The Crying Game

[rumbleph1$h]

The Crying Game

So near in Iraq, so far at home.

by Victor Davis Hanson

November 23, 2005

"The president misled us." "Still no WMDs." "If I had only known then what I do now?"

This is the intellectual level of Democratic wartime criticism about the Bush administration as we near the third Iraqi election ? the one that will finally give faces to the first truly elected parliamentary government in the Arab world.

So what is behind this crying game at home ? when we are so close to achieving our goals abroad?

Bad polls and far-worse casualties. With over 2,000 American dead in Iraq, the politicians think their own brilliant three-week war was ruined by George Bush?s 32-month failed reconstruction.

But the Democratic establishment?s anger is even more complicated than that since it is not yet quite sure of the mood of the fickle American people.

True, from the very beginning a small group of leftists has done its best to mischaracterize the effort to remove Saddam Hussein as some sort of Halliburton, ?no-blood-for oil,? ?Bush lied/thousands died,? ?neocon? war ?for Israel.? But despite the occasional auxiliary efforts of the elite press, until now there were really no takers in the mainstream Democratic party for the vehement antiwar crowd?s slander for at least three reasons.

One was the crazies. By that I mean that the Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, and Cindy Sheehan factions have a propensity to go lunatic and say or do anything ? like shamefully praising the murdering terrorists who blow apart Iraqi women and children and U.S. soldiers as "Minutemen,? or calling the president of the United States ?the world?s greatest terrorist.?

A sanctimonious Jimmy Carter may sit next to the buffoonish Michael Moore at the Democratic Convention in VIP seats, but the inclusion of his name with Rep. John Murtha?s is still apparently considered by liberals to be an outright slander. So up until now invoking Bush as a "liar" and our enemies as "heroes" was considered over the top.

Two, the Democratic left wing was wrong on the Cold War and mostly wrong on Gulf War I. With minorities in the Congress, fearful that they might never again be trusted on national security, and cognizant that both Bill Clinton?s campaign against Milosevic and George Bush?s war against the Taliban had been relatively cost-free, they outdid themselves in calling for invasion of Iraq.

Go back and read any of the statements of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, or Jay Rockefeller about the dangers of Saddam Hussein and the need to take him out. Only then can you understand why the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly, with a strong Democratic majority, to authorize a war.

So up until now, Democrats had an embarrassing paper trail that in the era of Google searches made it hard to claim that the war was Bush?s alone and not their own. Indeed, as long as casualties were considered "tolerable" and the polls stable, most Democrats continued to talk in accordance with their own past votes and wanted to bask in the success of ending the Hussein nightmare.

Three, most Democrats knew the history of the George McGovern pullout campaign of 1972 that ended in disaster for the party at large. It just isn?t smart to lose American wars by cutting out ? unless you have a Watergate for cover. Yet so far not outing a CIA employee who was not a covert agent does not make a scandal.

For all the media pizzazz about the peace candidate Howard Dean, the good Dr. had not a prayer of winning either the nomination or the presidency. Indeed, his tenure as chairman of the Democratic party has been a Republican godsend, since, like McGovern, he has the propensity in a single moment of heartfelt sincerity to scare the hell out of the American people.

Thus the savvy strategy as the casualties grew was to quibble, ankle-bite, and offer empty platitudes like ?Get the U.N. back there,? ?Get NATO in,? and ?Get the Arab League on board,? rather than offering an ad hoc alternative plan of leaving Iraq in the style of Vietnam, Lebanon, or Mogadishu.

Two of those reservations have now vanished, as George Bush?s flight suit; the museum looting; Saddam?s public dental exam; the embalming of the Hussein boys; naked pictures from Abu Ghraib; a supposedly flushed Koran in Guantanamo Bay; rants on the Senate floor; the Scooter Libby indictment; comparisons of the U.S. military to Saddam Hussein; Nazi Germany; Stalin; and Pol Pot; the broadsides of Joe Wilson; Richard Clarke; General Anthony Zinni; Brent Scowcroft; Lawrence Wilkerson, et al.; lies that our soldiers targeted Western journalists; the meae culpae of prominent former war supporters from Francis Fukuyama to George Packer; white phosphorus; leaks about supposed CIA torture prisons abroad ? along with mostly silence from the embattled administration and U.S. combat dead exceeding 2,000 ? have changed the political calculus.

So Democrats have overcome two caveats. First, they are beginning to sound like Michael Moore while distancing themselves from Michael Moore. Second, they have come up with a clever escape ploy from their own previous rhetoric. Yes, they voted for the war, but the intelligence they had was ?not the same? as the president?s. And besides, they were merely senators who fund wars, while George Bush was the commander-in-chief who directs them. ?He started it ? not us? may be the stuff of errant boys on the playground, but it apparently offers a way out of past embarrassing speeches and votes. Even more clever, they now claim that voting ?to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq? in October 2002 is not quite the same as actually authorizing a war in March 2003.

Consequently, the Democrats are now inching toward jettisoning their final reservation and embracing the Howard Dean cut-and-run position. Still, shrewd pros like a Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, or Chuck Schumer are not quite there yet for two other understandable worries. The polls say Americans are tired of the war, but not yet ready to quit and give up on all that has been achieved, leaving brave Iraqi reformers to ninth-century beheaders and suicide-murderers.

Second, these more astute Democrats are not sure that the Iraqi gambit might not work, especially with the December election coming up, the public trial of Saddam, the growth of the Iraqi security forces, and the changed attitudes in Europe, Jordan, and Lebanon. Many talk a lot about Vietnam circa 1967 but deep down and in silence most have mixed emotions about Saigon 1975.

For now Democrats stammer, sputter, and go the Bush shoulda / coulda route ? not quite ready to take the McGovern sharp turn, forever waiting on polls and events on the ground in Iraq, always unsure whether peace and democracy will come before the 2,500th American fatality.

Yet as they hedge ? on television praising Congressmen Murtha who advocates withdrawal, but making sure they vote overwhelmingly on the record to reject his advice ? they should consider some critical questions.

First, are the metrics of this war in the terrorists? or our favor? Are the Iraqi security forces growing or shrinking? Are elections postponed or on schedule? Are Europe, Jordan, Lebanon, and others more or less sympathetic to a war against Islamic terrorism in Iraq? Are bin Laden, Zawahiri, and Zarqawi more or less popular or secure after we removed Saddam? Is al Qaeda in a strengthened or weakened position? Is the Arab world more or less receptive to democracy in the Gulf, Egypt, Lebanon, and the West Bank? And is the United States more or less vulnerable to a terrorist attack as we go into our fifth year since September 11?

I ask those questions in all sincerity since the conventional wisdom ? compared to the true wisdom and compassion of those valiantly fighting the terrorists under the most impossible of conditions ? is that we are losing in Iraq, our enemies are emboldened, and the Arab world has turned against us. But if we forget the banality of New York Times columnists, the admonitions of NPR experts, and the daily rants of a Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, or Al Gore, more sober and street-smart Democrats are in fact not so sure of these answers.

So these wiser ones wait and hedge their wagers. They give full rein to the usefully idiotic and irresponsible in their midst, but make no move yet to undo what thousands of brave American soldiers have accomplished in Iraq.

What exactly is that? Despite acrimony at home, the politics of two national elections and a third on the horizon, and the slander of war crimes and incompetence, those on the battlefield of Iraq have almost pulled off the unthinkable ? the restructuring of the politics of the Middle East in less than three years.

And for now that is still a strong hand to bet against.

[MonkeyClaw Veteran]

:rolleyes:

Here we go again...

[vincent]

And yet another Democrat bashing article you post, how bout an article that is from neither side?

I don't know about you, but last time i checked the world extended way beyond the borders of my own views.

What about you? :huh:

[MonkeyClaw Veteran]

But those views are the views of the terrorists and America bashers, I mean DUH! :p

[rumbleph1$h]

I don't know about you, but last time i checked the world extended way beyond the borders of my own views.

What about you?  :huh:

586858000[/snapback]

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Do you?

[MonkeyClaw Veteran]

What he is trying to say is post articles with a more neutral stance or something that you know isn't going to be met with such distain as usual. These articles, while some actually are interesting fall in these categories:

Culture and Diversity Sucks.

It's the Liberal's Fault.

Liberals are Wrong.

Liberals Suck.

Global Warming is BS.

Canada and Europe can Suck It cause This is America.

Iraq War is a Good Idea, and If you Don't Agree, You Hate America.

President Bush is Never Wrong.

Muslims Are the Root of All Evil So Lets Blow Them Up.

Terrorists Are Going to Attack Real Soon, and It's Those Damn Liberal's Fault.

The list can go on, but really, its almost like there is a pattern. Now correct us if we are wrong, but do you share the same opinions expressed in these articles? If not, post something with a neutral stance, or something to prove us wrong. As it stands now, every week (not that there is anything wrong with it) you post these articles with the same opinions as if we forgot that you felt this way. It sparks debate, which I actually enjoy. But some of these are just down right offensive and borderline bigoted at times.

So perhaps, just perhaps for christmas, post an article that isn't hate filled or an excuse to attack the liberals. Hows bout something neutral or something that hasn't been refuted by the government already, or something that doesn't have "Yes the writer of the article would lick President Bush's balls if he were here now..." written all over it. Thats all, because as you have said, these interest you, but most of them have the same hate filled message, nothing with substance or anything thought provoking.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

First, are the metrics of this war in the terrorists? or our favor?

This is about Iraq right? The terrorists weren't there until after the US invaded and then failed to convince Iraqis that they were there for the Iraqis best interests.

Are the Iraqi security forces growing or shrinking?

Overall, their numbers may be growing as many Iraqis need to find paying work. However, they are still being killed at a fairly high rate.

Are elections postponed or on schedule?

We are nearing the third Iraqi election in, what, less than a year? That doesn't seem very stable to me.

Are Europe, Jordan, Lebanon, and others more or less sympathetic to a war against Islamic terrorism in Iraq?

Well, it was a War against Iraq not a war against Islamic terrorism but that not withstanding, it makes sense that Europe, Jordon and Lebanon would be more interested in the reconstruction phase going well then the actual invasion stage. I mean, cleaning up is better than breaking down, right?

Are bin Laden, Zawahiri, and Zarqawi more or less popular or secure after we removed Saddam?

bin Laden still has not be found and he seems secure enough for now. Would he have been captured in the US did not get distracted in Iraq? For any person that has been taken down a notch there are new players that emerged from nowhere (like al-Sadr).

Is al Qaeda in a strengthened or weakened position?

Because of Iraq? No change. When the US attacked Afganistan that certainly weakened al Qaeda but we are supposed to be talking about Iraq, are we not? The author, like most conservatives, seems to like to mix the two when it is convenient.

Is the Arab world more or less receptive to democracy in the Gulf, Egypt, Lebanon, and the West Bank?

There have been some short term gains that will be interesting to watch. Unless it is part of a long-term trend, however, it isn't really that important. The US can't keep this type of neighbourhood pressure up for ever as it is costing billions and billions of dollars to maintain.

And is the United States more or less vulnerable to a terrorist attack as we go into our fifth year since September 11?

Again, are we talking about Iraq? No difference or maybe even less safe. Is the US safer because they attacked Afganistan? Probably, but that is another issue altogether.

[Starcom826]

What he is trying to say is post articles with a more neutral stance or something that you know isn't going to be met with such distain as usual.  These articles, while some actually are interesting fall in these categories:

Culture and Diversity Sucks.

It's the Liberal's Fault.

Liberals are Wrong.

Liberals Suck.

Global Warming is BS.

Canada and Europe can Suck It cause This is America.

Iraq War is a Good Idea, and If you Don't Agree, You Hate America.

President Bush is Never Wrong.

Muslims Are the Root of All Evil So Lets Blow Them Up.

Terrorists Are Going to Attack Real Soon, and It's Those Damn Liberal's Fault.

The list can go on, but really, its almost like there is a pattern.  Now correct us if we are wrong, but do you share the same opinions expressed in these articles?  If not, post something with a neutral stance, or something to prove us wrong.  As it stands now, every week (not that there is anything wrong with it) you post these articles with the same opinions as if we forgot that you felt this way.  It sparks debate, which I actually enjoy.  But some of these are just down right offensive and borderline bigoted at times. 

So perhaps, just perhaps for christmas, post an article that isn't hate filled or an excuse to attack the liberals.  Hows bout something neutral or something that hasn't been refuted by the government already, or something that doesn't have "Yes the writer of the article would lick President Bush's balls if he were here now..." written all over it.  Thats all, because as you have said, these interest you, but most of them have the same hate filled message, nothing with substance or anything thought provoking.

586858083[/snapback]

Well you can also just reverse that list around and...well you get the picture (I hope). Don't even pretend like that conservatives such and Bush is never right thing doesn't exist. If it is wrong for rumple to post these articles for reasons of bias then it would follow that...(I also hope you can figure out what follows).

[MonkeyClaw Veteran]

I'm not saying its wrong, but its getting old because most are just blatant attacks. Some are even borderline bigoted and racist which IS WRONG TO POST. Im just saying for once instead of posting articles that serve the sole purpose of attacking the other side, post something that is intriguing and thought provoking. Some of the articles like I said do this, they present a point of view that regardless of agreeing with or not, one can debate. But the majority it seems are like this, lets go attack the liberals for no apparent reason. The first few times it might be fun but after months and months, it just gets down right old and pathetic. I hardly see any articles posted by others attacking conservatives and if they do they are usually somewhat subtle (not that it is any better).

[b3n]

Just because its formatted nicely and has some headers and a title doesnt mean its not complete ****.

Where do you get these essays you come up with ?

I agree with MonkeyClaw these never start any interesting or usefull discussion just flame wars because these are just attacks.

[raid517]

I don't think this guy really has any opinions of his own. Why are you hiding behind all this BS? If you feel you have something to say then say it - don't cower like a coward behind someone else's words.

Don't you right wingers often think you have more balls than everyone else? (although in my view it's often all balls and no brains). Well if you do have any balls, I think it's long past time time that you showed it!

Tell us for a change what your view on these topics are - not someone elses....

GJ

[MonkeyClaw Veteran]

I don't really care about the political side of it anymore, I mean democrat or republican, liberal or conservative, It doesn't matter nearly as much as the fact that some of these are just down right offensive and useless, baseless attacks on those with opposing view points. Its like me driving down the road and having someone throw a copy of the drudge report with take that, if you don't like it, suck on it written all over it. I mean instead of trying to divide and tick people off, present an article with a somewhat neutral stance that instead of attacking and being hate filled and borderline racist, something that brings up an actual prevalent issue that we can debate, not just attack back or fight over.

And rumble, this isn't an attack by me in the least, this isn't supposed to be insulting or anything, I'm just asking to tone down the hate because it tires very fast. I would say the exact same thing if these were articles attacking liberals with some of the same messages of hate and borderline racism. I honestly would, so don't think of this a political thing but one more of, lets get something new in here because what you have been and are continuing to post, is getting rather old. Nothing more, nothing less.

[raid517]

I think it's safe to assume from his silence that either a) he is incapable of formulating his own opinion on these matters - hence he plagiarises others that appear to fit his purpose, or b) these really are views he agrees with strongly, but he knows how genuinely hateful and inflammatory many of them are, so he is afraid if he stated similar views in person, this might land him in hot water here on Neowin, or c) both of these.

I do not admire at all a man who cannot defend his own views - or who is incapable of expressing an opinion on topics that he may or may not agree strongly with.

That is the exact definition of cowardice.

Perhaps we should consider giving rumbleph1sh a new name on the forums, that better suits his temperament?

GJ

Edited November 27, 2005 by raid517

[metro]

My stance on this is people are quick to throw insults, blame, ridicule, and bias at each other from the left and from the right. The biggest problem we have is that it's all BS talk. If these people were to actually take any form of action and just fix it instead of blaming each other, then perhaps we might get somewhere. The senseless bitching and complaining over who is wrong, who did what, who didn't do what, etc, is boring and completely unproductive.

I also recall an article not too long ago where Congress approved a pay raise for themselves of around $3,100 a year. Since when do they decide that their actions are deserving of a reward of this type? We are spending billions of dollars on a war that seems to be going nowhere at times and these people want to give themselves a pat on the back and earn MORE money for doing nothing productive? Seriously, this doesn't really sit well with me.

I am sick and tired of people who use political beliefs against one another, and throw the blame around. I know a woman who told me "you are nothing but a worthless liberal because you only care about yourself and no one else". Last I checked, I was just a selfish, insensitive, inconsiderate prick. By no means does that make me a liberal. It just makes me a dick. This accusation stemmed from me explaining that I can't worry about people and their problems, that I have to put myself first and take care of myself first before I can worry about other people. This small rant is a bit off topic, but somewhat related to the mud that the Deomocrats and Republicans keep throwing at one another instead of FIXING IT.

[MonkeyClaw Veteran]

I know a woman who told me "you are nothing but a worthless liberal because you only care about yourself and no one else". Last I checked, I was just a selfish, insensitive, inconsiderate prick. By no means does that make me a liberal. It just makes me a dick. This accusation stemmed from me explaining that I can't worry about people and their problems, that I have to put myself first and take care of myself first before I can worry about other people.

586859132[/snapback]

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA, thanks man, I needed a good laugh this morning, that was awesome. Honesty is a virtue, lol.

But you are exactly right, I'm sick of both sides. The democrats tend to do the right thing for wrong reasons, and the republicans tend to do the wrong thing for well wrong reasons, lol. But both sides are ****ed up big time. No one is right, and no one is doing anything for the sake of doing the right things, its only so they can keep their job next election.

What makes me sick is when people like blind sheep follow the partisan talking points and all the crap being thrown around and then preach it to everyone else like it was a sermon. "You aren't patriotic if you don't support the war." "If you don't support the president, then you are anti-american." "Democrats don't believe in family values." People buy this crap and then it perpetuates among the masses. And don't think for a second that the democrats aren't guilty of it either. They have their talking points too.

Its getting old and tiresome. The American political system needs to grow up and instead of debating for the sake of reelection and attacking the other side, we need to debate for the sake of the nation.

Thats why I get sick and tired of the articles that rumble posts, not because I disagree with them, but because instead of an offering of intelligent arguments, its nothing but petty, pathetic, and stupid partisan attacks and bickering.