Blame America First

[Lemur]

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!

[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.

[Lemur]

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.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

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..

[Redleg]

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.

[Kralizec]

Enjoy the reading. I found Prager's article on the recent election of a muslim to congress deeply distrubing.

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

[Redleg]

You mean this one?

Yep

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

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

That is the part that distrubed me.

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.

[ezrider]

You mean this one?

I have a few questions on this area.

Why is it that one has to swear on the Bible to take public office, if there's supposed to be some separation of church and state. If you're a congressman aren't you then part of the State?

Why swear on anything at all? its already against the law to abuse your position in office.

Second sort of unrelated question is; If in court as a witness, do you also have to swear on the Bible (i.e. "do you agree to tell the truth ...so help you God")? if you don't believe in God then what does your oath mean?
Surely the religious aspects of any state procedure or ritual should be removed in favour of something that is more relevant to the multicultural population of America.

If God is out of Schools, then sHe should be off the money, out of the court and out of the rituals of politics as well. Shouldn't sHe?

[Pannonian]

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.

American Conservative

[Adrian II]

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.

[Rameusb5]

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.

[Vladimir]

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.

[Rameusb5]

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.

[Vladimir]

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.

[Lemur]

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.

Confirmation of your theory, in handy video format.

[Lemur]

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.

[Adrian II]

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.

[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?

[Rameusb5]

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.

[Adrian II]

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.

[Divinus Arma]

The majority of Blame America First policy comes from the liberal left, not from conservatives. Allow me to provide some examples:

*9/11 was a result of American Middle East Policy and our "thirst for oil" (excuse us for purchasing a product at prices established by the sellers.)

*Global Warming is a result of American capitalism driven by base consumer culture.

*North Korea has nuclear weapons because America isn't engaging in unilateral discussions with Kim.


Pretty unfair of you to attack an individual's viewpoint as "blaming America first" when the author clearly is frustrated with the gutless instant gratification culture of the American liberal left.

[lars573]

*9/11 was a result of American Middle East Policy and our "thirst for oil" (excuse us for purchasing a product at prices established by the sellers.)

Actually on that they aren't wrong. Just not for the reasons you might think. 9/11 happened because of Gulf war 1. By an extremely narrow intrpretation of the Koran any state that encompases Mecca and Medina is sacred Muslim ground. Thusly Saudi Arabia as a whole is sacred ground. By that same view point it's a huge sin for Muslims to allow infidels (Christians) onto that sacred ground. Thus when the US and the NATO send troops to Saudi Arabia in 1991 the Saudi government engaged in a huge sin by letting Christians (who then had the audacity to go and celebrate christmas for all to see) North Americans and Europeans onto holy Saudi soil. Bin Laden was a person who held such views. To him the Sauds allowing the US and it's allies into Saudi Arabia was submission to infidel interests. This turned his wrath from Russia to the US.

[Lemur]

The majority of Blame America First policy comes from the liberal left, not from conservatives.

You're arriving at the pile-on a bit late, aren't you? Anyway, the entire point of the over-parsed three paragraphs I originally posted were that the author was angry at the voters for not "staying the course." He was blaming America, only from an angle you aren't used to.

Pretty unfair of you to attack an individual's viewpoint as "blaming America first" when the author clearly is frustrated with the gutless instant gratification culture of the American liberal left.

Thank you for illustrating my original point. If and when the Iraq War seems like a terminally bad idea, there will be blame-slinging aplenty, and I have no doubt that a fraction of the right will cast their blame blanket on the American voters for their lack of character. You've chosen to qualify your condemnation with the "American liberal left" phrase, which is interesting, since the "American liberal left" has about as much clout as the fiscal conservatives. Which is to say, oh, 5% or so. There are more self-identified "conservatives" than "liberals" in the U.S., if you choose to believe polls. So which subset of the American electorate are we going to blame for Iraq, if Iraq turns out the way it looks it will turn out?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yeah, and then we don't let them

Oh? Remind me what Carter did to free the hostages and what the world has done to stop Iran from getting nukes? Nothing, and the EU continues its thumb twiddling.

CR

[Watchman]

Would you like to explain to me what exactly has the US has thus far managed to do about the Irani nukes that the rest of the world didn't anyway then, oh Super Macho Man ?

And why is it anyway that Americans (particularly "conservative" ones) have the raging hots for new variations of the infamous Dolchschlagslegende...?

[Kralizec]

And why is it anyway that Americans (particularly "conservative" ones) have the raging hots for new variations of the infamous Dolchschlagslegende...?

Oach...

[Rameusb5]

And why is it anyway that Americans (particularly "conservative" ones) have the raging hots for new variations of the infamous Dolchschlagslegende...?

I did a search and came up with no hits in google or wikipedia for Dolchschlagslegende. What is it?

[Rameusb5]

Oh? Remind me what Carter did to free the hostages

Actually, I just watched a "Military Blunders" show on cable that talked about the rescue attempt. Apparently Carter approved a military operation to free the hostages, but it was, for all intents and purposes, a failure. They lost several helicopters (there was actually a collision between a helicopter and a transport plane) in the operation.

After that failure, the Iranians freed the hostages because the Shaw was overthrown and the Iatola came to power, which is what the Iranian people wanted anyway, so the need for the hostages ceased to exist.


So Carter's administration did make an attempt to rescue them. To be honest, some blame for the operation's failure should lie on his shoulders, since he was the commander in chief at the time. But there was plenty of blame to go around. He was in a difficult situation and I'm not sure that Regan or any other president could have been more successful. The Iranians did NOT want to negotiate, BTW.