April 23, 2007
Losers...
There are times that present us with people and events that just beg for derision, and derisionist Scott Ott is on a roll right now...
Reid Supports the Troops Who Lost the WarPosted by John Weidner at April 23, 2007 12:34 PM
by Scott Ott
(2007-04-20) — Attempting to clarify yesterday’s statement that the war in Iraq is “lost“, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today that he “supports the troops who lost the war.”
In an audiotape recorded from an undisclosed location and released through Al-Jazeera TV, Sen. Reid said, “The troops who lost the war should hold their heads high, because not everyone can be a winner, and they gave it a good try.”
CIA analysis of the tape indicates the voice is “almost certainly” Sen. Reid’s and that references to recent events show that the Democrat leader may still be at large, in good health and “substantially in charge” of his network of Democrat senators.
On the tape, Sen. Reid also said, “It’s not the fault of our troops that they represent an evil regime, or that they wear the uniform of the nation viewed by many as ‘the Great Satan.’”
The Nevada Democrat said he looks forward to welcoming the troops home, so that many of them can “lay down their weapons and return to the world of decent and honorable work.”
It's weird: we lost the war peace because the guy up top sent the best soldiers in the world to execute the brilliant strategy of having flowers and praise heaped upon them (the soldiers). The fact that this strategy was completly unhinged was the fault of those who proposed and insisted on it-- not those who tried to execute a plan so at odds with reality...
The fact that its easier for conservatives to blame the troops rather than the President tells me everything I need to know...
Posted by: Andrew Cory at April 23, 2007 05:33 PMWelcome to the wonderful world of Begging The Question:
The fact that its easier for conservatives to blame the troops rather than the President tells me everything I need to know...
Er...I don't see any conservatives here who claim that we've lost the war...there's nothing to blame the troops for - or the President for. This is a long conflict - nobody 'round here's claimed otherwise - it's far, far too early to start talking about defeat.
Posted by: Ethan Hahn at April 23, 2007 06:15 PMAndrew, you are not only making Reid look reasonable by comparison to you, you are making Reid-as-parodied-by-Ott look reasonable.
Me, I think we are winning the war. Including the Iraq Campaign. But even if I thought we were losing, neither I nor any conservative is EVER going to turn on the heroes who are risking their lives to stem the tide of anarchy and terrorism, and to police the globe and make life safer for billions of people.
That sort of foul and despicable behavior is solely the province of you leftists.
Posted by: John Weidner at April 23, 2007 06:55 PMYeah, I'd expect that the historical perspective of many of the folks here is what shows us that the world has never seen better troops. Today's troops are far better men, even than our hallowed fathers of yore - used to be, if you saw a group of a dozen soldiers walking along towards your village, you hid the women, the food and the valuables, and hoped they just passed on through. That was even true of American soldiers, but especially true of European soldiers we fought with and against. And today? I cannot imagine something that would give more comfort to a person than the sight of a dozen American soldiers approaching - unless, of course, you're a terrorist...
To imagine anyone here would claim American troops have failed is, at best, a horrible mis-reading of John, Hale, myself and others.
And aside from all of that, let's assume that we have, thus far, failed. Why does that instantly mean we should quit? What war college did you learn that technique at? Did you study the example of Britain in 1914 and in 1940, and deduce that they'd have been better off giving in to the Kaiser and to Hitler? Did you study the example of Grant in 1863 and determine he should have pulled out of the the quagmire of Vicksburg? Did you study the example of Washington in 1777 and think he'd have been better off letting his troops disperse?
Andrew: "we have failed" is NOT an argument for withdrawal. Perhaps "this fight cannot be won" is - but that is a FAR more difficult argument to make. And considering the evidence thus far shows that we're actually moving forward, even the easier argument is pretty untenable at this point. Withdrawal is simply absurd! I just shake my head in wonder at the folks who consider it...
To be fair, I don't think Andrew made any argument for withdrawal.
Although in a way that's part of the problem. Lefties never present an actual plan for fighting the War on Terror, so there's no real debate. It's like punching the Pillsbury Doughboy. The "strategy was completly unhinged," but what, precisely, was the "hinged" strategy? What are Leftists FOR?
Posted by: John Weidner at April 24, 2007 09:55 AMTo be fair, I don't think Andrew made any argument for withdrawal.
True - my cold-addled brain took me further than I should have gone...though if he doesn't believe we should withdraw, I would be interested in hearing what he does believe should happen...
Posted by: Ethan Hahn at April 25, 2007 06:17 AM(I'd recommend Vitamin C, but it would start a scoff-war.)
How about, "If only we would all sit down and talk, there wouldn't BE any wars."
Actually I don't think Andrew is silly in that way. But that's his problem; the Democrat Party is silly, and he's stuck with it. The "underground" nature of the conflict obscures reality, but it's still there. And the reality is, a war is to win. We are the good guys, and the cops of this planet, and our duty to the world, to the poor, is to smash the other guys flat, even it it takes a lot of bloodshed. (And then reach out generously to help build things back up and make friends.)
If we don't see the reality now, then we will see it after the next 9/11. It won't go away.
Posted by: John Weidner at April 25, 2007 10:45 AM
