It is simply untrue that we are making decisive progress in Iraq. The indicators rise and fall from day to day, week to week, month to month. In South Vietnam there was an organized enemy. There is clearly organization in the strikes by the terrorists against our forces and against the civil government in Iraq, but whereas in Vietnam we had Hanoi as the operative headquarters of the enemy, we have no equivalent of that in Iraq, and that is a matter of paralyzing importance. All those bombings, explosions, assassinations: we are driven to believe that they are, so to speak, spontaneous.
When the Romans were challenged by Christianity, Rome fell. The generation of Christians moved by their faith overwhelmed the regimented reserves of the Roman state. It was four years ago that Mr. Cheney first observed that there was a real fear that each fallen terrorist leads to the materialization of another terrorist. What can a “surge,” of the kind we are now relying upon, do to cope with endemic disease? The parallel even comes to mind of the eventual collapse of Prohibition, because there wasn’t any way the government could neutralize the appetite for alcohol, or the resourcefulness of the freeman in acquiring it.
... There are grounds for wondering whether the Republican party will survive this dilemma.
One more, ahem, defeatist for the usual suspects to denounce...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I always suspected William F. Buckley, Jr. was a brilliant man. Now I know he is.
Rod, do you think conservatives who think as I do about Iraq like war? We don't. In fact, we abhor it. We are trying to prevent WW III. As to the polls reflecting the American people's desire to wave the white flag a la Vietnam--Horsepucky! I don't believe that any more than you do. We both know they want victory over Al Queda, and not just in Iraq. We both know that is never what the polls ask. People are not stupid; they know that the Administration wants to protect our way of life by bringing stability to the region. Saddam, had he been given the chance, would have toppled the Saudis (as was his ultimate aim when this all started during the first Gulf War) and cut off the West's energy supply.
That, of course, would have meant all out war. It is a fact that Saddam was further along with his nuclear development than we thought, so had we let him have the time he wanted, it would have been one hell of a war--against both Iraq and Al Queda, at least! Before WFB got fuzzy-headed he used to say "He who says A, must say B", remember? Now all he and his crew, including Buchanan and Sobran, say is "A", i.e., leave Iraq, but they don't say "B"-- what then? Go to war and nuke Iraq, Iran, and Syria when it hits the fan in a few years? Oh, yeah--they really will be frightened by the Clintons in the White House again, won't they? (May God have mercy on us!).
And what about Al Queda in Pakistan? In the event of all-out war, Al Queda would have tried to topple Musharraf in order to get control of nuclear weapons to use against us, both here and in Afghanistan, and Israel. Wouldn't that be fun?
Come on , Rod, you are far too intelligent and honest to say I'm wrong. Should we have waited another 12 years for France and its pathetic ilk in the UN to talk Saddam and Al Queda into becoming Christians and leave us alone? Even the ultra-liberal Tony Blair didn't believe that would have been the proper course. Sorry for the sarcasm, Rod, but I am more than a little disappointed in my former heroes who will not say "B". We are in Iraq to prevent a much, much greater horror. And I am no longer able to suffer the mean spirited haters (no, my friend, I do not mean folks like you who have remained civil through out) to whom calumny against the Administration is "just politics".
Here s a B for you: the risk of anti- infidel violence is too great to continue allowing Muslims to immigrate to this country. Until I hear a conservative say that, then they re just a bunch of liberals fixated on non-discrimination uber alles. Civilizations must discriminate to survive.
The biggest non-sequitur that continues to be repeated by the President and GOP candidates alike is that we must fight them over there or fight them here . Well, how the hell are they going to get here unless we let them in? Unless we increase border security (a lot cheaper than spending 400 billion) and restrict Islamic immigration, then we will go the way of Britain, France and the Netherlands, which are obviously past the tipping point and on a path to national suicide.
I love reading these comboxes. Some of you guys are a pair of jackboots away from a goose-stepping party.
Anonymous,
Jackboots have never been associated with U.S.-style conservatives, despite liberal smears. Rather, the term IS associated with the Socialist Nazis, the Socialist-Fascists, the Communists, and Janet Reno's "jackbooted thugs" who captured the dangerous Elian Gonzalez (remember the look of horror on the kid's face), as well as her ATF "jackbooted thugs" (per Democrat Congressman John Dingle, based on some Crystalnight-like activities).
So, would you care to apologize and say you're sorry :-).
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.