Is there any imaginable point in any imaginable conflict where Mark Levin would admit that the United States had lost a war?
Ross goes on to say that he wishes Reid hadn't said what he said, but that it is a metaphysical certitude that the United States, like any country, can, in fact, lose wars. So at what point will these conservative die-hards conclude that yes, in fact, we've lost this particular one?
Answer: never. Why? Because by never conceding that we have lost, no matter how bad it gets, no matter how many American soldiers are dying in vain, the die-hard war backers must protect their future ability to blame the media, the left, the anti-war right, and everybody else for the defeat. We just didn't believe hard enough. Ten, twenty years from now, candidates from this school of thought will be able to run on the myth that the Democrats and the unpatriotic conservatives caused us to lose. And you know, it just might work.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Also, John, let me try to clarify. What I was trying to say is that I think the foes of the war might admit that vicory had occurred, but would deny that it was us who won it.
Victory is "an Iraqui government able to sustain and defend itself"? Defend itself from whom? Us?
Marian, please go to http://www.ejectejecteject.com/ and give serious consideration to the essay "Seeing the Unseen". Actually, I think it's a great essay for everyone to read, but for you Marian it's personal. Rod and ScurvyOaks, I entirely understand the weariness and confliction (my word!)you express. For me, it is the anguish and anger at seeing a noble undertaking ineptly executed, and undermined by the most craven economic self-interest of utterly amoral sub-contractors. Do I hear smirks and gagging sounds at the phrase "noble undertaking"? I am old enough to remember how JFK's inaugural address galvanized and inspired a generation- to bear any burden, support any friend and oppose any foe in the defense of freedom. Are we now ready to declare that that was a mistaken ideal, that freedom is fine for us here but to heck with the rest of you? Go fend for yourself? I might consider J. Carter one of the most dangerously inept Presidents in our history, but his declaration that the key element of our foreign policy should be the domestic human rights record of foreign governments was, I believe, the first opening wedge in cracking open the Iron Curtain. How can our involvement in Iraq be seen as anything other than following through with the implementation of those policy declarations? Can anyone listen to or read JFK's address and not feel that it calls forth the best within us to make the world a better place? And he wasn't just talking about the Peace Corps, either... The American colonies benefitted mightily from the Anglo-French Great Power rivalry. Consider the certain outcome had the colonies been located where, say, Belgium is, and that England, France, and Spain were totally united in their determination that this heretical political virus must be eliminated at all costs, superceding any other rivalry among them. Is that much different than the situation faced by Iraq today? Ech, lunch break is over, and I risk indigestion... enough for now.
What, no responses? Have I succeeded in shaming everyone into silence?
John, I think this thread is just too old. Threads rarely last longer than chicken salad.
Plus, there's always a new one to chime in on. :)
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.