Power Line News

Some wag at the Washington Post has given the subhead to John Kerry’s <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR20

» View the article

Exhibit A must be Senator John Kerry, who remains in the spotlight by dint of his vain pursuit of a Democratic presidential re-nomination in 2008, oblivious to the stench of failure and incompetence that dogs his every public pronouncement. This morning we see that he has an essay in the Washington Post, unfortunately subtitled “The Case for Flip-Flopping.” In it, he argues for the same course of action in Iraq that he has advocated in every American war since achieving his majority four decades past: running away, with regrets, but with wisdom that will presumably enable the nation to see more clearly when to run next.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/7c9e251d-276c-42df-92c0-0b74c73767d5

The man should just go away. Anybody who couldn’t beat George W. Bush in 2004 should go back and try again, starting with precinct captain.

Has Rev. Al got his hat in the ring this time around?

John Keryy’s Op-Ed this morning was a complete waste of time.  In it he repeats everything he has been saying for the past 3 years.

There is one nice line though, one that reminds me of the way Vlad thinks and writes, where Kerry says....."This is not a time to be stubborn”. 

Is there a better example anywhere in the world of stubbornly hanging on to your views when the facts are contrary than John F Kerry?

senorlechero - 24 December 2006 11:50 AM

Is there a better example anywhere in the world of stubbornly hanging on to your views when the facts are contrary than John F Kerry?

I dunno… how about people who still insist that Saddam had WMDs or that Saddam was friends with the Islamists (both of which are contradicted by all facts)? Or a certain President who up until very recently insisted that we were “winning” in Iraq?

Generally speaking, Kerry’s op-ed makes the simple, factual point that we cannot “win” in Iraq. This causes hysterics on the right because the right isn’t serious about national security: they would rather see thousands more people die in Iraq than admit we cannot win. To continue a war after we’ve lost isn’t strength or seriousness; it’s psychotic delusion.

If you don’t like what Kerry is advocating—withdrawal—then find some other plausible solution. But you don’t have a plausible solution, and neither does Tacitus; that’s why he, and you, merely screech that we must “win” and achieve “victory” without explaining how. Kerry, for all his faults, is advocating something real; Bush, and his followers, are only advocating that we stay in Iraq forever and maybe magic ponies will save us.

So if you don’t like Kerry’s idea, what’s your alternative strategy? And screeching “victory!” is not a strategy, just a ghoulish delusional fantasy.

I’ll also point out the obvious: all the people who have been right about the Iraq war from the beginning (Howard Dean, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi—all of whom correctly pointed out that invading Iraq would be contrary to our national security interests) are in favor of withdrawal to some extent or another. All the people who are in favor of the Bush escalation strategy are those who have been wrong about Iraq from the beginning (Bush, McCain, Lieberman, various pundits). This is because if you still think the Iraq invasion was a good idea, by definition you cannot be serious about using force in America’s interests.

The right’s childish and unserious view on national security was best summed up in “The Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics”:

Suffice it to say that I think all this makes an okay premise for a comic book. But a lot of people seem to think that American military might is like one of these power rings. They seem to think that, roughly speaking, we can accomplish absolutely anything in the world through the application of sufficient military force. The only thing limiting us is a lack of willpower.

What’s more, this theory can’t be empirically demonstrated to be wrong. Things that you or I might take as demonstrating the limited utility of military power to accomplish certain kinds of things are, instead, taken as evidence of lack of will. Thus we see that problems in Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t reasons to avoid new military ventures, but reasons why we must embark upon them.

This is the reason right-wingers clutch their pearls and have fainting spells when a Kerry or a Murtha says we have to get out: since right-wingers know only that we can win anything if we have enough “will,” it follows that the real enemies are those who have the bad manners to point out that there is no actual “victory option.” Shootin’ the messenger.

"Some wag at the Washington Times” Scott? I find it perfectly believable that Jean Fraud Kerry chose that subhead himself.

I read and reread Kerry’s op-ed...it was all over the ball park and predictably encluded “Viet Nam”...he just can’t let go.

Kerry’s nerve in quoting Churchill: ("never give in,” he added: “except to convictions of honour and good sense.") is almost as exquisite as the Reverend Jim Jones quoting the Bible.

Kerry, as evidenced by his MSM-trumpeted testimony to the Senate regarding US military in Vietnam unanimously acting like Genghis Khan, knew nothing about convictions of honor and good sense then - and has learned zero since.

He’s been on personal one-donkey expeditions to visit US enemies three times now: the North Vietnamese Communists, the Marxist Ortega in Nicaragua, and now the Baathist Bashar Al-Assad in Syria.  All three expeditions were mounted to provide himself with political ammunition to undermine, with eager help from the partisan MSM, the US administrations elected to determine and execute foreign policy.

He drivels on and on about the virtues of flip-flopping.  He is rather an expert on this.  His brilliant military career in Vietnam was terminated by the flip-flop of his ‘early out’, enabling him to race to Washington and slander the military while his former shipmates fought and died.  But he has a blind spot, in recommending that President Bush emulate him.  Bush has already done so, being elected on a non-nation-building platform and forced to abandon it by surprise attacks on New York and Washington, and is now sensibly engaging terrorists on their home turf instead of in New York and Washington.  One such flip-flop is enough, a second flip-flop to 9/10 policies (even with oh-so-earnest ‘negotiations’ with Iraq’s neighboring thugs) could well be disastrous in long-term events.

Sorry to remind Senator Kerry that his 60s attention span may be too short to comprehend an operation that takes longer to court and marry a bazillionatrix.  But it is.  He throws in a soap opera riff:  how could an executive look a parent in the eye and tell them that their son or daughter had to die for a policy that Kerry declares is ‘broken’?  I propose that he change his own campaign with a new flip-flop. 

Since he’s so concerned about other people’s mortality, let him examine the highway death toll of California and consider by how much it exceeds US military deaths in Iraq.  Let him campaign against allowing Californians to drive cars and, like himself, SUVs.  He could claim huge benefits for the enviornment, and a ‘savings’ of twice the Iraq casualties.  And the soldiers of Iraq can then stop mocking Jon Carry and return to supporting the slow and painful growth of a self-representative government there.

This post may not be entirely appropriate to the subject, but you folks probably need some Christmas good cheer, so here it is...WE CAN NOT LOSE THIS WAR.  What I mean is this war breaks for US regardless of how it ends.  Our long term interests are served regardless of the Iraqi end state...or even an end state where there is no Iraq.

Why?  How can this possibly be?  Some will snarl when they read this, but the reason is very simple: We have done the right thing, and that right thing starts at the very top.  George Bush has led without a hint of cynicism or calculation, and those executing his policy have likewise followed.  That is why we can hold our heads up anywhere and say that we, with help from our friends, and in the face of howls from the “world community,” have tried our very best to help other people who desperately needed our help.  That is the bottom line for this war.  That is our victory, and we have it already.  It is something so old (like me), and simple (again), that we sometimes forget it in our modern self confusion: Doing the right thing is always the best idea...ALWAYS.

Merry Christmas to you all, and to our soldiers, God’s blessings

Cyril

yeah, the democratic primary… John Kerry, Rev. Al, and Dennis “The Hippy Warmover” Kucinich.

gorblimey - 24 December 2006 12:20 PM

Generally speaking, Kerry’s op-ed makes the simple, factual point that we cannot “win” in Iraq.

According to dictionary.com, a fact is “something that actually exists… or known to exist or to have happened… a truth known by actual experience or observation.” So, just exactly how can something that has yet to happen be labelled a fact?  No one, not even John “I know everything” Kerry, can state unequivocably what events may occur in Iraq that may/may not lead to our victory there.

gorblimey - 24 December 2006 12:20 PM

This causes hysterics on the right because the right isn’t serious about national security: they would rather see thousands more people die in Iraq than admit we cannot win. To continue a war after we’ve lost isn’t strength or seriousness; it’s psychotic delusion.

So, in other words, you think our troops are a bunch of losers who can’t even defeat a bunch of rag-tag terrorists.  Tell us again,gorby, how you and your fellow Leftists support our troops.

gorblimey - 24 December 2006 12:20 PM

If you don’t like what Kerry is advocating—withdrawal—then find some other plausible solution. But you don’t have a plausible solution, and neither does Tacitus; that’s why he, and you, merely screech that we must “win” and achieve “victory” without explaining how. Kerry, for all his faults, is advocating something real; Bush, and his followers, are only advocating that we stay in Iraq forever and maybe magic ponies will save us.

I have in other threads, as have other posters to this forum. 

gorblimey - 24 December 2006 12:20 PM

I’ll also point out the obvious: all the people who have been right about the Iraq war from the beginning (Howard Dean, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi… are in favor of withdrawal to some extent or another. All the people who are in favor of the Bush escalation strategy are those who have been wrong about Iraq from the beginning (Bush, McCain, Lieberman, various pundits). This is because if you still think the Iraq invasion was a good idea, by definition you cannot be serious about using force in America’s interests.

Dean, Gore, and Pelosi all have a vested interest in an American defeat in Iraq: winning the presidential election in 2008.  Also, like it or not, Gorby, the Democrats aren’t known for their military expertise, so why should I trust their assessment of a military option over that of our troops who say that we are winning?  Are you saying that our young men and women on the battlefield are a bunch of liars?

luthien - 24 December 2006 02:43 PM

So, in other words, you think our troops are a bunch of losers who can’t even defeat a bunch of rag-tag terrorists.  Tell us again,gorby, how you and your fellow Leftists support our troops.

Well, of course, our troops aren’t primarily fighting foreign terrorists in Iraq. But more importantly, the fact that we’ve lost in Iraq has very little to do with the troops and everything to do with either the people in charge (the Bush administration) or stuff beyond the troops’ control (the political situation in Iraq).

The hysterical pearl-clutching right thinks that if you point out that we can’t win in Iraq, it’s an insult to the troops. In fact, it’s an insult to Bush—the guy in charge of this failed effort. And the failure in Iraq is Bush’s, not the troops’; the fact that Bush won’t admit the failure has to do with preserving his own ego, not any desire to Support The Troops (tm). The troops are our employees; they’re doing a good job, but there is no reason to keep them working on a failed mission, and it is no insult to them to re-assign them to a more useful job.

I have in other threads, as have other posters to this forum. 

You’ve done nothing of the kind; you and other posters have merely talked about “victory” and “doing what it takes to win,” oblivious of the actual situation in Iraq and the fact that the solution in Iraq is political, not military (no matter how many people our troops manage to kill off, that won’t solve the basic problem that Iraqis are killing each other).

Again, if you don’t like the idea of withdrawal, come up with something better. Something beyond “victory” or “do what it takes to win.”

Also, like it or not, Gorby, the Democrats aren’t known for their military expertise,

The point is, though, that most of the people who were right about Iraq were Democrats. (Not that no Democrats were wrong about Iraq, but nearly all Republicans were disastrously wrong.) Look again at that Howard Dean speech from 2003. Everything he said about the Iraq invasion, and why it was not in our national security interests, turned out to be right; everything Bush said at that time turned out to be false or delusional. Obviously Dean should be given more credibility on national security issues than Bush or McCain, because Dean spoke up for the use of force in America’s interests, while Bush and McCain advocated the use of force in ways that hurt America’s interests. Being right or wrong should be relevant to national security credibility, meaning that the Republicans have forfeited all credibility on national security issues.

so why should I trust their assessment of a military option over that of our troops who say that we are winning?  Are you saying that our young men and women on the battlefield are a bunch of liars?

Again, you’re hysterically shrieking that an insult to Bush is an insult to The Troops. But to answer your question, the fact that an individual soldier says we’re winning doesn’t necessarily mean that we are. It’s not a soldier’s job to evaluate the success of the mission; that’s the job of the people in command of the military—us (or our elected leaders). It’s good that troops still have good morale; that’s their job. But it’s our job to evaluate whether keeping them in Iraq is in our best interests, which it obviously is not.

We don’t work for the troops; they work for us. They understand that, and they know that if we bring them home it’s no reflection on them—they haven’t failed, Bush has failed.

So, just exactly how can something that has yet to happen be labelled a fact?  No one, not even John “I know everything” Kerry, can state unequivocably what events may occur in Iraq that may/may not lead to our victory there.

Well, we already lost in Iraq—some might even say we lost when it turned out that Saddam had no WMDs (thus meaning the war turned out to have no positive purpose), but the more likely point is that we lost when Iraq descended into civil war. Once a country is in a state of civil war it’s beyond our power to fix such a thing (unless you think the French could have come in and “won” our own civil war), and thus the “defeat” in Iraq occurred when it was clear that the American presence wasn’t helping.

It’s not a big defeat, as defeats go. Of course, if we stay longer, we could wind up in a situation where we are militarily as well as politically defeated (rule # 1: things can always get worse). Thus Bush and his followers basically want us to risk an even worse defeat for the purpose of massaging Bush’s ego.

Finally, it’s true that you can’t state unequivocally that we will never turn things around in Iraq. It’s also true that you can’t state unequivocally that there will never be magic ponies in Iraq. Given that the people who say we’re turning things around in Iraq, or “winning” in Iraq, have been consistently wrong for three years (with every turning point—the capture of Saddam, the Iraqi elections, the constitution—things just keep getting worse there), it seems fair to say that the doomsayers have the better of the argument.

gorblimey - 24 December 2006 02:58 PM

luthien - 24 December 2006 02:43 PM

So, in other words, you think our troops are a bunch of losers who can’t even defeat a bunch of rag-tag terrorists.  Tell us again,gorby, how you and your fellow Leftists support our troops.

Well, of course, our troops aren’t primarily fighting foreign terrorists in Iraq. But more importantly, the fact that we’ve lost in Iraq has very little to do with the troops and everything to do with either the people in charge (the Bush administration) or stuff beyond the troops’ control (the political situation in Iraq).

It’s an easy question, Gorby, no need to play the hokey-pokey around it:  How do you and your fellow liberal Leftists support our troops?

Yeah, Gorby.
Let’s hear it. Why don’t you start with George McGovern? Pinko draftdodger, barely flew 50 missions over Germany.Or Jimmy Carter. What did he know about defence policy, hanging around with some old jew admiral? Or Gen. John Eisenhower. Don’t let him off the hook, just because he’s an army general and President D. Eisenhower’s son and a Republican. He was the scum who endorsed John Kerry, turning his back on our own annoited decider. Or General Anthony Zinni. There’s walking proof for the proposition that even Marine Corps three-stars can be treasonous dogs, when it comes to supporting The Decider’s wise decisions.

And finish off in the end with yourself. Luthien has told you about her military service; you owe it to the List to inventory your own personal life. We’re not interested in your ideas. We want to know what kind of tattoos you’re wearing.

I dunno… how about people who still insist that Saddam had WMDs or that Saddam was friends with the Islamists (both of which are contradicted by all facts)?

I love the “everybody knows” argument made by leftists…

What about Lt. General Michael DeLong, USMC (ret.), former deputy commander of CENTCOM, who states unequivocally that Saddam moved his WMD stockpiles into Syria before the war?

What about General Georges Sada, former vice air marshal in Saddam’s air force, who states the same thing and provides specific details of the number of flights and types of aircraft?

What about Bill Gertz of the Washington Times, who states the same thing and adds that Russian special operations forces helped Saddam transfer the WMD?

It seems to me that anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty and courage would concede that the issue is far from being settled. Unless of course the people mentioned above are liars and Israeli agents in cahoots with the lying Decider Chimpy McHalliburton Bushitler.

As for Saddam not being friendly with Islamists, what about all the Project Harmony documents that show that he trained Islamists? Are those all lies, too? What about the 1998 federal indictment brought by the Clinton DOJ that accuses Saddam and al Qaeda of jointly developing weapons? Are Clinton and Patrick Fitzgerald lying liars and Israeli agents, too?

“Everybody knows” is the argument made by high schoolers afraid of not fitting in with the popular kids.