Blame America First

It would appear that the reason things aren't going well in Iraq is that the American people are craven and weak. At least, that's according to Mort Kondracke, a right-wing columnist, as published in Roll Call (subscription only, so I've linked to a public blog discussing the article).

Great quotes from the newest branch of the Blame America First tree:

All over the world, scoundrels are ascendant, rising on a tide of American weakness. It makes for a perilous future.

President Bush bet his presidency — and America’s world leadership — on the war in Iraq. Tragically, it looks as though he bit off more than the American people were willing to chew.

The U.S. is failing in Iraq. Bush’s policy was repudiated by the American people in the last election. And now America’s enemies and rivals are pressing their advantage, including Iran, Syria, the Taliban, Sudan, Russia and Venezuela. We have yet to hear from al-Qaida.

Damn you, American voters! If not for your fecklessness, America would be triumphant! How dare you betray the Great Leader!

Oh wait Lemur the far right will soon get even more such comments in.

Unfortunately the valid comments will be hidden behind the Far-Right fringe lunancy.

Almost makes me cringe to be a conservative, having the far-right show such disregard for the democratic republic process of the nation.

For more "joyful" reading of the right this site sometimes has links to some acid filled right leaning editorials

http://townhall.com/

(make sure you have an active ad blocker running since the nasty capitialists of the site will attempt to overwhelm you with pop-up ads.)

Enjoy the reading. I found Prager's article on the recent election of a muslim to congress deeply distrubing. :no:

That's a great grab-bag site, Redleg. Finally, someone has the guts to talk about the War on Christmas. I was wondering if I was going to hear about it at all this year.

It will be interesting to see how far and wide this "Americans are too weak and stupid to support Bush" meme will spread.

Well I think it would have been different if Al Gore got in, but the Recount screwed that up. Johny Kerry could have got him in, but his morals were screwed up, and the Vietnam commicals and false Papers about Bush screwed him up also..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It will be interesting to see how far and wide this "Americans are too weak and stupid to support Bush" meme will spread.

---

Well that site contains what I view as the majority of the right leaning voices in the States. Some are a bit far right from my views but sometimes it makes for interesting reading material. Haven't found a good left leaning "grab-bag" site yet to balance the information from townhall if you know of any send me a link.

While I am very consersative in most of my opinions and politics on the national level - I often find myself drawn to the more socialized policies for my community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It would appear that the reason things aren't going well in Iraq is that the American people are craven and weak.

---

Slaughter and stuff me if I'm wrong, Lemur, but that is not what the guy says. He does not speak about 'weak Americans', he speaks of 'American weakness' due to the outcome of the last elections.

Besides, at least this guy has a view on what should happen with regard to Iraq. You can't say that about the present majority in Congress.

Last I checked, America never had a definitive withdrawl policy in Iraq. It feels to me like we went in guns blazing and then figured the Iraqi people would be so grateful to be out from under the yoke of Saddam Hussain that they'd spontaneously become a democracy.

Americans are slowing beginning to realize that the costs of this military campaign are going to be very, very steep. That's why Bush's approval rating is in the toilet right now. He said it wasn't going to be a quagmire, and it is.

This is exactly the reason why we didn't push to Bagdad in '91.


And calling the American weak-willed simply because they are no longer willing to support a war they are beginning to realize they don't understand the purpose of is unfair. Just because we're in the middle of a conflict doesn't mean the democratic process should come to a screetching halt. Some Right-Wingers have the mentality that if you don't support the Republicans, you are somehow un-American. That type of thinking is actually what is unamerican, to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Enjoy the reading. I found Prager's article on the recent election of a muslim to congress deeply distrubing. :no:

---

You mean this one?

I think he had a valid point when he said that jews and atheists were also obliged to swear an oath on the Bible. But to say that letting him swear his oath on the Qu'ran is going to usher in the Islamiztion of America...:inquisitive:
Is there even any legal reason why he shouldn't be allowed to do so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rameusb5

This is exactly the reason why we didn't push to Bagdad in '91.

---

Just for the sake of Historical accuracy: The reason we did not "push on" to Baghdad is that we had a very clear mandate to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The recent mandate against Iraq was intentionally vague and the US filled in the blank spots.

If we would have continued to occupy the country, we would immediately loose the coalition and it would be a very different war. Remember what happened when we were so confident in Korea that we forsook (oh, God, that’s spelled correctly?) our goal of pushing NK back and decided to push on to the Yalu river.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

He does not speak about 'weak Americans', he speaks of 'American weakness' due to the outcome of the last elections.

---

It's a fine point, but I'm happy to grant it to ya. The bottom line is that this particular editorialist blames the American voters for not supporting the Great Leader. And I use the term "blame" advisedly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

You mean this one?

---

Yep

Quote:

---

I think he had a valid point when he said that jews and atheists were also obliged to swear an oath on the Bible.

---

That point I agreed with

Quote:

---

But to say that letting him swear his oath on the Qu'ran is going to usher in the Islamiztion of America...:inquisitive:

---

That is the part that distrubed me.

Quote:

---

Is there even any legal reason why he shouldn't be allowed to do so?

---

Not that I am aware of. I took an oath of office when I took a commission - and I did not have to place my hand on the bible. All I had to do was swear or affirm my committment to the Constitution and the Officers appointed over me. I can not see where the Oath for Office for a Congressman requires swearing on a bible or the Qu'ran. I rather see them swear to uphold the constitution regardless of what holy book, god or philisophy that they affirm that oath with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The bottom line is that this particular editorialist blames the American voters for not supporting the Great Leader.

---

Well, pluck me and hang me out to dry, but all he does is criticise the majority.

He says the majority made the wrong choice, resulting in what he perceives as a weak policy. What is so bad about that?

I remember you being far harsher on the majority of your fellow citizens who do not support your fiscal conservatism. Lack of intelligence and abundance of gelatinous body mass were among the least of your insults.

Me and my 5% nation of fiscal conservatives will one day rule the world. Or maybe a county. Okay, maybe just a library board. And a minority on the board. But still!

Um, right, I'm a hypocrite for criticizing a far-right loonbat who argues that the majority of Americans are betraying America. And if I've ever assumed a minority opinion, I'm not entitled to poke fun at somebody who says the majority of Americans are letting America down.

Are you going somewhere with this, or did you feel a need to call the lemur out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Just for the sake of Historical accuracy: The reason we did not "push on" to Baghdad is that we had a very clear mandate to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The recent mandate against Iraq was intentionally vague and the US filled in the blank spots.

If we would have continued to occupy the country, we would immediately loose the coalition and it would be a very different war. Remember what happened when we were so confident in Korea that we forsook (oh, God, that’s spelled correctly?) our goal of pushing NK back and decided to push on to the Yalu river.

---

I was under the distinct impression that there were several people American Military "higher ups" who absolutely DID want to push on to Bagdad at the time, but Schwartzkopf and Powell (among others) recommended against it, because of the reasons that you mentioned (the mission was, for all intents and purposes, "accomplished").

But had "hotter" heads prevailed, I think we probably would have experienced in 95 exactly what we're experiencing today: The occupation of a semi-hostile Iraq, with no imminent withdrawal possible.

Heck, beginning with WWII, America has always kept military forces in those countries she has defeated. We still have bases in Japan, German, and South Korea (technically not defeated). I'm unsure of Italy.

Perhaps America has no withdrawl strategy for Iraq because they never planned on withdrawing... I dunno.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Me and my 5% nation of fiscal conservatives will one day rule the world. Or maybe a county. Okay, maybe just a library board. And a minority on the board. But still!

Um, right, I'm a hypocrite for criticizing a far-right loonbat who argues that the majority of Americans are betraying America. And if I've ever assumed a minority opinion, I'm not entitled to poke fun at somebody who says the majority of Americans are letting America down.

Are you going somewhere with this, or did you feel a need to call the lemur out?

---

Actually, Lemur, I have to respect the fact that you consider yourself a conservative and are still willing to critisize other conservatives when they make crazy statements.

Far too many people just take the side of whoever is politically aligned with them, even if they statements they are supporting are ridiculous.

I don't know either. I like to think that the occupation of Iraq is part of a long-term, comprehensive strategy in the Middle East but I'm not sure. One thing I am for sure of though is that the region is definitely in need of change. However, knowing ahead of time about our criticized “lack of will", I'm not quite sure what the plan was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Oh wait Lemur the far right will soon get even more such comments in.

Unfortunately the valid comments will be hidden behind the Far-Right fringe lunancy.

Almost makes me cringe to be a conservative, having the far-right show such disregard for the democratic republic process of the nation.

For more "joyful" reading of the right this site sometimes has links to some acid filled right leaning editorials

http://townhall.com/

(make sure you have an active ad blocker running since the nasty capitialists of the site will attempt to overwhelm you with pop-up ads.)

Enjoy the reading. I found Prager's article on the recent election of a muslim to congress deeply distrubing. :no:

---

American Conservative

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Are you going somewhere with this, or did you feel a need to call the lemur out?

---

Turn me over and smother me in gravy, but I believe you have shot your own straw turkey.

The author does not state or even imply that 'the American people are craven'. What he does suggest is that the present majority has no clue what to do with regard to Iraq. And he is right. American Iraq policy is now being thrashed out in a committee. This creates a weak impression. He is right about that, too.

And no, I am not the devil's advocate. The Master doesn't need one. I am his masseur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

The author does not state or even imply that 'the American people are craven'. What he does suggest is that the present majority has no clue what to do with regard to Iraq. And he is right. American Iraq policy is now being thrashed out in a committee. This creates a weak impression. He is right about that, too.

---

Correct and correct.

Quote:

---

And no, I am not the devil's advocate. The Master doesn't need one. I am his masseur.

---

I thought you were his sommelier?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Turn me over and smother me in gravy...

---

Is it just me, or are these little expressions becoming more and more like innuendos as you progress?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

The author does not state or even imply that 'the American people are craven'. What he does suggest is that the present majority has no clue what to do with regard to Iraq. And he is right. American Iraq policy is now being thrashed out in a committee. This creates a weak impression. He is right about that, too.

---

And now for what the writer actually wrote:

All over the world, scoundrels are ascendant, rising on a tide of American weakness. It makes for a perilous future.

"All over the world scoundrels are ascendant" doesn't sound like a reasonable or reasoned argument to this lemur. It's a rather hysterical sentiment, really. "Rising on a tide of American weakness" -- nothing about creating a "weak impression," as you soft-shoe it. The language is absolute.

President Bush bet his presidency — and America’s world leadership — on the war in Iraq. Tragically, it looks as though he bit off more than the American people were willing to chew.

Take a look at that last sentence again: "more than the American people were willing to chew." You state that the author "does not state or even imply that 'the American people are craven.' " This hinges on whether or not you believe the American peoples' masticatory abilities have any relationship to their fortitude. It certainly sounds to this lemur as though the reasoning is: America is becoming weak, because American's can't take this war. You are free to explore alternate readings, of course.

You write that "American Iraq policy is now being thrashed out in a committee." Earlier, you castigated the new Congress for "not having a clue" about what to do with Iraq.

Honestly, we are faced with at most three or four alternatives, all of them bad. If people are hesitant to declare which policy they believe to be least-bad, you can at least understand where they're coming from. Choosing from a menu of unsavory outcomes is not any politician's idea of a good time.

If you still want to defend this lummox, I have no doubt you'll let me know.

Simply addressing your first quote it seems quite reasonable to me. He isn’t exactly speaking in txt msg and seems very well spoken. Compare that sentence to something someone on the extreme left would say (i.e. “He lied to us! He prayed on our fears!!” a la Algore).

It’s an opinion piece: scoundrels are ascendant means that democrats have been elected. Calling the likes of Pelosi and Murtha scoundrels is his personal opinion and one shared by many. You’re reading too much into this and adding your own bias.

I thought "blaming America first over anything" was Leftist turf. Is nothing safe from these gun-toting WASP scoundrels anymore...? :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

This hinges on whether or not you believe the American peoples' masticatory abilities have any relationship to their fortitude.

---

The author decries their lack of masticatory 'willingness', not 'abilities'. He doesn't say they gave up chewing, he says they chose not to. And he deplores that choice.

The author's political leanings are probably further removed from Adrian's than they are from the Lemur's, but he has a point when he stresses the impression of weakness. That is an added burden, on top of the unsavoury choices Washington faces. And to make things even worse, Democratic leaders such as Senator Levin, Congressman Murtha and Speaker Pelosi are now demanding a timetable for withdrawal. Such timetables are Ye Compleat and Utter Idiot's Solution to Militarye Intervention.

*childlike voice: 'Master, may I recommend a heady Chianti to go with that tasty timetable?' *

Mort's far closer to being a moderate than a "right-wing moonbat" Lemur. Unless you've read more of him than this, I'd suggest you not form your opinions based on the rantings of a left-wing blog. Read up.

Quote:

---

The author does not state or even imply that 'the American people are craven'. What he does suggest is that the present majority has no clue what to do with regard to Iraq. And he is right. American Iraq policy is now being thrashed out in a committee. This creates a weak impression. He is right about that, too.

---

Bingo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

It’s an opinion piece: scoundrels are ascendant means that democrats have been elected. Calling the likes of Pelosi and Murtha scoundrels is his personal opinion and one shared by many. You’re reading too much into this and adding your own bias.

---

Pelosi and Murtha are not "all over the world," as his first sentence reads. If his meaning matched your reading, it would read that in Washington scoundrels are ascendant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

The author's political leanings are probably further removed from Adrian's than they are from the Lemur's, but he has a point when he stresses the impression of weakness.

---

The author never discussed impression, appearance or facade. He refers to the reality of weakness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Mort's far closer to being a moderate than a "right-wing moonbat" Lemur. Unless you've read more of him than this, I'd suggest you not form your opinions based on the rantings of a left-wing blog.

---

I missed you too, Xiahou. Mort's spent too much of his time on the Fox News Channel for my liking, and in this editorial, yes, I think he's being a moonbat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

...it would read that in Washington scoundrels are ascendant.

---

Isn't this always the case?

If Iraq really was the watershed issue of this last election, and most polls/pundits feel that to be the case, then:

The American public collectively saying "this phase of the war on terror has been malfed up -- come up with something much more effective" is a very appropriate response. Even accepting the need for regime change in Iraq (and most did at the time but NOT everyone), lots of things were mis-handled.

However, if:

The American public is collectively saying "we will not support a difficult policy that costs us lives and treasure without producing a definitive result within the space of one administration" -- an interpretation I fear to be accurate -- then the USA is marginalizing itself as a power, as an ally, and as an active promoter of Western-style freedom and democracy.

If you are not willing to expend the lives of your military to achieve political objectives, you will give ground to those who will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

However, if:

The American public is collectively saying "we will not support a difficult policy that costs us lives and treasure without producing a definitive result within the space of one administration" -- an interpretation I fear to be accurate -- then the USA is marginalizing itself as a power, as an ally, and as an active promoter of Western-style freedom and democracy. If you are not willing to expend the lives of your military to achieve political objectives, you will give ground to those who will.

---

Yup. I hate to see the U.S. making mistakes, but I hate to see the country turn its back on its firmest commitments even more.

My true Master, I must confess, is not Baäl-Zebub, Lord of the Flies (Book of Kings II, 1:2-8), but Anthony Cordesman, He of Superior Standing in U.S. Iraq Policy-Making Circles.

Cordesman regularly produces reports, fact sheets, briefs and press brfiefings for CSIS on the situation. I have come to respect him as an expert of profound political insight. Cordesman has recently given a briefing in connection with the Iraq Study Group process. He stressed hat the situation on the ground in Iraq is far, far worse than the White House will admit and that it is needlessly compounded by a lack of leadership in Washington, and this on both sides of the aisle. However, the worst 'solution' for everyone concerned would be to find the easy way out:

This is a time which to have any hope of succeeding, you are going to need a level of leadership which admits the risk, the costs, and past mistakes. That is a choice for the administration to make. I do think it is perhaps unfair to say that the administration has not actively sought to deal
with many of the problems I am raising. If it has exaggerated its successes and understated the causes of its problems, it has talked about a sustained effort, about a long war.

We don’t know what the efforts are going on in the joint staff or the National
Security Council, but I think they are based on a high degree of realism, at least as to the scale of the problem. I am much more concerned about the realism over the need for economic aid to fix the Iraqi force development effort to be more objective there.

I think, too, one of the problems when we talk about the Congress is the Congress has not yet met, the leadership has not taken strong positions. When you look at some of the most important people of the new Congress, like Senator Biden, they have put forward ideas, but they have also talked about the need to be flexible and responsive, and set priorities that look beyond the immediate moment.

I think this is going to be a real crisis for American society. If all we do is react to past failures by trying to find the easiest way out, or some simply option we can use as at least an excuse, then we necessarily will make things far worse.

Interesting stuff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

If you are not willing to expend the lives of your military to achieve political objectives, you will give ground to those who will.

---

I don't think remaining stuck essentially impotent smack in the middle of a local approximation of the Yugoslav wars crossbred with the old bad days in Lebanon is a particularly more fruitful situation, though. It's Devil if you do and Devil if you don't, and around the exact one aspect of the whole mess that wasn't FUBARed from the word go was the actual military conquest anyway.

There's such a thing as painting yourself into a corner with a succession of poor choices.