. The insult would be if you got simply ignored--damned easy to do, on the internet. You get lots of respect over here, but why would you expect agreement? And if you read your own posts, you'll see quite clearly that any hostility is in reaction to parts of your own rhetoric. You, know, "Dear Leader" and all the snarky stuff. We 'spose to love you for dat?

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 29, 2005 9:25 AM

And Markus, the true "mark of an asshole" is a skid-mark. You need two things, as I see it: a total re-vamp of your world-view, and a good stiff long-handled brush.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 29, 2005 9:32 AM

As well markus, your first visit here was to dump turds on those