Monday, July 30, 2007

Perverse ways

The new Republican strategy on waging war in Iraq seems wildly perverse. I keep arguing that the Constitution requires Congress to begin and end wars and the president to conduct them. This appears to be the exact opposite: The president can still decide when the war will end, but Congress will control the mission of the troops. Outside of the obvious political grandstanding in this maneuver, how can it possibly make sense?

28 comments:

Eric said...

It's not perverse, you just have to understand the mentality of the Democrats, who seem to want to engineer a defeat in Iraq just for political advantage.

David said...

Eric,
Do you mean a political advantage that would accrue because Democrats in Congress would be doing what American citizens want them to do? I thought that was called democracy.

Anonymous said...

Political Advantage means engineer a defeat for America now before the next election and blame the Republicans for losing the war. Otherwise, if the if Democrats win the White House in the next election, they will have to fight the war, they will lose it, and they will have to take the blame. Either that or the Democrats will greatly expand the war and pass it on...

David said...

Anonymous 1044,
Which differs from what the Republicans are doing how?

Anonymous said...

Don’t be silly, David. The Republicans are not trying to engineer America’s defeat in Iraq. If that were the case, Bush would have made Harry Reid a general and Nancy Pelosi an admiral by now. As for the Republicans expanding the war, that would be determined by the situation on the ground. And as for a future administration inheriting the war, that is a foregone conclusion and the Democrat’s worst nightmare, if they win the White House.

My comment on political advantage seems spot on, in light of today’s news coverage of Prime Minister Brown’s visit. The liberal media always unconsciously expresses the Democrat’s deepest fears.

_________
Bush didn't directly answer whether he planned to pass on the war to the next president, who will take office in January 2009. But he suggested that was likely. "This is going to take a long time in Iraq, just like the ideological struggle is going to take a long time," he said.
--AP, 07/30/07

Eric said...

David, do you think that the average citizen wants the USA to surrender to the terrorists?
If the Dems thought that any of their '08 candidates were strong enough to win next year, you would be seeing none of this. They are wagging the dog.

Vince said...

That's worrisome part, "the ideological struggle." Does one win an the ideological struggle with violence? If we do win it, what does that look like? I don't doubt that this is the root of the problem, but I do doubt that Americans want to do what is necessary to win an ideological struggle.

Anonymous said...

Vince:

WWII was an "ideological struggle." We won using violence. What does Europe look like to you?

David said...

Eric, Nobody is talking about surrendering to terrorists. The question is how long we try to sort out a civil war in Iraq.

Vince said...

WWII was entirely different. We knew who they were, they had uniforms and boundary lines. We detailed what was wrong with their other ideology. Just listen to the Fireside chats. I don't see us doing that today because we'd have to start criticizing their religion, something we won't do.

Ed said...

World War II was not particularly ideological. Japan was fighting purely and simply for nationalism, unless love of the emperor can be considered an ideology. Hitler dressed that old familiar German nationalism in new clothes, but the German soldiers weren't fighting for Nazism. They were fighting for the Fatherland.

We didn't fight an ideology in World War II. We fought three specific military powers and their allies. If only the "war on terror" were so simple.

Anonymous said...

Eric your language is skewed and shows your more interested in Politicizing the war than really evaluating the situation. There is no victory to be had in Iraq. The Republican strategy made sure of that. Your party has used the war as a political tool from day one and the failure of it now sits on their head. Every day we're involved in the civil war in Iraq our Country looses power on the world stage. The surrender to the terrorists happened when Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice attacked Iraq before we controlled Afghanistan. Now we generate terrorists where they weren't before while we ignore the terrorists that they used as an excuse to start this war in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Well, Vince, you sure hit the nail on the head (and clobbered that Ed guy at the same time). In so far as the masses were concerned, WWII was an ideological war. You can pick whatever ideological names you like and create your own propaganda slogans, but the bottom line is, the war was sold to both sides as an ideological struggle.

Of course, when you stand way back from the newsreels of the time, all you see is the War of Production. But that is a tale for another time.

However, you are way off the mark when you imply that we do not know who is our enemy. It is Islam, plain and simple. And it always has been for the last 1400 years. Whether we will admit that fact is a question of political correctness and multicultural diversity. But some men are well enough informed of history (and are brave enough) to call it like it is. See: Calling a Spade a Spadebr/>

As for those FDR Fireside Chats—ugh! Just a few nights ago, I read the official transcript of Fireside Chat #1 (March, 1933). The next day, my wife and I decided to open a Swiss bank account. We had been thinking about it for several months, but after reading what that huge liar FDR told the American people, we decided the Democrats could do it again.

David said...

Anonymous 150,
Interesting that you misquote the source you cite. The source quoted there referred to "radical Islam." You dropped the "radical."

Anonymous said...

David: You can put whatever modifier you want in front of "Islam," but that will not change squat.

Vince said...

anonymous said that our enemy is "Islam, plain and simple" and David was correct that source focuses on "radical" Islam. It looks like the only way it will be won is to convert them or kill them, right? The killing approach is looking like playing a game of whack-a-mole and unlikely, IMHO, to achieve the desired goal. Conversion is as unlikely.

When I referred to the issue of challenging their ideology, I know that it leads to breaking one of our societal taboos. I suggest we all agree to throw out our irrational beliefs and superstitions and deal with this in a logical manner.

BTW, there is a good piece in yesterday's Slate related to this:

http://www.slate.com/id/2171371/

David said...

Anonymous 459,
I didn't place the modifier; your source did. You misrepresented his position, not mine.

Anonymous said...

You guys will never win any war by splitting hairs...

[So here we are at 25,000 feet over Nagasaki.]

Pilot to Bombardier: “Commencing final run. You have control.”

Bombardier to Pilot: “Roger. I have control.”

[The bomb bay doors swing open.]

Bombardier to Pilot: “It looks like all we have down there are radical, emperor-worshiping Japs.”

Pilot to Bombardier: “Roger. Are you sure there aren’t any moderate Japs?”

Bombardier to Pilot: “I don’t know. There could be a few.”

Pilot to Bombardier: “All right. The hell with it. Let the bastards have it.”

Bombardier to Pilot: “Roger. Bombs away!”

David said...

It isn't splitting hairs to point out that you fundamentally altered the message of your own source. He says that radical Islam is the problem, and moderate Islam is the solution. You see no distinction between moderate and radical Islam. Better stay away from bombers.

Ed Kemmick said...

"Thou shalt kill."

Oh, all right. Maybe the original did include the word "not," but if you namby-pambies want to split hairs, I'm not going to argue with you.

Anonymous said...

Always quoting to the Christians, eh, Ed? Yet you dislike them and their religion so much.

Say, how about a quote from the New Testament concerning hypocrites, Ed?

David said...

How about Luke 6:41: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

Ed said...

I'm not sure what "quoting to the Christians" means, but I don't think one needs to be a biblical scholar to mention one of the Ten Commandments. You'll find those in the Jewish portion of the book.

Anonymous said...

I am not a religous person, but this thread has caught my attention. now, if I could only find a Bible. but then the next issue would be: Should it be a King James version or another version?

David said...

Anonymous 907, I'm a King James man myself, but that's the conservative in me. If it was good enough for Shakespeare ...

Eric said...

Anybody wanting to prevail in this argument had better not bring religion into it. Islam demands that it's followers kill all non-believers, and the literal translation of our bible says "Thou shalt not commit murder"

Anonymous said...

“I'm a King James man myself, but that's the conservative in me. If it was good enough for Shakespeare ...”

Only two or three of Shakespeare’s 37 plays were written after the publication of the King James version of the Bible. You’re a f**king idiot. And you’re a pissant coward, also, for selectively publishing comments.

David said...

Anonymous 1046,
Careful. Your last brain cell appears to be winking out. As I have said before, if you don't like the way I handle comments, you are welcome to leave. Maybe we could take up a collection.