Along the Tracks
Northwest Ohio ...
A small town editor's view of the big picture.
E-mail Paul A. Miller
Northwest Ohio's news portal:
Northwest Ohio's local opinion blog:
Begging To Differ
Best of the Web Today
Joshua Micah Marshall
Liberal Common Sense
The New Republic
Black Swamp Conservative
Akron Beacon Journal
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Dayton Daily News
Ann Arbor News
Battle Creek Enquirer
Detroit Free Press
Jackson Citizen Patriot
Fort Wayne Journal Gazette
Fort Wayne News Sentinel
Friday, December 02, 2005
We are winning – and the cut-and-runners know it
UPDATE: I'm not going to include Rep. John Murtha among the "turncoats" - after listening to some of his confused drivel, I agree with Sen. John McCain from Sunday's "Meet the Press," where McCain said Murtha has become overly "sentimental" on the issue, i.e., he's lost control of his emotions as he looks at the issue. Murtha's sincere, but woefully confused.
UPDATE 2: Thanks, Glenn Reynolds, for the link, and welcome visitors. I hope you enjoy my postings, whether you agree or disagree - please join the discussion. Also, I hope you'll take a look at my online news portal, NorthwestOhio.net, especially if you are looking for a local news source in the northwest corner of the Buckeye State. Finally, there's my local and Ohio news blog, Newshound, which stirs things up here in the Great Black Swamp. Enjoy!
Glen Reynolds has called the Iraq situation a reverse Vietnam. A proper reading of the history of Vietnam, including de-classified files from the former Soviet Uniion, is that the Vietnam war had been won by the end of 1974. The victory was thrown away when the US Congress cut off military funding after the 1974 mid term elections (first budget of the post-Watergate liberal Democrats).
Liberal Democrats will gladly induce a strategic defeat for America not necessarily just for partisan advantage, but to validate their world view. We should not overlook how much the hard left loathes the concept of America and that is why it is so easy for them to side with Saddam Hussein.
I was in the line of Dads and kids at Burger King last Saturday when my 10-year-old, who was trying to make sense of my left-wing sister-in-law's ranings at Shabbos dinner the night before, asked me about it. I blurted out unthinkingly (usually I try to be circumspect in public as to avoid a scene), "The Democrats want to end the war now when they can still find somebody to surrender to." To my surprise, the dads around me cracked up. Not very grammatical, but to the point.
An excellent article, right up to the "Murtha Update". Murtha not only should be included in the turncoat category, he gets a seat at the head of the table.
With respect to military ops in general, go back to Somolia. At the first sign of a problem he spoke loudly to cut and run. With respect to our current situation in Iraq, this "hawk" has been virulently opposed to the war since day one.
He gets a pass because he was a Marine. So was Duke Cunningham. I'm not questioning Mr. Murtha's service (as I have Kerry's), simply his judgement with regard to military matters. The first was honorable, the latter sucks.
I'm definitely sticking to the idea that Murtha isn't so much a turncoat as he is just woefully confused on the issues anymore. As linked by Instapundit (read by everyone) and later by mine (which no one reads ;), Slate does a good job of showing that Murtha contradicts himself on his own talking points.
Somalia, as noted by Murtha's comments during that conflict, was one of the biggest debacles for US policy in that they literally snatched defeat from the jaws of a very hard fought and amazingly won victory. It was a breach of trust to pull out the soldiers then and would be an even larger one to do so in Iraq.
Far too many Democrats would rather lose in Iraq if it means they can win elections at home. This gross partisan-fueled irresponsibility calls into question not only their patriotism (finally we can ask the all-too-obvious question) and their competence to lead the nation, but their very sanity.
If they should force defeat upon us in Iraq when victory is just a matter of time necessary to complete the mission, how do they propose to win the rest of the war on terror with a defeated, demoralized Army that was not allowed to win?
With spitballs (credit to Sen. Zell Miller)? Absurd.
Two ways to lead a parade.
The first one requires that you select a route, hire a band, put some floats together, advertise the event, get support,etc.
The second way is, You see a band and some floats heading down the road and you run out , get in front and try to figure out where the crowd is going so you can stay in front.
I've commented quite a bit about the Democrats' dilemma on my blog. I think the understanding of history for many Democrats is snagged between the Progressive Era and the Vietnam War, so they cannot easily understand what 9-11 did to the rest of America.
How do we win this war when our schools and universities are full of left wing military haters? One professor at a college in Ohio laughed at Christians who prayed right after 911. This person complained that it took too long to shop because the stores were full of people trying to buy flags. This is the attitude young people in America are hearing every day.
The Democrats mistook months of silence for agreement. They yelled, their MSM amplified, the cycle continued (the "neverending campaign" style of the 1990s that W refused to buy into), and they lulled themselves into thinking a quiet White House meant a week White House. They forgot, again, that Bush is from Texas.
Difference between Iraq and Vietnam:
1. US casualties almost 3 years in Iraq: 2.100
US casualties 3 years in Vietnam 1967-1969: 39.000
2. US casualties in Iraq when media and liberals are loosing the war have averages 15 per week. US casualties in Vietnam when same forces eroded popular support in 1968 averaged 500 dead per week.
3. Active US enemies during Vietnam war: North Vietnam, Soviet Union, China.
During Iraq war: A few Muslims fanatics in pjamas.
4. Military budget share of 9.5% GDP in 1968, 4% in 2004.
Cost of Vietnam war 2-3% of GDP per year, cost of Iraq war
0.6-0.7% of GDP per year now.
But here is something that should scare you. The media is supposed to be less leftwing now no? The country overall more rightwing? Yet with 2.000 casualties the left has managed to panic the American people almost as much as 40.000 casualties were needed two generations ago.
How hard is it going to be for the fanatics to defeat America when the left has rotted you from within? A moderate number of casualties and the majority will declare defeat and run. As a European who sees the US as the main hope of humanity I am deeply worried.
People who do not know their history cannot truly understand Benedict Arnold, and why he was so despised in early America. In fact, Benedict was one of our greatest WAR HEROES, having been given command of the army of the North. It was his previously unquestioned heroism and leadership which made his ultimate betrayal so odious.
So those who claim that their previous service, or previous heroism should insulate themselves from charges of treason have never learned the lesson of Benedict Arnold - that heroes can become traitors.
So the question remains, "What is the current status of people such as Kerry, Murtha, and McCain?" Their status is based upon their current actions and their current words, not on some long ago service. It is not in any way contradictory to call a former hero a traitor if his current actions warrant such an accusation.
As for the answer to the question, McCain has stood firm in supporting his country, while the other two have been less so. Whether Murtha or Kerry have crossed the line to become traitors is a question I will allow everyone to answer for themselves.
It is not so much of a stretch to believe that some non-Bush partisans hope for defeat in Iraq so that Bush can be blamed. Remember that after being relieved for the second and final time, Gen. McClellan hoped for Union battlefield defeats in the Civil War so that he could use them against Lincoln in the presidential election. Faulkner teaches us that the past is not only not dead, it is not even past.
"Today it finally dawned on me: They want out because they now recognize we will soon achieve victory!"
While I agree victory is near, the Dems aren't calling for a pull-out in order create a failure from a success. They see success coming and THEY want to claim credit for it.
The US coalition will soon achieve most of what it wanted to do in Iraq - depose Hussein and bring him to justice, create a democratic government, have the Iraqis police their own affairs, etc. This is all on the horizon with the first real government to be delivered on Dec. 15, Hussein on trial, and Iraqi police/military performing a greater and greater role in their own security. With this, the US can very likely draw down troop levels to some degree in 2006.
I think the Dems will use the opportunity (and are starting now) to confuse cause and effect. What have the Dems been arguing - the presence of our troops is the cause of the problem. So, as Iraq quiets and as troops levels come down, they will claim the removal of the troops is what caused the Iraq situation to improve (not that Iraq is better off because our troops did their jobs). Of course, they can point to their statements of the last few weeks and say, "Hey, we were for pulling out in Nov. 2005."
[url=http://ocjjslmb.com/oupu/dwpw.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://xcrzyslo.com/xhbt/pqhq.html]Cool site[/url]
intrinsic motivation The Complete, Simple, Practical, Easy-to-Understand, Step-by-Step System for.....Post a Comment
Getting Rich, Staying Healthy, and Becoming Successful!