Article

2006-04-02 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Gloluns Spoling1748 2006-04-02 05:07|| || Front Page|| [11125 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The right's neocons orchestrated a war with Iraq that has destroyed national consensus and they are culpable for politicizing the individual soldier by repeatedly sending the message that to criticize policy equates attacking the soldier -- an allegation that is simply not true.

I can't speak for anyone else but my main premise is that the debate on Iraq ended in October 2002. Iraq would be invaded as a part of our national security strategy. Like it or not every citizen from that point until the last soldier leaves Iraq has a solemn duty to get behind the president, as commander in chief, and every serviceman or woman here and abroad, to ensure they are not placed in danger over and above what they already face.

My idea was that the domestic opponents of the president were obligated to act as though they are US citizens and demonstrate that they are behind this effort inasmuch as they are against it.

The demonstration was for the benefit our of our enemies; to let them know we are a nation united against them.

But now we know the left wants Islamism to win, and not just because they believe international and hostile forces can return them to power, but because they believe Islam is similar to Marxism, their core beliefs.

And they are: both are death cults.

With all due respect to the general, he is plainly wrong blaming neo-conservatives for actions of their political opponents. It is easy to see why this absurd screed got published, but it is hard to understand someone from our very own military would come to such an egregious and eroneous error in logic.

Meanwhile, some on the left are returning to mindless violence.

Guess its time to start going to the range then, huh?

Posted by badanov 2006-04-02 10:09|| http://www.freefirezone.org/cgi-bin/index.pl]">[http://www.freefirezone.org/cgi-bin/index.pl] 2006-04-02 10:09|| Front Page Top

#2 Get the feeling of those other American officers? You know the ones in 1859 who were being dragged into the dirty little conflict between the issue of human freedom and slavery? You might want to sit down for a couple of hours and watch Santa Fe Trail, not just to see the future President of the United States, but to get a visceral feeling of what it was like among the officer corps back then, when you know, it was so detached from the politics of the nation. That was another time right. Its not like Americans are talking past each other today like they did back then.

Posted by Snailing Hupiling3568 2006-04-02 10:12|| 2006-04-02 10:12|| Front Page Top

#3 I'm glad he's retired. If he's got others still in who agree, he should encourage them to retire also.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-04-02 10:18|| 2006-04-02 10:18|| Front Page Top

#4 I have reached the firm conviction that 1 in 10 senior officers (O-6 and above) are bitter as hell.

At some point, they are filled with bile about something. The actual reasons vary, but are invariably petty, and their behavior from that point on is best described as schoolyard.

It is a good indicator that they need to be retired, however. And that fact, when it dawns on them, doesn't make it any easier. That, for all their hard work, expertise, accomplishments and hardships endured, that they are still as expendable as the greenest private. And the day after they are gone, they will not be remembered.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-04-02 10:43|| 2006-04-02 10:43|| Front Page Top

#5 "The vandals who struck the Petithory family were confused."

I'm sorry to have to say this, but it is the author of this article who is confused, not the vandals. The vandals are Leftists: haters following an ideology of hatred, alienation and envy. They are mentally ill, I'll grant; there is something profoundly fucked-up about them. But they are not "confused".

"In the '60s the purveyors of hate on the left were mostly resident on campus and could not differentiate between those responsible for policy and deception regarding the war in Vietnam and the young, honorable men and women who served in the military."

It isn't that they "could not" differentiate between the two; it's that they chose not to differentiate. It was a conscious, deliberate, knowing choice made with eyes wide open, by-- as the author correctly notes but apparently can't comprehend-- purveyors of hate.

"The right's neocons orchestrated a war with Iraq that has destroyed national consensus and they are culpable for politicizing the individual soldier by repeatedly sending the message that to criticize policy equates attacking the soldier -- an allegation that is simply not true."

Neither "neocons" nor the war in Iraq have "destroyed national consensus." What has destroyed national consensus is a Democratic Party determined to do exactly that.

Regime change in Iraq-- by force, if necessary-- had been U.S. policy since the Clinton adminstration; and the only way in which the Bush administration departed from the policy inaugurated by Clinton was to act on it instead of mouthing platitudes and nipping ineffectually at Saddam's shoelaces.

So don't blame "neocons" or Bush: it was the Democratic Party-- in a cynical, calculated effort to tap into the money and the political energy of its most extreme elements on the left-- that destroyed national consensus. And they did it for political gain.

"Meanwhile, some on the left are returning to mindless violence."

"Returning"? Sheesh...

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-04-02 10:46|| 2006-04-02 10:46|| Front Page Top

#6 Pure intellectually lazy thinking on the author's part. Everyone that agrees with him but does atrocious acts is "misguided but goodhearted". Those with disagreement in their worldviews are guilty of doing things for outright evil or malicious reasons.

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-04-02 12:27|| 2006-04-02 12:27|| Front Page Top

#7 Well, I can attest personally that I did hear and read from leftists massive criticism of the war back when it was _just_ Afghanistan and not Iraq. I also heard the "it's all about oil" bit then too.

(Just like I had heard it about the Balkans.)

And the "stupid Christian crusader" bit.

I heard that all within a couple weeks after 9/11. Some eighteen months before the decision to invade Iraq.

Posted by Phil 2006-04-02 12:53|| 2006-04-02 12:53|| Front Page Top

#8 Sadly, the vandals' actions are illustrative of how we have squandered our opportunity to face terrorism with unified and coherent action. The right's neocons orchestrated a war with Iraq that has destroyed national consensus and they are culpable for politicizing the individual soldier by repeatedly sending ththe message that to criticize policy equates attacking the soldier -- an allegation that is simply not true.

He was making a lot of sense until that sentence. Nearly gave me whiplash when I read that.

Posted by xbalanke 2006-04-02 13:36|| 2006-04-02 13:36|| Front Page Top

#9 This is good propaganda and this useful idiot plays right in. He says don't politicize our soldiers, but "Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry, as well as the archbishop of Chicago and other generals and government dignitaries, who honored Daniel and his family with their presence" which means it was a well organized photo op.

It wouldn't even surprise me if someone told me that they already knew of this useful idiot's views and had some democratic operative desecrate his grave just so they could publicize his views.

Posted by 2b 2006-04-02 14:12|| 2006-04-02 14:12|| Front Page Top

#10 The vandals who struck the Petithory family were confused. Oil, Christian crusades and Bush were not issues during the fight in Afghanistan. We had consensus. Both sides of the aisle in Congress and the entire nation agreed that al-Qaeda had to be kept from continuing its attacks.

BS. Remember when we were in Afghanistan for a pipeline?

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2006-04-02 14:36|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-04-02 14:36|| Front Page Top

#11 Or "Bush went and used the word _crusade_"?

Posted by Phil 2006-04-02 15:07|| 2006-04-02 15:07|| Front Page Top

23:43 RD
23:35 3dc
23:12 trailing wife
23:06 RWV
22:59 Oldspook
22:50 3dc
22:49 3dc
22:49 trailing wife
22:42 JAB
22:32 Listen to Dogs
22:25 JAB
22:18 WTF!
22:11 Anonymoose
22:08 Inspector Clueso
21:59 Anonymoose
21:57 RD
21:44 Scooter McGruder
21:34 Asymmetrical Triangulation
21:30 Darrell
21:26 Agent Bauer
21:21 Gliting Closing8568
21:19 Fordesque
20:55 Darrell
20:54 jim#6