Posted on 01/25/2007 9:14:42 PM PST by quidnunc
I think you're making a bit of a mistake here. First, Senator Hagel is impassioned, but hardly a model of clarity, if clarity means giving accessible reasons for his position. Instead, he simply derides the plan the president supports as "not a plan". Well, okay, this kind of tautolougous fact free rousing is hardly unique among politicians, so it doesn't make him an unusually bad or obnoxious one, just a mediocre one. We shouldn't be fooled by Senator Hagel's praise of himself for taking this "stand" or by Peggy Noonan's fervent gushing.
Secondly, we shouldn't be fooled by the fact that the media promotes statements by the likes of Hagel. Judged by their respective records of word and deed while they have each been in office, one Senator McConnell is worth roughly fifty Senator Hagels, but his words in support of the president won't be trumpeted by Couric or Noonan or Gibson any time soon.
The key to Hagel's panicky and irrational tirade. Like Murtha, he has never taken responsibility for what he did (or more likely didn't do)in Vietnam.
Noonan of course was busy getting all wet and glassy-eyed and totally missed what was happening in front of her.
Exactly who does Chuck Hagel think his "wing" of the GOP and/or conservatives are?
Have you ever met or seen anybody who supports him?
And we all know the 'vast majority' of the people (the same ones that are lambasted here for now being against the police action) have a full grasp of historical reference from which to make decisions. Interesting..you use their implicit agreement before the action to support your argument but now that they're against it, they don't know what they're talking about. Wonder what changed to make some doubt the 'American people'. Perhaps their implicit support and actually asking questions? How dare they...
Seeing that our education system has done such a good job teaching the general public history the past 30 years it's just an example of a blind nut finding a squirrel that they're against it now.
You know, I remember my surprise when I found out that Peg O'Your Heart was considered a conservative. I always considered her much closer to Molly Ivins than to Mona Charen.
That`s not fair, Hagel is an elected US Senator. Why, even his Mom supports him...well, some of the time, I think
She used to be so full of the kool-aid, you got diabetes just reading her. I like her much better this way.
Read the post below.
Really? This is how you started the post...
So? Shouldn't have been in Vietnam in the first place...
Then you started talking about Wilson and TR and flogging a straw man. It is your contention, I guess (as far as can be determined from your post) that Vietnam was either American adventurism (TR) or misguided nation building (Wilson.) I've asserted neither; it's my contention that Vietnam (and Korea) were legitimate exercises in stand-off self defense. I believe that is the model that fits here, not American Adventurism or do-gooding. The rubble of the Twin Towers supports that.
No, the administrations of the 50s, 60s, and 70s were continuing interventionist policies that were fresh in their mind. Missteps less than 50 years before led them to believe they should continue to misstep to 'spread freedom'. BTW, Vietnam turned out rather well through an exercise in free trade beginning in the early to mid 80s didn't it? Not one shot fired and probably one of the highest GDPs of SE Asia. Imagine that...
What an incredibly revisionist and cynical description of the Vietnam War and the aftermath. The voices of millions of Vietnamese killed after our desertion...and drowned on ramshackle rafts trying to escape the horror...condemn your humanity. Historians are still struck by the contrast...millions of Vietnamese, willing to tolerate a war being fought in their country and midst, took to rafts and likely death rather than live under North Vietnamese rule. This is the "victory" of such humanitarians as Jon Carry. You, sir, are contemptible...and your hatred of America is palpable.
Yes because occupation in the Middle East always works doesn't it? I suggest you ask the French and the British about that. Oops sorry, some of that happened before the 20th century...oh well it's in the history books isn't it? It wouldn't alleviate the situation if you had twice the amount of people there. Speaking of which, you seem gung-ho on the project, you'll be signing up for a few tours over there will you?
Again, more cynicism...the "Afghan Winter," Saddam's vaunted "Republican Guard," reasons why we would never win the initial battle. Those who say it can't be done, should be sure to stay out of the way of those who are. I agree with your assertion that doubling the number of troops would make little differnce, which is why I didn't suggest it. The problem is not boots on the ground, but ROE; that was the point of my post. Do clean up after yourself, will you? You've left straw men everywhere.
Yes becausing questioning the executive branch is equatable to having questionable patriotism. I would refer you to Washington's warning on that in his Farewell Address ('absolute power of an individual') but that's before 1898 so I don't know if you've read it...
Another straw man...many who are questioning the Prez are doing so in such a way that one should question their patriotism...take the sign that became famous after being snapped by an AP reporter...WE SUPPORT THE TROOPS WHEN THEY SHOOT THEIR OFFICERS... Much of the left is openly unpatriotic. I understand the difference; you seem to be confused.
Yes because pre-emptive war is the way to go eh? Actually it's not but that's another conservative principle Republicans have no use for either....
There aren't a lot of alternatives...you can either take the words of those such as Al Qaeda and Ahmanutjob at face value, or not. One of the great tragedies of WW2 is that no one took Hitler seriously. I am not a proponent of "lawfare," I am a proponent of "warfare." Unlike you, I do not expect America to lose a city to nuclear terrorism before we act. Conservative principle, my @ss...that's Dem speak.
If there is one thing that is now required and necessary for our well-being, it's seriousness. We have to be able to discuss these issues because so much is at stake. Those who drag their agenda into the conversation deserve to be called out on their patriotism, and their seriousness. From your words I judge you to be neither serious nor patriotic. You're a waste of my time.
It can be your contention till the cows come home. However the facts do not support this. What would be the case if communism took over in the Korea or Vietnam. Well in the case of Vietnam we have the answer don't we? After 1985, one of the fastest growing GDPs in SE Asia. And not one Vietnamese attack on these United States since US troops left.
I believe that is the model that fits here, not American Adventurism or do-gooding. The rubble of the Twin Towers supports that.
I see. A tragedy in 2001 gives the defense the war the Vietnam and Korea were correct. An action over 30 years later. That's logical....Of course there were no ties to the 9/11 bombers in Iraq. So what's the excuse there? Oh that's right, the WMDs that were shipped to Syria. Right....And a President who stated in his 2000 campaign he was against nation building. Even though that's exactly what is going on in Iraq.
What an incredibly revisionist and cynical description of the Vietnam War and the aftermath. The voices of millions of Vietnamese killed after our desertion...and drowned on ramshackle rafts trying to escape the horror...condemn your humanity. Historians are still struck by the contrast...millions of Vietnamese, willing to tolerate a war being fought in their country and midst, took to rafts and likely death rather than live under North Vietnamese rule. This is the "victory" of such humanitarians as Jon Carry.
Sorry but you need to go back and read the intent of the Framers. I realize tragedy happens worldwide. Dictators come and dictators go. Some dictators are even put into position for US 'interests'. It should not (nor was it ever) our position before the 20th century to become involved in such issues (Read Adams' speech of 1821)
You, sir, are contemptible...and your hatred of America is palpable.
LOL. Because I believe the Framers' intent was non-intervention (which it was), a policy that was followed for over one hundred years successfully (to an extent), I 'hate' America. I could ask you what your logic is based on to come to such a 'wise' answer but I won't. Because it's not based on anything except emotion. Which when it comes to the direction of this nation, I have no time for.
And now quoting the words of the Framers, desiring to follow their intent is 'contemptible'. How refreshing...
Again, more cynicism...the "Afghan Winter," Saddam's vaunted "Republican Guard," reasons why we would never win the initial battle. Those who say it can't be done, should be sure to stay out of the way of those who are.
Hoo-rah!! I say Hoo-rah, sir!! Your very words could be culled from almost any newspaper printed in Europe of the 18th or 19th century. It can and will be done. For a time. Just as it was then. Don't worry, you'll get your pats on the back, time in the sun, medals on the chest, hell you may even get a parade or three out of it. But for those who look at the long view of history they realize what this is and where it is going. Iraq will not last as a democracy. It cannot. Because over the long term, that is a form of government those nations have chosen not to follow. It took the republican form of government 500 years to be established in the Western world (from 1215 to 1776). Even then a true republican form of government has morphed to not much more than a Constitutional democracy with the safeguards being removed (i.e. popular election of certain national offices)
many who are questioning the Prez are doing so in such a way that one should question their patriotism...take the sign that became famous after being snapped by an AP reporter..
Many are. I'll grant you that. However many are not. Questioning leadership is a responsibility in a Constitutional Republic. It's not a right or a privilege. What a few useless idiots do with signs is none of my concern. I question the judgement because I know from history it will not work
Unlike you, I do not expect America to lose a city to nuclear terrorism before we act. Conservative principle, my @ss...that's Dem speak.
No it's called just war. Look it up sometime. It's only been around a couple thousand years or so. I can see how you'd miss it...
If there is one thing that is now required and necessary for our well-being, it's seriousness. We have to be able to discuss these issues because so much is at stake
No you, like the President, want the discussion limited to what you feel is 'acceptable'. And that's not how the game is played. You cannot ask for 'reasonable debate' and then only accept the arguments that you deem worthy. You must accept them all. For if you do not, then it is you who hate the principles this nation was founded upon, not me.
Those who drag their agenda into the conversation deserve to be called out on their patriotism, and their seriousness. From your words I judge you to be neither serious nor patriotic.
By Republicann definition you are correct. By Conservative principles you could not be further from the truth.
You're a waste of my time.
Well I expected some level of argument that would have been able to answer the questions. However I must admit from your post, most of what I spoke of was not addressed and I know why.
I see your point. And I can agree with that. If you're going to take a stand, really take a stand. Problem is many politicians just don't. There were a few conservatives in Congress that have not changed their stance. But I can agree that Hagel's change, and then one that has outs, isn't the most defensible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.