Redstate

Thorley, what you just wrote in this comment is exactly what needs to happen much more often in legal academia. I think you know that I know from whereof I speak. My shame is that I didn't do it often enough while I had the chance.

It's not a matter of not respecting your professors, or calling them unpatriotic, or not recognizing that they have things to teach you. But it is very much a matter of understanding their point of view and being able to engage them, without being *awed* by them. Too many of the young people that I knew while I was involved with legal academia were, for lack of a better term sponges who were trying to get through it all and on to better (and more lucrative) days. The better professors that I knew, however, liberal though they might have been, didn't seek to indoctrinate their students and occasionally even raised counterarguments themselves to try to get these kinds of discussions going. There were no more than a handful of those professors among a faculty of more than 60 that I knew, and frankly they were the backbone of the institution, and still are today.

And there is no substitute -- period -- for standing up to a law professor *in the classroom*, disagreeing with them, surrounded by your peers, and yet engaging them in a substantive and surprising debate. You can't do it online, you can't do it through a blog, and you will never learn to stand up for your own arguments without that kind of face-to-face debate. I'm glad to see that some people in this country still realize that and have the guts to do it.

I am a hawkish warmonger with a crusty demeanour and a heart of steel. But I have a softer side.

and it's why not every self-styled patriot is fit for command. It does not equal competence.

Is any criticism of the war to be considered treason? It doesn't seem right to say that anytime anyone questions Bush about the war, they are giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy.

are the same, that should give the DNC some pause.

or something to show the talking points for Al Qaeda so that we can compare the two?

And what is to be gained by saying that those opposed to the war are in bed with Al Qaeda?

With all the things the crazed Iranian president has been saying, about 45 million people without health insurance and the like.

It does show that they are listening...which is contrary to what the liberals claim. They claim that our enemies have no interest in what they are screaming about in their fits of BDS and they aren't listening anyway. They most certainly are. The left is why the Iranians think they can push us around all they like... and they might be right about that.

---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

So the fact that Iran's idiot president spouts off some nonsense proves that people opposed to the war are giving "aid and comfort"? I don't even know where to start with that, sorry.

You asked: You have a link or something to show the talking points for Al Qaeda so that we can compare the two?

As far as dissent goes, yes, it puts us in a more dangerous place. It emboldens our enemies. That is a price we all have to bear. Hopefully, it will not be the decisive factor.

How could it not give "aid and comfort" to the enemy? Our withdrawal is our enemies' only chance for success. They will do anything they can to work towards that goal, including echoing the sentiments of the left and trying to drum up controversies the left can scream about.

---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

No, my point is that you can't ask for dissenters to keep it down simply because the enemy or some foreign power picks up on something they've said.

The argument here seems to be that you can't be against this war, or any other, because our enemies will always benefit from any dissent. But we don't have a free society any longer if we're all supposed to agree blindly whenever a president decides to go to war, especially since Congress handed over its Constitutional authority to declare war.

Now if you say that the war is right for "x" reasons, we can talk about it. But to say that I can't say that we shouldn't be there because that's treason? That's just not going to get us anywhere.

You want to quote any place I said "you can't be against this war or any other?" You can do and say whatever you want. You should just be aware that this dissent is not free and there will be a price to be paid for it. In some cases, it might be worth that price.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

You're correct that you didn't use those words, so my bad, as my grandkids say.

But generally, we get back to the same point that dissent against a war will naturally make our opponent in that war happy. I can't argue that this is a probably a true statement. But when I talk to my friends and neighbors who don't think we should have invaded Iraq, I don't know of a single one that hates America, or who wants to see America defeated, or anything like that.

Having spent 40 years in service to this country, and having been against the idea of going to Iraq from the beginning, I just get a little ticked off when people start using the definition of the word treason to describe my view. (But now that we're in Iraq, I don't know whether we stay, for how long and so on. That's one of the reasons I come here to see what ideas other folks have.)

You don't have to hate something to injure it. Perfectly well meaning people can be wrong, and wrong in ways that are detrimental to the country's efforts and security. Many people who oppose the war would fall into that category. There certainly *are* people who hate America and wish to see it defeated, but they are certainly in the minority among anti-war folks.

We have freedom of speech in this country, but that speech is not free of consequences. Everyone should be able to accept (as you seem to be) that their speech can and often does have consequences, not just for themselves, but for others as well. Those consequences will vary with the speaker and the words spoken, and need to be weighed carefully by the speaker. Only the speaker can make the final determination of whether the message they want to get out is worth the possible costs.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

I certainly agree that people should be aware of an overriding sense of duty to the country as a whole.

I don't agree that speaking out against this war or this President is detrimental to the country at all (and I'd argue that it's best for the country in the long run), particularly where there are honest differences of opinion about policy, but that is probably a point that we can agree to disagree on.

I take no issue with your disagreement about the choice to go to war. That is your right and to defend that right for others is Why we went to war in the first place.

However, I take great issue with anyone who says we need to leave Iraq/Afghanistan NOW. Or even set a definitive time for said withdrawal to begin.
It is Those people who, well-intentioned or not, are guilty of demanding that America surrender. That dream of seeing and living in a Defeated America. That would not put their own lives on the line in defense of anything they profess to believe in and so do not understand and ridicule those of us who do.

You say you are in doubt as to whether we should stay and finish what we started.
I ask "Why?" Why are you in doubt as to whether we should win a given war? Why are you in doubt as to whether or not you wish to see America defeated, and not even defeated by a foe that is legitimately stronger than her? Would you agree that we need to do some serious work to reduce crime in the US? Would you decide after 2600 police officers were killed and tens of thousands more wounded in the line of duty that what you intended to do was not worth the blood and give up?

Why do you have any doubt as to whether or not America should give up and quit?

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

I like your tag, too.

Your "question" is like the old chestnut: "have you stopped beating your wife?" So, as long as it's phrased along the lines of "are you in favor of winning, or do you just want to surrender?" it is demeaning.

I'll assume that what you meant was what you started to ask, and that's why am I unsure about what we're supposed to do in Iraq now. (I'd add "after we got involved when we were not prepared and didn't have a well thought out plan" but we don't need to go there). And the answer is simple: you don't throw away good people (and a lot of money) down a rat hole just so that at some point, you can claim "victory." I have doubts that our continued presence is helping anything. I'm not saying that we should bring everyone home right away, next month or next year. I simply don't know. Maybe we are doing good by being there. I read and hear conflicting things every day. But I need to hear something other than "leaving would mean that we surrendered" to justify keeping our men and women in harm's way.

For anyone who knows what good we are doing in Iraq, it is No such false choice as "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
And you are Quite correct about not needing to go into the whole "(I'd add "after we got involved when we were not prepared and didn't have a well thought out plan"...)" because we'd be dealing with what is called a KnownFact. IOW, a talking point that has been disproved ad nauseum and RedStaters are tired of dealing with them.

But, seeing your understandable request for reasons why we should stay and how we are Not dealing with Tom Hanks's Money Pit, I provide this link:

http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/7/25/17429/5998

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

Questioning the manner in which the war is being fought is not the problem. It's the methods used when questioning the war that is the issue.

If Generic Democrat is against the way the war is being fought for "X" reasons, that is all that really needs to be said. There does not need to be a deluge of hyperbole stating that Bush is "lying," or "killing Americans," or "worse than bin Laden," or that Gitmo is like a concentration camp and our troops are like Nazis (hat tip: Dick Durbin). Personally, that's where my problems with the Democrat position begins - the ruthless exaggeration at the expense of the truth.

I'm not quite sure if the Republican candidate against FDR was Al Smith, but I know he said something to the effect of he would rather be remembered as a part of the American effort to defeat Nazism than to be elected President. That attitude no longer holds. It seems as if many within the opposition would rather be "President" than to defeat the current threats we face. Opposition is fine; hyperbole that casts our mission and our troops in a bad light is not.

Well, I started with a response to this specific statement above: "the problem is that as our liberal friends keep pushing politically to defeat President Bush and his policies, they are also giving assistance to the enemy!" I think that's overstating it by a lot. There really is such a thing as "loyal opposition."

I agree that hyperbole doesn't get us anywhere, and it's something that both sides of the debate need to watch.

I misread the comment to which you are referring. I was probably unintentionally reading between the lines and not seeing what was actually written. Mea culpa.

It's one thing that sets RS apart; people take responsibility for what they say. Good old fashioned manners are a good start to keeping this country on top.

we're all supposed to agree blindly whenever a president decides to go to war, especially since Congress handed over its Constitutional authority to declare war.

This is factually wrong and logically challenged. A president did not decide to go to war. Congress voted for the war. We had two elections, in 2002 and 2004, which were popular votes on the war. The people made their choice clear.

We are not supposed to blindly do anything. However, we are all supposed to accept the results of our elections, not take them as an excuse to have a temper tantrum. The anti-war people made their arguments and they lost, twice, fair and square. They can try again at the next elections. But they are not entitled to bitch, moan, and lie in the interval. Their actions have unquestionably made the world a more dangerous place and emboldened our enemies.

So if the Democrats take over either house this year, that means that the people have now voted against the war, and those in favor of it will have to be quiet and we have to withdraw the troops from Iraq? And what if Democrats take over the White House in 2008 (however unlikely)?

Sorry to be sarcastic, but come on. Even if you really believe that everyone who thinks that the war was a mistake is "bitching, moaning or lying" (and I'm not, thanks very much), debate about policy doesn't end the day after an election.

If the Democrats take over Congress and defund the mission in Iraq, then yes, we will have to withdraw the troops. That seems rather obvious.

If the purpose of elections is not to to decide debates about policy, then would you be kind enough to explain what on earth they are for? Is it simply some bizarre ritual we go through every few years to entertain the populace and keep the media employed? Under what circumstances can any policy decision ever be settled?

There probably isn't such a thing as a policy that works forever, other than the principles in the Constitution. Yes, by elections people put someone in charge to set policy. But it was never meant to be a process for anyone to just run things through because they won. So things move slowly, and sometimes it seems like they're not moving at all. Our system depends on full and robust debate on issues, even whether to go to war, or to continue it. Or at least, that's how I understand that the Founding Fathers intended it to be.

Purple Vet,

So the fact that Iran's idiot president spouts off some nonsense proves that people opposed to the war are giving "aid and comfort"?

Ahmadinejad's insane, but he's not an idiot. He knows who his best friends in America are. They're the peace-at-any-price crowd.

If someone gives you directions that lead you off a cliff, does it really matter whether they had good intentions (Democrats) or ill will (al-Qaeda)?

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Joe Lieberman's experience has proved that the only discussion allowed within the Democrat party regarding Iraq is whether troops should be withdrawn on a fixed timetable as soon as possible or a flexible timetable as soon as possible. They know full well that this would be disasterous for American interests, but they place the good of thier party above the interests of the country. In my mind, this constitutes treason.

What's worse is that we're fighting an enemy that has no hope of making a military victory, but is encouraged to keep killing day after day in the hopes that the bad press will bring the anti-war left into power in order to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, just as it did in Vietnam. When you've put yourself into a position where your political future is dependent on the enemies of this country continuing to kill American troops, I'd say that it's about time to start questioning your patriotism.

mikeleader

how excellently and succintly put..

I've been grappling with how to say what you did...I never could have said it as well ...

thanks

Is that there have never been all that many people in the Republican party who are actually "theocrats" or "racists"(can't say the same about Democrats).

However, the Democratic party does actually contain a sizable number of people who despise their own country or at least are ready to blame America first for everything.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

By framing the discussion in those terms, the Democrats have historically forced the Republicans to choose between 1 or the other.

Now Bush has done the same and with potentially devastating effect because the Democrats actually do fall into one of those categories, for the most part.

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

you got me. How does Plan B tie into a discussion of war and patriotism?

Is when they can stand on their own and be a fully functional ally of ours. There is never going to be a fine metric for this... just as there wasn't for Germany and Japan after WWII. Heck, what is the status of the Balkans? Was that victory? Are we done there? There is rarely a formula you can compute to tell you when you are done. This is even more true about the GWOT, which is more nebulus than Iraq in terms of progress and a clear goal... but that doesn't mean it isn't important either.

We would be fools to ever completely withdraw our troops from Iraq... I expect after Hillary or Gore loses in 08 we will continue to have a heavy presence there. We *want* to be there. It makes a whole lot more sense to have troops in Iraq than it does to have them in Germany, Korea, Japan, or just about anywhere else in the world.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Yes I sort of agree with you, but President Bush has been very poor in the communications department when it comes to describing Victory. Instead he uses phrases like, "Stay the Course" and other open ended terms.

I believe that even those of us who do support the President would like a bit more specificity over what we are doing to hold the Iraqi government's feet to the fire, and for that mater what are the clear conditions that would allow us to draw down our forces to some smaller level.

As full disclosure, I am the father of a son who is a Senior in High School, thinking about the miltary after HS etc, and although I am a vet, son of a 30 year vet and brother of a 22 year vet, the thought of a prolonged war in Iraq scares the heck out of me.

There isn't much he hasn't been very poor at in the communications department. He is definately "the Great Noncommunicator," which I think is about 2/3rds of his problem. I think this has gotten better since Snow took over as Press Secretary, but it could still be a lot better. I don't think we'll see the kind of articulation we need to see until the 08 campaign.

---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

That's your job as his father. Even my father says the same about me and he spent 23 years in the military before he retired.
I am scared [spit]less for my wife who joined up as an Interrogator for the Army and will soon be learning Arabic (gee, I wonder where she'll be 6 months after IET?).

I think just about everyone here will agree that Bush needs to be more articulate. He sucks at commuication. But what constitutes victory is a Solid and Stable Iraq that sees terrorism and Jihadist philosophy as a danger to the entire world. This is what we all need to keep in mind and ocmmunicate to the rest of our nation in Bush's stead.

In the meantime, I applaud your son's desire to serve. If you have any questions about what he is told by his recruiter or need to double-check anything, my email address is available here and Streiff is also easily available (though his info is a tad out of date).

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

You're on the right track. Strategically, Iraq physically interrupts Iran's vision of a 'cresent of influence' that extends to the Mediterranean and also envisions control of the Saudi Peninsula. As long as Iran is a threat to the region, and remains as the leading state sponsor of terrorism, a significant US troop presence in Iraq will be 'required' - it is not optional.

The specific date, August 22nd, has been the subject of much speculation in the media. Although not required to submit its answer to the Security Council until August 31rst, Iran has chosen the 22nd for the offical response. The enire world has already been informed that Iran will not suspend its nuclear enrichment program, so I'm a bit curious as to how far the Ayatollah will let Ahmadinejad go.

If I were involved in strategic planning, 100,000 US troops would already be in the Afghan/Iran border region, and greater attention would have been paid to air base construction in Western Afghanistan, especially Herat and Shindand.

There's nothing like placing your opponent in the jaws of a vice to add weight to one's diplomatic effort.

Folks don't consider the long-term strategy of hitting Iraq and Afghanistan first even though Iran has always been considered the greater danger. And Pakistan the not so loyal ally.

We have Pakistan pinned between Afghanistan and India.
We have Iran pinned between Iraq and Afghanistan.

We took out 2 of the more powerful of our enemies with those invasions, and weakened the Jihadist position in the region and isolated Iran. We're in an excellent military position.

Now if we can just get our political position in line with it.

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

No, I don't suppose you do.

To act on the best information you have IS good judgement. Even if not all of it turns out to be true. To support a proposal on strong principled grounds when it is popular and jump ship if it becomes unpopular is bad judgement.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

I didn't say anything about "Jumping ship". Read the post again and find the main point, which is that it is a mistake for Republicans to make the debate about "Judgement". Doing so will lead to a lot of painful whining from liberals about what they can point to as multiple instance of poor judgement by the administration. Where is that conversation going to get us? This country is in serious trouble, and we need to be focused on solutions, not on rehashing past mistakes.

At least we don't have to add a shortage of Chicken Littles to the list of things that have gone horribly wrong and are the end of life as we know it.

Things are always ugly up close and personal. For some perspective, you might want to look at the history of WWII. More troops died in pointless accidents and mistakes over the coarse of a few weeks during WWII than have died during the entire Iraq campaign. We've always made mistakes... we always will make mistakes. We try to minimize them, but they are inevitable with any large operation or organization. Iraq is no worse than campaigns that are now universally accepted as great successes have been in the past. The real problem we have now is lack of patience and perspective from the citizenry.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

The replies to this post prove my point-which is that if we bring up "Judgement" as the debate, Republicans automatically go on the defensive. The intelligent and coherent replies to my post are all defenses of the Iraq war and occupation. They do not reply to the larger point about how "making the debate about "judgement" is bound to lead down a road where liberals define the argument by pointing out lapses in judgement by the administration. Mr. Qlangley and Mr. Zuiko both get bogged down in DEFENDING the war. That is exactly how the liberals want the debate shaped-with Rebublicans continually on the defensive.

Get away from having to defend past judgements, and move on to solutions to our energy dependence, fixing the Iraq policy, and controlling spending. That is a much more productive discussion than trying to make the debate about "Judgment".

Note to Mr. Zuiko...recognizing that a problem truly exists is not the same as saying that the sky is falling. It is quite possible to recognize problems and mistakes without fear. You can't fix problems until you face them.

Mr. Qlangley and Mr. Zuiko both get bogged down in DEFENDING the war. That is exactly how the liberals want the debate shaped-with Rebublicans continually on the defensive.

Liberals would be more than happy if we took the offensive and started ripping on the war for them. Then maybe we can take the offensive on health care and propose some kind of single payer universal health care plan... after all, aren't we getting tired of defending a health care system based on private enterprise? This really sounds like a fantastic plan.

---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Going on the offensive does not mean "Ripping on the war for them". It doesn't mean adopting liberal positions on health care. It DOES mean presenting a clear and coherent plan for stabilizing the Iraqi government. It means proving to the American people that Republicans are actually willing and able to control government spending. It means taking concrete steps toward establishing energy independence.

It means admitting that there are problems and proposing solutions, rather than merely "Making the debate about Judgement". I have noted in my above posts where that conversation will lead. Who has time for that?

I'm just reading what you wrote about the country being in serious trouble and listing all the horrible mistakes the Bush administration has made. Looks to me like you are doing a fine job emulating Democrats already.

It DOES mean presenting a clear and coherent plan for stabilizing the Iraqi government.

We got that. Just because the plan isn't "let's remove all our troops on a fixed timetable" doesn't mean we don't have a plan. We are executing the plan... it takes time. It is also being adjusted continuously. Having no plan is purely a Democrat talking point. One you are reinforcing quite successfully.

It means proving to the American people that Republicans are actually willing and able to control government spending.

Nothing we can do about that. Bush doesn't want to cut back government spending. He has been willing to cut back on the rate of growth, and has been for the last few cycles, but he is never going to be a fiscal conservative. That just isn't who he is. To be fair, he never really promised to be one, either.

It means taking concrete steps toward establishing energy independence.

Kind of contracts the previous point, there. When I look up the phrase "energy independence" in my Spin to English dictionary, I see that translates to "corporate welfare." I am not in favor of government giveaways to encourage solar, wind, ethanol, biodiesel, or anything else. These are money losers. That is why they need public support. The public support turns the owners into winners, but makes losers out of the rest of us. I don't even like tax credits that go to individuals. If you want to buy a new Prius, fine... but you shouldn't expect me to pay for a $3000 of the purchase price. That really is just a check for Toyota in disguise anyway... since we could never justify giving free money directly to a foreign automaker.

---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

A solution proposed by the Bush Administration, is drilling in ANWAR.

In terms of energy independence, what is your opinion on drilling and exploration in ANWAR and offshore reserves off of the Florida coast and the California coast?

If you believe negatively about the above, what are your solutions that will provide the US energy independence?

could help bridge us toward a time when we can be less dependent on oil for energy. I don't like the environmental risk, but I recognize that it is a far lesser risk than continuing to be dependent on foriegn sources for energy. If we simply switch to domestically produced oil, without also developing alternative energy sources, in a relatively short time we will end up right back where we are now.

for your reasonable response.

I am aware of that. But you were talking about contrasting the Republican record on 'judgement' with the Democrats. Now, insofar as the Democrats can be said to have a record with regard to the Iraq War - you will recall that slightly over half their Representatives voted against and slightly over half their Senators voted in favour - the most striking thing is the number of Democrats who were willing to support the war when it was popular and oppose it now that it is unpopular.

That isn't judgement. Any fool can commission an opinion poll. Leadership involves doing the right thing even when it is difficult.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

I wasn't really contrasting the Democratic voting record with that of Republicans. My focus was more on how the debate would be be shaped if Republicans make the debate about "Judgement". I am not saying that the liberals woudl be correct, but I really do think that the conversation would end up with Republicans defending themselves against liberal talking points, rather than moving forward with a positive agenda.