Wednesday, March 19, 2008

No, Hillary...

Hillary Rodham Clinton told a group of young veterans Tuesday that one lesson of the Iraq War is not to commit troops "unless you are prepared to go all the way and are prepared to be successful."

Oh, God. Oh, my God. The lesson of the Iraq war is that we should have been prepared to go all the way?

First of all, isn't that what the Republicans were saying about Vietnam back in the day? And second, to paraphrase George Carlin: Imagine that, folks. An American presidential candidate actually using the sexual slang of a 13-year-old to describe her would-be foreign policy.

The lesson of the Iraq War is that you cannot commit troops based on deceptions and lies. There is no possible victory great enough to justify the cost in blood and billions, or to erase that stain.

At this point, Hillary Clinton, like Bush and virtually everyone else who still advocates the war, is either a liar or an idiot. I'm gonna go out a limb here and say that neither should be the president. Again.

Seriously, how am I supposed to have faith in Mrs. Clinton's judgement when it failed her (and her country) this miserably?


TROBlog said...

First of all, isn't that what the Republicans were saying about Vietnam back in the day?

I thought Vietnam was a JFK/Lyndon Johnson war? Nixon, the Republican, ended it.

Ben Varkentine said...

Excuse me, but what are you trying to say?

I wasn't talking about who began or ended the Vietnam war. I was talking about the delusion that we could have won it if only the government and the antiwar protesters had "let" men like John Rambo fight it *their* way.

A delusion which, unless I'm mistaken, certainly more Republicans labor under than Democrats, Hillary Clinton notwithstanding.

TROBlog said...

You were arguing with the premise that the lesson of the Iraq was that we should be prepared to go all the way. Then you said that was what the Republicans were saying about Vietnam back in the day.

I pointed out that it was the Democrats who started and kept the Vietnam war going, not the Republicans. Nixon, a Republican ended the war. I remember, I still have my unused draft card.

But then what do I know? I'm either a "liar or an idiot" because I still advocate the war - which I assume means supports our winning there.

Ben Varkentine said...

Yes you are.

And I'm "a lying sack of poo"

Except that you said "all" and I said "virtually."

As for "supporting our winning," yeah, that would be great--except what *achievable* "win" is there that would retroactively justify the needless cost of this war in blood and billions?

What does that "win" look like?

Re 'Nam, what you remember notwithstanding, it's still nothing to do with my argument.

TROBlog said...

I can't find the "lying sack of poo" reference in a post, but it sounds like me, so touche.

Still, if I do remember that post there was a choice - being naive or lying sack of poo. I would go with naive for you, but that could be construed as an even bigger insult. Which I don't mean to do - insult you that is.

I also missed the "virtually" in your post, which I should have noticed and I apologize for. I should have used virtually in my post of course, since absolutes are rarely absolute in politics. Please chalk it up to my not being thorough enough in my writing and not my actual feelings on the matter. After all, my son is an Obama guy (I did drop him on his head when he was little though).

At any rate, how do I define winning? Well, wiping out the vast majority of Al Qaeda in Iraq for one - which we have done - which does more than diminish their numbers, but also demoralizes their cause and helps moderate, sane Muslims push for Democracy in that area of the world. A working Iraqi government is also a sign of victory and while it is slow going, it is happening.

Finally, I do appreciate your reasoned debate on these issues and I hope, my "sack of poo" reference aside, that you feel the same way about me.

I can and do respect your opinion even if I can't respect your candidate.

Ben Varkentine said...

Here's the problem. We could debate at least some of the things you mention, but I think we've exhaused this topic, at least for now.

(Although for one thing, it's my understanding that, five years ago, Al Qaeda was not in Iraq to any concentrated degree.)

Still, little or none of that resembles in the slightest the reasons asserted by Bush, Cheney et all in the rush to war.

It's my opinion that if they'd gone to the American people and said:

"We want to send your sons and daughters to risk their lives so we can fix the Iraqi government,"

--there might have been, to say the least, a little more debate on the subject.

But they didn't make that case. They lied.

I do typically respect your debate, BTW, and try to respond in kind.