General Pataeus Delivers His General's Report to Capitol Hill

[SteveDinMD]

Dear Steve,

I think we are so lucky that you are a member of Scared Monkeys. Your posts have been very informative and thorough regarding analyzing what's going on in the world today. However, obviously you are a fanatical Republican and an example of someone who sees only your side of the picture.

1) "They all know what they're doing, yet deliberately advance their personal agendas by stabbing the USA in the back." Can you give me an example? In simple terms, please.

2) "They inwardly rejoice at every U.S. casualty, using each as but another stick with which to beat the President and their political opponents. You don't really know that they are rejoicing." Can you give me an example in simple terms?

3) When you say "These people are the vilest traitors in the history of this country, and deserve nothing less that the fullest measure of opprobrium that our society can bestow" it makes me realize you are speaking your opinions only and nothing factual at all.

From now on, I'll read your posts with grains of salt.

*****************
SteveDinMD wrote: Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, Hillary, etc. all know what's at stake.  They all know what they're doing, yet deliberately advance their personal agendas by stabbing the USA in the back.  They inwardly rejoice at every U.S. casualty, using each as but another stick with which to beat the President and their political opponents.  What would they not do?  Whom would they not betray in their pursuit of raw power?  The answers are "nothing" and "no one".  These people are the vilest traitors in the history of this country, and deserve nothing less that the fullest measure of opprobrium that our society can bestow. 

Louise:  

     I would not say that I'm a fanatical Republican.  I have little or no use for many Republican politicians.  Rather, I would say that study and experience have engendered in me what would be described in the current political context as a profoundly conservative world view.  Mind you, that description depends on one's perspective, and perceptions of what is liberal and what is conservative have changed a great deal over time.  My ideal world is one moved by industry and thrift.  Its core values are duty, honor, and country.  Its stock in trade is comprised of individual liberty and the rule of law, before which all stand equal.  It's a world without political or hereditary elites, where advancement is strictly by virtue of merit.  Finally, it's a world where personal responsibility takes precedence over self-gratification.  Most of these were radically liberal ideas back in the age of absolute monarchs.  They were the ideals of the Enlightenment, upon which the United States was founded and which are embodied in the U.S. Constitution.  Not SO many years ago, these ideas defined the middle ground in the political spectrum.  Today, alas, they are increasingly dismissed by opinion-makers and their media mouthpieces as but the rantings of a right-wing lunatic fringe.  I would counter by noting that the middle of the road can seem far to the right when veiwed from the left-hand curb.  Moreover, I've come to my philosophy of life not by happenstance and not through blind faith, but in the course of a journey of discovery guided by logic.  

     My life's work has been the defense of this country, and I take my work seriously.  In affairs of state I am no novice; I am no dilettante.  It's my business to know what the U.S. national interests are and how they might be advanced or defended.  Informed opinions on these matters can differ, but seldom in good faith radically, which brings me to the point I'd care to make.  Consider Senators John Kerry, Harry Reid, and Hillary Clinton.  Each had for years been outspoken in his/her rhetoric denouncing Saddam Hussein.  Each voted in favor of the war.  Now they're against it.  Why?  Do they admit to an earlier error in judgement?  NO!  They claim they were lied to.  How can this be?  They were aggressively anti-Saddam long before G.W. Bush took office.  Did Bill Clinton lie to them?  They say "No."  According to Hillary, she didn't even read the relevant National Intelligence Estimates.  How, then, can she claim to have been lied to when she wasn't even inclined to even the most basic due diligence when deciding issues of war and peace?  Did she have something better to do that day?  Of course not, and her rhetoric becomes ever more ridiculous by the day as she tries to reconcile all her contradictory positions over the years.  For all her attempts at obfuscation, she knew then what she knows now, as do they all:  the Iraq War was an essential element of U.S. foreign policy.  

     If the Iraq War was important to fight then, it should be especially important to win now, yet these senators vote time and again to cut off funds to our troops in the field.  That's not all.  They've voted to prevent the Government from using technical intelligence capabilities against the enemy.  Following the lead of the 'New York Times' they've revealed state secrets, and U.S. personnel have died as a consequence.  They've voted to give illegal combatants -- i.e. terrorist who have murdered our countrymen -- access to U.S. courts and taxpayer financed legal help.  In light of all this, can it be said that these three senators are doing their level best to assist the war effort?  I don't think so.  Alternately, do they have some obscure plan to advance our national interests by some other means?  It doesn't seem so.  When asked what should be done, they simply repeat their mantra, "Withdraw the troops now!"  The natural follow-up question for them is "Then what?"  to which you'll receive but deafening silence as an answer.  No, there's not plan, at least not one for advancing our national interests.  

     What can we say about the leadership shown by these three anti-war senators?  Leadership can be defined as the strength to urge necessary action, though it be unpopular, and it's an important virtue for those holding or aspiring to high office.  Reward often demands sacrifice, and those who would lead must have the moral clarity and strength of conviction to choose sacrifice when necessary.  Furthermore, policy choices are not always neatly divided among "good" and "bad."  Oftentimes all one's choices are bad, and the challenge is to choose the least undesirable.  Absent leadhership, the people can be confused by such situations, much to their detriment.  By this definition, I don't see any leadership from Kerry, Reid, or Clinton.  Do You?  

     Opportunism, by contrast, can be defined as the disingenuousness to champion superficially popular causes with full knowledge that they are inimical to the public good.  Opportunism is the soul of demagoguery, which is the bane of good government.  I view Kerry, Reid, and Clinton as opportunists.  Contrary to the national interest they have willfully undermined the war effort in the expectation that they will gain personal political advantage.  What's more, they're not alone in this pursuit.  In fact, the Democratic Party is shot through with such people, and the Republicans have a few of their own.  Just a couple of weeks ago, a leading Democratic congressman was asked how he and the rest of the Democratic caucus viewed possible victory in Iraq.  "That would be a problem for us," was his reply.  That pretty much says it all.  Any politician or political party that is in conflict with the national interest is by definition traitorous, and therefore vile and deserving of opprobrium.  I stand by my earlier post, and look forward to blogging with you again.  

Very Best Regards,

-- SFD

PS:  I encourage you always to read all my posts and others with a healthy dose of skepticism.  If you see a flaw or void in logic, by all means point it out!  

[spooky112483]

MrsRed,

I had a Darfur conversation with Carnut. He said we are involved in two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq and don't want to get into a third war with a Muslim country. The Darfur situation is very complicated. And also we are stretched thin.

I disagree. We are fighting ONE war on TWO battlefields. Look at WWII. We were in Britain, Italy, France, Poland, Germany, Japan, the Philippines just to name a few. Wow. That's, like, 7 WARS right there!! This is one war against Islamic extremism that they, the enemy, have taken to many countries. It's not just Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran is fighting us in a proxy battlefront in Iraq. Israel fought proxy battlefronts in Lebanon against Iran. Britain and Spain and others have endured attacks in their countries too. So they too are fighting this war. This is what some people just can't wrap their minds around. One war with different battles that we together must win.

[GreatOwl]

This is a good analogy if only it were consistent with WWII.  WWII we were indeed on many battlefields and we had a significant portion of our allies along side us.  Right now those allies are not providing the same percentage or proportion in supporting the cause.  In many cases, they are withdrawing their military support leaving us to fight alone in many of these locations.  Token participation on the part of other nations does not represent a commitment to support the cause to resolution.

[mrs. red]

This is a good analogy if only it were consistent with WWII.  WWII we were indeed on many battlefields and we had a significant portion of our allies along side us.  Right now those allies are not providing the same percentage or proportion in supporting the cause.  In many cases, they are withdrawing their military support leaving us to fight alone in many of these locations.  Token participation on the part of other nations does not represent a commitment to support the cause to resolution.

Now is when they most need to step up to the plate IMO.  The extremists have a stronger commitment and stomach for winning than a lot of us do, it seems.  Too many people think (Spain & France are in this category) that if we just let them go and continue to control things then they will go away and let us live in peace. Not going to happen - look at how over the summer France struggled with trying to take back the "French" way of life  - they banned headscarves in school and it completely backfired - they had to back down and give in.  We, IMO , are getting to a point in this country where a lot of people need to wake up and stop rolling over.  I remember reading about a company in Nashville that was sued and lost because they didn't allow the Muslims to have thier prayer hours and rugs while on the job.... OH yeah? try it as a  Christian.... see what happens... and yet the Muslims were given the time, back pay and a room set aside for them.  I don't disagree with prayer and I don't particulary have a problem with someone taking a break to pray.... but it's the special treatment being demanded and given while not being given to the majority that bothers me.

I don't know if I am expressing this clearly, but my bottom line is also this... in many aspects of the War on Christianity, which I believe exists - just like the war against Jewish people, and there is one - I think it is a cog in thier wheel to a one world, one religion that they are fighting for.   IF this war on terror doesn't succeed, we will all be wearing burkas and beards - just my opinion...

[GreatOwl]

I am not going to get into a debate of what will or will not happen in our ever changing society and world.  What I do observe is that we are "enablers" or the behavior of our former allies.  We seem to think we can stand alone on every issue.  As one of the nations drops out of the equation we find it necessary to increase our support to replace what has been lost.  We are now paying the price for that as the rest of the world no longer sees themselves in a support role.  We simply have to begin to draw the line somewhere.  We can not continue to sacrifice our own as the rest of the world slides slowly into the shadows.