Just One Question
Here's one that's kind of a new twist on what parents the world over have asked their children. Wonder what all the consensus-aholics in the MSM would answer to this: If all the wise men in the world arrived at a "general consensus" that you should jump off a bridge (after an "exhilarating experience" of "genuine bipartisanship), would that make it right for you to do it?
posted by LadybugUSA at 6:15 PM
6 Comments:
Were that to happen, I think that they would say that the wise men were either not such wise men after all or very bad comedians, and thus it is not all right to do it. Do you think that we have a consensus there? What about if we have a single “decider” tell us the same thing? I guess if a “general consensus” is wrong, the will of the “decider” must be right. Or is it bad/good? Or weak/strong? Or craven/principled? Or, perhaps, it’s that the “consensus of the wise men” or the “will of the decider” should be assessed on the merits of the supporting arguments and evidence. Maybe, just maybe, we should entertain the possibility that Mr. Baker, Mr. Meese, et al, haven’t been tainted by association with (gasp!) Democrats. But the implications of that are too horrible to contemplate. Why, that would mean that the bad news and harsh assessments are the good faith best efforts of arguably well intentioned patriots without an ax to grind or political advantage to defend or gain. No, no, much better that we stick with the well reasoned judgment of those gotten us to the pinnacle of success that we now occupy. After all, who can fault the (oh no!) consensus plan of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and that great supporting cast, The Project for the New American Century, that has proven to be so accurately prescient and stunningly successful? Yeah, there’s a group with the proper Bushido spirit that knows were the will is strong, the flesh cannot fail.
I would go a step further and point to where Josef Stalin when he saw he was out of his element and his plans against the Nazis were failing he turned to Georgy Zhukov and his group of young generals who has survived the purges of 1937. The results despite massive resistance from both Voroshilov and Stalin were victories at Kursk and Stalingrad. How is it that the greatest egotist of the 20th Century can bend with the wind and the "great Decider" of the 21st century cannot?
C.E.
Time will tell. My feeling, and possibly the consensus feeling of conservatives, is that we've been held back by trying to fight a politically correct war, instead of doing what it really takes to win. That might be too painful for our more sensitive viewers. But just wait, it'll end up much more painful if we let Syria and Iran off, because we must love our enemies, and sell out our allies (Isreal).
On an unrelated tangent: Carol, can you do a post about why our choices in the Republican party for President in '08 are limited to the stinkin' RINO consensus put forth by the MSM (and by you too). I read about John Cox (Illinios), and he seems like someone I could support.
Carol, you believe you don't owe me anything, where I believe you owe me (picking a number) $20 mil. So, let's come to a seasoned, wise, bipartisan agreement that you owe me $10 mil.
This ISG was such a joke. (Donations still accepted though :) )
COPioneer:
"My feeling, and possibly the consensus feeling of conservatives, is that we've been held back by trying to fight a politically correct war, instead of doing what it really takes to win."
I can see how you would get that impression.
Centcom:
"When insurgents create situations such as occurred Wednesday, Coalition Forces must defend themselves," said Coalition spokesman Marine Lt. Col. Bryan Salas. "While we are mindful to limit damage, we must respond with necessary and proportional force to protect our forces and Iraq from the insurgents."
I agree, Brian, that such things should be judged on the merits. As such, much of the ISG resembles what the overall plan has been from the beginning. In that, the consensus is pretty much unanimous. Thus, based on that, the ISG supports the notion that "the decider" is on the right track in general. But where they part ways, is in the ISG notion that we can't win militarily. Of course that's nonsense. We've got all the big guns. Making the Middle East a vast parking lot would leave us victorious. Obviously that's extreme so backing off from that would still allow for victory.
Victory has never been the problem. The problem is how badly victory is desired. Would more troops really be necessary if, as eLarson suggests, our current forces had their handcuffs removed? What would that mean in terms of collateral damage? Civilian deaths are to be avoided, but putting civilian lives above the mission makes the mission harder to accomplish. Is that the fault of the decider or those who insist on no civilian deaths? It can't be had both ways.
To further assess the consensus opinion of the alleged wise men, there is little evidence that negotiations with Iran, Syria and such would yield any fruit that wouldn't quickly spoil. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that such activity would be a collosal waste of time. The "wise men" seem to think we're dealing with the USSR or China. So they're tainted in a different way. They're ax may be a more personal one.
I do support the consensus plan of the current administration. I don't support those who believe that because the plan didn't work to the letter, that it wasn't psychic enough to allow for the unseen contingencies, that it didn't limit American and civilian deaths to zero, that because of all this and more we are now losing or without hope of victory.
Post a Comment
<< Home