Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her
Let me point out the obvious: service in the armed forces of the United States is voluntary and can be dangerous, very dangerous. We make the training as realistic as possible, and we lose service members every year because of that realism. When deployed, we lose many service members in accidents. And, of course, we lose many due to hostile action by our enemies. The buried premise in all of these "was it worth it" arguments is that there is an objective standard by which that question can be answered. Folks who make that argument answer their own question in the negative. The most important decision any president makes is to put our forces in the field, exposing our warriors to danger. But that is the nature of military operations, some people will be hurt and killed. The only way to avoid that, of course, is stay home and give the bad guys of the world a pass.
We know that one undeniable consequence of the Vietnam War was to turn the Democrat party into the "Peace" party (by which they customarily mean opposition to military adventures engaged in by Republican but not Democrat presidents). The irony there is that it was two Democrat presidents (aided by overwhelming majorities in both houses of congress) who got us "waist deep in the big muddy" (to quote Pete Seeger). Years later, every member of the Democrat leadership in both houses of congress voted against the first Gulf War. As a consequence, Democrats took it in the shorts in the next election. Even the Speaker lost his seat in the House.
Customarily, some leading Democrats do support military intervention, then change their minds based primarily on political considerations (John Kerry Syndrome). This focusing on short term political gains is a prescription for making certain things go south after we leave. And it puts in jeopardy what our brave warriors have accomplished. Not to mention their lives.
The article of faith among Democrats is that "Bush lied and people died." Their sensitive personal lie detectors tell them that "being wrong" and "lying" are the same. Oddly, those same exquisitely tuned devices are unable to pick up on a lack of candor from a president who said (repeatedly) "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period." And a president, who, like Butterfly McQueen "don't know nothing 'bout no attack in Benghazi," (who subsequently made half a dozen references, in a cringing speech to the UN, to a video which he knew had nothing to do with the attack). Or, for that matter, claiming no knowledge of the IRS being used as a club against his opponents.
I yearn for a return to the notion that "politics stops at the water's edge." Les Aspin and Sam Nunn, both Democrats and chairmen of the military committees in congress, voted for the first Gulf War and made it possible for a few Democrats to go along. That's called leadership. I (and many conservatives) supported Clinton in Kosovo and Somalia. Some humanitarian interventions are entirely appropriate. The fact that we can't and won't intervene in every stink hole around the world certainly isn't a persuasive argument that we shouldn't ever intervene. Once a decision is taken to put forces in the field, my instinct is to support them and their efforts. While the wisdom of the decision can be debated, during the Vietnam War we saw that blind opposition can lead some of us to carry the flags of our enemies in protest marches and to collaborate with those enemies in their capital cities. Need I mention the party affiliation of these people?
I support Obama's program of using drones to clip AQ leaders (the more of those b*stards we kill, the better off the world will be). However, I think he's making a terrible mistake in Iraq. And has gotten himself into very deep water with has statements about not permitting Iran's nuclear program (we're the only ones who have the tools to take out those facilities should it come to that) and Syria's chemical weapons. These matters may work themselves out. I certainly hope so.
Let me point out the obvious: service in the armed forces of the United States is voluntary and can be dangerous, very dangerous. We make the training as realistic as possible, and we lose service members every year because of that realism. When deployed, we lose many service members in accidents. And, of course, we lose many due to hostile action by our enemies. The buried premise in all of these "was it worth it" arguments is that there is an objective standard by which that question can be answered. Folks who make that argument answer their own question in the negative. The most important decision any president makes is to put our forces in the field, exposing our warriors to danger. But that is the nature of military operations, some people will be hurt and killed. The only way to avoid that, of course, is stay home and give the bad guys of the world a pass.
We know that one undeniable consequence of the Vietnam War was to turn the Democrat party into the "Peace" party (by which they customarily mean opposition to military adventures engaged in by Republican but not Democrat presidents). The irony there is that it was two Democrat presidents (aided by overwhelming majorities in both houses of congress) who got us "waist deep in the big muddy" (to quote Pete Seeger). Years later, every member of the Democrat leadership in both houses of congress voted against the first Gulf War. As a consequence, Democrats took it in the shorts in the next election. Even the Speaker lost his seat in the House.
Customarily, some leading Democrats do support military intervention, then change their minds based primarily on political considerations (John Kerry Syndrome). This focusing on short term political gains is a prescription for making certain things go south after we leave. And it puts in jeopardy what our brave warriors have accomplished. Not to mention their lives.
The article of faith among Democrats is that "Bush lied and people died." Their sensitive personal lie detectors tell them that "being wrong" and "lying" are the same. Oddly, those same exquisitely tuned devices are unable to pick up on a lack of candor from a president who said (repeatedly) "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period." And a president, who, like Butterfly McQueen "don't know nothing 'bout no attack in Benghazi," (who subsequently made half a dozen references, in a cringing speech to the UN, to a video which he knew had nothing to do with the attack). Or, for that matter, claiming no knowledge of the IRS being used as a club against his opponents.
I yearn for a return to the notion that "politics stops at the water's edge." Les Aspin and Sam Nunn, both Democrats and chairmen of the military committees in congress, voted for the first Gulf War and made it possible for a few Democrats to go along. That's called leadership. I (and many conservatives) supported Clinton in Kosovo and Somalia. Some humanitarian interventions are entirely appropriate. The fact that we can't and won't intervene in every stink hole around the world certainly isn't a persuasive argument that we shouldn't ever intervene. Once a decision is taken to put forces in the field, my instinct is to support them and their efforts. While the wisdom of the decision can be debated, during the Vietnam War we saw that blind opposition can lead some of us to carry the flags of our enemies in protest marches and to collaborate with those enemies in their capital cities. Need I mention the party affiliation of these people?
I support Obama's program of using drones to clip AQ leaders (the more of those b*stards we kill, the better off the world will be). However, I think he's making a terrible mistake in Iraq. And has gotten himself into very deep water with has statements about not permitting Iran's nuclear program (we're the only ones who have the tools to take out those facilities should it come to that) and Syria's chemical weapons. These matters may work themselves out. I certainly hope so.
Last edited:
Time to read 'em and weep over that war, conservatives.
