More Dem-bashing from Time's resident "liberal": Klein claimed Democratic Party is "not known for its warrior ethic"
In his column in the June 26 edition of Time, Joe Klein -- the magazine's "most liberal columnist" -- continued his pattern of attacking Democrats, claiming that the party is "not known for its warrior ethic." Klein's column purported to explain why -- in spite of the Iraq war's flagging popularity -- Democrats "seem so bollixed" about the war while Bush "seem[s] so confident."
Klein wrote:
What can the Democrats do? They can play politics or be responsible. The political option is to embrace "cut and run"; call for an immediate withdrawal, as Kerry did; and hope the public is so sick of Bush and sick of the war that it will punish the G.O.P. in the fall. But embracing defeat is a risky political strategy, especially for a party not known for its warrior ethic. In fact, the responsible path is the Democrats' only politically plausible choice: they will have to give yet another new Iraqi government one last shot to succeed.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
should talk to John Murtha about this and his lack of confidence and warrior ethic.
Or Al Gore. Or any number of Dems who have fought in forign wars.
And, who is exactly that the Pugs have?
Klein is little more now then just one more neocon flak.
Whatever this "warrior ethic" thing is supposed to be, is it something that Bush and Cheney have?
Or Donald Rumsfeld even?
I'm sure I know what a "warrior" is, and I think I know what an "ethic" is; have Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld ever been the first of those things?
Do they have even the second of those things; if not the "ethic" of a "warrior", then perhaps the "ethic" of a "non-warrior"?
Or maybe the "ethic" of business agents for the arms industry?
Lastly, do Mr. Kerry and Mr. Murtha (Democrats both) have the "warrior ethic"?
..couldn't even last a minute playing Halo 2 on Xbox Live.. let alone a real war.
I'm going to AGREE with the Liberal posters here [as I do from time to time] The IDEA that Democrats are somehow not KNOWN for their "warrior ethic" or even as "warriors" is the RESULT of a GREAT P.R. job done by the Right.
And Klein is SIMPLY helping to SPREAD this fallacy. Klein a Liberal? I think not.
The IDEA that Democrats are somehow not KNOWN for their "warrior ethic" or even as "warriors" is the RESULT of a GREAT P.R. job done by the Right.
I disagree. It's not PR, although the right has helped this notion along, its history that shows this to be true. From VietNam, to Reagan's confrontation of the Soviets, to the first gulf War, to the current war. From military spending, to military systems, to covert operations. Just look at the posts on this site alone. It seems each and every "find" of misinformation of the part of MMFA is challenging an assessment of positive things happening in Iraq. It almost seems this site, as well as a majority of the posters here are hoping for bad news. From Murtha and Dean's, "we can't win," to legal challenges for the tools necessary to win, Gitmo, NSA surveilance, Geneva Convention, Haditha, Abu Garaib, each and every time the left falls on the side that HINDERS victory, EACH AND EVERY TIME!!!
No, I think the idea that the left aren't "warriors" is very well deserved and NOT PR!!
On the Democrat's "warrior ethic", Fool's Gold says,
"It's not PR, although the right has helped this notion along,"
RESPONSE: no kidding!
"... its history that shows this to be true."
RESPONSE: Really? Details!
" From VietNam,"
RESPONSE: Uh, you leave out WWII. Any particular reason? Maybe that FDR was a Democrat? And on VietNam ... you think LBJ wasn't fighting that war?
"... to Reagan's confrontation of the Soviets,"
RESPONSE: Remember the Cold War well. 40 YEARS with the Dems in Congressional Majority, 40 YEARS in which the Soviets were OUT-MONEYED into bankruptsy, and the president can't spend a dime -- that's what Congress does; funds such things. Oh, I notice you don't mention Reagan's Beirut "cut and run".
"... to the first gulf War,"
RESPONSE: That was GHW Bush's "warrior ethic", that called for a 'cut and run' before taking Baghdad. Is that the "warrior ethic" you refer to?
"... to the current war. From military spending, to military systems, to covert operations."
RESPONSE: The current war: Based on LIES. Military Sepending? No-bid contracts to Halliburton? Covert operations? Outing Valarie Plame? Illegally wiretapping American citizens? Look, your list which seeks to paint Dems as having no "warrior ethic" is instead a litany of corruptions and illegalities and schemes by GOP chickenhawks which, yes, have been QUESTIONED by Democrats, most of whom know first hand what WAR is all about.
"Just look at the posts on this site alone. It seems each and every "find" of misinformation of the part of MMFA is challenging an assessment of positive things happening in Iraq."
RESPONSE: Iraq was a huge mistake, and is currently a great mess. The "warrior ethic" does not require warriors to mindlessly throw themselves into any frey that incompetent "leadership" orders. In our nation, our civilian leadership is the responsibility of THE PEOPLE to monitor, and to question. WE OWE IT TO OUR BRAVE FIGHTING FORCES to give them leadership which is COMPETENT.
"It almost seems this site, as well as a majority of the posters here are hoping for bad news."
RESPONSE: There is plenty of bad news. We choose not to IGNORE it, because thousands of lives are in harm's way, needlessly.
"From Murtha and Dean's, "we can't win," to legal challenges for the tools necessary to win, Gitmo, NSA surveilance, Geneva Convention, Haditha, Abu Garaib, each and every time the left falls on the side that HINDERS victory, EACH AND EVERY TIME!!!"
RESPONSE: A "war on terror" can NEVER be won ... the President himself has admitted it. The only thing we can HOPE to do is conduct ourselves as a nation with honor. Tearing up our constitution, engaging in torture, in atrocities, tearing up LAW in the form of treaties, none of this will lead to "VICTORY", as you seem to claim. Instead, these BAD things ensure we will LOSE. We lose our national image, and we lose our own HUMANITY. These things can never lead to "victory". Supporting incompetent and WRONG "leadership" is not a worthy goal.
"No, I think the idea that the left aren't "warriors" is very well deserved and NOT PR!!"
RESPONSE: What you "think" is so obviously based on purely partisan bias, coupled with a "convenient" selective memory of actual HISTORY, means that your "opinion" is neither valid nor persuasive.
Ooops. Forgot an important point. Getting out of VietNam with a "secret plan" .... which was to "CUT AND RUN"? That was NIXON, a REPUBLICAN.
"Warrior Ethic"? Yeah, right. It's a GOP thing.
RESPONSE: Uh, you leave out WWII. Any particular reason?
I tried to keep it to the last half century. Democrats haven't always had this mentality, Kennedy was quite aggressive and NOT afraid to use US military strength as indicated with the Cuban Missile crisis.
That was GHW Bush's "warrior ethic", that called for a 'cut and run' before taking Baghdad. Is that the "warrior ethic" you refer to?
The UN Resolution that Bush I was operating under provided for ONLY expelling Iraq from Kuwait, not occupying Iraq and removing Saddam. The cease fire provided terms under which Saddam could have been brought back into the community of nations had Clinton not taken his eye off the ball while servicing Monica and let Saddam flaunt the terms of the cease fire, which in and of itself is more proof of the Dems lack of the warrior mentality. Also, can you say North Korea, another Clinton blunder?
A "war on terror" can NEVER be won
You PROVE my point my friend!! Someone without a "warrior eithic" would feel this way.
....means that your "opinion" is neither valid nor persuasive.
I've read your posts, I had no real expectation of persuading YOU, you seem to enjoy the kool aid too much.
I tried to keep it to the last half century.
Better yet, why not restrict it the last quarter century? In that time period, name the Democratic presidents who have not employed military force?
Of course, this raises an important question...should we really measure the success of presidents by the number of times they used military force or by the number of times they were able to achieve desirable ends without the use of military force?
The UN Resolution that Bush I was operating under provided for ONLY expelling Iraq from Kuwait.
UN resolutions matter? Precisely which resolution was Bush43 operating under when he ordered the invasion of Iraq?
You PROVE my point my friend!! Someone without a "warrior eithic" would feel [a war on terror can never be won.]
Even if one accepts your assertion that all people who do not have a "warrior ethic" are people who believe the "war on terror" cannot be won, you imply that Tex does not have a "warrior ethic" since he stated the "war on terror" cannot be won. This is a logical fallacy (Affirming the Consequent).
Of course, the more likely reality is that there are some people who are willing to use military force when necessary, but realize that a "war on terror" is nothing more than a cheap political phrase. I.e., please define terrorism as used in that context? How do you define victory?
I've read your posts, I had no real expectation of persuading YOU, you seem to enjoy the kool aid too much.
Ad hominem fallacy. However, consider examining your own arguments if you really are interested in being persuasive.
Of course, the more likely reality is that there are some people who are willing to use military force when necessary, but realize that a "war on terror" is nothing more than a cheap political phrase. I.e., please define terrorism as used in that context? How do you define victory?
I don't recall a whole lot of Democrats that VOTED FOR THE INVASION asking anyone to start down that road of definitions priot to their vote. Most Democrats stood up and strongly implored the President to take out Saddam and didn't seem to need any definitions then. Of course, when the going got tough, and some saw political advantage, their tunes changes under the guise of being "lied to."
I stated my opinion, you have a different opinion. I CAN live with that, but I can certainly understand how someone, anyone can say that the Democrats are not known for their "warrior eithic," which is the subject of this thread. History would substantiate that view it would seem.
I don't recall a whole lot of Democrats that VOTED FOR THE INVASION asking anyone to start down that road of definitions priot to their vote.
You're talking about the invasion of Iraq. The previous poster was talking about the "war on terror." They are different.
When will we know the "war on terror" has been won?
You're talking about the invasion of Iraq. The previous poster was talking about the "war on terror." They are different.
Actually, Iraq is part of the war on terror, but the victory on the war on terror will be unlike any other and I'm not sure exactly what it will look like.
your fallacies are detailed, your mis-statements of fact corrected and you keep on going never looking back, expecting everyone else to just forget that you have not gotten one fact correct or made any coherent arguments.
The left on this site argue in the exact same manner in which you seem to take issue with: broad, sweeping generalizations with no specific references in so many cases.
Of course, for the hypocrit charge to stick, one has to assume either that Zero has argued with generalities, etc. or that he's a lefty and guilty by association.
In any event, does that have bearing on the validity of Zero's post? No.
That type of discussion is inherence in the forum. That is what makes the defenses of so many of y'all here so very weak. This is not a defense of an academic forum. This is a blog, a discussion forum, a comment section. Sure, references are welcome, but the nature of the medium often does not result in that. It is not about being lefty or righty. It is about stop trying to make a defense based on such a flimsy excuse. You just did precisely that. Apparently, if I cannot give you a log of precise incidents, the person doing do, date & time, etc., then you brush off the point. I do not know about you, but I do not have the time (nor the inclination to be honest) to dig through this entire web site chronicling nit picky stuff like that.
I do not have the time (nor the inclination to be honest) to dig through this entire web site chronicling nit picky stuff like that.
I thought you were here to "expos[e] the liberal agenda of Media Matters for America." I believe I read that somewhere on the web. What happened?
But I can't remember where. I think it might have been at:
www.ihaveanaxetogrind.com
Tell you what. I will be happy to start undertaking this effort when the left wing charges go beyond a level of gross generalizations themselves as well as the rampant name calling that passes for a defense of points here.
First, I did not call anyone a hypocrite
See: disingenuous. It's also clear you were implying hypocrisy by mentioning what others on the left have done.
This is not a defense of an academic forum. This is a blog, a discussion forum, a comment section. Sure, references are welcome, but the nature of the medium often does not result in that.
So, dubious comments should not be scrutinized for lack of time/space? Fascinating.
It is about stop trying to make a defense based on such a flimsy excuse. You just did precisely that.
Huh? Is your name Dan Quayle?
Going forward, rather than making blanket charges (Bush is a liar, Republicans are scum, etc.) (and before you nit pick, perhaps you did not specifically do that but someone reading this probably did) how about some proof as opposed to political spin.
I believe I've been very specific here. The idea your "you first" response is justified because someone, be it anyone, here has engaged in empty rhetoric, is ludicrous. It amounts to excusing your behavior because someone else did it too.
Why do you post here? I'm not suggesting you shouldn't, but I do wonder what your purpose is...what are you trying to achieve? Are you trying to annoy? receive recognition? exchange ideas? learn? persuade?
"I intend to keep commenting and challenging the hypocritical points made on the site and will try to provide an update on my progress of exposing the liberal agenda of Media Matters for America."
Copied and pasted from his website. You might say he's on a mission.
ROFL. He writes that as if MMFA is secretive about their purpose. Could [link to mediamatters.org] be any more clear?
Iraq is part of the "war on terror" - NOW. At the time of the invasion, though, it wasn't.
There is a serious problem when something that has been styled a "war" does not have an end that anyone can envision. In a short-lived moment of honesty the adminstration tried to change it to something more accurate like "the global struggle against violent extremism" (or something like that) but it seems they quickly realized that "war on terror" is much more useful for sustaining the irrational fear that is necessary to govern the way they want to.
Just packing up and leaving on some predetermined date, regardless of what is going on? Yeah..some strategy. "Hey terrorists....just hang tight for six months and we are gonna back on outta here. Save up your strength becasue then you can do whatever you want." Having that exact date ought to be a big help in Al-Qaeda and the insurgency's planning.
Having that exact date ought to be a big help in Al-Qaeda and the insurgency's planning.
Why would it matter if they had an exact date? What would they do differently? They certainly don't seem to be holding anything back right now.
Therein lies the problem...how can you define victory if you don't even know what it looks like?
A popular acronym for describing solid goals is that they're SMART, i.e., specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely. Remembering measurable, realistic and timely is probably sufficient, since the remaining two are a consequent of the others. However, I guess MRT doesn't make an effective mnemonic device.
It does not look like circling a date on the calendar and then packing up on that date regardless of what is going on or what threats still remain. I guess you could say that is measurable, even specific, but I fail to see where it is smart.
You make the mistake here and immediately above of confusing the war in Iraq (which we aren't talking about) with the "war on terror" (which we are).
The two cannot be completely separated. Fine...you want a definition of winning the war on terror? When the threat of terrorist acts is essentially eliminated. This is a different type of conflict and trying to say how long that could take is not a deterministic effort.
Easily have seperated the war on terror and Iraq. Since the State dept said directly that they had not attempted any terrorism against the west in a decade.
[link to www.lewrockwell.com]
The State Department’s April, 2001 report on state-sponsored terrorism included Iraq but made no mention of any al-Qaeda activity in Iraq. It noted that "The regime has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack" since the 1993 Bush I assassination attempt.
The statement the war on terrorism will be over "When the threat of terrorist acts is essentially eliminated. " Means, never. This is the holy grail for warmongers everywhere. An excuse to fight anyone, anywhere, anytime. Its something to replace communism as the trump card in international policy debate. Hey I said terrorism, the argument is over. The perpetual state of war is a wet dream for the power elite, but a nightmare for America in general. Be careful of carrying water for them.
sit on our hands and try to negotiate with Osama and hope that if we be nice to him he will go "Oops...the U.S. is a bunch of swell guys...call off that attack on the Super Bowl!" It might be a nice arguing point to say that "warmongers" like this scenario, but if you believe that, then that is a sad, cynical outlook IMO. War is terrible. Losing lives is terrible. But sometimes there are things that have to be fought for and our freedoms and our lives fall into that category as far as I am concerned. Solon, since you are so critical of the effort against terrorism, would you please tell us what your proposed solution to terrorism is? The Democrats must have a whiz bang strategy since they keep complaining that we currently don't have one in this conflict.
As for Iraq, that is typically a narrow left wing view. Perhaps Iraq itself had not engaged in terrorism. But in 2003 we apparently believed that they had WMDs (and I am still not convinced they did not hide these or ship them out of the country prior to our invasion - but that is personal opinion). Saddam was an unstable leader, a man who had shown brutality. He could have well sold these weapons to Al-Qadea or another terrorist organization. Al-Qadea likely cannot develop these weapons on their own - they would have to buy them. That alone could connect an attack to Iraq as part of the war on terror.
Saddam (not Osama) probably posed some very small risk to our security in America. To diminish that small risk Bush decided that it was worth killing or maiming thousands of American troops and Iraqi citizens. Just so we could feel a tiny bit more safe and comfortable in our already safe and comfortable lives. Not even necessarily be safer, just feel safer. Maybe you think the benefit was worth the cost; when I read about what our troops are going through and have been through, I personally do not.
As for Osama, nobody has ever advocated "sitting on their hands" although this appears to be a pet exaggeration of yours. Invading Iraq was not necessary to get Osama. In fact, it diverted resources away from that task. So, again, if you're unhappy with our failure to neutralize Osama, place the blame where it belongs - not with "the left," but with the Commander in Chief.
Looks like a quagmire to me.
Politicians and pundits can substantiate that...but history? What does the phrase "warrior ethic" even mean? What virtues do warriors possess?
What are we supposed to do? Sit on our hands, bemoan the fact that our enemy is not a state and as such we cannot do anything about it? We had 3000 people killed in one day by a small group of terrorists. It was not a specific sovereign state that did that. However, if a state had done that, you can bet it would be called an act of war. This is not a criminal act. A criminal act does not kill 3000 people. What some people are going to have to accept is that the notion has to be modernize. The left loves to use the term progressive and highlight their forward thinking. Why are their heads stuck in the sand over the notion of our opponent in war? What makes it even more troubling is the politically charged tone that the opposition to prosecuting this war has taken by so many on the left. They seem to have so much hatred for the man who has the backbone to stand up to these terrorists that, intentionally or not, they are risking the security of this country by advocating timid responses to those who would attack and kill us. I have read from several here on MMFA that Bush has no strategy. Well what kind of strategy is "We are leaving December 31." What must be accomplished for that to happen? "Nothing...we are just leaving on December 31." Is that the Democrat's strategy? Just simply leave regardless of the state of the situation? Is it going to take another attack before so many people in this country wake and realize what we are facing? I certainly hope not because next time it could be you, myself, or someone one of us cares about in a building of a subway being attacked by a terrorist.
What are we supposed to do? Sit on our hands, bemoan the fact that our enemy is not a state and as such we cannot do anything about it?
Once again, the false dichotomy...probably. I.e., you're effectively saying we must either have a "war on terror" or do nothing. Of course, the alternatives to a "war on terror" if someone could define exactly what the war is, what are the objectives and how long it will take.
This is not a criminal act. A criminal act does not kill 3000 people.
I see. So criminal acts have a cap on the number of deaths at which point it becomes an act of war? What's the specific cap? 100? 200? 3000?
Somewhere between 38,000 and 42,000 Iraqis have died (documented numbers) in the ongoing violence there. Would that then be a war? Since most of that violence has been Iraqi vs. Iraqi, wouldn't that be considered civil war?
What some people are going to have to accept...next time it could be you, myself, or someone one of us cares about in a building of a subway being attacked by a terrorist.
Lots of emotional stuff there, but no substance.
Do you really think there is no threat to the U.S. any more? Yeah...there is substance because I am not comfortable that we will not see another terrorist attack in the United States and that is substance. And unless you can tell for certain that that will not happen or, if it does, where it will happen, saying that it could trap, you, me or someone we care about is hardly lack of substance. It may be emotional, but it still is a realistic threat. So I ask again - do you really think there is no threat again of another major attack in the United States?
As for treating 9/11 like a crime, obviously the perps are dead. We have probably killed many of their co-conspirators aside from Osama by now. Should we stop all military action and go after Osama from a law enforcement standpoint? I say absolutely not. Al Qadea effectively dropped three massive bombs on the United States on 9/11. If that had been undertaken by the government of any sovereign state, we would have likely declared war by the end of that week. So why should the terrorists be any different?
As I said before, there's no substance there, just emotion. You express fear, but that's about it. It's a far that is mostly irrational, just as is the fear of flying. Terrorism is a risk that has always been part of the human experience and always will be.
The problem with calling this a "war" is that it has no conclusion, no enemy with whom to sign a treaty. It actually has more in common with criminal activity than war. The best strategy for abating terrorism starts with the rule of law. Have you considered why there is more terrorist activity in Iraq now than before the invasion?
That does not rule out the use of military force as needed, e.g., to deal with terrorists who are beyond the rule of law or terrorist assets call for stronger force . Your suggestion to the contrary is another false dichotomy.
You are still conflating the war in Iraq with the "war on terror." They are not the same.
If the Bush administration had been serious about payback for 9/11, we would have devoted all of our resources to tracking down Osama, who was the one actually responsible. Instead, after the justifiable invasion of Afghanistan, we invaded Iraq - the one country in the middle east we could be just about certain Osama wasn't in. And now Bush admits he just doesn't think about Osama very much. If you want to complain that the "war on terror" isn't being waged to your satisfaction, complain to Bush.
The war on terror is not just about Iraq, but Iraq does entirely constitute the war on terror. Some people try to keep parcelling it off and I just do not see it as that simple.
Maybe it's time that actors like you, perform on that stage rather than this one.
Or is what you're accomplishing on your website and this one considered "fighting the good fight"?
Well what kind of strategy is "We are leaving December 31." What must be accomplished for that to happen? "Nothing...we are just leaving on December 31."
What specifically must be accomplished for us to have "won" in Iraq? Saying "we are leaving Dec. 31" makes every bit as much sense as saying "we are leaving after we win" when nobody knows what "win" means in this situation.
It means leaving the job unfinished. That alone makes that an unacceptable solution as far as I am concerned. The point I am making is we keep hearing some of the left crying about a lack of a strategy. Well...they do not have one either!
"The left" (which has no power over Iraq policy) doesn't have a strategy for Iraq, so it doesn't matter that Bush (who does have power over Iraq policy) doesn't have a strategy either? I don't follow.
have a better alternative. Your criticism is more apt to be taken as something more than politically motivated attacks on the President if actuallly have a better way of doing things. You are the one saying he has no strategy, so it is incumbent on you and others making that argument that you give us a viable alternative. If you cannot, then I can only assume that you complaints are based on political dislike of President Bush.
We finally got Zarquawi.
HOW? We located him, marked the site, took it out by AIR POWER, and then sorted the rubble.
We didn't need a WAR to do this. This same process could work (and HAS worked), anywhere in the world.
We should be "fighting terrorism" following this model. NOT with troops on the ground in a weird "peacekeeper/rebuilding" mission which features casualties every day. We have lost over 2500 brave men and women in uniform. THEY will not be able to help with the war on terror any more, because they were expended on the WRONG plan.
The RIGHT way is through proper intelligence gathering, proper intelligence evaluation, PRECISION hits at terrorists and cells WHEREVER IN THE WORLD THEY ARE, and NOT stranding our troops in harm's way attempting nation building.
Also required would be COOPERATION with other nations, an idea that Bush has destroyed by his cowboy "go it alone" "bring it on" bravado and posturing. The more HELP we get, the less our OUR people are on the line, in harm's way. And EVERY nation has a stake in getting rid of terrorists. They WANT to help, but Bush keeps jabbing his stick in their eye.
So, BUZZ, at some point you will have to abandon your "sure, Bush is screwing things up, but nobody has a better idea" hogwash. Bush has unnecessarily KILLED thousands and thousands of people fighting the wrong war in the wrong way. He lied about the reasons for going in. He LIES when he says we will leave when asked (permanent bases and the biggest, most expensive embassy since the Vatican was built? Gimme a break! We aren't leaving.)
NOBODY says to do nothing, and NOBODY advocates any sort of "cut and run". Instead, let's go after these terrorists WHERE THEY ARE, and kill them.
Another MODEL: Israel takes out nuclear power plants in hostile nations, before they come on line. It CAN, and HAS been done, and it is effective.
Another MODEL: Clinton launches the largest air strike across Iraq, targeting any suspected sites of WMDs. The Result: NO American casualties, and Saddam has NO MORE WMDs (assuming he had some before the strikes, he had NONE when Bush invaded).
How's THAT for a plan?
" Another MODEL: Clinton launches the largest air strike across Iraq, targeting any suspected sites of WMDs. The Result: NO American casualties, and Saddam has NO MORE WMDs (assuming he had some before the strikes, he had NONE when Bush invaded). "
We'll see just what kind of WMD's Saddam had, soon. [link to www.rawstory.com] Looks like there have been some found, after all. Let's see if this story turns out to be true. If so... liberals have some splainin to do.
Assume what you like, but that doesn't change the fact that Bush is in charge and he has no plan for Iraq.
ChristianDem posted: "Better yet, why not restrict it the last quarter century? In that time period, name the Democratic presidents who have not employed military force?"
Jimmy Carter. He tried to deploy SOF's to rescue the hostages in Iran. That might count.
Jimmy Carter has not been president in the last quarter century.
If I were to say that I'm going to go to the sun and put it out with my bare hands, would that be a warrior ethic, or just foolish? The idea of going to war with a tactic like terrorism is in many ways the same, because terrorism has no nationality. It's a tactic used whenever people have given up regard for human life and want to make themselves look big.
Or is your idea of warrior mentality more like Bushido, where the warrior considers his own life expendable in the service of his master? Not a particular cause or ideal, just whoever is the one in authority.
If that's the case, then you're a true warrior. Tex made cogent, reasonable arguments here, and you just seemed to brush them off because they didn't support your point of view.
And if that's your idea of what a warrior should be; a blindly loyal attack dog for the current 'lord' in power, then we're well rid of it.
I said, "A 'war on terror' can NEVER be won."
To which Fool's Gold responded: "You PROVE my point my friend!! Someone without a 'warrior ethic' would feel this way."
OUTSTANDING! Now we're getting somewhere. Now, WHO is prosecuting this war? President Bush. And does President Bush have the 'warrior ethic'?
BUSH HAS NO 'WARRIOR ETHIC', according to Fool's Gold's criteria:
Lauer: Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?
President Bush: I have never said we can win it in four years.
Lauer: So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?
President Bush: I don’t think you can win it.
[link to www.msnbc.msn.com]
BUSH HAS NO 'WARRIOR ETHIC', according to Fool's Gold's criteria:
Being intellectually dishonest by taking quotes out of context is a SURE sign you're LOSING the debate since there is nothing better you can offer to substantiate your position. The subject of this thread is the statement that Democrats aren't known for their "warrior eithic." You've offered NOTHING from the last 50 years that would challenge that view but somehow are comforted with a not so clever play with words. The current consensus among Democrats to cut and run from Iraq is more proof that accusation is sound. Others in this thread have played more word games considering what "victory" will look like; or is Iraq part of the war on Terror, or whether it's actually called the "global struggle against extremism." So many shucks and jives, yet NOTHING from anyone, especially Tex that repudiates the ORIGINAL contentions.
If "warrior ethic" means committing U.S. troops indefinitely to a fight against an amorphous insurgency, with no plan for, or even definition of, victory, then perhaps Democrats do lack the "warrior ethic."
If "warrior ethic" means committing U.S. troops indefinitely to a fight against an amorphous insurgency, with no plan for, or even definition of, victory, then perhaps Democrats do lack the "warrior ethic."
More shucking and jiving, and away from the point. However, on this point, I would point out that by and large, Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq in 2002. Their lack of committment now, to the mission THEY supported is again, more evidence of that lack of warrior ethic.
Talk about shucking and jiving. Many Democrats voted against the AUMF (votes were 296-133 in the House, 77-23 in the Senate). In addition, many Democrats continue to support the war.
Many Democrats voted against the AUMF
I have much more respect for those that voted against the war in the beginning, than those that supported it before they didn't support it. But when a good portion, not all, of Democrats vote FOR a war, and then starts whining to get out at the end, is why folks will accuse them of not having a "warrior ethic." Not ALL democrats voted FOR a unilateral freeze in the early 80's either, but a good portion of them did. It's a pattern!
...wouldn't you complain and want a refund, too?
Excellent post.
Think about what you say here, about the "excellent PR job" the GOP does on maintaining the fictional "Dems don't have a warrior ethic", and apply it to the post on Cal Thomas bring up Dukakis in his tanker's helmet.
It's all part of the STORYLINE which you admit here is relevant, yet you challenge the importance of Thomas when he perpetuates the myth.
It's the same ECHO CHAMBER, where the STORYLINE is carried by the Media, and the Media hacks like Kline feel free to quote the "conventional wisdom" which THEY THEMSELVES create and perpetuate.
That Democrats aren't known for their "warrior ethic" is due entirely to a media that FRAMES all issues according to the GOP plan.
You are also correct: Kline is no liberal. He is, instead, a rightwing hack whore.
One is a well ORCHESTRATED attempt [by the GOP] to paint Liberals/Democrats as SOFT when it comes to being "warriors" or having a "warrior ethic".
The OTHER was a off the cuff humorous quip about APPEARANCE by a columnist on a media watchdog program.
Did YOU see the program Tex? I did. The subject had turned to how goofy [my word--cause I can't recall exactly which adjective was used] Snow & Bartlett looked in their gear. Everyone on the panel was chuckling...Cal Thomas added as a humorous aside that they LOOKED better Michael Dukakis had in similar gear. NEITHER of the TWO Liberals seem to take offence to the remark (and one was Neal Gabler--hardly the typical pussycat Liberal OFTEN featured on Fox)
Quite frankly I think MOST any civilian dressed as Snow, Bartlett & Dukakis were MIGHT be the butt of a few harmless jokes. AND don't FORGET it was the Democrats that brought up Dukakis when Bush played "dress up" in his fly boy flight gear. Are you being just a TAD selective on when and WHO can bring up Dukakis's name? Well of course you are. No surprise there.
Think whatever you want Tex--YOU usually do--BUT this time YOU are making a mountain out of a molehill. As I told someone on another thread [that dealt with THIS subject] NOT every utterance has deeper darker significance.
Thomas wasn't "perpetuating a myth"--he was making an off-hand joking remark. I guess when you're ALWAYS on the lookout for something nefarious you'll SOMEHOW manage to find it. That's what YOU are doing here.
There are no "little" or "insignificant" remarks when a STORYLINE is being perpetuated.
I'll use the example of women in society. Each remark about a "little lady" or "let me get that" is not an outrageous remark IN ITSELF, but for centuries such offhand remarks together perpetuated the MYTH that women were incapable, were weak, could not handle responsibility, had to be protected from taking on more than they could accomplish (in the man's view), etc.
Such perpetuations are a death of a thousand cuts, no one by itself fatal. This example was one of the rightwinger Cal Thomas seeking to return the discussion to the proper STORYLINE, that Democrats are soft and weak, etc.
So we disagree on the importance. Each asperin you take is no big deal, but eventually one will kill you. You want to argue about the "last" asperin, the one that finally did the deed. I wish to discuss the entire PHENOMENA (and danger) of taking too many pills in the first place. Your dismissive stance of denial will work ... up until your last breath. Then ... OOPS!
Who wrote "True Colors," the book, and lied about writing it?
The title was "Primary Colors" and it was a SLIGHTLY veiled expose of Bill Clinton's First run for the Presidency during "primary" season . And yeah Klein wrote it under the pseudonym "Anonymous" then denied it was he who WROTE it when he was first questioned--he later ADMITTED it.
It was ACTUALLY a pretty humorous novel. And a funny movie.
It really doesn't matter what the left thinks of Kleins contention about democrats and the "warrior ethic." When voters hear the words cut and run; hopeless cause; can't win; dying for nothing and so many other expressions of defeatism, they know it's a democrat who has spoken them. And that has nothing to do with republican hype, as Kerry, Murtha and the rest are the ones doing the talking. Klein is being quite truthful when writes of democrats embracing defeat. And I think it's interesting that the people commenting on this story have decided that Klein is definitely not a liberal. They seem to know instinctively that telling the truth and liberalism just don't go together.
First of all, you've made it VERY clear that righties have no capacity for any type of nuanced thought. The right wingers constantly attack Kerry and every other Dem who gave the "authorization to use force.." as a last resort - saying that they "voted for the war" - BULLS**T. The entire point was to give real backing to the threat of force towards Saddam as a diplomatic and political tool to get him to comply with UN sanctions. Also, I don't know if you have any children of age, but if you do? Put up, or shut up. You right wingers are always ready to send someone else's kids to war. But when it comes to your own, your a bunch of chickens**ts. You know, I wouldn't want to see my child die in a war, but I'm not the one supporting this mess either. Where are all the Bush kids? I can think of 3 right off hand, Jenna, Barbara, and the nephew arrested in Austin a few months back - hey maybe military service would do that punk some good. Let's see, who in the Bush administration saw military service in combat....hmmm.....Rove?? nope. Rummy? nope. Oh, I know - MUST be Cheney, right? nope. Oh, I've got it!! W himself? nope. Damn, there MUST be SOMEone, right? Oh, I remember, the ONE GUY WHO THOUGHT THIS WAS A BAD IDEA -
Colin Powell. And, of course, he's gone now. Do you even want me to START on the right wing talkers, like Limbaugh, Savage, Beck, et al? Not a one of 'em served. So, before you go attacking those who have seen what war is, consider the source(s). And, before you start, no, I have never been in the military. And at 39, I grew up in a time of relative peace. AND, I happen to like peace. Makes a hell of a good alternative to war unless you're a sicko. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't condone the use of force when necessary, and Iraq just wasn't necessary.
are very moving, but only working for a smaller and smaller group of Americans.
Predicting bad results for a bad idea isn't giving up.it's thinking.
And thenext time you hear "cut and run" and "dying for nothing" look a little closer. Chances are, it's not a Lib talking to you, it's a Republican telling you what he wants you to hear. That somebody who's got some common sense and some faith in their own eyes and ears is trying to drag you into the real world.
Pay attention to this, too. Keep a running count of both sides of the "stay the course" and the "get a plan" divide.
Who got out of fighting when they could have.Open your eyes.
Draft and Induction. Unless this war can be wrapped up soon, the administration will need a lot more people to fight. The only way they'll get enough is to re-instate the draft. When the people who are leading the charge to war realize that it's their family being thrown into the meat grinder, they might start singing a different tune.
Let's try to face facts. We're at war in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither is going as well as we'd like it to go.
We have an administration and media who are determined to rattle their sabers until we are at war with Iran. We also have North Korea threatening to test a long range missile system capable of hitting the US and we're threatening them. How thin can we spread our military?
Hitler failed because he tried to wage war on both the Eastern and Western Fronts. How many fronts are we able to fight on?
any more news on Randall Cunningham ( R Calif ) ??????
C'mon, Dems love war. Clinton killed 7000 Serbs and Kosovars for NATO's 50th birthday party. His administration bombed Iraq for eight years straight. Hillary and Feinstein keep voting to keep our boys in Iraq, killing and maiming the local population. Whatta ya mean Dems aren't warriors? They seem to enjoy killing as much as the Repubs do.
in Kosovo. And select targets were picked in Iraq to contain Saddam. Oh, and one more thing -
in Kosovo. And select targets were picked in Iraq to contain Saddam. Oh, and one more thing - CLINTON HAS NOT BEEN PRESIDENT FOR OVER 6 YEARS, OK??? GET OVER IT. You guys just have a fixation on Clinton - is it a crush or something? Jesus!
Body Count in Kosovo was ZERO! Apparently Clinton knows how to Fight a War.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Why is "cut and run" (he sure eats up those GOP talking points!) risky if you're the party which is (allegedly) not known for it's "warrior ethic"? Wouldn't it be the other way around?
I also love how he writes "They can play politics or be responsible". Man, is this guy paid by the GOP?
Democrats these days are described as "anti-war" by the right when it suits them, but the same people always point out that the Democrats (with one exception) voted "for the war". You gotta hand it to the Republicans - they do have a way with words.
Personally, I don't understand how anyone could be supportive of an "anti-WMD" war, after Powell's presentation, where the strongest evidence was that a semi was no longer parked in the same place as before.
He means "bloviator ethic."
Did Klein ever serve in the military? Or is he just one more mealy-mouthed chickenhawk neocon phony?
is a loaded phrase on it's own. how about recognizing the mess that bush has made of this and just embracing reality. if there's any "defeat" here, it's the defeat of the neocon project for a new american century types who insisted that things would turn out exactly the opposite of how they have. this b.s. about "warrior ethic" is the reason we find ourselves in this predicament. rah, rah, let's go in there and kick some ass and problem solved. doesn't work that way in a very complex world. afghanistan, yes, we had to go in, and the democrats supported that. iraq, no, we did not need to go in. the un inspectors were proving there were no wmd. russert on sunday twice used the democrats "voted for the war" line on murtha. i wish that every time this line is used, the person being interviewed says stop right there. we didn't vote to go to war. we gave bush the authority to use force if need be and he misused that authority.
Is sending good American troops to die needlessly part of the "warrior ethic"? Hunh. I would have thought that the "warrior ethic" would require waging war only when absolutely necessary.
Historically the warrior ethic was one of honor and integrity. The great warriors in our history have all been men who fought because they were forced to, not because they wanted to. The term implies ethical behavior. Our leaders today have shown that they would love to be considered warriors but refuse to understand that a true warrior has morals and ethics.
said:
"When voters hear the words cut and run; hopeless cause; can't win; dying for nothing and so many other expressions of defeatism, they know it's a democrat who has spoken them."
Well . . . what about when voters hear the words "I don't think you can win it," in response to Matt Lauer's question on whether or not the war on terror can be won - spoken by Bush, no less? Is that supposed to fire us up simply because Dubya said them?
Oldpup also chimed in:
" . . . they seem to know instinctively that telling the truth and liberalism just don't go together."
Well Oldpup, when you consider that EVERY reason we were given as an excuse to go into this BS war {WMD's, Saddam connection to 9/11} has turned out to be false, not to mention the recent misadventures of Cunningham, Delay, and Libby, it would seem truth-telling and conservatism aren't exactly an ideal match, either . . .
Klein, I can't take anymore of him. I had to stop my Time magazine after ten years of subscriptions. The only thing these people understand is taking away the money. Nothing else matters to them!
I even change the channel when I see his face.....
Klein's statement which is meant to show that the DEMS are less than patriotic is a feeble attempt to cast aspersion on any and ALL who realize that the Iraq war is a disastrous folly where our troops are being fed to an insurgent meatgrinder.... And thus, pushed to the limit of human endurance, fear and the innate human desire to survive, come HELL or Highwater.
However, any reader of the ancient classsics will come to understand that the heroes, such as Odysseus and others who although warriors were also keenly aware that the taking of human life in carnal battle was an activity to be used sparingly, with purpose and focus on only those who would wantonly kill. The 'Warrior Ethic' which would permeate the consciousness of those so engaged would constitute an ethos of the realization of one's own mortality, and also serve as a constraint entrenched with a higher moral judgement, thus preventing anyone from descending to that of a beast without the moral safeguards to ensure that 'bloodlusting' does not become too habitual or commonplace.
The 'Warrior Ethic' is seen in our fathers and grandfathers who stormed Normandy and the sands of Iwo Jima, and in millions of veterans who have been there, done that, and when questioned about their wartime experiences will suddenly start to get teary-eyed AND do all they can to sway the conversation to another topic, knowing full well that any descriptive summary of the carnage that they witnessed or perhaps were part of will strike at their very soul. They are in essence protecting their questioners as well as themselves for to unleash the pangs of war from their shattered consciousness is a return to the depravity of an institution, esteemed by the many but experienced by the few.
A true warrior ethic would 'sound aloud' that the first and foremost duty of a "True Warrior' would be to PREVENT WAR as only THEY and THEY alone know the full measure of its assault on the human psyche and the demons which it nourishes for an eternity.
An example of the WARRIOR ETHIC:
During the My Lai massacre, helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson landed between American troops and Vietnamese civilians and ordered his crew, at gunpoint, to rescue women and children who were about to be slaughtered because it was the right thing to do, even though it meant bearing his men's extreme hatred.
I agree with everything you say. I posted something similar above but not as eloquently. The phrase warrior ethic contains two words. Some arguing here are ignoring the second word "ethic". A true warrior values honor and ethics above all else. A true warrior kills when it's required of him, but shows mercy to his captive. And a true warrior as you say, wishes no one else to experience the horror that they've participated in, or witnessed. A true warrior must be able to live with himself after he becomes a citizen again. I can't imagine the demons that will haunt those who are warriors without ethics.
Thank you kindly Worrierking.
It was actually your post above that ignited my cerebral juices. It distresses me greatly to observe the blowhards in the MEDIA and RWingers who offer up their tripe in a cowardly display of something that they know nothing about.
If the Veterans of yesteryear who gave their lives in service to their country could observe what the NeoConmen have done to the honorable codes of the US Military...........Well!!!!!! I shudder as to what their reaction would be.
If the Veterans of yesteryear who gave their lives in service to their country could observe what the NeoConmen have done to the honorable codes of the US Military...........Well!!!!!! I shudder as to what their reaction would be.
I agree, I think they would be shocked at the lack of commitment and basic courage on the left. THEY of all people would understand that the mission that we undertook as a country, MUST be completed. They would be appalled at those that would complain about misplaced panties, yet ignore the beheadings of their brothers in arms.
As a former warrior? Or are you one of the right wing armchair warriors who gets his orders from those who have never done their part? People like Klein, Bush, Cheyney, Limbaugh and O'Reilly who think they know all about "The Warrior Ethic". Unless you've been there, you'll never know.
What mission, Fools_Gold? People keep blabbing about not leaving Iraq until "the mission" is completed, but nobody can say what it is. Worrierking, would you agree that soldiers deserve to have a clearly defined mission?
Without a clear cut mission, a timetable for the mission and an exit strategy. The mission should have been based on real (not imagined) intelligence and it should have been planned with contingencies for dealing with a possible insurgency. Also with a plan for dealing with each of the three main religious groups.
I don't think any of the above were part of the plan implemented by the administration.
In a previous post, I made a guess that your idea of a warrior ethic is similar to that of Bushido. But instead of the nobility of the samurai, all I see in your posts is the mentality of someone romanticizing the focus of closing ones eyes and charging blindly forward. What good is blind loyalty if the one you trust to lead you lies? When fighting needs to be done, the goal should always be victory, but who here knows what victory IS in this amorphous war on terror?
Well, well
We have a new resident Rwinger who seems disposed to offer up sophomoric rants challenging those on the LEFT with eighth-grade summations. You are aptly named, Ya see, Fools gold is what it is, less than authentic, UNLIKE the real precious metal which is making a stab at our greenback devaluation. Gee, I can't understand why? After all, the New Pax Americana is being paid for by DEBT, courtesy of the Chinese Commies buying up our TREASURIES. You gotta hand it to the Republican NeoConmen........... Making US safer and all!!!
Now as for your elementary attempt at rhetorical satire about VETS of yesteryear being all charged up. Evidently, you misconstrued the intent of my words. There was a time when the MILITARY performed its duties with an "Esprit de Corps" countenanced with a clear and concise understanding of its mission. Let's see, according to Rummie and the NeoConmen, the reason for our pre-emptive invasion of Iraq was for: (1) WMD-none (2) Remove Saddam-done (3) And now, it is to maintain the newly-formed Iraqi government with no end in sight. So in essence, we have become an occupying force in a land where WE knew full well in advance that the ethnic-religious and inherent tribal divisions would erupt in a cauldron of indigenouse warfare BUT not to be too content with the pace of national destruction, we hastened the now evident carnage by removing all the Sunni Civil servants, declare the Iraqi Army to be a non-entity, this assuring the sophistication of attacks now being dealt to our lads and lasses by strategically-placed IED's................. And we are continuouslylied to stating that this is Al-Qaida with the newest boogey-man ready to assume the throne in the wake of Zaqawi's death.
It is my contention that the NeoConmen could care less about Bringin FreeDumB to this nation. They got their eyes on bigger spoils. Rogue mercenaries en masse act at will while we sink deeper into a Lose-Lose situation and Yes, the VETS of yesteryear would never have allowed this to continue.
Go back to the minor leagues. You're out of your league on these threads.
I don't know if it could be put better what you wrote here. A warrior ethic HAS to be about more than the willingness to fight. It has to be about honor and upholding of integrity and ideals, because they aren't just men and women with guns over there. They're Americans, representing all of us. Not just our strength, but the ideas that make us great.
Klein's comments jibe with a recent MyDD poll that reflects a clear perception of the same thing among massive majorities of the respondents. The poll states that 91 % believe the Democrats don't have a clear stated agenda, nor do they do a good job of persuading undecided voters. 79% replied that the Democrats were doing an insufficient job of standing up for their beliefs and more than three quarters said they were too timid in attacking Republicans. While Klein's party loyalty may be open to question and his choice of words hard for Democrats to swallow, today's Democratic party is far from the place where Hubert Humphrey was the "Happy Warrior". Progressive blogs frequently berate the Democrats for spinelessness, gutlessnesss, for caving to the GOP and for rolling over and playng dead for a press that too often caters to the White House. I have no use for Joe Klein, but the fact is the Democrats bear a great deal of blame for allowing the Republicans to paint a great big yellow stripe down the backside of the donkey. Taxes, bankruptcy reform, the war and federal tortes are all instances of Democratic impotence. I won't even mention the Supremes-that's just too painful.