Another NRO Poseur Unmasked

It continues to amaze me how the Right so often bucks up admittedly fine, talented and intelligent young men as the would be sages of their age by giving their words such notoriety, when they are so lacking in deeds other than writing - read experience and genuine maturity. And I am not calling Rod Dreher a poseur within the context of his Conservatism, I am calling him that within the context of someone who pretended to have the strength, vision, experience, insight and wisdom to support a difficult war.

Apparently Rod Dreher has set himself up to be the current most misrepresented and consequently, most misunderstood conservative by taping a short, annoyingly superficial and maudlin anti-Bush, anti-war commentary for NPR. Clearly, Dreher hasn't abandoned conservatism, that will simply be the translation offered by the Left, always so in need of this or that useful idiot to pimp their mindless cause.

Hopefully Mr. Dreher will permit someone without the professional byline, but with ten or so more years of life experience, to tell him a few things. Frankly, his commentary suggests to me he understands very little about life, or the real world at all. I'll mostly address his commentary, as available via CrunchyCons in follow up to his mournful 3 minutes of NPR drone.

Anyway, I make it clear in the piece that I'm still a conservative, but that the experience of conservative government with regard to the Iraq war has done away with any illusions I had about the importance of having a Republican president when faced with a national security crisis.

Dreher is talking apples and oranges here. It's impossible to even understand why he brought conservatism into his commentary - excepting that it shows what a superficial, John Wayne-ish concept of conservative leadership he, evidently, has been entertaining himself with all along. Simply put, what Dreher is saying is that he is disappointed with George Bush (I'll address that). Fine! So, say it, Mr. Dreher, but why drag the concept of conservatism, or even Republican-ism, into the muck with you, when in this context, neither belongs there at all?

So, let's cut to the heart of the matter and I'll address his concerns as regards Bush and the managing of this difficult war.

In my essay, I talked about how the conduct of the war was what alienated me. That includes the falsehoods and half-truths told to get us into this mess -- for example, the things we were told back in 2002 by this administration and took on good faith, which we ought to have been far more skeptical of.

What things, Mr. Dreher? Do you even know anything about the real world? Do you think that because a mostly clear and definitive answer to everything you've ever researched or written about is available through some wiki or text, that the answers to precisely what a real-world enemy is doing, or has said or plotted behind closed doors, is readily available to you because you're, you know, John Wayne, The Avengers, and the President of the United States all wrapped up into one?

If you believe that this President didn't attempt to learn everything he could about pre-war circumstances and then subsequently convey and act upon them as best he could, you're not only immature in your reasoning, you're a fool. Either that, or simply someone who has been spending too much time poking around NPR.

And if in the conveyance of said pre-war information you now believe that this President may have highlighted this, as opposed to that, well, for heaven's sake, Mr. Dreher, that's what every dedicated and determined leader of any movement, enterprise or endeavor in the real world has to do. If not, in a democracy, you end up with 300 million people sitting in a national room twiddling their thumbs without ever coming together around a solution for anything at all.

Yet my commentary was explicitly not about my thoughts about economics, or social policy, or anything other than trusting conservatives in power to do the right thing on war and foreign policy.

Again, he conflates Bush, one man, with conservatism. It almost seems like his entire concept of conservatism is the worshiping of icons, or men destined to be enshrined on mountains. He says he doesn't, but repeats the rhetorical error time and again. But, I digress, as, unfortunately, so did he at that point in his piece.

My error was to think that all Republicans were like Reagan, or to be more precise, that "Reaganism" -- standing tall, carrying a big stick -- was always and everywhere the right response. I failed to be as critical of GWB as I ought to have been before it was obvious to everyone with eyes to see what a disaster his administration has been re: Iraq. What's Jonah's excuse?

Good grief. A big stick? Is that what you think we have been applying in Iraq, Mr. Dreher? Have you ever read any history, perhaps that of the Second World War? What have you been watching these last four years? Not the war that I have, that's for sure. Mr. Dreher, we are having problems in Iraq precisely because we did not go in there like some wholly external and unreasonable force of empire crushing everything in sight, only to later build it anew.

In response, Jonah Goldberg highlights the weakness card:

Indeed, even if the result of Bush's foreign policy has had the consequence of projecting an image of weakness around the globe as Rod asserts, that doesn't mean they are similar foreign policies.

Why is it that an allegedly informed individual cannot comprehend that George Bush attempted to carve a democracy in Iraq, not simply slash and burn the country down to build one up? That isn't weakness, it's actually strength. That, as it requires more maturity, restraint, time, patience and perseverance to make it work. But, in sheer numbers, it can ultimately save a lot of lives.

What is it Mr. Dreher wants? Strength, only in the sense that the Middle-East appreciates it - only through overwhelming might? Isn't that one of the very things we are attempting to change within a region having the potential to threaten us so much? That's the easier and, ultimately, less humane, weak way, in fact. And who cares what the world thinks? One begins to wonder if either of these two fine fellows are really conservative at all.

Were there difficult decisions to be made? Yes. Do some, or even several, now, with the benefit of hindsight, appear to have been wrong? Sure! So what? There are few if any truly difficult real world endeavors wherein that isn't the case. Have you experienced enough of them, or simply written of some? Or maybe you acted them out on a pod cast for NPR?

Do you take apart the post-war standing army in Iraq to head off hostility as it was the tool used to subjugate 80% of that nation's population? Or do you leave it in place because it could suddenly be trusted to secure the peace and not almost immediately overthrow any new government the moment America's back was turned? Consult Lexus Nexus, or your encyclopedia, Mr. Dreher, prove to me you could have found that answer four years ago ... I'll wait.

Is this President a mortal human capable of making a misjudgment? Is Donald Rumsfeld? Sure! Again, so what? Aren't we all likely to err, most especially when situations are so complex and dynamic as within a troubled Middle-eastern nation during time of war?

What is it you expected from the beginning? That we'd have this thing done in two hours, so you could run to the fridge and grab a coke? That's not a failing of President Bush, Mr. Dreher, it's a failure in the depth of your thought.

And, now, your judgment, to record what, albeit it in monotone, is no less than an anti-war, anti-Bush screed for NPR, empowering them to pimp you out as this day's useful idiot suggests that if you had anything to do with decision making in Iraq, things would be worse.

Fine, Mr. Dreher ... you've jumped the warship, you're out on your own. Please have the sense, the courtesy, the human decency to go sink to the bottom alone somewhere. While brave Americans are still fighting and dying for a necessary cause, those of us out here in the real world with experience and stamina have just that much more rowing to do, now - and still miles to go before we rest.

Go read or write a book, or something. You certainly don't have what it takes to fight, or even help fight a difficult war. With benefit of hindsight, I'm forced to assume you never really did.

Comments

[naked lunch]

If you believe that this President didn't attempt to learn everything he could about pre-war circumstances and then subsequently convey and act upon them as best he could, you're not only immature in your reasoning, you're a fool. Either that, or simply someone who has been spending too much time poking around NPR.

Classic.

Dan, you're a national treasure. Don't let those other 9 out of 10 people who think you're an insane warmongerer get you down. More please! Our enemies are EVERYWHERE!

[Chris Bray]

So Dan Riehl is sitting in a cafe, eating cookies, when the police run up outside and try to capture a knife-wielding lunatic. And as the police are wrestling around on the ground getting cut up and beat to hell doing their duty, a group of people sitting behind Dan in the cafe wonder out loud if there wasn't a better way to go about capturing the criminal. And Dan whips around, enraged, cookie crumbs flying from the corner of his lips, and snarls, "Dammit, you people -- don't you see we're fighting for our lives, here?"

Have some more cookies, brother, and rave on. Dreher's off your warship, so there should be some extra baked goods for the survivors.

[Dan Riehl]

I wish I could limit this place to Liberal wimmins. At least there's a way for me to put them to good use. The Liberal "doods" look basically worthless. But, then I should have figured that'd be the case, as so many seem to be coming here now via Andy "The One True Conservative" ; )

[Foreigner]

"Not much point until you read something besides headlines in the NYTimes."

Riehl stupid.

[Jake]

"While brave Americans are still fighting and dying for a necessary cause, those of us out here in the real world with experience and stamina have just that much more rowing to do, now."

So when do you ship out to Iraq, Mr. Riehl? Or are you just another member of the 101st fighting Keyboarders Brigade, standing up for democracy only so long as it doesn't put you in jeopardy?

[jim]

>> The Liberal "doods" look basically worthless. But, then I should have figured that'd be the case, as so many seem to be coming here now via Andy "The One True Conservative" ; )

After looking over your blog, I see that this is mostly what you have to offer in the way of "arguments:" homophobic innuendo, ad hominems, and calls for people to "keep their dumb mouths shut." I realize that this is par for the course in the far-right universe you inhabit, but maybe you should consider joining your high school debate team.

[Chris Bray]

Dan,

It's a simple question, and calls for a simple answer. In what way do you regard yourself as fighting the war, or helping to fight it? What is the nature of the "warship" you perceive yourself to be on?

not a liberal,
-chris

[larry]

golly. how *bravely* the 27%-congressional-approval democrat swine bray tonight.

someone been spiking the kool-aid?

also, how does squealing "end the war now, no matter the long-term costs" help fight the war, statists? or....were you saying you're fighting the war for the other side?

[Waiting4GrownUps]

Some of you conservatives really have a problem when someone says something that's perfectly reasonable and sane but it happened to be against the Bush apologist world view. And you're mighty judgmental for someone hugging a keyboard and not a rifle.

It's as if your brand of wrongness actually breeds arrogance instead of inhibiting it. What's the deal with that, anyway?

Can you possibly miss that ..it's insane to give all your trust to the government. Check some wild-eyed lefties like Mark Twain or Mencken if you need a reminder. Or check the record on LBJ, Nixon, Clinton ..and yeah...Bush.

Deal with reality, friends..it's not that bad.

[Dan Riehl]

"It's a simple question, and calls for a simple answer. In what way do you regard yourself as fighting the war, or helping to fight it?"

As I have had to say here before, due to the eliminationist rhetoric of the Left - which I find to signify a very low character, indeed, I volunteered and served after highschool. I claim no distinguished service in that sense, it was peace time and under Carter. I do have several family members who have served in combat, from WWII to the current war.

Our 20 yr old did two years in the Navy and got out four months ago. My brothers son has done one tour in Iraq and, last we spoke, was looking forward to going back.

I am 49 and unable to enlist, were I younger and passed the physical, I would. We have adopted soldiers to provide them goodies and mail as part of a program designed for that. While there are things I am unhappy with as regards the conduct of the war, I have never allowed my frustration to present itself so as to undermine our greater effort, or alter the political landscape in a manner which would fuel a cut and run strategy.

I also try to give people a view into positive sides of the war when various blog posts point to those things. There are a great many.

Now, if all of the Libs here screaming chicken hawk would like to tell us all what their great contribution to this necessary action to seed democracy in the heart of the Middle East, so that our children and grand children do not have to fight and die in a great and even more deadly global religious war one day,I'm certain all of us who support the war effort would enjoy reading same.

[Jack]

Well, thats a good pedigree, Mr. Riehl. What I don't understand is why you don't demand more of the politicians from the party you support than the other side? After Their decisions are affecting your family intimately. When it comes to war, there is no "liberal" or "conservative" ideology; rather, there is only "just" or "unjust." Why is that you are branding people who do not want the lives of your children serving in the armed forces to be thrown away for the vanity of an ex-drunk at first trying desperately to show up his father and now to preserve his "legacy." Don't you demand more? Let me ask you a question - when you are reading about this war, can you honestly convince yourself of the "justness" of this war? And if not, as most Americans have done (and as Dreyer has just realized), is there a "negligence" standard for waging war, as in "Oops, well we thought they were a risk. Sorry about that." Do you think God is that forgiving as he looks down on this carnage and then casts His eyes back over the ocean at us? What will you say to Him when He asks you to account for your decisions and actions here? I hope you have a good answer.

[Chris Bray]

I appreciate your answer, and I appreciate your service and the service your family has done. My own service never took me any farther than Kuwait, and was mostly just very dull. But the point is about having skin in the game, and I have to view your argument (and your anger) in a different light, given that you did once make the choice to serve and to put yourself potentially at risk.

I disagree with you a great deal, here, and I frame the question about Bush as a question of competence versus incompetence rather than the false choice of pacifism versus a willingness to fight. The man has just not made good choices. It seems pretty clear to me that our children and grandchildren are ~more~ likely to "have to fight and die in a great and even more deadly global religious war one day" than they would have been if we had waged a determined and narrowly focused war against al-Qaeda, rather than engaging in grand schemes of social engineering in the Middle East. That's my concern, and I think that's Dreher's concern. Competence. Good choices. Prudence. Rationality. These are not points that warrant partisan rage.

[larry]

it is irritating, and kinda revolting , to hear soldiers - or those who claim to be, anyway - complaining about being put into harm's way for reasons they disagree with, and then expect to be taken seriously.

1) remember that oath you (supposedly) took?

2) as for your unhappiness at being placed in harm's way, well.....too bad. that's what soldiers are *for*, amigo. although we hate to see our soldiers being killed in action in faraway lands, it seems to me that's a better deal than having unarmed american civilians being killed here at home. at least the soldiers, unburdened by liberal gun-control laws, are already armed & can shoot back.

3) also, were the soldiers in question drafted, or did they...you know....volunteer? during the sign-up process, did they not explain that whole "although it's an adventure, not a job, you might have to actually fight one day"? was the concept of "armed forces" and what they're for not covered?

soldiers have been griping about the knotheads up the chain of command for 5000 years or so, so it's to be expected that it's happening now. they're on the ground; they pack the load; they carry the weapon...they've earned the right to bitch. but military discipline requires that said bitching not be taken seriously: just like it wasn't in the 'good' wars, fought under 'democrat' presidents. fdr got a couple *thousand* men killed in a *practice* landing for d-day. does that make him a dumbshit? no? why not?

sorry, pal: just because the left doesn't like bush, doesn't mean that the grunts on the ground suddenly get to make policy. also, i can't help but notice: of all the 'disgruntled "soldier"' posts i read, none ever seems to say things i've heard the GI's in my family talk about. things like a call for reinforcements; or strikes on iran/syria for arming the iraqi insurgency; or a relaxation of the idiotically PC rules of engagement they're saddled with. (supported by the left, BTW. lawyer-approved combat.)

no, they all seem to be just a regurgitation of DNC talking points. "stupid bush!" "we never shoulda gone over there!" "we need to get out now!" etc. i wonder why that is? hmmm?

[Dan Riehl]

Part of why I don't fault Bush as much as the Left is because, frankly, no matter what he did, we WOULD be hearing poilitical yammering about it. If he went heavy and carpet bombed? Good grief, the same people who now say he should have had more troops there would have been trying to get him tried as a war criminal then for killing civilians.

The political divide in this country has made it impossible for a Republican president to wage a war. WHile many here complaining may not be far Left, the fact is, the Dem leadership courts them, just as the Rep. too often court single issue Right side voters. But was is different than social issues.

The portion of our population that would never support a war are in the Democrat Party. The propaganda this president has had to endure from the Left is outrageous, the worst in our history. It undermined this fight, whether the Dems herre want to admit it, or not. It damned well did and it was pushed into the center of the population that basically isn't ideological to start.

Nothing will ever allow me to forgive them that, or convince me the Dems can be trusted on issues like this. The final piece is how one thinks we can seriously get rid of jihad. And my firm opinion is that we must seed democracy in the Middle East - Afghanistan was not the place to have the kind of impact we need to have.

I never cared about weapons of mass destruction in the first place. What I want is a shining example of freedom and democracy and capitalism right square in the middle of the middle east, so that new generations of childr4en there will be born to hope - and not the despair of living under the next dictator or sheik. Iraq is that place. And if the Dems would put politics aside long enough to empower our effort, there would be no question that we would succeed.

They have drained the will of average people with their cvonstant harping and accusations since this war began.

[Adam]

"the truth

The truth is very simple and if the Left would stop wrapping everything up in "We hate Bush," he would be much easier to communicate.

Truth - the majority of Americans supported going into Iraq. Once you undertake such an action, a responsible nation can not turn back. Therefore the only goal can be to win. And if the Left and the Dems as a whole hadn't spent the better part of four years undermining our cause, things would not be as nearly bad as they appear."

The majority of Americans were for going into Iraq because we were sold a bill of goods that was a sham. No WMD. No connection with Al Queda. No immenent threat. That you can ignore this makes your blindness stunning in scope.
However blaming us and the Dems for the failures in Iraq shows that your blindness is the result of having your head stuck so far up this administations ass that you can't see anything else.

Who was in power?! Who rubber-stamped everything this President, Vice-President and Sec Def wanted?! Who slapped down anybody who dared suggest another way.?! Who cherry-picked evidence and people who agreed with what they already wanted to do?! If you want to know why we are in the mess we are in you have nothing to do but look in the mirror. Like a whiney bully you blame everybody else when you are caught instead of taking responsibility for your own actions

[jim]

>>it is irritating, and kinda revolting , to hear soldiers

Nothing like "supporting our troops," is there? I guess you should change your slogan to "support our troops that I agree with."

>>What I want is a shining example of freedom and democracy and capitalism right square in the middle of the middle east

How's that working out? I guess if we only waged a more "brutal" war on civilians and started carpet bombing Iran and Syria, freedom, democracy, and capitalism would blossom all over the desert. Hey, it worked in Vietnam.

[Horatio]

larry,

Our armed services exist to DEFEND OUR COUNTRY. Not to act as little pawns in somebody's real-life game of Risk. Not to die without complaint at the whim of a delusional manchild. Not to waste their strength and valor and blood following useless orders.

Right now we are defending exactly nothing. Instead, we insist on continuing in our role as the most high paid rent-a-cops in the history of the world.

I refuse, scum, to be civil in this argument, just as I would not would not care to craft clever words of counterpoint in an effort to keep someone from burning down the U.S. Capitol.

[I Am The Walrus]

And if the Dems would put politics aside long enough to empower our effort, there would be no question that we would succeed.

Errr... the Republicans had complete control of the war effort, up until last month. You guys failed. It wasn't because someone at home didn't clap loud enough. Blame doesn't reside with people who fail to support bad decisions. The people in charge, from day one, made bad decisions all by themselves. They put America into this situation, not the people who tried to avoid this situation. The people who messed it up in 03 are still in charge, making the same kinds of dumbass decisions they've been making all along. And you're defending them. Who wants America to fail? Apparently, you do, since you support the people who've put us here.

Take some responsibility, grow a spine! Don't be pathetic apologists all your life!

[Jack]

The rightwing is getting more and more insane as the war goes worse and worse. They are religiously committed to supporting war and Bush. Any reality-oriented man like Rod Dreher who points out the obvious, is hysterically denounced, as in this piece. Rightwing-ness is getting to be a mental disorder, much like those who think the earth is flat.

[Rick]

"I guess that only leaves the question of why in holy hell are we still there four years later? Have a smart ass answer to that one, Rick?"

Hell, why are we stuck in Japan & Germany after more than 60 years. We must be occupying provinces of our Empire.

We swept away a totalitarian government, and wish to usher in representative government. While we might hope for a Turkey style government, if the Iraqi effort fails and Muslims of Araby can't function without a police state, well, that certainly tells us something more about the sad anthropolgy that nurtures Al Qaeda, Hamas & so on.

So much for the praises of multiculturalism. But in Western Civilization's challenge to survive, I'm comforted in knowing that we have Horatio at the bridge. Bin Laden poops his nappy.

Cordially...

[Chris Vosburg]

Dan Riehl complains of: "...the eliminationist rhetoric of the Left - which I find to signify a very low character..."

That's rich coming from the guy who wrote only last week:

"I propose two new rules for Congress ... term limit them all .. and hang the cowards. If the Democrats cause us to lose this war by pulling funding, they will live to regret the day they did it."

You don't even know what "eliminationist" means, do you?

[Horatio]

"They have drained the will of average people with their cvonstant [sic]harping and accusations since this war began."

Drained the will? Slime, what exactly has been asked of the American people? Do we grow weary of our higher war taxes? Perhaps the rationing of goods has finally become too much to bear? No. And why? BECAUSE WE WERE NEVER ASKED. We were instead instructed to wave flags and go shopping (which I'm sure you did, humming Anchors Aweigh on your imaginary warship, no doubt). We were asked not to endure this war or to fight it. We were asked to IGNORE it. And that I will not do. My civic duty is to monitor the actions of my our government, not wilfully blindfold myself to its misdeeds.

Even so, the "will" of the people to wage war exists in direct proportion to the threat posed by our would-be enemy. Since Bush and Cheney's claims of the "serious threat" that Iraq posed us have been shown to be baseless lies, the "will" to waste countless dollars and lives on it has accordingly dwindled.

And did you really abandon a gay relative on his deathbed? If so, you are truly a small and pathetic excuse for a man.

[Horatio]

Rick,

Your argument that US forces remain in Germany and Japan (accurate as it is) is nothing more than a smoke screen. The dollars spent on those installations are far far less than what we waste in Iraq. And obviously, no one is being blown up there either.

Of course, since you have dared to compare WWII with the current farce in Iraq, since you have dared to compare the 900+ page Marshall plan with the 0 page Bush plan, you are proving yourself to be even more ignorant and delusional than I thought.

[Dan Riehl]

"You don't even know what "eliminationist" means, do you?"

Yes. Typical of the Left, you've taken a concept - eliminationism - and reduced it to an ad hominen and don't even understand the essence of the word. It's become code for - the Right are a bunch of fascists who want to kill people. And anyone who actually understands the word and uses it correctly can't possibly know what it means. The notion that the Left is the intellectual elite in this country is beyond 1984. For heaven's sake, man, read something besides Daily Kos, or at least get out more. When you sound so dumb, people can only conclude you are. You dismiss conservative argument by rote, failing to accept any of the reality upon which it is based, thereby attempting to eliminate them from effective debate. Most all of the rhetoric of the loony Left is eliminationist, as you have so little to bring to the table. You can't win except in your own minds by rhetorically eliminating any opposition.

"The reductionist’s aim is to show us what we are “really” saying (and that what we are really saying is compatible with his minimalist ontology);the eliminationist’s aim is to show us that we are talking about mythical entities. But both are deflationists. Perhaps the two most famous deflationary ontologists in the history of philosophy were Democritus, on the one hand (There is nothing but atoms and the void), and Berkeley on the other (There is nothing but spirits and their ideas, i. e., minds and their sensations)—and they spawned both reductionist and eliminationist versions of, respectively, materialism and idealism."

[Chris Vosburg]

Dan Riehl writes: "I never cared about weapons of mass destruction in the first place. What I want is a shining example of freedom and democracy and capitalism right square in the middle of the middle east, so that new generations of childr4en there will be born to hope - and not the despair of living under the next dictator or sheik. Iraq is that place. And if the Dems would put politics aside long enough to empower our effort, there would be no question that we would succeed."

Dan, it is impossible to believe that you didn't care about weapons of mass destruction in the first place, because that is the reason the invasion of Iraq was launched, and you no doubt argued for it then on that basis. It is no good pretending that you didn't.

Icidentally, while I'm on the subject, Bush lied again last night in his 60 minutes interview, claiming that "everyone believed there were WMD" in Iraq. The UN inspection team, in a position to know, did not. They were pulled in order to invade, despite this-- or more accurately perhaps, as a result of it.

Although these democracy lollipops are wonderful sentiments, it should be obvious that killing several hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians in an effort to "bring democracy" to the country is likely to engender resentment of the US and fuel more terrorism. In fact, this is what has come to pass, and it is not the result of propaganda or Democrats, it is the result of this administration's prosecution of the invasion. Although "Shock and Awe" may have seemed a dazzling light show on your television, it was considerably more lethal than that to the Iraqi populace who you claim to be bringing democracy to. I imagine it looked a lot like terrorism to them.

Stop blaming democrats. Those who oppose the invasion of Iraq are not just stateside democrats, they are the world. Bush is the most despised individual on the planet, and again, this has nothing to do with propaganda or democrats; it's his own damn fault. The simple fact that he couldn't pursuade many other countries to provide anything more than lip service to his "coalition of the willing" should have made this clear to you, the fact that he couldn't successfully argue his case before the UN to secure a resolution from them for his invasion should have made this clear to you, the fact that-- oh, what's the use.

Lastly, please read your Goddam contract, Sonny, before posting further about decisions of war. The Congress is charged with the responsibility for defense of the United States, not the President. Thus it is their job to determine whether a war is a good idea, not the President's. You appear to be unaware of this. The constitution makes a simple requirement of the President; that he execute his office in good faith and uphold-- not interpret, Dan, uphold-- the Constitution.

The simple and incontrovertible evidence of his failure to do so is neatly laid out in seven specific examples in my comment above, as you know. You know the evidence is incontrovertible because you did not address a single one of them head-on, preferring to resuscitate unrelated and long-dead canards about the New York Times and Joe Wilson. And you complain about yammering and propaganda.

What a coward you are.

[Chris Vosburg]

Dan Riehl complains: "Typical of the Left, you've taken a concept - eliminationism - and reduced it to an ad hominen and don't even understand the essence of the word. "

Difficult to see what could be more "eliminationist" than simply killing those who disagree. Sorry I didn't make that more clear.

Difficult to see how I could have, Dan.

[Rick]

"Your argument that US forces remain in Germany and Japan (accurate as it is) is nothing more than a smoke screen. The dollars spent on those installations are far far less than what we waste in Iraq. And obviously, no one is being blown up there either."

If Islamists were in Germany & Japan (and Okinawa--not to forget Rep. Murtha's forward operating base!), blowing up IEDs and attacking civilian concentrations, there might be an argument to keep our tens of thousands of military personnel there to fight this movement. So the dollars spent in those locations is pure waste, from the point of view of national interest. Gol-durn imperial, even.

What is in the national interest is maintaining a military front against the jihadi movement, fixing their attention and rage through its repeated small-scale drubbings, while other tools--financial, diplomatic (eye-roll), and intelligence (ditto) are employed in conjunction.

Speaking of ignorant & delusional, your reference to the Marshall plan is inapt. Getting a blasted Western Europe back on its feet through loans & grants was quite a different thing from the occupation/martial law imposed on Germany & Japan, the latter having its constitution drafted by the American Caesar. Perhaps we should've handed a constitution to Iraq, but I doubt that would be more pleasing to "reality-based" community.

Cordially...

[DavidS]

>>>"I wish I could limit this place to Liberal wimmins. At least there's a way for me to put them to good use. The Liberal "doods" look basically worthless. But, then I should have figured that'd be the case, as so many seem to be coming here now via Andy "The One True Conservative" ; )"

What did you have in mind? Rape the 'wimmins' and lynch the 'doods'?

[Chris Vosburg]

Dan Riehl claims: "You dismiss conservative argument by rote, failing to accept any of the reality upon which it is based, thereby attempting to eliminate them from effective debate."

That's rich coming from the guy who wrote only a day ago:

"If you believe that this President didn't attempt to learn everything he could about pre-war circumstances and then subsequently convey and act upon them as best he could, you're not only immature in your reasoning, you're a fool."

Would that be a more acceptable example of what you mean by "eliminationist rhetoric," Dan?

Isn't it true that your only attempt at refutation of my provided examples of the administration's dishonesty in selling the invasion of Iraq is a parrot-like squawk about the credibility of the New York Times and Joe Wilson? Isn't that a pretty clear example of "dismissing argument by rote," Dan?

Debate? What debate? Isn't it true that your failure to engage in debate on this subject, coupled with your refusal to apologize for this obvious falsehood you've posted is a clear example of "failing to accept any of the reality upon which the argument is based?"

[Chris Vosburg]

Dan Riehl makes a big tall wish: "I wish I could limit this place to Liberal wimmins. At least there's a way for me to put them to good use."

[sigh] Uh, yeah.

They'd beat you up just as bad, Dan. Worse, probably.

[Ruthie]

"I am 49 and unable to enlist, were I younger and passed the physical, I would." --Riehl-Chall3nged.

This tears it, dude. You're my age. When this fiasco first started, the military realized that today's wars are fought with attorneys as well as infantry, and accepted professionals with certain skill sets up to age 47. I could pass the captain's test despite a disability. They would have happily sent my gimpy ass to Afghanistan--if I were a GUY!

After discovering that this administration can't even keep their lies straight, if they reinstate the draft to keep this war going, I will pay my nephews' way to Canada!

[Chris Vosburg]

See, I told ya.

[larry]

horatio - no, our armed forces exist to carry out the "military" requirements of the congress and the chief executive. your pretty little rose-colored view of things aside, that's the way it is.

and the fact you've decided to be uncivil, bitch, changes that not at all.

[larry]

there ya have it: the epitaph for the military, written - of course - by a liberal. modern liberal warfare 101, in all its glory, brought to us by ruthie.

"the military realized" (meaning, "us liberals demanded") "that today's wars are fought with attorneys as well as infantry". it's like the pacino 'godfather' scene..."just when i think they can't get *any stupider*, they reach out and grab me!"

MAN, i can't wait for the upcoming civil war.

[Chris Vosburg]

larry writes: "MAN, i can't wait for the upcoming civil war. "

Sorry, I'm not quite following you, larry. What civil war would that be?

While you're waiting for the "upcoming civil war," perhaps you could provide a little factual backup of your claim that the military's requirement for lawyers and other professionals are the result of "liberal demands." What nonsense.

[Nimrod Gently]

If you're waiting for the upcoming civil war, you're late, it's there already.

What's this "necessary cause"? Anyone?

[RepusYort]

"MAN, i can't wait for the upcoming civil war. "

MAN, i can't wait for dan's 30,000 word post on why LIEberals are teh poopyheads for favoring eliminationism and the above text isn't eliminationism of any sort....

[Horatio]

larry,

I guess our Congress and President could just tell the military to dig a canal across northern Florida then, right? You know, for defense reasons. My point was not to detail all the ways in which a military might be misused, but to elucidate for you Risk playing war-cheerleaders (note: cheerleaders stand on the sidelines) why the military exists in the first place.

With contempt,

[larry]

horatio, you just don't understand. but then, you're a shit-for-brains liberal: not understanding is what you clowns DO, isn't it.

so you're horrified at the thought that congress/president could "tell our military to dig a canal" somewhere. why, yes, horatio, they could. when the armed forces joined up, they didn't get an option to pick and choose what orders they'll accept. the choice to decline unpleasant or menial orders because "the liberals say it's not for defense" just...doesn't...exist.

idiot.

when troops are sent to help into natural disaster areas; or patrolling streets against looters, what do you think that is? is that "fighting for our defense", like nancy & hillary tell you to say; or is that "troops doing what they're told to", which is the basic deal you just can't wrap your vestigial little pea-brain around.

spare me your tiny-little-foot-stamping contempt, horatio. having profoundly dull retards like you mad at me isn't as terrifying as you seem to think, and you're really just too pathetically stupid to think about engaging your betters on any intellectual level. perhaps you can get one of those "fighting lawyers" you liberals are so fond of to help you out. what a movie that'd make, huh? "as the battle raged; as the enemy closed in; these two-fisted heroes *filed lots of motions and depositions* to WIN THE DAY!!"

[Chris Vosburg]

Asked you a question, larry. Why so shy?

[Rick]

'..."as the battle raged; as the enemy closed in; these two-fisted heroes *filed lots of motions and depositions* to WIN THE DAY!!"'

Larry,

LOL! That's exactly how President Bartlett would've done it. Worked so well for Clinton.

Cordially...

[I got eyes]

"If you believe that this President didn't attempt to learn everything he could about pre-war circumstances and then subsequently convey and act upon them as best he could, you're not only immature in your reasoning, you're a fool."

Anybody with eyes and a little worldliness can do a little dot connecting and figure out that there was an alternative agenda driving things. If you couldn't see it, that makes you a rube.

[MonkeyBoy]

"If you believe that this President didn't attempt to learn everything he could about pre-war circumstances and then subsequently convey and act upon them as best he could, you're not only immature in your reasoning, you're a fool."

No I think GWB only was interested in information that supported his preconceptions.

Former Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith claimed President George W. Bush was unaware that there were two major sects of Islam just two months before the President ordered troops to invade Iraq.

"the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam--to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”"

[Horatio]

larry,

Again, I know the military "could" be ordered around by a puerile president and an obsequeious Congress, but once again, that's not the point. The military is not the president's personal troop of gophers. Nor are they the Congress's. The military exists to defend our nation. If our nation didn't need defending, then you'd have an awfully hard time convincing me to spend such a large percentage of our GDP on it just so they'd be available to dig the occasional ditch. Yes I realize the military is bound (thankfully) to follow civilian orders, but that doesn't make it any less unjust when their orders are stupid, counterproductive, and shortsighted. I hold the current servicemembers to be heroic in the extreme as they continue to do their duty even as it becomes more and more plain that they are led by a incompentent and petulant ass. As to domestic clean up and peacekeeping and stuff, I thought that was the job of the National Guard. Oh yeah. Forgot. They're in Iraq too.

Ta ta, larry. One of these days, you'll have to let me know what the weather's like over there on the wrong side of history.

With unflagging scorn,

[ccc]

Why is it that every time I read the comments on this silly little blog I feel like I'm watching fisting porn?

[Horatio]

"you're a shit-for-brains liberal"

By the way, larry. I wonder how you managed to derive my personal economic ideologies from our short correspondence. I have said virtually nothing about it. All I have said is how stupid the Iraq war is.

[Neil Sagan]

It's sad really, watching Bush loyalists trash conservative collegues that have begun to question this con job war. The mushroom cloud Condi, Cheney and W warned us about was a snow job, as were the mass quantities of uranium from Niger, the aluminum tubes, mobile weapons labs, the al Quida alliance and on and on. This is Bush's war, born of ignorance, arrogance, neocon formulations, and lies.

Former conservative cheerleaders can now be heard saying, "I never really suported this." and "It would have been a success if it weren't for Rumsfeld/Bush/The Military/Al Mailki/The Sunnis/Moktada al Sadr/The Iranians/Syria/Hezbolloh/Libruls/the American people."

We have squandered everything.

It's time for conservatives to start acting like it.

[tom]

Larry seems more than a little confused. Probably fancies himself a libertarian Republican given how frequently he uses "statist" as an epithet. Since the administration we must infer he is defending has overseen the largest expansion of State power and largesse in the history of the republic, we'll have to assume - in order to defend his usefulness to the discourse here - that he is using "statist" to add to the overall surreailty of his ad hominem. There are plenty of anti-"statists" over at infoshop.org but I suspect Larry would feel a little queer if he spent any time perusing their library and realizing how much extra spittle he would have to fleck to persist with his favorite barb.

[larry]

naw, tom, my favorite barb is reserved for people like you who just can't figure out how to make paragraphs. you want us to believe you're smart enough to use big ol' words like "surreality" on a regular basis, but haven't yet mastered that fiendishly difficult 'graph/break' concept.

how deliciously ironic. still, i'll bet you had fun visualizing yourself flecked with my....how did you copy it down?....my "spittle". and my "ad hominem", of course.

[blog responder]

"What is it you expected from the beginning? That we'd have this thing done in two hours, so you could run to the fridge and grab a coke? That's not a failing of President Bush, Mr. Dreher, it's a failure in the depth of your thought." Truly pathetic. It wasn't sold as a two-_hour_ job, but Rumsfeld did say the whole thing would last six days. Cheney agreed.

Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm
http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=1900

March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months."
http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm