Redstate

Or at least hold the line until a Democrat can be safely credited with winning it. Fortunately, he's as incompetent at sedition as he is everything else.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I just like to usually assume that most politicians, regardless of party, are patriotic. I think its pretty unfair to just assume that a politician would hope the U.S. loses a war just for political gain. And even if we can't agree on that, lets assume my question is a 'what if' type question. What if a national politician based on the intelligence he was getting truly happened to believe we were losing? Would it be okay for him to speak out or should he remain quiet? And the point of this question is NOT to argue if we are winning the war or not. I just don't see anything wrong with someone speaking their mind in a case like this as long as they are truly trying to do good for the U.S.

They are invested in defeat. They said we lost and despite evidence to the contrary they must continue down that path. I would argue that pressuring the country to lose a war is in fact unpatriotic. Need we list all the gung ho democrats that were for war when it was politically expediant? How many democrats voted to stay out of the war before we went in?

Some perspective for ya
3900 military deaths so far in Iraq.
8000 African Americans murdered in America in 2005.

1. I would agree that pressuring the U.S. to lose a war is unpatriotic- but there is a difference between pressuring and stating something you believe is true.

2. You couldn't be more right about how most Democrats are a bunch of scared chickens, and do what is politically expedient at the time.

3. How is that perspective?? Citing 2 random stats... yes i realize that compared to other wars there haven't been that many deaths in Iraq. Compared to what we told I believe there have been a lot. But the point of my post was not to argue the Iraq war, it was simply to point out that someone can say we are losing, and still have the U.S.' best interests at heart.

but the trouble is that reid - and many others - have not presented any alternative plan for winning the war on terror. they just want to stop our efforts in iraq. but just saying "no" to bush's strategy doesn't show how one has america's best interests at heart. and when reid simply objects again and again, without ever presenting a credible alternative to achieve victory and security, then i have to wonder whether he's acting for political gain rather than for the good of the country.

i do not believe criticism is unpatriotic. that would be silly. but the criticism has to be such that it aims to help the country, and not just to make the current administration's policies fail.

"There isn't a man alive who hasn't wanted to boot an infant." - W.C. Fields

but the basic idea that I believe Reid, but I know many other prominent Dems have proposed, is that we should withdraw our combat troops from Iraq, which would leave betwen 25 and 50 thousand troops in Iraq to help train Iraqi forces. Than we can refocus our efforts on Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden. Now I am well aware that most people here think this plan is stupid, but my point is to simply say it is there and therefore these Democrats do disagree but are still patriotic.

P.S. I agree 100% on your last paragraph.

excuse me for missing your post upthread

"There isn't a man alive who hasn't wanted to boot an infant." - W.C. Fields

"I think its pretty unfair to just assume that a politician would hope the U.S. loses a war just for political gain."

Most 4 year olds know better.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Just to provide perspective of how parasitic and destructive politicians can become.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

The question isn't whether he 'truly believes' it, it's what kind of a total imbecile one would have to be to truly believe that a surge that hadn't happened yet had already failed. The statement was baldly rediculous at the time, and it only looked worse as the surge actually happened, and succeeded (as no less a Democrat stalwart than Murtha now concedes.)

It's not whether one believes something, IT'S WHETHER HE'S RIGHT, and whether someone who so honestly believes something so obviously wrong should be one's leader. Remember: now that we have hindsight, even Murtha admits some of the truth; but look: Harry still doesn't. Is a guy even YOU want us to believe is not a traitor, he's just clearly a total and irretrieveable imbecile, really who you ought to be following and rhetorically fighting for?

And whether you like it or not, if you DON'T believe he could be as much of an imbecile as it would take to 'honestly believe' that we'd already lost, EVEN AFTER THE FACT, not just before (1), then duplicity, and full willingness to try to engineer an American defeat because it suits his partisan purpose, is all that's left.

It is not a determination I would want to have to make about one of MY party's top leaders, but you're the one that wants to give everyone's patriotism the benefit of the doubt. Those are the clear wages of that doubt.

(1) and frankly, anyone that dumb would probably not be able to tie his shoelaces or safely eat with pointy silverware.

However "honesty" and Harry Reid" used in the same sentence are usually juxtaposed.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

it is a lot to assume that a national politician- who could probably be making a lot more money in the private sector, would be a traitor to his country. You might disagree with him and think he is corrupt, but in the end I believe 99.9% of politicians hope the U.S. does well in everything it does.

That he was motivated to enter public service out a public spirited impulse ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

and I won't pretend to say I do. But I am pretty sure it wasn't to screw the U.S. and hope we collapse as a country or so that terrorists would gain power.

to the US or at least his close circle, and that he would gain much power.

Giving the results in 06 he was half right.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

that a lot of national politicians hope the U.S. fails?? I strongly disagree, and come close to hate towards some politicians, but I cannot really think of any who I would actually question their patriotism.

And revel in the aftermath.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

that would be considered unreasonable. I think I have been very fair and reasonable in my comments.

A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Your not Huckabee but why not.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I absolutely love this blog and have been reading it for over a year. I am trying to be as respectful as possible while disagreeing with you, i don't think there is anything wrong with that. And its not like I am arguing a controversial point, I am simply saying that Harry Reid might be wrong, but hes not a traitor.

he's no traitor... but he certainly seems to advocate the same talking points as OBL and Al Qaeda... and Chavez... and the nujob in Iran.

Harry calls 49 senators puppets, and yet he rails against anyone questioning anything he does.

He's a moron, and not of the Ron Paul variety.

He'd probably be indicted if there was some political will to investigate his Hillary Clinton type land deals.

The guy is also just a complete failure as the Democrat leader. He is bested nearly everyday by McConnell and the Republicans so all he can do is go to the press gallery and snipe at how he can't get what he wants, which is what everyone wants.

As I said earlier today, he is sooooo invested in defeat in Iraq for his political narrative, he is doing whatever he can so he's not outflanked by reality and facts on the ground.

But that doesn't mean hes not patriotic. On a side note he bested the Republicans as a minority leader, but as a majority leader he has not been effective in the least.

That its easier to complain than fix
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

So let me ask you what is the key component of winning any war ?

ANS: Breaking the will of the enemy to fight on. If the enemy no longer wants to fight you have won.

Do you think the Majority Leader of the Senate should understand this ?

Do you think He does understand this ?

What do you think the effect of the democrats posturing that we are losing and should pull our troops out immediately has on the will of the enemy ?

Face It the Democrats hitched their political futures to the countries loss. They made the calculation that losing in Iraq would be a minor annoyance for the country. Traitorous all around.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

that could be considered unreasonable? Pretty much everything you've typed.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

rather than unreasonable.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

The last thing the democrats want is the US to do well in everything it does.

Well-educated, self-sufficient American citizens would hasten the collapse of the Nanny State, eliminating the need for about half of the politicians in Washington.

I'll let you judge which political party loses should the Nanny State collapse.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

Polling data has shown that the more educated you are, the higher the likelihood is that you vote for Democrats. Does that mean that Republicans want Americans to be less educated? Of course not, which is why I think its so unfair to say that Dems HOPE that the U.S. loses the war. It makes much more sense to argue why their view on us losing the war is wrong.

Actually it correlates conservative up to the masters level and then breaks back liberal at the doctorate level.

Some of that is probably due to the fact that Doctorate holders are more often than not found in hot house environments.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

assuming people are traitors is a little bit ridiculous and it would be much better to just prove them wrong. I don't see what is so far fetched about that.

invariably PhD holders at universities who don't have any idea how anything in the real world works.

so answer me this: A few monthwill s ago, James Clyburn, a DEM congressman who is part of the DEM leadership in Congress remarked that if the surge succeeded that would be "bad news for Democrats."

What did he mean, if not that Dems were hoping the surge would fail so that they could increase their numbers in Congress? What's your interpretation?

If the surge succeeded there is no doubt there would be some bounce for Republicans. Im guessing that in the context of the interview he was talking about political implications. That does not mean he would hope more soldiers die just for a couple points in the polls.

Of course he is talking about political implications -- that if the surge succeeded, it would be bad for Democrats in a political sense.

Point is, that one the one hand, Republicans, and most of us here, hope that we (the US) wins in Iraq not because that is good for Republicans (though it might be -- not necessarily, however) but because we see that a defeat here would be catastrophic for the country (not just Republicans) in the war on terror.

On the Dem side, I don't see anyone saying that they hope the surge succeeds even if it means they lose seats, for instance. I don't hear any one on your side, including you, saying that what matters is our success, no matter what it means politically.

And that is why I have utter contempt for your party, which has placed its country's interests below the party interest, and for your leadership and your politicians.

I sincerely hope the U.S. succeeds in Iraq. But I think a key point to make is that those that advocate withdraw are not doing so because that would mean we lost, but because they believe it would be in the best interests of the country and help us win the war on terror. I realize you will strongly disagree that withdrawing will help us win the war on terror, but it is a popular viewpoint that is out there.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

I am not arguing any of that, I am simply trying to say that you can disagree with Democrats and still consider them patriotic.

I believe the subject is Washington politicians, and I fail to see how investing in the defeat of the United States for perceived political gain could be considered anything but unpatriotic.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

I realize this is something you strongly disagree with, but many people believe that it would be in the best interests of the U.S. and help us win the war on terror if we withdraw from Iraq. While you may disagree with this, it shows that those you are arguing with may not be hoping we lose but rather have a different idea of how to go about winning.

by yielding the central battlefield of that war to the enemy.

Strategic redeployment is obfuspeak for surrender.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

I am not trying to argue the specific strategies now. The basic argument is that Iraq is not the central battleground and that we would be better off focusing our attention and troops on Osama and Afghanistan. Please don't respond by refuting that argument b/c thats not my point, I am simply trying to say that is an argument that is out there. Therefore someone can advocate withdraw from Iraq and still have our best interests at heart. They may be wrong, but not unpatriotic.

for purely political reasons, it is unpatriotic.

The Dems know fully well that Iraq is the central battlefield of the war on terror. Al Qaeda has made that perfectly clear on multiple occasions. The Dems can't admit that fact because it would destroy the entire premise of BushLied.™

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

First, you are incorrect. Go find some data to back this assertion up. If it's this hoax I'm sorry you fell for it. IIRC, Bush voters had one more year of education on average than Kerry voters. Rs do best among college educated (both people who don't finish and those who do). Ds do best with high school dropouts and PhDs. When you average it out, Rs have more years of education on average. Why this matters, I don't know. But you brought up the charge of smarter=Democrat. It's a bit closer to say academia=Democrat and uneducated=Democrat.

Second, on the greater point. Follow this hypothetical. All politicians want country to win the war. War starts going badly. Some politicians decide that it would be best for the country for the US to give up and lose the war rather than prolong it. They say so publicly. The public agrees with them. They make it an issue in a campaign year and win at least partially because of it. Then the war starts going better. Does the politician say he was wrong and that winning the war is more important than politics or does he say that the war is still lost.

And if he says the war is still lost is there not some self-interest in that statement. If the other party will likely gain if the war is successful and the politician's party will likely gain if the war is not, is there not a possible reason the politician sees only the negative and not the positive?

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

1. I know I heard somewhere that stat about education but I could easily be wrong. My intention was not to say Dems are smarter, but I was trying to give an example as to why it would be incorrect to say that Dems want people to stay poor so they will want government services. I didn't intend for my example to be an issue at all, so for the sake of my broader point I apologize for bringing it up.

2. You are correct when you say that a politician will usually see what he wants. But this is true in almost everything, you tend to see the facts that support your case. My point is that Harry Reid could be mistake, and very wrong, but not actually hoping that we lose the war.

If Reid cares most about non-war issues then he may care more about getting more Ds into the Senate than winning the war. If he thinks "the war going badly" will help with that goal then it seems that he would have an incentive to create press about "the war going badly."

This is no different than the widely accepted view that the Bush administration was "too optimistic" at times during the war.

It's unfortunate that some Ds have painted themselves into the corner. But when they started coming out and saying that the war was pretty much un-winnable then they were put into a tight spot. If the war is won, then they were very very wrong. If they war is lost, they gain.

That puts a politician in a very precarious position b/c their personal interest is at odds with the national interest. Of course, Reid is polling in the low 40s in NV now (at least partly due to his war rhetoric) so he may not even keep his job in 2010 unless he realizes that voters care more about the national interest than putting more Ds in the Senate.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Erick is confusing "moral authority" with "national unity". It may be fair to argue that Reid has undermined our country's unity of purpose by rhetorically opposing Bush, but it's completely unfair to say the same about moral authority.

Nations occupy the moral high ground through actions, not words. When we torture, when we violate our stated and Constitutionally enshrined principles, that undermines moral authority.

It's not even about "antagonizing" the world. It's about showing the world that we are sincere, that our ideals are not just platitudes mouthed by leaders to keep the sheep in line. Don't conservatives understand that that is exactly how bin Laden and his ilk characterize us, and therefore what we must work the hardest not to be?

...if I didn't know that most of the Democratic politicians arguing against the war now were arguing for it prior to 01/20/2001.

I wonder if they'll be switching back again after 01/20/2009?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

1) Your argument fails to address the point.
Why is it treasonous or damaging to our moral authority when Democrats oppose a military operation when our troops are in harms way, but not so when Republicans do the same? Is it the R after their name that inoculates them?
Note that when it was Republicans making these statements during Kosovo and similar ones when we were in Somalia, in both cases with our troops in harms way; they were not pilloried for being unpatriotic, un-American, or treasonous.

2) The majority of Democrats were not arguing for war with Iraq prior to 01/20/2001, nor were most of them arguing for war with Iraq prior to 10/10/2002. Feel free to cite sources that you feel prove me wrong on this point.
BTW support for cruise missiles or air strikes does not equal support for invasion and occupation.

This poison comes from both sides. It is no more fair for Democrats to accuse Republicans of being heartless or not caring about the welfare of children because they do not agree on how best to fund health care for children. This type of argument poisons our public debate and is fundamentally dishonest. We would all be better served by civil debate on the issues rather than the hyperpartisan inspired name calling that now passes for debate.

I tend to do that to any argument that relies solely on pointing out the supposed moral flaws of others to excuse the moral flaws of one's own.

But thank you for tacitly admitting that the Democrats have done wrong, here. We knew it already, but it's always nice to see the Other Side demonstrate that it's not entirely dead to shame.

Still: Not In Your Name, AgnosticLib.

Moe

PS: I should warn you: I am in the habit of correcting the types of ignorance that you demonstrated in 2) with essay assignments. You see, we at least try to establish some level of education here. I'd normally just go ahead and make you write one, but we've had the odd complaint or two about people getting tossed too quickly, so I'm being nice and giving you the head's-up.

You're welcome.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I tend to do that to any argument that relies solely on pointing out the supposed moral flaws of others to excuse the moral flaws of one's own.

That point was/is that opposition to any of the mentioned military conflicts was/is not a moral flaw. The Republicans that actively opposed our military involvement in Kosovo and Somalia when troops were in harms way were not being unpatriotic or unAmerican, nor were they damaging Americas moral authority. Democrats doing the same during our current conflict in Iraq are not either.
The difference noted was that Democrats did not make those accusations against the Republicans when they voiced their opposition to military action, while the Republicans have made a cottage industry of it.

But thank you for tacitly admitting that the Democrats have done wrong, here. We knew it already, but it's always nice to see the Other Side demonstrate that it's not entirely dead to shame.

I did not admit that Dems were wrong to criticize the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Quite the contrary, I pointed out that criticism is not wrong when done by Republicans or Democrats.
The fault I did admit existed for Democrats (and Republicans) was hyperpartisan name calling as substitute for debate. It would be nice if you could admit the same.

I imagine that it would certainly beat facing the possibility that there is a right side and a wrong side to this issue, and that people who oppose the war are on the wrong side.

But that is not, as they say, my problem.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I did not address what position on the war was right and which was wrong. The point I addressed was the poisoning of the debate that this article is an exemplar of. I acknowledged that this is a failing to those on both sides of the aisle. In all the posts and comments I have seen from you thus far it seems your view is that the put upon Republicans only respond to the Democrats poison and are not responsible for initiating any of the vitriol. Is that your position, or can you acknowledge that both Republicans and Democrats participate in this poisoning of the debate?

We disagree on whether we should have invaded, what we should be doing now, and no doubt on many other things. The point I was making is that hyperpartisan name calling replacing substantive debate does not help anyone (other than some pundits) or anything. Calling me unpatriotic or unAmerican does nothing to forward your agenda and neither would me calling you heartless for opposing the proposed expansion of SCHIP further my position.

If I am wrong on any particular, prove me wrong. I welcome debate on any and all points I have put forward.

You want to start this "debate" with the concession that there is equal moral weight to both sides. There isn't. My side is better than yours. Now, you may be a perfectly spiffy individual personally, but that doesn't really signify. Let me put it another way. You are not a good person because you are against the war; you might be a good person despite being against the war. Either way, not my job to convince you. Never was, isn't now, never will be.

And if you think that this is a sign of arrogance if not hubris that will end up biting me and mine on the tuchis, then we cordially invite you to take your best shot at overwhelming us. Assuming that your side hasn't already, but we just didn't notice.

Is that clear? Have I spelled it out, enough? - Because I have a baby who needs his last bottle of the night, and I don't really have any more time for you right now.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

"Your" politicians are every bit as much politicians as "mine." You have lived your life to this point and have grown to be the hyperpartisan person that you are. Nothing I or anyone can say or do is likely to change your mind, so we might as well leave it there.

Wow Moe certainly got you to unzip and expose yourself. Most people instinctively understand not to reveal themselves the way you just did.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

HTML Help for Red Staters

..."calling me unpatriotic or unAmerican does nothing to forward your agenda"...{ @ # 61 }
But can that assertion be demonstrated using the laws of logic ? Is it really true? Do we have a scientific poll that will withstand cold hard scrutiny?
How do we know for a fact that ad hominem cannot and does not
make converts, in addition to helping .."pundits".., and
therby advance our cause?
Could it not be that a mix of argument and ad hominem is a
winning battle stragity?

Oh, and..."You have grown to be the hyperpartisan person that
you are"...{ @ # 63 }. What is that? Doesn't hyper mean
abnormal? Would that be ad hominem ?