In my heart of hearts, I want to believe that all of the politicians that the American people have in their wisdom elected to offices of great national prominence have the best interests of the Republic at heart. That, while they may disagree from one side of the aisle to the other on the “how” of the national enterprise, the “what” is consistent. That we might disagree upon means but not ends. That the country comes first, especially in a time of war, especially beyond our borders.
This is a dream I have.
Sometimes it’s hard to sustain.
It’s hard to sustain when the Senate Majority Leader - a man who voted for the war in 2003 puts his finger to the breeze and declares the effort lost. Refuses, in fact, to hear evidence to the contrary. Who attempts to confuse people by quoting the forward general’s straightforward observation that the war “does not have a military solution,” as proof that any political solution can be attained without the assistance of military power:¬† Counter-insurgency, stability and security operations. Don’t read the commentary, if it offends - just listen to what the man actually says in his video.
He cannot think us to be that stupid.
It’s hard to sustain when the Speaker of the House Majority Leader finds the time to criticize every last detail of the strategy and tactics of the fight our deployed forces are engaged in, but can’t find the time to listen to the forward commander when he returns to brief Congress on the strategy they confirmed him to execute. Schedule conflicts, you know. Important matters of state to attend to. Busy.
She cannot be serious.
It breaks my heart when an author who has much profited by the liberties of a free society turns that freedom into a weapon to assault a politician whose policies she merely disagrees with as a fascist, and labels the attempt to fight a battle thrust upon us as a shattering of our Constitution.  In a foreign newspaper. Being wrong at every step.
What words will we use when fascism really comes along, having spent these rounds in a partisan huff?
It makes my heart die within me to read that 9 US paratroops were killed executing the only strategy that promises any chance of future success - by leaving their cantonments and bedding down with the native security forces - because an exploitative enemy has seized upon their increased exposure to inject itself inside our political cycle, having been continuously rewarded for their previous efforts by a reflexively oppositional leadership class which is not merely confident of our defeat, but seemingly dedicated to it.
We have won the hearts and minds of the most resistant Sunni nationalists. We have reduced sectarian violence by death squad in the Iraqi capital by smothering them with surge operations, even though less than a third of the troops dedicated to the fight have joined it. We can fight and win against Al Qaeda.
We can do all these things. But how can our country win a war we are engaged in, when so many of our national eminences seem determined that we lose? Having earned our final disgrace, what kind of joy will these gray beings taste?
Ashes and dust, I should think.
35 responses so far ↓
1 Fuzzilicious Thinking // Apr 24, 2007 at 9:24 pm
The Dem Leadership is……
…vile beyond words? Why do I say that? Well, I’m sick (and not just from reading the following), so I’ll leave these people to explain it better than I could:…
2
FbL
// Apr 24, 2007 at 9:31 pm
On another blog discussing this subject today, I read a commenter speculating that success on the part of these “leaders” will so thoroughly damage military morale in the long-term that they’ll have to implement a draft if they have need of significant military excursions in the next 10 years.
I’ll leave others more knowledgeable to judge the rationality of that theory, but reading things like this certainly makes me lean that direction. Lex, I know your devotion is to Service and Nation, but not all are so focused and clear-headed. However, I suspect they share your heartbroken-ness…
3
PeterGunn
// Apr 24, 2007 at 10:29 pm
I feel the sadness too, Lex. I agree with you completely. I live near Seattle where it’s 80-20 in favor of the far left causes. I don’t understand the WHY? Do you?
I agree with your assessment that the current Democratic leadership will force the neeed for a draft in the future. Their treacherous acts and statements that handcuff our military today, will, indeed, force an even greater conflict in the future. They will have no choice but conscription. Thank goodness that faithful men and true, like you, will be there to take up the gauntlet.
That just brings me back to my question: are they all just mis-lead or mis-informed? Is it political ambition, avarice and greed that causes them to say and do such things? Or… are they just bitter? Could it be that simple?
I read and listen, but it’s not clear to me. Their message is so consistently cluttered. When will they reveal who they are and show us their true purpose?
4
Skippy-san
// Apr 25, 2007 at 2:05 am
FBL,
All politics is local. That Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have not led well goes without saying. Neither is smart enough to realize that in a battle with the Bush administration, you have to play smart or get stomped in the process.
First, there is no way that the resolution will pass, so the troops will be there for at least the next 2 years. If the President wants or needs to send more troops there he will be able to, but as for what it really accomplishes in the long run, that is up for debate. In the end the funding will pass, at about the same time it passed last year. This is about making a statement, nothing else. The Democrats don’t have the numbers to do anything else.
The surge is the stategy we are committed to. The simple truth is that most Americans believe Iraq will be exactly the same way it is now, next year. The script will be the same but the actors will change………..Part of that comes from the fact that many of the spokesmen for the war have no credibility any more. Even the President. So while most folks blame the media, I would submit that the real reason that people don’t believe is that time has used up any patience.
Reid, et al are simply responding to that input from the voting public. Want opinon to change, get the Iraqis to do something about their own problems.
5
Kris, in New England
// Apr 25, 2007 at 4:52 am
PeterGunn said: “…message is so consistently cluttered. When will they reveal who they are and show us their true purpose?”
Just what makes any of us think they even THEY know who they are and what their purpose is. I don’t think they know, hence the “clutter”.
I too share the worry for our country and our military. They are on a path that can only end in deep and horrifying tragedy.
6
FbL
// Apr 25, 2007 at 5:16 am
Reid, et al are simply responding to that input from the voting public.
The voting public want them to play games with the troops rather than stand up and get this over with by putting forward a straight-up cutting off of funds?
I’m sorry, but I doubt that. And if the public was really behind them, the latter is exactly what they would do.
7
MajMike
// Apr 25, 2007 at 5:21 am
FbL: damaging to military morale? certainly. heart broken? possibly.
..and yet…
somehow, this Republic of ours manages, day in and day out, through every flavor of political climate, to find enough patriots to rally ’round the colors and recognize their duty as citizens.
on many sad occassions, many of us here sometimes comment, “where do we find such men (and women)?”. in instances such as these, i am sometimes tempted to respond with the opposite case, “what have we done to deserve such men and women always finding US?”
8
Edward
// Apr 25, 2007 at 6:03 am
Well said, Lex.
If the blood that has been shed in Iraq for our safety is not honored it will be a pittance measured against the rivers of blood that will be shed within our own borders within a decade as a consequence of bugging out.
9 The Thunder Run // Apr 25, 2007 at 6:36 am
Web Reconnaissance for 04/25/2007…
A short recon of what?Ç‚Äôs out there that might draw your attention….
10
EJ Smith
// Apr 25, 2007 at 6:37 am
I was talking to Household 6 yesterday.
I told her that this country has taken a wrong turn that it may never be able to turn back from.
There is way to much pandering by elected officials, and zero true support of our troops by the Democrats.
Reid said President Lyndon Johnson decided to send thousands more troops to Vietnam despite knowing the conflict was not winnable.
The only true parallel to that statement is the anti-war left that are continuing to treat this war in the same manner.
Some people forget that war is actually an extension of politics and a necessary evil at times.
Want to be free?
Ready to die for that?
I was, am and always will be.
Good day Sir.
11
midwatchcowboy
// Apr 25, 2007 at 6:59 am
Harry Reid should be forced to watch the presentation by LTC John Nagl found here. Wait, that won’t work. Maybe we should have it shown on PBS or CSPAN…better yet CNN. Nah, nobody wants to educate the public on what’s going on. Just demagogue them to submission.
12
GEO6
// Apr 25, 2007 at 7:26 am
Usually in life, a stupid self-serving act or decision will impact on the longevity of the individual( i.e. Darwin Awards). When elected officials are stupid they usually aren’t the recipient of the consequences of their stupidity. More Americans will die than would otherwise in this war against radical Islam.
13
badbob
// Apr 25, 2007 at 7:49 am
Usually I let ya go on a bit, but I think I’ll go for the jugular right now.
Thanks for the explanation on “simply” Treasonous behavior Skippy…
I see you’re still an apologist for Harry (see earlier postings) while also taking on the role of edumAcating us simple folks in simple politics as usual.
I say B.S. There is “simply” no rational for what Reid/Pelosi are attemting. No mitigating, obsfuscating or smokescreens are gonna help…
b2
14
Babs
// Apr 25, 2007 at 8:27 am
Dear friends of ours have their first born son on his way to man the “New Littoral Navy” (Jon Cary, pick up the white telephone…). This is a pants on fire mission…
You can’t imagine the anxiety of the parents due to today’s political culture. I stand ready to support them in any way I can but, Jesus, the Dems sure are making it hard for us civilian slobs to carry on and offer our best to the nation we love so much…
This young man is a graduate of USNA, is married and, has a Master’s degree from John’s Hopkins in some complicated technical education… He is leading a boat crew into Iraqi waters…
I pray every day for our men and women in the field… I write letters to my Congressman, I call, I have written and called my Senators…
Nothing else to do but to watch this play out and, watch young men and women die for votes.
It makes me sick. May I throw up now, Cap’n?
Matt, if you somehow read this blog, know that there are many, many behind you… We wish you fair winds and following seas.
15
CPT J
// Apr 25, 2007 at 8:33 am
What MAJ Mike said.
We’ve been through worse things, and things will likely get worse still, before they get better. Which in the end they will also. This story, which the Reids, Pelosis & Woolfs seem to forget, did not begin with us, nor does it end with us, in our lifetimes.
“I prefer to maintain my allegiance to the Constitution, as long as a fragment of it survives.” –GEN William Tecumseh Sherman
16
Buck
// Apr 25, 2007 at 8:42 am
Sometimes it?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s hard to sustain.
I feel exactly the same. I used to blog about politics a lot, but it’s been quite some time since my last political post. There are just a finite and limited number of ways to call most of the current Democrat politicians (and Lefties in general) deluded, misguided, wrong, dangerous, and/or crazy…and I think I’ve exhausted my supply of words and thoughts on the subject.
That ol’ clich?ɬ© about “getting going when the going gets tough” is damned hard to practice day in and day out. I’m glad you’re still with The Program, Lex. This is gonna be a long, hard slog…in many more ways than one.
17
Marine6
// Apr 25, 2007 at 9:49 am
Lex, I agree with almost everything you said, but I must offer one correction. Steny Hoyer (D-Md) is the House Majority Leader. Nancy Pelosi (D-The State of Fruits, Flakes and Nuts) is the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The really scary thing is that under the Constitution, she stands third in line to be President after the Vice President.
This week I have watched Harry (No Guts) Reid declare that the war is lost. I’ve heard Nancy Pelosi declare that she doesn’t have time to attend a briefing by General Patraeus. And I’ve seen John (Peace At Any Price) Murtha declare that “It’s our (Congress) job to run the war - despite the fact that Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that “The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy” without any mention of Congress.
I was told long ago that there is a surefire test to determine when a politician is lying - their lips move.
God Save the United States and Success to Marines!
18
Airedale84
// Apr 25, 2007 at 9:54 am
Well, I try not to be a cynic, but I can’t help but believe things really never change:
“I cannot support a failed foreign policy….[the President]has never explained to the American people why he was involving the US military in a civil war in a sovereign nation, other than to say it is for humanitarian reasons, a new military-foreign policy precedent. Was it worth it to stay in Vietnam to save face? What good has been accomplished so far? Absolutely nothing.”
– then-House Majority Whip Tom Delay, 1999, on the US mission in Kosovo
19
jpr
// Apr 25, 2007 at 10:06 am
Airedale84, I don’t think you’re being a cynic. And I agree, things really never change. The party not in possession of the presidency will say whatever they want to show the current occupant how they feel. They can’t help it. Must be something in the tidal water in DC.
20
P-3 wife
// Apr 25, 2007 at 10:26 am
Sometimes I just wish I could find someone to give them a headsmack whenever something idiotic comes out of their mouths — similar to a brain reset.
You know, that aversion technique that is used for people who have bad habits to break.
Probably wouldn’t help, but I’d feel better if I could do the headsmack thing to them frequently — and with feeling…
21
badbob
// Apr 25, 2007 at 10:27 am
Airedale84,
re- “things really never change”
There is the world before 9-11 and the world after. The stakes are higher 100 to 1 or so according to my book. Wouldn’t you agree?
But of course, if we’re just discussing politics or having a philosophical discussion I see your point….
b2
22
Kris, in New England
// Apr 25, 2007 at 11:06 am
Good point B2 (#21 above) and it begs another question: was any currently serving politician affected personally by 9/11? Given present circumstances, I’m going to guess no. But if the answer is yes and it’s a Dem, SHAME on them.
23
SoCal Pir8
// Apr 25, 2007 at 11:42 am
I should have known that I could turn to Dr. Lex to determine the cause of the funk I’ve been in for the past week or so. You are spot on. Listening to reid, I think back to Gen Patton’s speech
“Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans.”
How can any true American utter what reid did? How could this man lead anybody anywhere to do anything? But then I look at him and see that he’s no man, he’s a weasel.
24
Curt
// Apr 25, 2007 at 11:56 am
FbL has keyed on the most significant point - Who will come to fight?
Yes, those with the ingrained understanding of what this country is about will do so. The ones we count on to “round out” the core of the career minded will more than likely give serious thought to being out on a foreign piece of turf, when, all of a sudden, the supply train is derailed stateside. They know the last bullet will come, but the question will to time: Will it be as the enemy over runs my position, or when I recharge my magazines in the safety of transport home?
I raised my hand in ‘72. It was not a wonderful thing, in the eyes of the general public, to be one wanting to become a full dressed baby killer, and that was in a town with a major Naval Base. I recall being an XO in the end of the 80s and being awed by the general caliber of the men on the ship, from E-1 to O-3, which was the result of a few years of Reagan at the helm. It hadn’t been like that and I have more than a few sea stories of sailors and drugs being the norm in the time before then, as do those here who were around then do.
Not only do they damage the future prospects of the military, they will have some number, who had planned on making it a career, who will reach for the yellow and black striped handle, before they become a casualty of power politics, with absolutely no way to effect the outcome.
Now, get out your whipped cream: Who will bet me that this acrimony stops when the Dems control all in January 2009? Hold on to your wallet, for this current set of antics, where the Speaker travels to have her own Yalta Conference, where the elected officials stand before the Nation and the world and say the leader is an idiot, a stooge of the (fill in the blank) and a liar, they have merely set the stage for their own terms in office.
And what will they say when the “counterbattery” begins to fall?
They are trashing the delineation of authority, as written in the Constitution. It will come home to rest.
As far as the President’s role: By letting this happen, and not hold members of Congress to the law that governs this land, he is abrogating his responsibilities as the head of law enforcement. In this case, it is the responsibility of any sitting president to handle this as proscribed, not specifically the role of GWB. Taking such action would be exceptionally unpopular, but what choice do we all have? Let any member of Congress determine their span of control and authority? You don’t have to lock them up, but there must be some remedy for such times as these (let’s read the history of Lincoln’s administration).
For us at the bottom of the bottom of the food chain, I feel there are those in Congress who wantonly spew some tripe about “representing the people,” but their actions do not tell me that. At any given moment, the current party in the majority says “We were given a mandate for (pick your issue of the instant gratification moment)!!!!” It must then be that we voted them to change everything from how hot/cold it is, to who lives and dies, to what the foreign policy is, to if bridges will be built to nowhere, to the specific ROE of the troops in the sights of enemy guns. I’m not sure how much of that fits “local politics” for it smacks of “Presidential Power Envy” to my feeble mind.
I say they represent their own future, and little more. They have made lawyering holding office a profession, and not a duty to be performed for their fellow citizens.
If something appears like it benefits the country, I’d be so cynical to suggest that it might, but it only occurred because “they” could garner a political chip, marker or privilege as a result.
25
unkawill
// Apr 25, 2007 at 2:22 pm
well said curt
26
Lee
// Apr 25, 2007 at 3:10 pm
“8. Control the press”
Seems to have not worked in this particular case… Damn.
27
Curt
// Apr 25, 2007 at 3:11 pm
unkawill: Thanks!
and for everyone else, A View from Across the Pond. The author is talking on this same subject, yet how he sees it as a Brit.
28
Pixelkiller
// Apr 25, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Just listening to the “defeatists” and I begin to eat a hole in my liver big enough to through a cat through.
29
Rick
// Apr 25, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Skippy-san,
You start out with “all Politics is local”. So I guess I have to say, “what does that say about the constituency of certain politicians?”.
I have a hard time reconciling with folks who state: The simple truth is that most Americans…. Whether “most” Americans believe that Iraq will be exactly the same next year is up for debate. “Most” Americans get their information from the MSM, in 9-second sound bites (if the sound bites are even that long any more). So your many “spokesmen for the war” are really the MSM talking heads that filter the news delivered to the 9-second news audience. I expect that the debate will continue to be prejudiced by how the MSM portrays the events and not by events as they are in actuality. Is there bad news? Yes. We hear about that every day and night. Is there good news? Yes. When do “most Americans” hear that? How the message is framed has as much to do with how it is perceived.
Maybe folks who take the time and effort to educate themselves (beyond the MSM BS) might blame the media (I do), I would submit that the real reason that people don’t believe is not because of used up patience with “spokesmen” who (may or may not) have credibility. It is because of patience used up by the consistient drumbeat of negative perspective coming from the MSM (and the 9-second news audience who only gets that perspective). I think if the MSM reporting was not as biased, the perspective of the 9-second sound bite news gatherers might be different.
As for “simply responding to that input from the voting public“, as you stated, “all politics is local”. I believe the majority of incumbents made enough of a case though their own faults and missteps (be it corruption, pork barrel spending, not supporting the hard fighting necessary to get the job done in Iraq, or wanting the US to get out of Iraq) that their local constituency decided to make changes. I don’t believe that the voting public made the decisions they did to endorse an American defeat in the GWOT. And shame on those in leadership positions who think that way.
Just my opinion.
30
Rick
// Apr 25, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Fbl,
You stated:
I do not believe that. Here is why I say that. I served in the Post-Vietnam years. In the aftermath of Vietnam back then, military morale did get pretty low at times (it was the Ford/Carter years) due to not only the pull out from Nam, but also budget cuts and shortages.
And then new leadership came along. We had the Cold war military build up (ships, planes, and troops) and there were some scary times with Reagan putting missiles in Europe (threats of the Soviets invading Europe etc.). There was much political turmoil back then. The nation did not re-institute the draft for those issues. Not saying the times are the same. They are not. I believe the military knows that they can succeed in whatever mission they are given with out a draft, if the politicians will let them.
The only ones who seem to want a draft are those politicians who believe they can make hay with it (Rangle, because he believed it would bolster the anti-war effort) but I don’t think it will go over with the military or anyone else unless the US is attacked again.
31
Skippy-san
// Apr 26, 2007 at 3:11 am
Rick,
Three things.
1) Poll results are here, which BTW includes Wall Street Journal polling data which hardly constitutes biased liberal media.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
I don’t make this stuff up……
2) No arguement we are not getting the best quality congressmen, but I would submit that is true of both democrats and republicans.
3) There is no such thing as the MSM. There is media, of all kinds. You can find all the news good or bad, in various outlets. Americans probably are not as well versed as they should be but whose fault is that? The Media’s? Or Americans who cannot be bothered to read and make informed decisions? You , the buyer, make the success or lack therof of the media. Simply citing the “The MSM is biased” is a convienent scapegoat. Much of the anti-MSM media is equally biased.
32
Rick
// Apr 26, 2007 at 9:24 am
Skippy-san
I didn’t say you made it up. But, I’m not big on polls. Lies, damn lies, and statistics and all that. Depends upon the sample size and who is asked the questions. Only one of the polls in your link has any data on party affiliation. So who did they ask beyond “x number of adults over 18″?
For example, the “In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that George W. Bush is doing in handling the situation in Iraq?” question.
I can answer that I don’t approve based upon my belief that the President hasn’t done enough to achieve success to this point but that doesn’t mean I don’t support the effort. So the “In general, do you approve or disapprove” question only tells me that people aren’t happy about the handling of the situation, but not why. The question and results infer something that may or may not be. Which why I wrote that I have a hard time reconciling with The simple truth is that most Americans….
Re your #2. Couldn’t agree more. I didn’t mention party just incumbents.
You can play semantics with “MSM” if you want. But I think you know what I’m referring to: major media outlets. TV (ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/FOX) and major national/regional newspapers (NY Times/ Washington Post/LA Times/Boston Globe/USA Today/WSJ/name the local paper, etc). I would suggest that a majority of Americans get their information exclusively from those sources so it is not just people who cannot be bothered to read and make informed decisions (although there are plenty of those 9-second sound bite types). The buyer may also have limited selection depending upon location. The framing of the reporting from the “MSM” sources has much to do with how well versed Americans are in the debate and the perspective they have. So yes, I do think there is fault with the way the media reports events in Iraq and how it is shaping the debate based on bias (pick a direction!).
33
PunkysDilemma
// Apr 26, 2007 at 9:58 am
Thank you Lex for putting into words that concerns me almost on a daily basis. I worry for the future of our country. Especially if the Democrats continue to stay the majority.
Maybe keeping an eye on “Fred Thompson” could be the light at the end of this dark tunnel…? I wonder if he would continue to fight the good fight that weighs so heavily on George Bush’s shoulders.
Thanks Lex
34
Skippy-san
// Apr 26, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Rick,
How does one sample public opinion without polls? Unless you increase the sample size by about 5 fold. (Which is expensive but would produce better data).
35
Rick
// Apr 26, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Skippy-san,
Oh, go ahead and take the samples for polls if you care to take the time and spend the money. I just don’t think they should be used to make sweeping general pronouncements or policy for that matter. I think that our elected officials should do and act for the best interests of the country for long term (pipe dream, I know). Not to do and act based on general “public opinion” derived from samples taken for polls (which may or may not have an agenda) that show which way the wind is blowing at a given moment in time.
Leave a Comment