Friday, June 16, 2006
Sad Wags and Bad Wagers
Victor Davis Hanson today in NRO suggests that Betting on Defeat in
Here are the problems with those who want to recant earlier support of the more – or take less ambiguously negative positions vice earlier, less definable stances:
1. The argument, notably from Senator Kerry, that “We were misled.”
Hanson knows his history, of which Kerry either knows not, or as he’s famously practiced in the past, selectively aware not. This has always been the definable characteristic about Kerry’s position on
(Hanson has more of a principled, reasoned rejoinder than I. Me, I find the repetitive trotting out of fact and history for people who know truth from fiction only too well, boring and a waste of time.)
2. Shifting positions in a war that shifts positions.
Hanson makes the excellent observation that wars and battle spaces evolve. This is beyond the grasp of partisan opportunists and politicos, who know no principle or ethic save, “what gets me and mine ahead?” One risks much who plans public appearances and media campaigns based on combat status that is old before the cameras roll. (This evokes Kerry again, who has quite the reputation for staling just long enough to take a stand that appears ridiculous and two weeks old by the time he takes it.)
3. Legitimate Criticism of the War is different than slander.
As Hanson says,
…Much of the Left’s rhetoric was not merely anti-Bush, but in its pessimism devolved into de facto anti-Americanism.
Senator Durbin compared
You don’t have to react to this kind of hysteria with fury or wrath to see it for slander. Most of us who support the war don’t dehumanize our opponents or brand them as evil. Stupid? Misguided? Ignorant? Partisan? Crazed? Sure, those and more, but outside of a few really sick individuals, I don’t think they’re Satan’s minions or anything. At least I don’t think so…
4. The mainstream media can’t be trusted on
There had to be one of Hanson’s points so obvious, what’s there to discuss?
Let’s get this straight: The war to remove Saddam Hussein, along with the war to topple the Taliban in
You don’t hear anything from critics about our stunning success in the prior, only our failures in the latter. Hmmmm.
Hanson wraps it up neatly in a paragraph:
The three-week effort to remove Saddam Hussein was a landmark success. The subsequent three-year occupation in his place has been messy, costly, and unpopular. But the result of the third and final stage that
6. What’s YOUR Plan?
Hanson notes the utter paucity of alternatives. Representative Nancy Pelosi defines the syndrome, weekly offering accusatory bromides that consist of little more than, “It’s a disaster! Give it over to us! Once we’re in charge, we’ll figure out how it NEEDS to be done. We should have a plan any day now! I mean, other than the Plan where you vote us into Congress and the Presidency!”
(As to no plan at all, opponents might consider how Military men and women would take to being in a dangerous place without a plan. Our Military and the Iraqi Security Forces have all kinds of PLAN, or you’d be hearing about it BIG TIME from GI Joes and Janes. Again, refer to Milblogs.)
Meanwhile, what’s the status of the current Plan that is continually derided by Opponents as No Plan At All? According to Hanson,
So we are nearing the denouement of the
7. No Links! No WMD! No Ties to Terror! A Distraction from 9/11 Bad Guys!
Irrelevant or untrue, increasingly so as time passes and Iraqi and Al Qaeda documents surface, supporting Hussein’s ties to and support of terror and terror entities, his real WMD capabilities and desire for greater.
Once a democratically elected Iraqi government emerged, and a national army was trained, the only way we could lose this war was to forfeit it at home, through the influence of an adroit, loud minority of critics that for either base or misguided reasons really does wish us to lose. They really do.
There’s little else to conclude.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]