Today Congress Faltered
Written by Mark Harris on February 16th, 2007
There can be little doubt that if we lose this war against Islamic extremism that historians will look back on this as the day the defeat began in earnest. Sadly it seems that our resolve to leave the world a better place has faltered, because it just seemed too hard. This is a day of shame of tremendous proportions for our country. Shame that falls on all of us for allowing this to happen by our elected body. Shame. See how your congressman voted
16
PM
It really is the most pathetic of statements: “We feel very strongly that this war is wrong, so wrong in fact that we are going to do absolutely nothing to stop it. We are however going to tell you how strongly we feel about this, because you probably don’t know or you would have stopped the war in Iraq by now.”
If I were an anti-war Democrat I would be fuming at the gutless wonders in Congress right now.
16
PM
From a purely political perspective, I’d say the Democrats are doing exactly the right thing. If they do something substantive to stop Bush’s grinder, this allows the Republicans to retort in 2008: “We would have had this thing won if you hadn’t shut it down!”
The Democrats should make a bunch of noise, do nothing substantive, and then in 2008 when the meat grinder is still chopping and there’s still been no progress, this will be purely a Republican problem.
Not ethically the right thing to do, but politically smart.
16
PM
Ummm who cares about politics, when we now have one entire half of the political spectrum in this country that doesn’t believe in fighting our enemies, and is willing to capitulate to extremist islam. I don’t care who wins elections when it comes to who wins the war for the future.
16
PM
Are you an able-bodied person Mr. Harris? If YOU believe in “fighting our enemies”, then I suggest that YOU go do it. Otherwise, it sounds like what you mean is: “I want poor black kids to go get shot while I write my blogs and smoke my cigars.”
16
PM
Well because we have this unique institution called the volunteer army, of people who willingly choose to fight. Their color, wealth, or anything is well irrelevant. I would fight for my country if called upon, but thankfully we are not at that point yet. I have had three friends go over there and all three have told me that they wanted to finish the job.
This liberal notion that you have to be fighting to talk about the war is one of the most illogical and ridiculous inventions. No one fighting over there is forced to be there, and they are in many ways a better man than I am, so on one account you are right. I do not pretend otherwise. Everyone of us enjoying the freedoms of America owe them the freedoms we have so I am indebted to them deeply.
I make no bones about these facts, but none of that changes that there is a political party who has bet their entire political future on America losing in Iraq and suffering a devestating blow in this larger war to protect the free world.
We were right in the cold war and millions died due to liberal unwillingness to fight, I pray that need not happen again.
16
PM
Alex don’t bother him with facts when he can play the class warfare card.
16
PM
Mr. Harris:
Let’s be frank here — you don’t volunteer to fight for the same reason that I don’t volunteer; we both have better options and going to Iraq is unpleasant. People who choose to join the military do so because they don’t have any better options. There are various reasons for this, and you might not like to talk about the class dimension, but it’s certainly there.
If you’re too chicken to go, or you have a nicer lifestyle here, just say so. That’s why I’m not there.
16
PM
I just re-read your last sentence:
“We were right in the cold war and millions died due to liberal unwillingness to fight, I pray that need not happen again.”
There was also an unwillingness to fight among figthting-age people in the Vietnam era. That’s why we had a draft and they lowered the minimum IQ standard to 80. YOU are unwilling to fight, Mr. Harris. Evidently, you like to pretend that you’re somehow more brave than liberals am because because you support sending *other* people to fight, whilie lounging in your chair. What a coward. What a joke.
16
PM
When you want to lay off the ad hominem let me know. You are the one who trolls along posting without using your name. I may be a lot of things, a fallen, imperfect, too proud man struggling with living a better life, but coward sir is one thing I am not.
Nick Miccarelli, a UPENN student, CR, and all around good guy went to Iraq, was it because he had nothing “better” to do? Or maybe it was because he was called to service? Go talk to some veterans and ask them if they felt like they had nothing “better” to do as if serving ones country was some kind of welfare program.
16
PM
My problem is not with your serving or not serving. My problem is with your having the audacity to imply that Democrats (including some with highly distinguished service records) are cowards. Supporting a war from your chair does not give you license to claim that you are braver than democrats who oppose the war from their chairs.
17
AM
Not all Democrats, but certainly any that would look Al Qaida in the eye and blink.
17
AM
I don’t believe that comparing this vote with Munich really makes a great deal of sense. As far as I’m concerned the surge has not been argued for very well, and Congress was right to vote against it.
I know it upsets the neoconservatives with their fancy Kennedy school degrees, but troop levels aren’t the whole story in fighting an insurgency (see Laos). One also wonders how the neocons plan to increase troop levels in Iraq and invade Iran at the same time. I’m not going to worry about trying to figure out how their mind works though.
Addressing Anonymous69’s arguments. I have to admit that I’m somewhat amenable to the chicken-hawk argument, though probably not universally. That being said, think about how odd it would sound to apply a similar argument in other ways. You don’t volunteer time helping orphans? Then you have no business advocating adoption. The interesting thing about calling someone a chicken-hawk is that you are actually buying into a Heinlein-like fascistic mentality where ultimately only the military can have any sort of say in how government works. That isn’t your intention, but I think that’s the ultimate result. The second problem with the argument is that you only complain when someone who does not serve in the military argues positively for the war. It seems to me that, logically, the prohibition should apply to war opponents as well.
In closing, I work with enlisted soldiers and marines every day, and your slams against them are ridiculous on their face.
17
PM
Woodroe, you’re misunderstanding my point — I certianly don’t believe that only those who served in the military should have a say in foreign policy matters (although I’m admittedly somewhat more receptive towards someone with a distinguished service record on matters of military affairs). I think that the military benefits from civilian leadership and oversight.
My problem is when chicken-hawks imply that other people are cowards. I don’t think that sitting on your behind and supporting a war, when you yourself are too chicken to fight, gives you license to claim that you’re braver than someone who opposes the war as a matter of policy. For Mark Harris to imply that Jack Murtha, John Kerry or Joe Sestak are somehow cowards in the face of his “bravery” is a joke. They laid their asses on the line; he, and all the other chicken-hawks are too scared to do the same.
17
PM
I never said that was what you believed, only that it was the logical conclusion of your argument.
17
PM
Alexander — I agree that what you propose would be the right thing to do, ethically, but a disaster politically for the Democrats. Therefore, it’s not likely to happen.
Incidentally, General Petraeus testified that the resolution wouldn’t demoralize our troops. Do you consider your military judgement superior to his?
17
PM
“People who choose to join the military do so because they don’t have any better options. There are various reasons for this, and you might not like to talk about the class dimension, but it’s certainly there.
If you’re too chicken to go, or you have a nicer lifestyle here, just say so. That’s why I’m not there. ”
I doesn’t surprise me at all that you are too much of a coward to go an fight and that is why you choose to stay here. What does surprise me is that you are so stupid that you think everyone else in this country is like you. I know many, many vets from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, officers and enlisted. None of them “had to go”, none of them are poor, all of them are white and all requested comabt. They went because they believed in the mission, the country and the concept of civic service.
You liberals are all alike you know that? You think everyone is as fucked up and rotten as you are.
17
PM
“From a purely political perspective, I’d say the Democrats are doing exactly the right thing.”
Which of course proves what conservatives have been saying all along: the Democrats don’t care a fig about the troops, the Iraqis, America’s position in the world or anything else for that matter. It is all about power and how they can aquire and maintain it. Show me an honest liberal Democrat and I’ll show you someone who can’t get elected.
17
PM
“I doesn’t surprise me at all that you are too much of a coward to go an fight and that is why you choose to stay here. What does surprise me is that you are so stupid that you think everyone else in this country is like you…You liberals are all alike you know that? You think everyone is as fucked up and rotten as you are.”
Then why aren’t you over there?
17
PM
Lol, this is like talking to a retarded person. What relevance does that have? Why does it matter in the slightest if I am in Iraq? It matters a great deal to you since you view yourself as a coward for not going. I can’t help you with your personal, private dysfunctional thinking but I can share a little wisdom with you: no one gives a damn about your opinions.
You think that everyone is just like you, that’s called projection. You project your own flaws and failings (in this case cowardice) upon everybody else. Mark isn’t afraid of going to Iraq, nor am I. Just because you are, why do you assume that others share your weakness? You feel guilty about your cowardice and I understand but try and not be so irrational and loony when you post in the future.
17
PM
I am actually thinking about going into the Reserve or Guard, but I will freely admit that those over there fighting are in some deep sense better for the country than I. Yet that does not change at all the general argument that this resolution ran up the white flag to Al Qaida.
18
AM
You never answered my question Mike. What’s your reason for not being over there? Although it’s true that I have other things to do with my life besides live in 110 degree heat and get shot at, an equally valid reason for my not going is that I don’t support our mission. You do; so what’s your reason for not being over there?
18
AM
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Here is a question: Why am I not pursuing a career in plumbing?
The answer: That is an irrelevant question hence the answer is also irrelevant.
I have some very good personal reasons for not enlisting or joining the ROTC at Georgia Tech, however I am not going to share them with you for two reasons. Firstly they are personal and none of your business. Secondly, the question has zero relevance to the topic at hand, something that you seem unable to get your mind around.
For the record I am not going to discuss my medical history or the size of my dick with you either. I am quite satisfied with both but they are not really a part of the subject at hand.
The topic we are discussing is the war in Iraq, not any individual’s participation or lack thereof in the war. Your arguments for or against the war aren’t strengthened or weakened at all because of your service or lack of it. The statements are to be judged on their own merits.
18
AM
Your answer is five paragraphs. An answer to my question would have been one paragraph. You obviously don’t have a good reason. You don’t want to go just like I don’t want to go.
The fact is that you ardently support the war, but only as long as it’s other people getting killed. It’s sort of like liberals who want to regulate fuel standards but drive around in gas-guzzling SUVs (I seem to recall that your side wouldn’t shut up about this with respect to Gore): you’re a hyporcite and a coward.
18
PM
You obviously aren’t intelligent enough to understand what I am trying to tell you. Maybe someone else here can try and explain it to him?
You are the poster boy for the liberal who thinks they are educated and exceptional but is in fact the opposite of that.
18
PM
“There can be little doubt that if we lose this war against Islamic extremism that historians will look back on this as the day the defeat began in earnest.”
I have a feeling that if we lose this war, historians aren’t going to be mentioning American politics.
18
PM
“You are the poster boy for the liberal who thinks they [sic] are educated and exceptional but is in fact the opposite of that.”
“Liberal” is singular — it should be followed by “he is” or “she is”. Learn to speak English at the level most high-schoolers can before you insult my intelligence. Talk about more irony…
18
PM
Upon reflection, you’re looking like a better and better candidate for our military with each additional illiterate comment!
18
PM
Get over yourself, go teach a high school English class on grammar if you feel that strongly about it. The way you simultaneously lament us for not joining the military just because we support the mission in Iraq, and insult the military by implying it’s full of idiots, is amazing to me. You really must not think your arguments through very much.
And by the way, are you a fireman? If not, then I demand that you not be allowed to opine that local fire departments fight fires. Chew on that analogy for your screwed up logic for a while.
18
PM
I only noted Mike’s flagrant functional illiteracy to illustrate the irony of his calling me stupid! I won’t point out the grammar error in your post. I’ll also note that my opinion of high-school teachers is lower than my opinion of military officers.
Regarding your analogy, two flaws are immediately obvious:
1. There’s no shortage of firefighters. There are, however, problems retaining military personnel. Your contribution to the military would be useful; my contribution to the fire department would not.
2. The mission of firefighters is relatively well-defined. In my view, what we’re asking of the military violates what I would consider to be reasonable job expectations. Firefighters knew what they were getting into. However, you’re asking the military to do something far outside the parameters of what most of them expected, even though you’re not willing to go yourself.
18
PM
On Note #1 above:
http://iht.com/articles/2007/02/14/news/military.php
They need you Mike and Langley! Presumably you’re not a criminal, a high-school dropout, a nitwit, overweight or really old. They could use you over there!
19
AM
““Liberal” is singular — it should be followed by “he is” or “she is”. Learn to speak English at the level most high-schoolers can before you insult my intelligence. Talk about more irony…”
However in lieu of “he or she is” which is a bulky, academic phrase it is grammatically acceptable to use “they”. Talk about proving my point . . .
Like I said, you think you are clever, but that sound you hear is the world laughing behind your back.
19
AM
You’ve got some nerve calling me a “liberal”, anyway. I’m not even sure I know what this term means; I suspect that it means nothing, and Republicans like to use it as a gimmick to rile up ignorant people. Anyway, my views are sufficiently heterodox and varied that any umbrella term is probably inappropriate; I’m strongly anti-abortion and in favor of gun rights, for example.
19
AM
What strikes me as I read through each of these comments, is that the discussion never moved forward. Anonymous69, your argument, albeit pointless, worked. You singlehandedly managed to derail discussion and keep it completely off topic. We on the right side of this blog fell for it and Mark’s point was muted.
My answer to Mr. anonymous69 is this. I choose not to fight. Better men than me have made that choice. I thank them. I choose to support them and their mission. My choices are not mutually exclusive and do not preclude me or anyone from debating the war. By your logic only those in the military can comment. I don’t think you want that. That is not how country works.
Sir, I charge you with this. Grow up and debate like a man. If you have an alternative to the President’s proposal, bring it to the table. You have not. You know your alternative is failure, and thus you will not discuss it. No one likes a loser. Except maybe Murtha, Kerry, Sestak, and every other liberal, excuse me progressive, who fails to provide an alternative that does not involve failure.
19
AM
Michael C:
You obviously didn’t read my comments very carefully. I never claimed that anyone didn’t have a right to proffer an opinion about the war on account of a lack of military service. If you’d like to have a policy debate, that’s fine, but do it without implying that people are cowards for advocating a particular position — especially people whose own service has proven them to be braver personally than any of you chicken-hakws. It was Mr. Harris framed the debate in this way with his original post, not me.
19
PM
“You’ve got some nerve calling me a “liberal”, anyway. I’m not even sure I know what this term means; I suspect that it means nothing, and Republicans like to use it as a gimmick to rile up ignorant people.”
LOL! You don’t know what it means so you suspect it means nothing? LOL, you are too much.
A liberal is someone who defines their poltics by there own personal dysfunctions and their feelings surrounding those dysfunctions. A conservative is someone who eschews feelings when deciding upon policy and looks at a given situation using logic.
You can always tell a liberal by the way they talk about a given issue, but not by the policy they end up supporting. You can always tell a conservative by which side of an issue they come down on.
I also think it is funny that you suppose that Republicans only label people liberals to rile up others, since that is your sole M.O. in any debate. Remember projection? The everyone else in the world doesn’t think the same way you do buddy. They probably call you a liberal because they think you are one and are calling a spade a spade.
“Anyway, my views are sufficiently heterodox and varied that any umbrella term is probably inappropriate . . .”
Glad you think so, but I have some bad news: you’re a liberal. Being a “pro-gun” and “anti-abortion” liberal, while making you unique, doesn’t change the fact that you frame issues around your feelings, not facts.
19
PM
“A liberal is someone who defines their poltics by there own personal dysfunctions and their feelings surrounding those dysfunctions. A conservative is someone who eschews feelings when deciding upon policy and looks at a given situation using logic.”
Wow — If I wanted to come up with caricature of an ignorant, brainwashed fool, I couldn’t have come up with anything better than this. I’m quite sure that you won’t find this definition of “liberal” in any written source. I’m also pretty sure you won’t find any published material where the author is unable to distinguish between “there” and “their”. Is the word “their” also a bulky, academic phrase?
19
PM
Fact-based indeed!
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/2/17/11421/8322
This guy is a Texas state representative and I’m sure he’d be called a “conservative”. He circulates literature from an organization that purports that the earth doesn’t revolve around the sun. Is this the kind of fact-based inquiry among good conservatives that you are referring to?
19
PM
A liberal is someone who defines their poltics by there own personal dysfunctions and their feelings surrounding those dysfunctions.
Oh man…. Mess with the bull….
A conservative is someone who eschews feelings when deciding upon policy and looks at a given situation using logic.
I can’t tell if this would require an expansive or a narrow definition of the term conservative. I mean, there’s the John Birch Society first off, and I would never accuse Ann Coulter of really using logic. Also, I think that one of the big problems with modern liberalism (think John Dewey) has been precisely their attempts to defeat human nature by pursuing scientific/logical “progress”.