Feingold's Follies
In reviewing previous posts from the other site it appears I have something against my senior Senator. Personally I have never met the man but I know people who have and they all seem to think he's a congenial enough fellow. My problem is with his politics, and in that regard it's not personal. I have something against anyone in a position of power who knowingly aids and abets our enemies by undermining the effort, and morale, here at home while providing soundbites for Osama Bin Laden and his ilk over there.
My complete confidence that he will continue in this vein warrants the singular distinction of his very own archive catagory here at the Murmur. I will transfer previous rants as time allows. Indeed our Al Russell bin Feingold is a special case. In fact, now that WJ "The Pantload " Clinton is more or less out of the business Feingold is the prime example and living proof that "good politician" is an oxymoron.
Must be a tough week when Senator Feingold's latest endeavors to hasten our defeat in Iraq gets defeated. Reminds me of the brain teaser: If you set out to fail and succeed, which have you done? (h/t to Jan in Ohio)
Not only did the Democrats back down, they went out with a whimper. How utterly apropos. Hopefully this may help leadership realize what many of us have been saying all along; just because polls show a majority are against the war doesn't mean we want to lose it. As far as this conservative is concerned the major frustration in this conflict is that it doesn't appear we are doing all we can to end it quickly the old fashioned way - - by winning. Here in the land of beer, sausage, cheese, and Vince Lombardi fame, it is hard to fathom how such a basic concept is so easiliy missed by Feingold and his fellow travelers.
My complete confidence that he will continue in this vein warrants the singular distinction of his very own archive catagory here at the Murmur. I will transfer previous rants as time allows. Indeed our Al Russell bin Feingold is a special case. In fact, now that WJ "The Pantload " Clinton is more or less out of the business Feingold is the prime example and living proof that "good politician" is an oxymoron.
Must be a tough week when Senator Feingold's latest endeavors to hasten our defeat in Iraq gets defeated. Reminds me of the brain teaser: If you set out to fail and succeed, which have you done? (h/t to Jan in Ohio)
Not only did the Democrats back down, they went out with a whimper. How utterly apropos. Hopefully this may help leadership realize what many of us have been saying all along; just because polls show a majority are against the war doesn't mean we want to lose it. As far as this conservative is concerned the major frustration in this conflict is that it doesn't appear we are doing all we can to end it quickly the old fashioned way - - by winning. Here in the land of beer, sausage, cheese, and Vince Lombardi fame, it is hard to fathom how such a basic concept is so easiliy missed by Feingold and his fellow travelers.
Sounds like a similar unwanted but elected representative we have here in Illinois, who is Dick Durbin ( or Turbin) as a well known radio announcer calls him. I will try to keep up with you and your great reports and opinions. Hope all is well with you and your family.
Darrell Line
Reply to this
What is there to win?This is not a conventional war but our military is-if our soldiers do not have a clear objective then they will fight not to win (what is there to win) but to stay alive and go home-this was true in Vietnam and I believe is true in Iraq-soldiers need to believe in what they fighting for if they are to be successful-no matter the blueness or redness of the issue many of our soldiers in Iraq do not have a clear idea of what we are trying to accomplish-this leads to less success, less effectiveness and a negative attitude that impacts others-soldiers need to believe that their leaders will not put them in harms way unless absolutely necessary-need to believe that their leaders will not lie to them-but the truth is that we were lied to about why we were in Vietnam and we were lied to about why we went to war with Iraq-when these lies are eventually exposed then many fight to stay alive and not to win-Ideology always trumps technology-we are about technology, not ideology-the other side is about ideology..........an ideology that convinces young people to strap dynamite to their bodies and blow themselves up is powerful and I don't believe can be defeated by our smart bombs and our night vision goggles and our flack jackets-In past wars the bad guys were visible and our objectives clear to all-in Vietnam and now Iraq this is not the case, so how do we win a seemingly unwinnable war by using conventional military solutions? I believe we must win the war of ideology and we do that by winning over the minds and hearts of the people and this is done through other means-this a topic for another blog-
Reply to this
Hi Vic,
Thanks for stopping by. Lot to comment on, and a lot to agree with, and some, not so much. But the main question, what is there to win?, has been spelled out repeatedly and also serves as the "clear objective" you lament is lacking: a stable democracy able to sustain and defend itself.
Easy to say, hard to do. It is a tall order and clearly you feel an impossible one. Like everyone else I too am war weary and am not certain winning is possible. But I am dead certain about one thing; we will lose if we quit.
Perhaps more importantly, the thing that gets missed, both in your missive and espeically by the likes of Feingold and his ilk, are the consequences of failing. Are we supposed to ignore the possibility that it will likely result in another 2 to 3 million body count like the one we caused with our accellerated exit from Viet Nam? If they keep trying to force the "lessons of Viet Nam" down our throat why do they so arduously avoid that particular page of history?
To me, much more so than merely the repugnance of losing, preventing that type of bloodbath is incentive enough to persevere. As a student and teacher of history you might agree the final arbiter is body count and I happen to believe, given the new heights of savagery and carnage this enemy has shown, that a precipitous pullout in Iraq would make the killing fields of Cambodia look like a day at the beach. I would certainly be happy to learn your thoughts and evidence showing how that would not be the case.
I too have commented on the "when all we have is hammers every problem looks like a nail" approach in our tendency to over use the military and sympathize greatly.
On the other hand believing the objective can be achieved without hammers just isn't realistic. I agree the hearts and minds approach is ideal but for that to even get a chance a critical mass of insurgents and terrorists must eliminated first. It is ugly, but it is true, and necessary. Trust me, even the most ardent of hawks are not happy with this reality.
In September of 2001 I warned one of our biggest challenges in facing and defeating this enemy is overcoming our lust for instant gratification. Sadly, instant gratification is the mother's milk of political rhetoric these days. Just as sadly that's the sum and substance of politicians like Al Russell bin Feingold et. al.
PS I won't countenenace the "we were lied to about why we went to war with Iraq" comment with a response except to say that particular well worn talking point is nothing but the most recent example of when a lie is repeated often enough it becomes true. It makes for poor argument, shows a of lack seriousness, and, in this instance, weakens many otherwise salient points.
Set me straight if not but I am assuming your reference was to WMD. If in that regard you mean to equate the reliance on faulty intelligence, not even close to the classical definition of a lie, with the fabrication of falsehoods, really close to the classical definition of a lie, one might be justifably question your reasoning. The willingness to make that rather lengthy stretch not only strains credulity but belies the massive heap of intelligence I know you have. This site respects words for their meaning so let's agree to abide by them for the quality of the conversation.
Reply to this