Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: For reflection

  1. #1
    Master OptiBoarder Shwing's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Pentiction, BC
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    658

    For reflection

    November 5, 2003

    ’The Plan’

    by Ann Coulter

    The Democrats’ new method of opposing the war on terrorism while pretending not to oppose the war on terrorism is to keep demanding that Bush produce a “plan.” Wesley Clark recently complained that Bush had put American troops in harm’s way, “without a plan.” Of course, Clark’s “plan” would have been to create a quagmire, just like in Bosnia.

    Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said the difference in how he would have prosecuted the war in Iraq is: “I would have planned.” Yes, the invasion of Iraq was the usual unplanned, spur-of-the-minute thing that took 14 months.



    Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., noted for the record that when he voted for war with Iraq, “I said at the time that it was critical for us to have a plan. ... This president has no plan of any kind that I can see.” Maybe it’s that Beatlemania mop-top that’s blocking Edwards’ view.

    Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. – the one Democratic presidential candidate too conservative for Barbra Streisand – said that President Bush gave the American people “a price tag, not a plan.” He said that “we in Congress must demand a plan.” You know, like that incredibly detailed plan the Democrats have in place to spend $400 billion buying prescription drugs for elderly millionaires.



    Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said: “The administration had a plan to fight the war, but it had no plan to win the peace.” Kennedy’s idea of “a plan” consists of choosing a designated driver before heading out for the evening.



    Interviewing Vice President Dick Cheney on “Meet the Press” about a month ago, Tim Russert echoed the theme, asking: “What is our plan for Iraq? How long will the 140,000 American soldiers be there? How many international troops will join them? And how much is this going to cost?” When will we be there, Daddy? Can I go to the bathroom? Are we there yet?



    The same questions were asked of FDR over and over again by the American people after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. “How much will this cost?” “My husband’s a sailor – how long will he be gone?” “What’s your exit strategy, you warmonger?” Wait – no. My mistake. That didn’t happen.



    The Democrats’ incessant demand for a “plan” tends to suggest there is something called “The Plan,” which would magically prevent bad things from ever happening – especially something as totally unexpected as violence in the Middle East. Violence in the Middle East constantly comes as a bolt out of the blue to liberals.



    Bush said deposing Saddam Hussein and building a democracy in Iraq was an essential part of the war on terrorism. He did not say that invading Iraq would instantly end all Muslim violence and rainy days that make liberals blue. We’re at war with Islamic lunatics. They enjoy blowing people up. What further insights do liberals have to impart about this war?



    A war is not as predictable as, say, a George Clooney movie (although generally more entertaining). Historian Stephen Ambrose described Gen. Dwight Eisenhower’s genius as a soldier, noting that “he often said that in preparing for battle, plans were essential, but that once the battle was joined, plans were useless.” Transforming a blood-soaked police state dotted with mass graves and rape rooms into a self-governing republic might take slightly longer than this week’s makeover on “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.”



    This is not the first time an evil tyrant was deposed only for bloody elements of his regime to remain. For example, it’s been nearly five months since Howell Raines was removed as editor of the New York Times. No quagmire there! What is Bill Keller’s “plan” to turn the New York Times around, and how long will it take?



    The U.S. military has had considerably more success in turning Iraq around than liberals have had in turning the ghettos around with their 40-year “War on Poverty.” So far, fewer troops have been killed by hostile fire since the end of major combat in Iraq than civilians were murdered in Washington, D.C., last year (239 deaths in Iraq compared to 262 murders in D.C.). How many years has it been since we declared the end of major U.S. combat operations against Marion Barry’s regime? How long before we just give up and pull out of that hellish quagmire known as Washington, D.C.?



    The Democrats’ urgent need for an “exit strategy” apparently first arose sometime after 1993, when Bill Clinton sent all those U.S. soldiers to Bosnia – who are still there. The Democrats’ conception of a “plan” is like the liberal fantasy that there’s a room somewhere full of unlimited amounts of “free” money that we could just give to teachers and hospitals and poor people and AIDS sufferers and the homeless if only the bad, greedy Republicans would give us the key to that wonderful room. Republicans should claim the “plan” is in that room. In a lockbox.

    It’s interesting that after we’ve finally gotten liberals to give up on seven decades of trying to plan an economy, now they want to plan a war. Extra-credit question for the class: Comparing a peacetime economy with a war, which do you think is more likely to shoot back at the planners and require subsequent readjustments? No, no, not the usual hands from the eager YAFers in the front row. Are there any liberals in the back rows who want to take a stab at answering this one? Paul Krugman?



    Needless to say, the Democrats have no actual plan of their own, unless “surrender” counts as a plan. They just enjoy complaining about every bombing, every attack from Muslim terrorists, every mishap.

    Back in the 1870s, Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman told a group of graduating cadets: “There are many of you here who think that war is all glory. Well, war is all hell.” We didn’t start it, but we’re going to win it.



    Shwing

  2. #2
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    PA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    973
    Hey Guy,
    Aren't you a Canadian?

  3. #3
    Master OptiBoarder rinselberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA 94086
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    2,301
    Bravo shwing!

    A high pressure front, moving south from Canada, has delivered a mass of refreshingly clean, crisp oxygen and moderate temperatures all across the continental United States! Good thinking weather. For another international traffic and weather report, follow my PURPLE web link:

    Traffic and weather, together
    Last edited by rinselberg; 10-29-2004 at 12:26 AM.

    Are you reading more posts and enjoying it less? Make RadioFreeRinsel your next Internet port of call ...

  4. #4
    Is it November yet? Jana Lewis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,504
    I don't believe a word of rhetoric MAnn Coulter says... she's right wing freak! :hammer:
    Jana Lewis
    ABOC , NCLE

    A fine quotation is a diamond on the finger of a man of wit, and a pebble in the hand of a fool.
    Joseph Roux

  5. #5
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,757
    Schwing,
    Regarding exit strategy: it was the republicans who made the fuss about an exit strategy. As contrarians, they had find something to object to when Clinton sent troops to Croatia. They couldn't complain about military action itself, what with them being warmongers and all.;)
    Nice spin by Ann. What she missed is that the whole "plan" issue arose from Bush accusations that Kerry only criticized, and had no "plan". It turns out Bush doesn't have a plan, either, and never did. If you think he does, please post the plan - your conception of it or a link to a site will do.
    ...Just ask me...

  6. #6
    Master OptiBoarder rinselberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA 94086
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    2,301
    I have been watching the PLAN unfold on MSNBC, day by day. To cut right to the chase: Finish squeezing the life out of the few remaining Iraqi insurgents and insurgencies; finish standing up the Iraqi security forces; hold the Iraqi national elections; and bring in more international forces as necessary to replace withdrawing forces (overwhelmingly U.S. and British) that have done all of the heavy lifting up to this point. Are there tragedies and setbacks? You bet! Is it working? I THINK IT IS. This aint Vietnam again. Too many differences. If W can't finish the job after November 2, Senator Kerry will. I give him that much credit, even though I don't like most of his rhetoric about Iraq. And as far as more international forces -- choke most of the remaining life out of the insurgency (insurgencies) and THEY WILL COME, U.N. or no U.N. Local forces from Egypt and Jordan for example, would be excellent. French, maybe not!

    Are you reading more posts and enjoying it less? Make RadioFreeRinsel your next Internet port of call ...

  7. #7
    Master OptiBoarder chm2023's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Camp Hill/NYC
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    2,196
    To any and all undecideds out there: last week, quote from Cheney: "I think Iraq has been a remarkable success". This is what you want in a vice/co-president, the ability to crash unblinkingly into that wall. "Gosh", his admirers said viewing his bloody remains, "he remained so steadfast".


    (D'ya think he misunderstood the question, and thought he was answering re how Halliburton is faring thru all this?;) Assumed you all saw the story on the Justice Dept investigating the Pentagon--criminal charges--re their awarding of multi-billion no bid contracts for re-construction in Iraq. Seems a whistle blower has come forward to accuse some of the players--you may want to sit down for this--of having inappropriate relationships with vendors, guess who?)

    Good news is John Zogby today called the election for Kerry. I really didn't understand his logic--this whole polling business has a Byzantine quality to it--but hey, I'll take it!!!

    PS before you take anything Annie has to say seriously, realize this is the woman who has said all democrats are "traitors", and has been fired by USA Today and the National Review--both citing her poor journalistic standards. On balance, I think she's a good thing for us dems insofar as people are naive enough to think she is representative of the republican party.
    Last edited by chm2023; 10-29-2004 at 10:47 AM.

  8. #8
    Master OptiBoarder Shwing's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Pentiction, BC
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    658
    But what if I hadn't posted the author? Left it under the guise of an AP article or editorial??
    Shwing

  9. #9
    Master OptiBoarder Shwing's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Pentiction, BC
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    658

    Ok...

    So let's try this instead... An editorial by an unnamed source from September, 2003;

    For reflection...



    "Explaining his vote for a war that he then immediately denounced, Kerry recently said his vote was just a head-fake, leading some to wonder how many of Kerry’s other votes in the U.S. Senate this would explain. He voted for war only to bluff Saddam Hussein into letting in the U.N. weapons inspectors. “It was right to have a threat of force,” Kerry said, “because it’s only the threat of force that got Hans Blix and the inspectors back in the country.” But he never imagined that Bush would interpret the broadly worded, open-ended war resolution as grounds to start an actual war! “The difference is,” Kerry said, “I would have worked with the United Nations.”
    None of the Democrats has the guts to come out and demand that U.S. forces turn tail and run when the going gets tough. If only one of them had the courage to demand cowardice like a real Democrat! So instead, they stamp their feet and demand that Bush go to the United Nations. Apparently it is urgent that we replace the best fighting force in the world with an “international peacekeeping force,” i.e., a task force both feared and respected worldwide for its ability to distribute powdered milk to poor children.

    Inconsolable that their pleas to “work through” the U.N. did not stop Bush from invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, now all the Democrats are eager for the U.N. to get involved so it can wreck the rebuilding process. Since we didn’t let the U.N. lose the war for us, the least we can do is let them screw up the peace.

    The idea that we would involve those swine in the postwar occupation of Iraq is so preposterous that it’s under serious consideration as next week’s slogan for the Howard Dean campaign. I hesitate to raise it to the level of a serious argument by offering a rebuttal, but as luck would have it, we have two models for how to occupy a country after a war. Getting “the allies” involved is not the winning model.

    After World War II, the United States ran the Japanese occupation unilaterally. Without the meddling of other nations, the Japanese occupation went off without a hitch. Within five years, Gen. Douglas MacArthur had imposed a constitutional democracy on Japan with a bicameral legislature, a bill of rights and an independent judiciary. Now the only trouble Japan causes is its insistence on selling good products to Americans at cheap prices.

    By contrast, the German occupation was run as liberals would like to run postwar Iraq – a joint affair among “the Allies,” the United States, Britain, France and the Soviet Union. It took 45 years to clean up the mess that created.

    The Soviets bickered with the French, refusing to treat them as “allies” (on the admittedly sensible grounds that they didn’t fight). While plundering their zone, the Soviets refused to relinquish any territory to France. Trying to be gallant, the U.S. and British carved a French zone out of their own sectors. The Soviets then blockaded Berlin, built the Berlin Wall, and Germany was split for the next 45 years.

    The British made Germany’s war-torn economy worse by trying to impose socialism in their zone (as well as in their country). Predictably, economic disaster ensued. Over the next five years, the U.S. was required to spend the equivalent of about $200 billion annually in today’s dollars to bail out Western Europe under the Marshall Plan. I note that there was no need for a Marshall Plan in Japan.

    And the disastrous German occupation is the best-case scenario for “international peacekeeping.” The less rosy picture involves the defaced corpses of American servicemen being dragged through the streets by dancing, cheering savages, as happened under “international peacekeeping” forces in Somalia in 1993. Showing that America is not a country to be toyed with, our draft-dodging, pot-smoking commander in chief responded by withdrawing our troops.

    So naturally the Democrats are rooting for an international force in Iraq. The Democratic logic on national defense is: As soon as anyone in the military gets his hair mussed, we must pull out and bring “international peace-keeping” forces in. Our boys are in harm’s way! People are dying! Bush lied when he said major combat operations were over! Let’s run. That’ll show ‘em.

    It was not lost on Osama bin Laden that it only took 18 dead in Somalia for the Great Satan to pull out. It should not be lost on Americans that this is what the Democrats are again demanding we do in Iraq."
    Shwing

  10. #10
    Master OptiBoarder rinselberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA 94086
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    2,301
    Quote Originally Posted by rinselberg
    I have been watching the PLAN unfold on MSNBC, day by day. To cut right to the chase: Finish squeezing the life out of the few remaining Iraqi insurgents and insurgencies ... choke most of the remaining life out of the insurgency (insurgencies) ...
    I don't want to sound vague. One shoe finally dropped on Najaf a few months ago, and I think it knocked the Shiite violence down quite a bit. It's time for another shoe to drop -- on Ramadi and Fallujah. Time finally, to cut the Sunni Triangle down to size. And it sure sounds like this operation is ready to go, almost any day now.
    Last edited by rinselberg; 11-01-2004 at 06:58 AM.

    Are you reading more posts and enjoying it less? Make RadioFreeRinsel your next Internet port of call ...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
OptiBoard is proudly sponsored by:
Younger Optics and Vision Equipment