Monday, January 09, 2006

LT Smash on the Attack

I don't always agree with all his politics, but I really admire the way LT Smash boldly stands up for what he believes in. He is one of the few guys out there who will actually engage the opposition in a battle of wits...and comes out on top.

His latest post is where he engages Congressman Bob Filner in a town hall meeting is classic:

SMASH: Sir, I've been there --

FILNER: And you know, your brothers and sisters killed, something is wrong. ...And, you know, if we shouldn't have been in there to begin with, then it should not be incumbent on me to try to define getting out.

But I would say, that an international police force, which could keep the peace, it would -- that if we should put that in place at least --

SMASH: Led by whom, sir?

FILNER: The United Nations.

SMASH: But, who provides the troops, sir? ...Every international peace force that's ever been of any substantial size, has been led by the United States. There is no other --

FILNER: Well, you know, it doesn't have to be, because it was in the past. But, the British have shown that they want to put troops in, we've got all kinds of --

SMASH: They're already there, sir

Read the whole post. It nicely sums up what I feel is wrong with my end of the political spectrum. The congressman sounds like an earnest guy who is just flat doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground Iraq. If democrats/liberals/progressives (whatever we're calling ourselves this week) are serious about being in power, then they've got to get serious about the issues of the day. The Cindy Sheehan camp has to quit driving the train. If (we) they don't like how the administration is doing things, come up with something better. There is no workable liberal foreign policy solution to our problems. Wishing that the UN would come in an make it all better just won't work.


At January 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe the reason there isn’t any viable solution from the anti-Iraq war crowd is, that they aren’t just anti-Iraq war, they are “anti-military” regardless of where the military is deployed. If you look at the record of many who are calling for the end to military “occupation” in Iraq, these are the same people who were against the Vietnam-Balkan-Afghanistan, etc. wars. (depending on their age and what current conflict we are in) They are simply anti-military.

It wasn’t until the Iraq war and the anti-military crowd was called into question on their patriotism that they changed their mantra from anti-military to anti-war. You know the, “we support our troops but not the war”. Hell, how can you support the military but not what the military does, regardless of where they do it?

At January 10, 2006, Anonymous Alex said...

If it's too challenging for you to think through an answer to this question then I think it's time to head back to pre-school: "Hell, how can you support the military but not what the military does, regardless of where they do it?"

The military is a tool of the state. Ideally and legally it has no will of its own. To use the example given by our nation's gun lovers-> the military doesn't kill people, the leaders who deploy our military kill people. Our nation absolutely needs a strong and agile military, but it absolutely does not need to go off on ill-conceived and poorly executed missions into areas of the world that we do not (and possibly cannot) understand. If you can't bridge the gap between those two thoughts then, well, my condolences to your atrophied grey matter.

This is my problem with some of the anti-war left- that they blame the tool for the way it is being used. (Certainly this is my problem with many of the older lefties out there- since the war they despised so much- Vietnam- was started by their own leader).

The rest of your comment is typical right wing gibberish. When you've finished knocking down that straw man maybe you can come out into the real world and have actual adult conversations...

Kris- I have to disagree with you a bit here. Don't you think that it's a bit pointless to spin our wheels over how to get out of Iraq (or, in other words, how to win) when we hold none of the levers of power? What sort of benefit could we, or our mission in Iraq, derive from this sort of intellectual masturbation?

On the other hand, if you don’t have anything to say that isn’t completely stupid (like the UN coming in to save the day) maybe you should just say “I don’t really know.” Or- how about- “I would do what GW should have been doing- listen to the experts, work with those with local knowledge, and create benchmarks for success and failure with predetermined actions attached to each.” But again- this too is simply wishful thinking- the only experts the current administration is willing to listen to are those who confirm their beliefs. Groupthink is a bitch, and this may be the only word with “think” in it that we could attribute to this anon commenter.


Post a Comment

<< Home