Reply With Quote
Hanson sucks.
Let us at least face this one fact: this War on Terrorism has been, and will continue to be, longer and bloodier than it had to be because a large segment of our own population does not see this war for what it is - a life and death struggle for survival on the part of liberal democracy. Victor Davis Hanson neatly describes the dead weight we are forced to carry into battle:
Mr. Hanson, I have noted, is a man who gives every benefit of the doubt to people who disagree with him - but in that emphasised point, we see him approaching a position which most of us have been wary of acknowledging: that the opponents, so-called, of the war have left rational dissent far behind and are now engaged, witting or otherwise, in an effort to secure our defeat...secure, that is, defeat for themselves. They don't understand that the Islamist butcher-knife is sharpened not just for neo-con supporters of Israel, but for Michael Moore and the entire membership of MoveOn as well.
I'm a Christian - and a man really trying to live a Christian life (obviously, at times, something of a struggle for me) - and thus I love my enemies and pray for them; I wish this war were over and the bloodshed stopped...but war we have, and right and decency demand that we prosecute it to victory. The consequences of our defeat are so bad that no consquence of fighting for victory can possibly be worse.
So, we continue the fight - our President is steadfast and we are ready for whatever call to duty may happen. We will fight and win this war, and get no thanks from those we saved from the consequences of their own desires. So be it - life isn't fair; but Justice eventually triumphs over all.
Hanson sucks.
What? Are you gay now?
In fact, Hanson is way ahead of most on his understanding of Islamic motives and objectives.
What the does being gay have to do with anything?
Well, how would you know he sucks?
I was referring to the band.
And I could post another opinion and say they "nailed" it but since it would be an opinion contrary to yours you wouldn't accept it.
I was being sarcastic. Very interesting read.
And I was joking.
I'd like to read it. It would be interesting to see how "they" would support and opposite conclusion and to compare their credentials to Victor Davis Hanson's.
Me too.
Yep, and with very little to legitimately criticize -- beyond, of course, the blanket "he's full of because I don't agree with him" retort.
"At some point this Western cannibalism becomes not so much counterproductive as serving the purposes of those who wish America to call off its struggle against radical Islam."
No government should ever be trusted. Their actions and motives should constantly exposed (is why dubya's administration is one of the most secretive ever) and debated by the press and the people.
Hansen seems to be be saying "dissenters STFU, close your minds, close your eyes, and march over the cliff, take a bullet for dubya".
Everybody's against the terrorists, so why the are we in Iraq rather than going after the terrorists? why are billions a week into the sands of Iraq rather than spending those billions make America secure?
mr. hitchens nails them again....
The sole point of the non-findings of the Fitzgerald non-investigation, into the non-commission of non-crimes and the non-outing of a non-covert CIA bureaucrat, is (as Messrs. Kerry, Krugman, Rich, and others keep reminding us) that it might even yet trigger the long-awaited inquest into the Iraq intervention. I very strongly hope that there is a full-dress post-mortem into this country's Iraq policy, though I am not ready to assume that "inquest" or "post-mortem" are the correct terms for it. Let's just say a serious blue-ribbon, bipartisan, full-out inquiry. This inquiry, however, could hardly be confined—as Kerry, Krugman, and Rich so obviously hope—to the years 2001-05.
At the very minimum, the starting point of such a retrospective should be the decision, in 1991, to confirm Saddam Hussein in power after his expulsion from Kuwait and to keep his population under international sanctions. Another place to begin might be the apparent "green light," given by the Carter administration, for Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran. Real specialists and buffs might wish to start with the role of the CIA in the 1960s military coup—or coups—that brought the Baath Party to power in Baghdad in the first place...
I agree...
Wolcott smacks VDH
One person who is not taking Patrick Fitzgerald's coup de theatre well is Victor Davis Hanson, lord of war. Given that Scooter Libby had been one of Hanson's most influential fans, his downfall has to hurt. It robs Hanson of a vital player in the inner circle reading and heeding his militant counsel.
But just because Hanson is in a righteous snit over the injustice he feels has been done doesn't justify encouraging others to go werewolf.
In his latest flaming spear hurled from on high, Hanson says it's do or die time for Bush. Surrounded by evildoers and no-gooders, he must stand and fight. "He can choose either to be nicked and slowly bled to death in his second term, or to bare his fangs and like some cornered carnivore start slashing back."
Now I don't know about you, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of the Commander in Chief of the most powerful military in history baring his fangs and slashing like some demon possessed fresh from the mouth. It's not really what the framers of democracy had in mind.
Like the neocons who think he's the hunkiest, Hanson urges Bush to broaden the war on terror and put a major hurting on Iran and Syria and any other tyranny in the region thwarting American aims. But he also wants Bush to fight a two-front war.
"George Bush also should begin addressing his most venomous critics at home, by condemning their current extremism. He must explain to the nation how a radical, vicious Left has more or less gotten a free pass in its rhetoric of hate, and has now passed the limits of accepted debate."
This will no doubt pass the limit of accepted debate, but allow me to part with the following sentiment: you, Victor Dave. The limits of accepted debate have already been trampled into mud and splinters by Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, David Horowitz, Mic e Malkin, and the Swift Boaters, among others, about whose rhetorical extremes you've never made a peep. Moreover, this conflating of Howard Dean Democrats with Islamofascist hate speech is McCarthyism at its most unrefined. Truth is, Democrats have been remarkably watery and ineffectual when it comes to the Iraq war, as Arianna has lamented (and when a Greek goddess laments, it's like thunder from the mountaintop).
Hanson's use of the phrase "the limits of accepted debate"--he probably meant acceptable debate--has the authoritarian ring we've become used to on The O'Reilly Factor and other Fox news shows, where the word "treason" is thrown at every sharp note of dissent.
Not that I'm worried about an authoritarian crackdown. I think the Bushies are now too deep into the crackup stage to attempt and enforce a crackdown on opinion. The very vehemence of Hanson's report is a sign of impotent frustration. He's not getting his way and it seems less likely he's going to get his way, so he's hankering for a showdown that will at least provide theatrical catharsis.
"The American people, both pro and con, are more than ready for a great debate to settle these issues one way or another," Hanson intones.
No, they're not. The political junkies on both sides may itching for a climactic fight, but I suspect most Americans would be happy to have a little less sturm und drang in their lives; they're more worried about their own personal travails (debt, health costs, retirement funds, etc) than they are about Bush's legacy and Al Franken's rhetoric.
Besides, any sensible grownup knows that "these issues" are never settled one way or another, that issues like abortion or religion in public life or the projection of American power are in a constant state of flux between greater freedom and greater retreat; that the movements of history are dialectical and pendulum-swinging. Only in comic books or sorcery fiction is there a final victor and a vanguished loser.
Even if Bush boldly decided to "cross the Rubicon"--to paraphrase the le of Hanson's article--he would probably find himself crossing alone, his fellow Republicans preferring to huddle on the banks, wave their monogrammed hankies as he wades into battle, and watch him sink... Why should they go down with him? His poll numbers are tanking, DeLay and Rove are too preoccupied with their own problems to maintain strict party discipline, Cheney has his own hide to protect, and, besides, Bush isn't up for reelection--they are.
Would you sacrifice your political future for a "cornered carnivore"?
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
--Herrman Goering on how easy it is to drag people along for wars.
"It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion."
Joseph Paul Goebbels quotes
"We have made the Reich by propaganda"
Joseph Paul Goebbels quotes
you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
The_Craven
Joseph Goebbels quotes
you're either with us or against us
I guess we have a solution for all those people who just haven't bought the program and gotten in lockstep with the administration's version of reality.
I mean they are holding us back. Surely there are some ovens we can fire up to take care of this problem of people not agreeing with us.
random guy.. your a supposed military intelligent ex guy.. can you tell me what the CIA was doing in Iraq during the early to mid 60's?
heh, waaaay before my time.
But seriously, from what I know from reading the CIA generally made it their business to meddle as much as possible with governments to attempt to install friendly ones to us and thus oppose the USSR.
If you are asking about specifics, I have little knowledge of that, and if I had knowledge of such through my having been in MI, I couldnt' tell ya anyways.
^^again another example of how lightly you take of people who want us dead. You just finished talking on another thread of how your aware of the cir stances. With people like you, we'd be owned. I dont care wether you served or not, many have served our country as well, and when it comes to defending our country they are right there face front. its truly sad You fail to see the picture because you're blinded by your cynical prejeduices of seeing the dire situation we are in.
random here is a hint.... lol
The sole point of the non-findings of the Fitzgerald non-investigation, into the non-commission of non-crimes and the non-outing of a non-covert CIA bureaucrat, is (as Messrs. Kerry, Krugman, Rich, and others keep reminding us) that it might even yet trigger the long-awaited inquest into the Iraq intervention. I very strongly hope that there is a full-dress post-mortem into this country's Iraq policy, though I am not ready to assume that "inquest" or "post-mortem" are the correct terms for it. Let's just say a serious blue-ribbon, bipartisan, full-out inquiry. This inquiry, however, could hardly be confined—as Kerry, Krugman, and Rich so obviously hope—to the years 2001-05.
At the very minimum, the starting point of such a retrospective should be the decision, in 1991, to confirm Saddam Hussein in power after his expulsion from Kuwait and to keep his population under international sanctions. Another place to begin might be the apparent "green light," given by the Carter administration, for Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran. Real specialists and buffs might wish to start with the role of the CIA in the 1960s military coup—or coups—that brought the Baath Party to power in Baghdad in the first place...
Yuppers. We have created no few monsters ourselves through our foreign policy, Saddam being right up there.
I truly wish we could finally stop playing the short-sighted realpolitik and truly have a moral foreign policy. This is harder than I make it sound, but surely the most powerful nation on the planet can afford to take the high-road.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
