A Bunch of Faint-Hearts
Fox News Sunday today included an interview with Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, who confided his "growing impatience" with the war in Iraq. It also featured a clip of Gordon Smith, who insisted that he's at "the end of his rope" about the war.
There's no doubt that the President needs to put forth a strategy for victory in iraq that sounds feasible. And in fairness, Gordon Smith is seeking reelectoin in '08 as a Republican in Oregon. Brownback apparently is running for President -- but if he thinks that showing weakness and irresolution about the war is going to help, his foray into the presidential sweepstakes may be even shorter than many are already predicting.
In short, these senators (and others like them) are pathetic. Can you imagine if faint-hearts like this had been in charge during WWII, when 8,000 soldiers were being killed each month, rather than 50?
How sad that they seem so determined to ensure that the sacrifices of the men and women who have given their lives in Iraq will be meaningless. Here's the question: Is victory important? If so, let's get on to figuring out how to achieve it. If not, why was anyone willing to ask a single American soldier to give his or her life?
It makes no sense to say that victory is important -- but only if it's easy, costless, and popular at all times.
There's no doubt that the President needs to put forth a strategy for victory in iraq that sounds feasible. And in fairness, Gordon Smith is seeking reelectoin in '08 as a Republican in Oregon. Brownback apparently is running for President -- but if he thinks that showing weakness and irresolution about the war is going to help, his foray into the presidential sweepstakes may be even shorter than many are already predicting.
In short, these senators (and others like them) are pathetic. Can you imagine if faint-hearts like this had been in charge during WWII, when 8,000 soldiers were being killed each month, rather than 50?
How sad that they seem so determined to ensure that the sacrifices of the men and women who have given their lives in Iraq will be meaningless. Here's the question: Is victory important? If so, let's get on to figuring out how to achieve it. If not, why was anyone willing to ask a single American soldier to give his or her life?
It makes no sense to say that victory is important -- but only if it's easy, costless, and popular at all times.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:46 AM
1 Comments:
ripper,
As to the first offering, keep in mind that no one has ever said that all soldiers are saints. At the same time, it would be nice to see the whole thing. There may have actually been a point to the exercise. It could have been just jerks teasing kids, but with just enough film to make it seem so, I reserve judgement.
For the second, it doesn't seem that the soldiers are doing the filiming. They seem to be making a point to some who have pilfered and looted. Perhaps they took liberties in administering their "punishment", perhaps the thieves are real lowlifes. The narrator takes as complete truth the "cabbie's" statement about the value of the car. One can't put too much stock in the words of those on film unless the piece has been checked out by our authorities. If it's between them or us, I would trust our authorities first. But that's just me.
As to Carol's post,
I couldn't agree more with the sentiments. How can one gauge with any accuracy just how many lives lost determine failure when so many have been lost in previous wars before the tide was turned in our favor? How much money spent, how many years? If the cause is just, as many on the right know it to be, can there be any such considerations? Doesn't one simply need to continue in the face of evil until it is vanquished? I say yes. I'm glad Bush and Blair feel the same way. God help us all if their successors don't agree.
Post a Comment
<< Home