April 12, 2004
Line of Death
My earlier post, Remember what General Marshall said, reminds me of another incident. During the Reagan Administration, we sent a carrier into the Gulf of Sidra, to puncture Gaddafi's claim that it was Libyan territorial water. (Remember the "Line of Death?") One Libyan plane was shot down.
The operation went just as planned, no Americans were hurt, and, since it was nighttime here, Reagan's aides had no reason to wake him. That was a good indication that our forces were being trusted to work with competence and efficiency. And an extremely good sign that we had left behind LBJ's disastrous micro-managing of military operations from the White House.
But what a howl of faux outrage the Democrats set up! How could the President sleep when our pilots might be in danger! It was heartless, it was careless, and probably a sign of senility. Art Buchwald even titled his next book: "While Reagan Slept."
It's depressing to think that the same intellectual bankruptcy characterizes them today. And that they are probably not even aware of the bad impression they are giving to our military personnel.
Posted by John Weidner at April 12, 2004 05:56 PM | TrackBackLet me get this strait:
American forces are in harms way, owing to the president’s order, and he doesn’t have the decency to even be awake with them? And you think this is somehow a good thing?
Oh don't be a fool. What do you expect the president to do, stay awake twenty-four hours a day? What the hell good would that do? Perhaps you'd be happy if we were ruled by a non-human cyborg. It would never need to sleep!
Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 15, 2004 02:36 AMAnd that's spelled "straight."
Posted by: Alan Sullivan at April 15, 2004 06:41 AMAndrew, you are thinking like those silly reporters at the press conference. You should read more military history.
I've read instances of generals sending men off on missions and then PRETENDING to sleep, or pretending to be utterly confident of the result, even though they were in fact ready to climb the walls.
It's a gesture of confidence.
Posted by: John Weidner at April 15, 2004 07:53 AMGood lord! I’m not usually that bad at choosing my words. But 2 for 2, as they say...
Ms. Harris,
I can appreciate reducto ad absurdum logic as well as the next person. Kudos for giving us all a lesson in its use. I am going to assume that you are being silly, rather than serious, from now on...
Mr. Weidner,
Anyway, had anyone been watching, I could, perhaps, see the point. But the guys who are on the sharp end of the stick are not going to know what the president is doing half way around the world, and they are the only ones whose confidence could be harmed by the president looking over their shoulder.
I'm frankly amazed that Andrew seems to long for the sort of president that presided over the least successful engagement of U.S. forces in American history.
Well, perhaps I'm not that amazed.
Posted by: Lance Jonn Romanoff at April 15, 2004 09:44 AMI am having a bit of trouble parsing “president that presided over the least successful engagement of U.S. forces” Are you implying that there was an American president who attacked American Forces? If so, that can only mean Jeff Davis (it would be a stretch to call him an American president, though). I will tell you point blank that I hate Jefferson Davis, and wish the man had been hung as a traitor...
If, however, you mean that I long for a president who was made the lest-effective use of US Armed Forces, I can happily tell you that I do not. James Buchanan was a terrible president, and his use of Force against the Mormons was probably the single worst thing that could have been done at that juncture in history...
"I am having a bit of trouble parsing “president that presided over the least successful engagement of U.S. forces”"
Am I to understand that in addition to your creative attempts at spelling you also are confused about the meaning of the word "engagement"? It would seem so.
In any event, your longing for a micromanaging president brings to mind a certain Texan who wasn't named Bush. Look him up sometime.
So I am to understand that you, Andrew Cory, think that _your_ standard of what is "serious" should rule the conversation? Go to hell. You are pitching a bitch because of a how many hours and when a president sleeps, as if that meant anything at all. I suppose it has never occurred to your Big Serious Brain that there are probably standing orders to wake the president up _if the situation warrants it._ Just as it doesn't matter if Bush "vacations" in Texas since there is this little thing called "telecommunications" that enable the president to be immediately reachable if necessary. You don't seem to think any of your anti-Bush expectorations through, which is why I refuse to take _you_ seriously. I gave your comment the response it deserved.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 15, 2004 05:29 PMMs. Harris,
I was discussing President Reagan, not Bush. I never mentioned Bush. I never thought about Bush. The fact that you read “Bush” into my statements is the clearest possible proof of your delusional mind...
But, yes. I am ruled only by my own senses. If you are going to present an argument that does not rely on robotic presidents to refute my argument, I will take it seriously. Mr. Weidner has attempted to do this, and for that he has my respect (I think he is wrong, mind, but his is a point on which reasonable people can disagree.). Your attempted use of a hypothetical robotic president shall from now on be shorthand for a silly argument. Good day.
