Hackett Calls Dan Senor "Der UnterFuhrer"

Update: Didn't take long for Olbermann to do his best to top Hackett. These people are coming unhinged now that's it's obvious Bush and Co. are pushing back on the war and the war on terror, pre-election. That video here - Hackett below. My God, that's the most I have ever heard out of Olbermann's mouth since he stopped doing sports. He was too stupid for sports, which about sums him up. It's amazing anyone gives that idiot a microphone. Does he pay for it? It has to be vanity TV. Please tell me it's vanity TV. No network can be that stupid .....Oh, I forgot, we had two minutes of bathroom air courtesy of CNN yesterday. Geesh! How sad.

Well, it's plain to see why Paul Hackett is better off out of the running for any office. He's more than out of control enough for the Lefty blogs to love him. And how is it Liberals get away with using the chickenhawk insult on the one hand; yet, if you follow their logic, the military should be controlled by a military junta. Obviously, only former soldiers are qualified to speak to military affairs, as long as their Liberal, of course.

And we'll hear no outrage over this incident, Paul Hackett calls Dan Senor the UnterFuhrer on Fox tonight. Check out the video for the disgusting display. And that doesn't even address the inherent anti-semiticsm hidden in the remark. One cannot use the term Fuhrer in this context without an utter disrespect for what it means to many people, as well as a careless disregard for the foundations of American democracy.

Comments

[Phoenix]

That was revolting. Dan Senor was furious! Too bad I missed it.. And darn it that Bill wasn't there. Kasich is a twit.

[rwv_fan]

For chrissakes proofread your stuff. You're making the side look bad. (Hint: "their")

[Bozoer Rebbe]

He was too stupid for sports, which about sums him up.

Maybe tv sports is different, but sportwriters can be terrific writers, with real insight. Hemingway wrote sports. So did Ring Lardner. Not that he's in their league, but Mitch Albom has been pretty successful as a writer and he still has a regular sports column.

Not that I mind you slamming KO.

Olbermann's smug, self-satisfied smirk makes me glad that I don't have cable anymore.

[Bozoer Rebbe]

What he said.

"anti-semiticsm"

Anti-semitism

Term coined by proto Nazi, Jew hater, Willhelm Marr, to put a more pleasant face on judenhass. Since then, Marr's misuse of a linguistic, not ethnic, term has been appropriated by Arabs and Muslims seeking to claim that as "semites" they can't be anti-semitic.

[madmatt]

But Fuhrer means boss and unterfuhrer means underboss...so exactly what is the issue...you don't like foriegn words you can't understand? Or only right wing screwheads can call names?

[rwilymz]

"But Fuhrer means boss and ..."

Reminds me, in a roundabout way, of an old Carlin line from his classic "seven words" schpiel: "...and cocksucker... we use that to describe a *bad man*, but really, it's a *good woman*."

Popular usage is often not literal, Matt. Doesn't always matter what "fuhrer" means literally; it's popular usage is: Hitler.

A Semite is someone from any of the Arab tribes, and Hebrews are just another Arab tribe. But popular usage ... an anti-semite is one who wishes to obliterate Jews.

"Or only right wing screwheads can call names?"

Everyone calls names, dinkus. And everyone gets upset when they get called names by the people they just called names. It's part of the game. Pretend like you've played it before.

[Steel Turman]

Just be thankful Hackett didn't win an office.

My first thought was how well he hid his venom in that campaign.

If he is indicative of the rest of the 'new vet' roster that the Donks are going to run ... welp, frankly, I'd rather not think about it.

And the only game madmatt is able to play is Go Fish - The Solitaire Edition.

[Pat Kennedy]

It is so sad Hackett could not say one word only name call- last time that was a sign of life was when we were all about six years old. The man thinks being a soldier puts him way above non soldier folk- well again he is wrong- he should follow one of the Dem Guru's (Cindy Sheehan) and look at how she can put the whole world of soldiers into total disrepute - even her poor dead son is a victim of her desperate need of 15 minutes of fame- Didn't she say we were worse than the terrorists or wait we are the terrorists- so Hackett I wouln't put too much stock in your soldier boy attitude especially if you're a Demorat- Take care and make a note of trying not to use unterfueher as a way to argue you're self worth. Thanks
Pat Kennedy NYC

[Demosthenes]

Riehl, maybe you can rewrite that post and this time try to be coherent. Riehl writes "He's more than out of control enough for the Lefty blogs to love him". That is textbook mangled english. Did you by any chance go to the George Dubya Bush school of Edumucation? LMAO

As for the rest of you chickenhawks, you all do not even realize how incompetant Rumsfeld has run this war from the very beginning, do you? Hell, not even any of the republicans I am friends with support Rummy anymore. But it doesn't take long to find the idiots on the 'net who still do.

Sad, small minded freep sheep....

[gil]

You Right Wingers on the net still support Rummy? Are you nuts?

Rummy is a senile Dinosaur. Some one please retire this man before he starts confusing Bush with Laura.

Rummy is probably the only man alive that makes Bush look intelligent in comparison. That's why he still has a job.

[rwilymz]

I find it ironic that the guy who whimpers about "He's more than out of control enough for the Lefty blogs to love him" as mangled English waits only until the next paragraph to write "not even any of the republicans I am friends with ..."

Hint, Mr Grammar: it is "none of the Republicans..."

"As for the rest of you chickenhawks..."'

...said the chicken-chicken?

"...you all do not even realize how incompetant Rumsfeld has run this war from the very beginning, do you?"

Do you? Please explain. Feel free to use detail. You're advised to also use historical comparison, since these things are only valid in comparison with other similar situations.

Bald assertion is easy; backing it up ain't so.

So back it up, chicken-chiecken.

[gil]

Rvilymz.

If one is to believe all the Ex-Administration people such as Collin Powell, Runny, Cheaney, and others were in fact the ones that "designed' the war in Iraq.

What specifics do you want? Is he not the Secretary of Defense?, Is he not the front man as Secretary of Defense in running the war?

Now please tell me how is this war going?

Who do we blame, the Democrats?

We can go into specifics if you want but I have better things to do, and besides you won't accept them.

I'll give you one thing that was glaringly wrong right after the initial offensive. Gen. Shenseky was right, and Rummy wrong. We had only enough troops to fight a war, not to make the peace. Today, we still have the same situation. We walk in Limbo. We can't commit more troops because we don't have them, and (Specking of Chickenhawks) because Republicans will not call for a National Draft because their own party will not support it.

Instead Republicans (Bush) plan to win the war in Iraq with slogans, and saliva. The Bravado sounds rather hollow now. Just last week Bush sent a forced recall to 2,500 Marines..... While at the same time Republicans keep on pounding their chest calling the Democrats "the cut and run party".

Can we at least get real my friend? I am not a Democrat, or a Republican. I am a very concerned person that will like for our representatives to be held accountable, and produce results.

[rwilymz]

"please tell me how is this war going?"

From a strictly military doctrine standpoint, there is no "war"; there is "occupation".

The war went swimmingly, from many/most aspects. The occupation is going "as well as can reasonably be expected", given the conditions.

What conditions are those? Well, friend, since you want me to "get real", I'll slap a little military reality on you:

An occupation which does not follow a war that pacifies the population will either have to pacify the population itself or, if pacification is political anathema, then it will have to accept insurrection as a constant.

We did not pacify the population in the war -- political suicide, frankly -- and we wouldn't pacify the population during occupation. Hence, we have insurrection.

How much insurrection is "acceptable"? Given that you imposed "get real" upon me, I'll do the same to you: "quite a bit" of insurrection is realistic.

So the occupation is, therefore, going as well as can be reasonably expected.

"Who do we blame, the Democrats?"

Personally, I blame an ignorant and easily-bored public. 99.9% of you ignoramuses out there with zippo military experience beyond having seen "Saving Private Ryan" are too busy telling military professionals how war should be fought, and what they should expect, and when the slightest thing goes wrong -- as is guaranteed to be the case -- you whimper and whine and demand that the whole thing be called off.

It.Don't.Work.That.Way.

You may have a point [but you'd be channeling mois] to say that we should have gone with a military option short of full-scale invasion, thus requiring conquest, thus requiring occupation, but none of us have a Wayback Machine and can't go back to 2002 to alter the debate. It's 2006, we did the full-scale thing, got ourselves the occupation, and it's going "as well as can reasonably be expected".

"...and besides you won't accept them."

More like the other way around. I'm the military guy; you aren't. I know what I'm talking about; you're the one who watches reruns of Hogan's Heroes on Nick-at-Nite and puts it on his resume. The one who is mostly likely to not accept reality is vous, mon frer.

"We had only enough troops to fight a war, not to make the peace"

Need a draft for that. Want a draft? More political suicide. You gotsta work with wucha got; rule #1. And it's more than Republicans who won't support it, just so you know.

"Instead Republicans (Bush) plan to win the war in Iraq with slogans, and saliva"

Ooooh, spoken like a guy whose knowledge of History is limited to
In fourteen hundred ninety two
Columbus sailed the ocean blue...

You are a *citizen*; Bush is a *politician*. In times of war -- ANY war -- the politicians spit out slogans [and possibly the odd bit of expectorant] and that's all the citizens will hear until well afterward when the government documents are declassified and historians write it up.

"Let's get real, my friend"... what the hell did you expect? Full disclosure? During a war?

Are you brain-damaged?

"...others were in fact the ones that "designed' the war in Iraq."

The ones who "designed" the war are Army Majors, and Navy Lt Cmdrs, and Marine Majors, and Air Force Majors stationed at McDill AFB in Tampa FL, HQ of USCENTCOM. They design several, and because we are a nation Constitutionally obliged to have the military subordinate to civilian authority -- "chickenhawks", as some people lovingly refer to it -- the civilians decide which of the plans they like.

"The Bravado sounds rather hollow now..."

Oh wah wah wah. The "defeat the nazi monster" and the "stop the jap monkeys" bravado sounded just as hollow in 1943 when "I'll Be Home for Christmas" topped the charts as well. That's war. That's the way it works. 5,000 combat deaths a week, wasn't it? We're operating at around 5,000 per decade in Iraq.

Yeah. Hollow.

[gil]

rvilymz

Mr. Military Man. So that we understand each other , let's just say that you have no idea about my background or who I am, and as exchange I will "Buy" your military Genious defiition of what a war is. Maibe we can avoid insults in the process.

Now, here it goes again back to the subject. The occupation is going as reasonable as WHO can expect?...... You?. If that is the case I commend you on your foresight. Much better that Bush's that is for shure.

Let me remind you that the Bush administration DID NOT plan for an extended war or occupation, or insurrection, or call it wherever you like, therefore you most not be talking about Rummy.

The reason why Americans are increasingly worried about the conduct of the war is because of all the statements by the Bush Administration that have not only not come out true, but in fact had come to be absolutely wrong. The American people have every right to question the war and be worried.

There was not suposed to be any pacification of Iraq. Remember "We will be greeted with flowers" . That is the reason Rummy, Cheney, and Bush sent so few troops. They were not expecting a long fight. Period. They were warned of a long fight by just about every one (Including Bush's Sr. advisors), the Arabs, the Europeans, and probably even the Mongolians. They just reacted by calling every one appeasers (as now), and dismiss them as "Old Europe", or pre-9/11 mentality kind of people. Bush demanded all inspectors out of Iraq because they were "absolutely certain" of their WMD claim, gave a March deadline, and started their war. Not in their wildest dreams they ever immagined they would be in the sorry- ass position they are today..... That is a FOR SHURE. Not in their worst nightmare could they have ever immagined where their so called Pre-Emption Doctrine was going to end (Up their collective asses).

As for the draft. I am just calling for Republicans to put their feet (And ass) where their mouth is. Just last week Bush made a forced recall of 2,500 Marines. That to me is just plain pathetic. It gives a clear signal to every foe that this Administration will not take the political risk necesary to win a war..... They just talk now. If you are the military man you say you are, then you should understand that no war has ever been won by "tough talk" ..... Republicans seem to believe they are scaring every one with their bravado.... Maibe a few Liberals, but that is the extent of it.

You are right. The Military designed the invasion, that's why we won in three days. The military did not define the mission. The mission I am afraid to say is a re-run of the Viet Nam era policy making. We had politicians conducting a war, and trying to win it (as now) with P.R. and "gimme more time and yu'll see". We are putting our soldiers to baby-sit a civil war, and country build while trying to heroically make work, idiotic policies concocted by imbeciles like Rummy, and Bush.

That is why the draft. Is rather simple. You either commit as we did in World War two, or just call it a day. What we are doing right now is just following a man (Bush) into the end of his presidency. Is his reputation on the line, and the blood of our Marines on the ground. Maibe Bush (and the Republicans) can for a change be man enough to stop talking about how tough they are, and actually BE TOUGH. The Arabs are playing for keeps while we go around pretending we will win with one hand tied behind our backs.

Reminds me of the old 3d Army soldier's quote while serving under Patton. "There goes old blood and guts tells one tired soldier to another in the Ardens Campaign, yes remarks his comrade, his guts, our blood"..... At least Patton was in the fight with a gun at his side and shooting the darn thing at every opportunity, not behind a desk "winning" the war with P.R.

[rwilymz]

"Much better that Bush's that is for shure."

And you know this ... how? Did Bush run his plans past you for a quick citizen-validation check? Or are you going by what he said in public?

Keep in mind, Mr Common Citizen, during wartime, politicians are not about to be giving away the plans, and expectations of their plans, for free to the enemy. And of course you realize that if the NYT prints it, the enemy reads it.

"Let me remind you that the Bush administration DID NOT plan for an extended war or occupation"

You've got no idea what the administration planned for. You just know what the administration *said* -- which is not the same thing.

"The reason why Americans are increasingly worried about the conduct of the war is because of all the statements by the Bush Administration that have not only not come out true, but in fact had come to be absolutely wrong"

Such as?

"The American people have every right to question the war and be worried"

Don't recall the American Public's "right to be worrywarts" being questioned. The American Public's authority as armchair generals ... that IS being questioned.

"Remember "We will be greeted with flowers" . That is the reason Rummy, Cheney, and Bush sent so few troops."

We sent so few troops because that's what there were. Roll the dice and cross your fingers. Not the first time in American History that's happened; won't be the last.

"They just reacted by calling every one appeasers, and dismiss them as "Old Europe",..."

You're getting your Pat Denunciations mixed up. And you're incorrect to boot. Bush his own self warned in the 2003 State of the Union that it would be long; what prompted the "old Europe" barb was that much of "western" Europe didn't want to put their muscle where their mouth had been just one short UNSCR vote ago when they insisted that Iraq was still a regional threat to peace and stability. ... yet wouldn't lift a finger to do anything more than babysit and send the US the bills.

"Not in their wildest dreams... "

And you're doing dream analysis now?

"Just last week Bush made a forced recall of 2,500 Marines. That to me is just plain pathetic."

Two years ago it was with the Army. Yet we somehow managed to stumble on.

"It gives a clear signal to every foe that this Administration will not take the political risk necesary to win a war..... They just talk"

Starting a war in Iraq with a marginal occupation capacity on a non-pacified population is a H-U-G-E political risk. What "just talk" is is flinging a cruise missile in the general direction of a bad guy and then hightailing it before you get seen.

Remember who that was?

"If you are the military man you say you are, then you should understand that no war has ever been won by "tough talk""

On the contrary. "Tough Talk" was what separated Churchill from Chamberlain, Patton from Montgomery, Grant from Burnside, William from Harold, Alexander from Xerxes. Tough talk, plus revolutionary tactics, or just plain brute force. The US is -- in case you missed it -- the pre-eminent world power today. We got that way from two parts brute force, four parts revolutionary tactics [not to mention technics], and the odd administration willing to talk tough.

"Republicans seem to believe they are scaring every one with their bravado.... Maibe a few Liberals, but that is the extent of it."

You've never seen a dog fight, have you? When the big, strong dog corners the little yappy dog, does the yappy dog run away? No-o-o-o, the yappy dog lashes out. It gets yappier, snarls, bites, nips, darts in and out ...

The pre-eminence of The West in general has put "the east" in a corner. See, they still operate on the old zero-sum, medieval dichotomy. Us or Them. "The West" discovered Capitalism and political Renaissance and no longer need that. But when dealing with people stuck in that mentality, we have to understand that that's the way they are, or we cede strategic advantage to them. In war or commerce, either one.

Well, being "cornered" the way they think they are, what are they doing? Same as the yappy dog. Lashing out.

In essence, they are scared. They wouldn't be "fighting for their lives" against a culture which only sought to sell them cosmetics and cars and Hollywood movies otherwise. These things are a threat to them. They call it "cultural war"; I know you've heard the term. And, well, to them, one form of war deserves another. And so here we are.

"The mission I am afraid to say is a re-run of the Viet Nam ..."

There are parallels, certainly. You aren't **entirely** wrong. But neither are you entirely *right*. The thing about doing analysis properly is identifying the outlyers as well and incorporating them into the hypothesis.

"We are putting our soldiers to baby-sit a civil war..."

Well, we've got practice, since we've been babysitting the world's trouble spots for decades. We babysat Hussein for the UN for 12 years, we've been babysitting Lil Kim for the UN for over 50 ... we're coming up on a decade for Bosnia ... we've babysat Haiti so often we've set up a guest bedroom and put in a change of address card. Y'know, if we are really NOT the "world's policeman" why does the world insist on treating us like one?

...when it's in their interest, of course. For as I'm sure you recall, the very second it stops being in the world's interest that we protect their ass YET AGAIN from whatever boogeyman and closet-monster they get a-feared of, then they backbite us for being the presumptuous "world's policeman" ... that they begged us to be.

And now we're babysitting a next-generation Iraq. What were the odds, eh?

We're also babysitting a next-generation A'stan, but I don't see many people yapping and snarling about that.

Want the classical, unfiltered military response to an Iraqi civil war? Not the response run through public opinion polls in which a whole slew of idealistic and "enlightened" neophytes put in their two cents worth [and get change in the transaction], but the textbook perspective.

Two groups of people, who both hate you and would, independently, attack you [all things being equal], are squaring off against each other..? let them. And we need to get the hell out of the way while they do it. Last man standing wins.

"The Arabs are playing for keeps while we go around pretending we will win with one hand tied behind our backs."

And frankly, one hand tied behind our back is adequate. Iraq fought Iran to a draw for damned near a decade. Saudi had trouble with a brigade-sized Iraqi incursion in '90. We wiped Iraq's army out in 4 days. Hardly broke a sweat. We wiped their army out again a decade later AND took their country away from them in 6 weeks with a force 1% the size of their population -- never been done in the history of the human race.

Oh, but they resent it, don't they? And they're taking it out on us, aren't they? Or, well, something. They're taking it out on SOMEbody, that's for sure. But who?

Let's look at the casualties again: just yesterday, or the day before now, some 60-odd Iraqis died -- killed by other Iraqis. Gosh, I thought they hated us; maybe, but they hate each other more.

Like I said: last man standing wins.

"At least Patton was in the fight with a gun at his side ..."

And talking tough, which never, ever works.

"not behind a desk "winning" the war with P.R."

God DAMN those cowardly chickhawks Roosevelt and Churchill anyhow, eh? Sitting in their comfy offices and shouting into the radio microphones about days living in infamy, and fighting them on the beaches, and never have so many owed so much to so few, and all. Didn't they understand how they'd look to people who insulate themselves from reality? They shoulda been out there leading the charge up San Juan Hill, right? If they can't put their money where their mouth is, then they needs to shut it.

Hey, I'm with ya all the way, Gil.

[gil]

rvilymz

Seems to me that we agree in most points, and in others you (Or me) may not be understanding the issue.

My point with the draft is not that I want one. I am simply pointing out that when we are down to forced recalls of Marines that have done their duty, and then some.... Is time for Republicans to understand that our voluntary Army is not designed for long engagements such as the one in Iraq.

Republicans seem oblivious to the new reality that we have in Iraq. They simply demand that we stay, that we engage the enemy, that we don't cut and run, and that we don't abandon Iraqis. This is in the context of a long war as they put it.

If one is to match their rethoric with reality common sense will tell you that A) We will need a National Draft, and B) We will need to increase taxes to pay for it. If the Republicans simply ignore this realities then they are simply not serious about winning anithing more than the next election.

Republicans, my friend want the political issue without the pain. Time and reality is catching up with them.

In my remark that our Military is fighting with one hand tied behind our back; You are right, that is more than enough to win. Just understand that when you fight handicapped by politicians, a lot of of soldiers die unnecessarly. Powell is right. If you go to war you go all out, and for the kill or you don't go. Or as he put ir you use overwhelming force.

To question this war is not to be "An arm chair General" as you put it. Is to be an American. At lease you are not calling us traitors, or as Rummy called us ;"Morally confused", and "appeasers". Funny. I am an appeaser according to the Idiot in the Pentagon because I dare to question his judgment in starting this war, and the way he chose to fight it?

I am no Military Genious, but I clearly remember stering in amassment at the run up to the war and the conclusions of the Bush people, and telling myself.... How can these bunch of highly paid people, with experts all around them not see that they are about to start a war with a Nation that has been violently divided for generations? How can you expect a Democracy between Kurds and Sunni, between Sunni and Shiite? Why don't they listen to all the people that are telling them not to do it?
I am no Arm Chain General now, and I was not back then.... I simply have common sence.

[rwilymz]

A coupla things:
"our voluntary Army is not designed for long engagements such as the one in Iraq"

A volunteer army is irrelevant. We'd have the same situation with a conscript force. The problem is that after 9 months or a year of being on the line, you're worn out. If you take decent casualties -- and the casualty rate for Iraq is historically *low* -- then you've got gaps in your force; either way, you simply can't sustain the effort.

It's common practice to pull a unit from the line for around 1/3 of the time. If they've been on the line for 9 months, R&R for 3; 12 months, R&R for 4. The call it "rest and recuperation" but it's also refit and retrain.

Vietnam taught us that you can't refit in the field; casualty rates were astronomical among the greens.

"We will need a National Draft"

I agree, but it's political suicide.

"We will need to increase taxes to pay for it"

Not necessarily. As long as we have an expanding economy, tax revenues can increase without raising the rates. The economic textbook for capitalism says to increase tax revenues over the long-term, decrease rates. Taxes are generated each time a dollar changes hands. Increasing tax rates decreases the number of times each dollar changes hands.

"when you fight handicapped by politicians, a lot of of soldiers die unnecessarly"

Well, yeah, but Bush has given the military pretty much a free hand. Our casualty rate is unprecedentedly low for the mission involved. The civilian and enemy military casualty rate is also historically low. That's the new reality of Modern Warfare Against the US: low casualties. Safe War.

"Powell is right. If you go to war you go all out..."

That's not exactly what he said. What he said was: "you break it you bought it." He advocated a smaller military footprint in Iraq, and not the full-scale invasion we undertook. We could very easily have acquired regime change a la Serbia with a mainly air war, using ground forces to engage the elite [ha] Iraqi forces, allowing the regular Iraqi forces melt into the countryside like they did in '91, and backchanneling a go-ahead to the Kurd and Shi'a militias itching to take back their own country -- like we prevented them from doing in '91. And failed to support as we promised in '92.

"To question this war is not to be "An arm chair General" as you put it. Is to be an American"

It is to be an unrealistic American. An irrelevant American. The time for debate on whether or not was before March of 2003. We're now there. To debate whether or not is now a waste of time. And devisive. And pointless. It is an academic luxury for the future.

We have the *right*, yes. But exercising rights just because we have them can often get in the way. And sometimes it just isn't wise. I have the right to walk down the street any time I want, but walking down certain streets at certain times of the day is just plain stupid. Same with debate.

"How can you expect a Democracy between Kurds and Sunni, between Sunni and Shiite?"

On the other hand, how would it look for a western leader of the most powerful nation in the history of the world to say "these people can never attain unity because they simply haven't got the requisite cultural maturity to accept differences among various peoples..."

True? Accurate? Honest? Yes. But high-handed and arrogant to actually *state* it. So what we do is mouth the idealistic: "we will work to create unity". Knowing the whole time that it's difficult at best and next-to-impossible at worst, and adjust downwards if/when necessary.

Such is the politics of world affairs. And "common sense" differs between citizens and politicians. It is common sense for citizens to understand that Iraq is a tribalist, fractured nation, and it is common sense for a politician to never, ever say so.

[Craig]

"And how is it Liberals get away with using the chickenhawk insult on the one hand; yet, if you follow their logic, the military should be controlled by a military junta."

Note the word *hawk* in Chickenhawk. In other words, the objection is to the sort of person who avoids danger yet is excessively willing to put others in danger - the type who gets some unnatural pleasure out of feeling their own power by being able to put forces into war.

The objection is not simply to civilians without military experience being in power over the military, liberals *love* civilian control.

As a liberal, I agree with you that it's not good to go crazy on the 'only former military can speak on military issues' idea.

IMO, the main reason the liberals are making the mistake of overfocusing on the military experience is in the error of reacting to the right wing's disgusting and dishonest attacks that the democrats are 'weak' on defense. It's caused all kinds of embarrassmnet and problem from getting Truman to support loyalty oaths to LBJ's going into Viet Nam to Clinton's abandonment of the end to discrimination against gays in the military.

The democrats are better when they are not reacting to the baiting, as with post-Bay of pigs JFK resisting the military on Viet Nam, the pressure to support right-wing dictators rather than true independant governments, the use of nukes as 'tactical' weapons, the demand to invade Cuba during the missile crisis (which it turned out appears would have started a nuclear war), etc.

You tend not to see Chickenhawks in the democratic party nearly as much as the republicans. Real military men who have been to major wars like Eisenhower and Kennedy tend to have a more informed perspective, and non-military liberals tend to oppose the use of military force as an option of first choice. That leaves non-military republicans like Cheney, Bush, Limbaugh, Gingrich, et al as the chickenhawks.

[gil]

rvilymz

"Is to be an unrealistic American, an irrelevant American"

Hardly my friend. As Republicans are about to find out in November. Debate is the fuel of our Democracy. Without it we would be as good as our Arab foes, that is to say following blindly and without daring to question.

The start of the war will be debated for yeras to come. The conduct of this war will be debated for years to come, and the performance (Or lack there of)of the Bush Administration will be debated for years to come. In the end I have no doubt how History (and the vast majority of America) will judge Bush and his Administration. As a disgrace.

We ovbiously still have to come to the end of the road on this little adventure for which we can thank Bush & Company. For now however you'll need to be patient with all of us "irrelevant" Americans while we call for accountability and question our leaders.

It would be wise for you to remember that many of those "irrelevant" Americans will vote.... You'll see how "irrelevant" they look then.

I agree with you in that Politicians can't talk freely about issues. In the case of Iraq sadly Right Wingers do take Bush's word at face value. I wish they will listen to you. Hey, people Bush is a politician what do you expect him to say? RUN FOR THE HILLS !!!! I FUCKED-UP SOOO BAD!!!

No, instead he sounds like he needs a long talk with a good Psychiatrist with remarks like;

" We need to fight them in the streets of Baghdad so that we don't fight them in the streets of America"

" Iraq is the most important part of the war on terror"

Or my favorite one.

" We will not cut and run"

And then he finishes his talk, gets out, and issues a forced recall for 2,500 Marines. This actually happened THE SAME DAY!!

Yes my friend you are very right... Politicians are not free to talk freely.... Some more than others.

[rwilymz]

"As Republicans are about to find out in November"

So ... we can *vote* our way out of having started a war? That's cool. Who needs a Wayback Machine when you can simply say "Do Over!"

"History ... will judge Bush and his Administration. As a disgrace."

Actually, probably not. He'll most likely be firmly ensconced in the middle of the pack. He'll get credit for odd things like preserving the tax cuts after a foreign attack and acquiring a booming economy out of it, for daring to change the ossified and utter failure of our National Education Policy even though it looks like his replacement isn't much better, and he'll lose points for being anti-charismatic and translating his inability to articulate our foreign policy into an entire administration which failed to do so. Historians are going to conclude that just because he's not a people-person, and he's surrounded by eggheads, it doesn't mean he can't hire a people-person to explain it to the nation. Tony Snow is as close as he's gotten, and he started about 5 years too late.

"We need to fight them in the streets of Baghdad so that we don't fight them in the streets of America"

Yep; that's straight out of the tactical rulebook. We're dealing with an enemy here in pan-islamism which is dominated by dull and direct thinking. Know your enemy. If your enemy is the type that largely undertakes direct response, then you have the luxury of setting the battlefield.

Where do you want the battlefield? On the streets of NYC? or the streets of Kandahar? Should be a no-brainer, frankly, but it's probably wise to ask.

If you want to fight pan-islamism mostly on the streets of NYC, then you wait for them to attack us again. If you want to fight pan-islamism mostly on the streets of their home town, then you attack them there. They will be so concerned with us being there that they will devote a growing share of their resources to that fight. Hence, we escape the damage.

If, on the other hand, the pan-islamist mindset understood the concept of "tactical withdrawal", if we took the fight to Kandahar, they'd concede Kandahar was lost, and then bring the fight to Kansas City. But they don't; that is a **modern** military tactic, and they're stuck in the medieval. We are just about guaranteed to draw pan-islamist energy away from us by being *there*.

Now, on the odd occasions that pan-islamists do break from the strictly rote, they are usually either saddled with ameteurish incompetence [the Miami wanna-bes], or with staggering logistical complexity [the 10 airlines in a row], such that even a Barney Fife could crack it.

And sadly, people like Murtha know this -- Murtha knows this very very very very very well, actually -- but Murtha et al *also* know that his job is dependent on the whims of the unknowledgeable people like, um, well, **you**. And if folks like you, who do not understand military tactics and how they are a viable and valid arm of diplomacy, get bored or nervous and start questioning their prior commitment, well, then Murtha et al are going to throw away ten thousand years of successful military doctrine and go for the votes. And they'll tell you exactly what you want to hear.

Because "Politicians are not free to talk freely.... Some more than others." And when they talk honestly to people who don't want to hear it, those people vote for someone willing to mouth the comfortable lie.

Which is why we don't have a draft. Or Social Security reform. Or meaningful prescription drug coverage. We'd rather hear "we have enough soldiers right now, so your Nintendo-raised progeny are safe"; we'd rather hear "your retirement is safe for forty years, and that's so-o-o-o far away"; and we'd rather hear "it's all the fault of the pharmaceuticals so let's all go to Canuckia".

You'd rather hear "it's all BushCo/neo-con World Domination"? Got millions of friends singing the same song? Guess what a politician will tell you?

And you're going to vote for him?

What a shock!

[gil]

rwilymz

Is not that we will vote our way out having started a war, to late for that. Is more like let's make shure that we end Bush's fiasco as soon as posible, so that we can re-focus our energy and treasure to combat our real enemies. With Bush and a Rubber Stamp Congress this is just not going to happen.

As for the "Let's fight them in Baghdad rather than New York" strategy. I read with interest your ideas about the issue. Interesting to be fair. I most tell you however that I don't agree with them. I tell you why:

1) Never ever underestimate your enemy. Big mistake. Your remark "Pan-Islamism which is dominated by dull and direct thinking" tells me that you are dangerously close to do just that.

2) Even if you are correct and our beeing *There* will prompt the Pan-Islamist as you call them to direct their resources to respond to us. It just does not make sence that they can only do one or the other. They can attack us in their land, and most certainly they can also attack us elswere. Remember London, and Madrid.... To presume that it won't happen in America again is not wise.

3) Iraq is not the focus of the real war on terror. Iraq is a sectarian war that is about to (If not already) become a civil war. Al-Quaida in Iraq is more worried about blowing up Shiite than Americans these days. Let's not confuse the war in Iraq with the war on terror. The so called Pan-Islamist are very much active in the form of Al-Quaida trying their best to do us again. Just in recent times (I am shure you know) several plots have been discovered to attack targets in England, and America. We have been lucky that's all.

I get your point about politicians, and our votes. Believe me I agree. People do vote for the politicians that tell them what they want to hear. In Bush's case is what he did not tell us what makes me mad. In my opinion (And that of many ex-White House Officials) He went into office with the full intention to start a war against Iraq.

That is in fact one of the main reasons that I believe that he will be remembered as a disgrace, and not as a middle of the road kind of president. Time has a way to uncover a lot of "secrets". I have the feeling that in the case of Bush, time will not be kind to him.... There's a lot of dirt under the carpet my friend.

A so called Leader that starts a war for personal reasons is the most despicable kind of human I can think of.

[Craig]

"And how is it Liberals get away with using the chickenhawk insult on the one hand; yet, if you follow their logic, the military should be controlled by a military junta."

Note the word *hawk* in Chickenhawk. In other words, the objection is to the sort of person who avoids danger yet is excessively willing to put others in danger - the type who gets some unnatural pleasure out of feeling their own power by being able to put forces into war.

The objection is not simply to civilians without military experience being in power over the military, liberals *love* civilian control.

As a liberal, I agree with you that it's not good to go crazy on the 'only former military can speak on military issues' idea.

IMO, the main reason the liberals are making the mistake of overfocusing on the military experience is in the error of reacting to the right wing's disgusting and dishonest attacks that the democrats are 'weak' on defense. It's caused all kinds of embarrassmnet and problem from getting Truman to support loyalty oaths to LBJ's going into Viet Nam to Clinton's abandonment of the end to discrimination against gays in the military.

The democrats are better when they are not reacting to the baiting, as with post-Bay of pigs JFK resisting the military on Viet Nam, the pressure to support right-wing dictators rather than true independant governments, the use of nukes as 'tactical' weapons, the demand to invade Cuba during the missile crisis (which it turned out appears would have started a nuclear war), etc.

You tend not to see Chickenhawks in the democratic party nearly as much as the republicans. Real military men who have been to major wars like Eisenhower and Kennedy tend to have a more informed perspective, and non-military liberals tend to oppose the use of military force as an option of first choice. That leaves non-military republicans like Cheney, Bush, Limbaugh, Gingrich, et al as the chickenhawks.