Bush’s talk: we can and will, if we can and will
[NOTE: The full text of Bush’s speech can be found here.]
Bush’s speech last night was a tight and subdued performance in terms of rhetoric and delivery. But, what else is new? Although a Churchillian sweep and grandeur would be awfully nice, it’s not going to be forthcoming, not from this guy. That’s not my main concern.
In content, it sounded okay to me. But what do I know? I’m just an evil bloodthirsty Bush-worshipping neocon warmonger, out to kill as many Iraqis and members of the US armed forces as humanly possible.
Seriously, folks (and no, the third sentence of the above paragraph of mine was not serious, although some would take issue with me on that), what Bush has proposed seems more than a simple “surge.” Those who hate and distrust him will consider his speech mere words, just more of the same old same old. And it’s true, speeches are always “mere words;” the only thing that matters is action and results.
But those of us (myself included) who believe that although Bush and his generals have made errors, such errors are not only common in all wars, but especially unavoidable in a counterinsurgency/assymetrical-warfare/nation-building situation such as that in Iraq, and will give the plan the benefit of the doubt and let it play out.
Because, make no mistake about it, it is exceptionally important that the situation in Iraq be stabilized. As Bush said, if we withdraw:
Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and…would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.
There are some interesting possibilities hidden in the speech as almost throwaway lines. One is this:
[Previously t]here were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes.
Without actually using the phrase “rules of engagment,” it sounds as though these restrictive and controversial rules have been–or are about to be–expanded and changed. This is huge, if it happens.
What’s different about the counter-insurgency methods? According to Bush, now we will have enough forces to stay and hold after clearing neighborhoods; before we could not. (After the speech, I watched Major-General Bob Scales explain details of force ratios, and why this plan has a decent chance of succeeding where previous ones failed.) There was also a suggestion by Bush that troop levels will be increased across the board, not just in Iraq.
For me, one of the strongest parts of the speech was this:
This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering.
Sadly, he is correct there. The strength of our enemy is that it has realized our deep susceptibility to casualties and media reports of bloodshed. We are a compassionate society, not a hardened one, and such sensitivity is ordinarily a good thing. But in this war against an enemy that cares not one whit about such bloodshed and even feeds on it, these emotions on the part of Western society are cynically exploited and turned against us. Our compassion has become (to borrow a phrase from Churchill) our “soft underbelly,” the very best way to attack us.
Bush asks for patience and resolve on the part of the nation. I doubt he’ll get it, especially from those Democrats bound and determined to oppose him and withdraw ASAP. Consequences of such an abandonment? They don’t need no steenking consequences.
After the speech, I was watching a Fox News interview with Newt Gingrich, not one of my favorites for his role as Speaker in the 90s. But I liked this: when asked “What part should polls play in military strategy decisions?” Newt answered (correctly, I believe), “None,” and cited appropriate historical references (Lincoln, for example). He then went on to say that, when the people are fed a steady diet of despair, they respond to what they’ve heard; and that, if this approach brings victory, a year from now the polls will be quite different.
Bush’s speech was sobering and comprehensive: he acknowledged mistakes, made it clear how important success is, described details and strategy, was realistic about the long hard fight ahead, attempted to define success, and declared limits on what we’ll give Iraq if they don’t cooperate. But, as Bill Kristol said in an interview later (paraphrasing here): the plan is more important than the speech, and the implementation of the plan is more important than the plan.
As for me, I deeply wish Bush had done this before. What took him so long? Why did it require the Republican loss of the election to motivate him to hatch a new plan? That’s one of Bush’s biggest flaws. Call it loyalty, call it stubbornness, call it whatever you want–he waited too long. I hope the wait has not been fatal to victory; it certainly has hampered and delayed it.
One of Lincoln’s strengths was that he was able to change a strategy that was not succeeding. His grasp of military matters was apparently unusual for a civilian. Like all wars, the Civil War differed in some respects from those that had gone before it, and innovations were required to meet new challenges. But it was still essentially a conventional war, with armies arrayed on battlefields, and territory lost and won.
The current war, featuring assymetrical warfare against this particular enemy, seems as though it may be more profoundly different than what’s gone before in the long sweep of history, although in some ways it does resemble other long-drawn-out conflicts such as Vietnam and Algeria (especially in the terrorist tactics of the enemy). Those who expect an easy or textbook victory will be disappointed and angry, ready to pull out and abandon Iraq as good riddance to bad business. As Bush said:
It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom… Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century.
And then he added:
We can and we will prevail.
We will, if we have the will to do so.
Too little too late.
A 15% increase in troops isn’t much of a “surge”. You would think that with everything that’s at stake in this war that we could manage three or four times that number, but apparently we can’t.
The 2006 election shows that the majority of the American people want this thing over and done with. The military has done a great job, but with they cannot overcome the weakness of the American people. The Left has succeeded in turning this into a lost cause. Putting another 21,500 into the effort into a lost cause is just flogging a dead horse.
The President, my President, the man that I voted for twice, needed to tell the American people what is a stake and ask for a clear majority of opinion: Do you want to stay in the fight or get out? It’s do or die time. If the majority says “withdraw”, then let’s get out and prepare for the (nasty) consequences.
kevino: Any war fought in response to polls is a war fought by a fool.
I sympathise Kevino, but disagree. That the American people would grow tired of this war after three years was a given: we get tired of every war after three years (evidence on your possible objections to that point: Vietnam ramped up into the American consciousness in late 1965. We had Yalta and Hiroshima because we were tired of WWII). The people will say no whether they are right or not. A president has to go a step beyond that, and push a people who are flagging to do the right thing, regardless of whether it is popular or will improve his legacy or will help his party in the next election.
Our main errors have been of the trying-to-persuade variety that is so loved by half the president’s opposition. We have repeatedly said “we will let you live if you’ll be nice and come to the bargaining table” (see Al Sadr, Mahdi army, obstinate Sunnis). They are only errors in hindsight, because getting them on board would have been the better solution. They wouldn’t, now we have to defeat them again.
I continue to maintain that any Democratic president getting the security briefings Bush gets would be trying to do something. Trying to take some action, however inadequate, against Islamists, was one of the few unpopular things Bill Clinton could bring himself to do. If his own party had been more supportive of military action, I believe he would have done better. Much as I hate to give Clinton much credit, he was in a worse situation politically for escalating war than Bush is. Bush has at least some base which generally accepts military intervention. Clinton would have had no natural base approving of military intervention on the ground. He would have picked up support from all groups, but a majority of none.
From the start there have been worries and criticism that this administration made mistakes, or might make them. It doesn’t matter. There is not only one infallible strategy for any war. The thing must be done – we make our best estimate and go forward. The GWOT is important enough that it is worth doing badly, so long as it is done.
A 15% increase in troops isn’t much of a “surge”. You would think that with everything that’s at stake in this war that we could manage three or four times that number, but apparently we can’t.
No, we can’t. We don’t have the people. The one good thing about the speech was the call for increasing the size of the US Army and Marines.
I don’t know what it will mean to say that the surge has “worked”. That’s the biggest problem. I seriously doubt that Maliki will engage, or allow us to engage, Moqtada’s militia.
(BTW, that’s what the change in ROE is supposed to be about; the link you gave was inoperative because the USMC charged several of its own with murder at Haditha two weeks later; and the Corps wouldn’t do that if there wasn’t something to it.)
Neo: Wars cannot be won based on opinion polls but please note that Bush is still answerable to the American public, and not just every four years. More precisely, the stats I am seeing is that close to 70% of the American people oppose this particular move. If that remains the case, then it is the obligation of the Congress to oppose this move, as well.
I think the real problems here are:
1. The American people were never sold on the necessity of a long war, they were only sold on the necessity of a short war, which has stalled.
2. Owing to the mistakes (including the WMD debacle), POTUS and his crew have little or no credibility left with the US public.
3. The American people are tired of this war, and there is still no identifable end state for this conflict.
The people will say no whether they are right or not. A president has to go a step beyond that, and push a people who are flagging to do the right thing, regardless of whether it is popular or will improve his legacy or will help his party in the next election.
No, the people are right, unless they violate the law. The POTUS is answerable to the people, and to the people’s representatives, the Congress. That’s what this is going to be about.
No, the people are right, unless they violate the law.
Right and wrong are not the same as legal and illegal. The People tend to be ill-informed, short-sighted, and unwilling to sacrifice today’s comfort to a greater purpose.
We hire presidents and senates and congresscritters to grapple with the Big Questions because We Don’t Have Time. We’re too busy living our lives, keeping the economy humming and such. The president is not supposed to govern by polls but by his own wisdom, and the people judge whether he made the right decisions at election time.
If everyone in the country had the time and brainpower to study the same data that the president studies and to take the same amount of heat, then we wouldn’t need a president. We’d just take a vote on every little thing and call it good.
As for the overly restrictive ROE: imagine if we told surgeons that they can cut but not puncture, and that they have to use dull knives (sharp knives hurt people!). Oh, and that if the people watching the surgery in the observation gallery get woozy, the surgeon has to drop everything and walk away, right then, without finishing the surgery and without closing the patient.
To hell with the patient; we can’t stand the sight of blood!
“The Left has succeeded in turning this into a lost cause.”
Say again? Last night, didn’t Bush say, “The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people – and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.” He also said, ” Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.”
Blaming “the Left” for what are obvious errors on the part of the Bush administration makes no sense to me.
No, Steve, we have a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy for exactly this reason. Not only does the president (or the congress) not have any legal obligation to do what “the people” want, I don’t believe they have a moral obligation either. That is a false idea of what we are about.
I will also note, though I don’t know if it applies to you personally, that Democrats say the exact opposite when it comes to gay marriage, affirmative action, and abortion. In those instances, what the people want is of less importance than what the courts and pressure groups want.
If that sort of thinking – that the ebb and flow of popular opinion should dictate what the government does, not only during elections but in between – is common among Democrats then I suggest that they consider retaking highschool civics. Soon.
Such a change in the way we run our government would create two enormous problems right of the bat. Polls would replace voting, and the skill and honesty of the pollsters would be a point of enormous vulnerability for honest government. Secondly, politicians would spend even more time than at present trying to “sell” us an idea rather than studying to get it right. Advertising and posturing would increase, not to our benefit.
We are a compassionate society
A compassionate society with some very ruthless people, Neo.
not a hardened one
It depends upon where you are at, Neo. People still support and approve of Bush. If they were not “hardened”, why have they resisted enemy media propaganda so far as you have? The folks on Flight 93 were pretty hardened, don’t you think? Folks in the South are pretty hardened, as well.
and such sensitivity is ordinarily a good thing.
It is a good thing in peace, Neo. When it is time to put down the gun, and take up the pen or the plow or the whatever.
As for me, I deeply wish Bush had done this before. What took him so long?
Bush listens to his Generals, Neo. Casey and Abizai told him that for Bush to complete Iraq without nation building, with an Iraqi face, that they needed less troops. I don’t know how this worked out, but it is undeniable that Abizai was focused on a smaller US footprint that weren’t directly involved with protecting Iraqi civilians without the help of the Iraqi government. And it was obviously true that Bush was still anti-nation building, anti-colonialist, and afraid of “imperialism” that dread dread word that may even strike terror into the heart of the most powerful man on earth.
Why did it require the Republican loss of the election to motivate him to hatch a new plan?
Because Bush is good only when he is under pressure. I’ve noticed that and said the same before. When you push him, when you put the odds against him, when he Takes Charge Directly via micromanagement, Bush is brilliant. But if you tell him to wait, if you convince him to “negotiate”, if you convince him to keep “talking”, then Bush is like a zombie. He listens to any idiot around him then. Only when Bush is on the war Path is he effective. Iraq seemed like something that required patience, and time. Bush thought that time was working against the terrorists, and that is why Bush stood around like a zombie while his advisers told him a lot of crap. Now that he knows there is no patience, that time is working against him, he is taking charge. He is getting rid of people, like Abizai and Casey. Whether voluntarily or involuntarily, you know.
But it was still essentially a conventional war, with armies arrayed on battlefields, and territory lost and won.
That isn’t exactly true, neo. There were some aspects of clandestine and asymmetrical warfare. And they also had to deal with folks who weren’t in uniform as well.
Link
One of the last comments I left there gives you some information concerning Sherman and spy networks in the Civil War.
If you expect Americans to tolerate casualties and bloodshed, you have to give them a reason for it. Except for the tiny hard-core remnants, who in America believes that there is any reason for us to remain in Iraq? The only reason we’re there to begin with was because of the tissue of lies spun by the president and his administration. If there’s one thing we’ve learned from Vietnam, it’s that dire warnings about dominoes falling are vastly overblown. If we leave Iraq, they’ll have themselves a civil war or not, Iran will take over or not, and the whole screwed-up Middle East will go marching along just like before. There’s no reason for more of us to be dying over it.
Also, the strength of of the insurgency isn’t their embrace of bloodshed or the texture of our underbelly, it’s simply that insurgencies are hard to defeat when they have the support of the civilian population. It’s hardly evil for Sunni insurgents to be blowing up the army that invaded their country and deposed them. It’s exactly like those Red Dawn fantasies so beloved by conservatives and NRA members, only this time we’re the jack-booted thugs trying to take over.The situation was rather different in Afghanistan, where the Taliban was disliked by the population, and it’s a pity we’re not paying more attention there.
There’s a bit of mental disjunction, Neo, when someone thinks that the Taliban was disliked but Al Qaeda and the Baathists are liked in Iraq for blowing up Sunni children and women.
Someone is definitely not paying attention to certain events, but it isn’t Petraeus.
America will never be able to take an offensive action in the Middle East, after Iraq falls. You will never be able to attack Syria and Iran or even Saudi Arabia. Never, ever. You will have no support, no international agreements, and no logistical bases from which to launch military strikes. Even if you had the military will, you wouldn’t have the capability.
America will never be on the offense again. Because the terror camps in Iran and Syria, forget Iraq, will be churning out so many attacks on the West that you will wish you had time to start a war in the Middle East.
The new strategy may work. But it would have a lot better chance of working if the MSM and the loyal opposition in Congress would just get behind the idea.
What would we think if several of Bin Ladin’s lieutenants told the press, “We’ve lost that one. Yessir, Iraq is in chaos and we’ve lost some jihadis. It’s time to get our jihadis out of Iraq.”
We’d think, “By George, we’re winning this thing, Yessir, we’re kickin’ butt. All we gotta do is keep the pressure on and we’ve got it in the bag.”
Why do these idiots in Congress and the MSM not see this? Durbin, Biden, Kennedy, and their ilk give the manhood of this country a bad name.
They do see it, Jimmy. That’s why they go to Iran to negotiate, that is why they secretly meet with folks like Hamas. They don’t care.
Kennedy gives murderers a bad name, Jimmy, let alone men.
Steve, I swear to you that Hyman Rosen is not a sock puppet I put here to give evidence of my point. But I could hardly have had a better one if I had made it up myself.
“Except for the tiny hard-core remnants, who in America believes that there is any reason for us to remain in Iraq?”
The polling data, though subject to the uncertainties of phrasing and choice of subjects, suggests at this point that 60%+ of the American people think that invading Iraq was the wrong choice. On the question of whether we remain in Iraq, and for how long, the polls are very mixed, suggesting that the beliefs of many people are not either-or, and are thus sensitive to what choices are put before them and how they are worded. This is hardly surprising, as most of us think of all political questions in a cost/benefit, plus/minus form. We don’t think in terms of “always” and “never,” but in terms of “on balance…” That is a good thing.
But Mr. Rosen has seen in these numbers that nearly everyone thinks there is no reason to be in Iraq. He has muddled four or five questions into a single one. He has inflated the actual data into something more congenial to his thought – enough so that he has done violence to the facts. What are we to make of this? There are many Hyman Rosens who interpret events this way with fair consistency. If they held with the type of direct democracy, will-of-the-people method of governance that Steve believes is the natural right of the citizenry, they would be convinced that what they want should now be happening, and conclude that only dark forces, corruption, or stupidity is preventing the “obvious” will of the people from being enacted.
When people start thinking like that, some start to get violent. I make no such accusation of Mr. Rosen as an individual, but history is replete with violent uprisings occurring from precisely this. Marxist groups throughout the 20th C sincerely believed they were speaking for “the people,” but always seemed to have enormous numbers of people that had to be gotten rid of. They were the wrong people perhaps; or people who didn’t know what was good for them.
You see the problem. The attractive, gentle idea of a government finely tuned and sensitive to shifts in opinion of the people turns out in reality to be a recipe for tyranny.
As for the overly restrictive ROE: imagine if we told surgeons that they can cut but not puncture, and that they have to use dull knives (sharp knives hurt people!). Oh, and that if the people watching the surgery in the observation gallery get woozy, the surgeon has to drop everything and walk away, right then, without finishing the surgery and without closing the patient.
To hell with the patient; we can’t stand the sight of blood!
dicentra | Homepage | 01.11.07 – 5:34 pm | #
That is a superb analogy!
dicentra wrote: As for the overly restrictive ROE: imagine if we told surgeons that they can cut but not puncture, and that they have to use dull knives (sharp knives hurt people!). Oh, and that if the people watching the surgery in the observation gallery get woozy, the surgeon has to drop everything and walk away, right then, without finishing the surgery and without closing the patient.
To hell with the patient; we can’t stand the sight of blood!
In this analogy, the “patient” is the country of Iraq. Now, all major surgery has to be carried out with the informed consent of the “patient”.
This means that, in terms of your analogy, we need to ask the Iraqis what they want. And we should honor and respect their wish.
Oh, sorry — I forgot that you think that the world is our backyard and so the wishes of the Iraqis don’t matter. But in that case, your analogy proves silly and inaccurate, because in a surgery the patient’s wishes/consent do matter.
—
—
Y’know, you’ve tried that argument many times Rodney, and have been given answers.
Asking the Iraqis what they want…
Do you mean polls? The public statements of the duly constituted government? The private statements of the duly constituted government? The power brokers? Our allies the Kurds? The opinion that MSM reporters think is the consensus of the Iraqi people from talking with their cab drivers and each other?
There are many possibilities here. Your other comments suggest you want only one answer, though.
Is the person on the table a brown people? That would help me make my decision.
It would also be helpful to know if his organs are healthy.
There are ways around the consent form.
Is the person on the table a brown people? That would help me make my decision.
It would also be helpful to know if his organs are healthy.
There are ways around the consent form.
Rodney: But in that case, your analogy proves silly and inaccurate, …
Notwithstanding the fact that at some point all analogies are inaccurate, this one could be pushed a little further: Iraq is one of a group infected with a deadly and contagious virus, that threatens everyone if left untreated. And the only available treatment is radical surgery. It would be nice if the patient consented to the treatment, but with or without the patient’s consent, the treatment is needed to protect the rest. And that’s just the way it is.
War is a series of catastrophes that ends in a victory.
– Georges Clemenceau
Harry sez: “Is the person on the table a brown people?”
Why, Harry, why does the color of the ppl matter here ??????
Reasons for US to stay in Iraq are simple and transparent to those who understand the big picture. And this picture is not for squeamish to accept. In this clash of civilizations only one will sirvive, the other would be completely destroyed, subjugated and compulsory re-educated, as was done to Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. No peacefull coexistence of West with militant Islam is possible, and all analogies with Cold War are self-deception. Eschatologigal death-cultists can not be deterred, they can be only exterminated. This is Manichean war, indeed, just as WWII was.
“Why, Harry, why does the color of the ppl matter here ??????”
Dont get excited. Im echoing the common liberal accusation.
The patient in this case is either a child for which we hold guardianship over, or is let’s say in a coma.
The Left has no problems making decisions for those on the table that can’t make it for themselves. Remember?
If we leave Iraq, they’ll have themselves a civil war or not, Iran will take over or not, and the whole screwed-up Middle East will go marching along just like before.
Very true. Just like before Iraq, just like before 9/11, when the US had its head firmly buried in the sand and the Jihadis strengthened themselves and planned their perfidy without the diversion of Iraq or ANY fear of interference. Marching right along on to the Caliphate.
If there’s one thing we’ve learned from Vietnam, it’s that dire warnings about dominoes falling are vastly overblown.
Two very large dominos; South Vietnam, which could have been another free and prosperous South Korea and the mind-boggling Cambodian slaughter. Overblown? I think not.
… it’s simply that insurgencies are hard to defeat.
Correction: Insurgencies are bothersome and not much more. A few snipers, some IEDs and explosives – which inflict low casualties – are a piece of cake for any modern military force. The proof is in the low casualties. What’s more it’s been done with limited personnel and under the shackles of idiotic Rules of Engagement. What’s vastly overblown is the reputation of invulnerability of these thugs.
But the insurgency is hardly the problem for the Iraqi people. The insurgency has never reached any great heights of perfidy. The insurgency is an artificial problem imposed by the MSM’s relentlessly negative propaganda.
One real problem is that 2 religious factions are fighting for dominance in the coming post-Coalition era. After the fall of Baghdad the violence in Iraq never reached any great numbers until religious fanaticism and ingrown religious hatred took over and they started blowing each other away.
Another real problem is that Syria and Iran are being very, very naughty in Iraq and need to be waterboarded like Saddam and the Taliban were. A note to these 2 regimes and their apologizers in the West: Bush has a tendency to follow up after warnings. Imprudent despots could end up in a taunt session, a la Saddam.
Saddam waterboarded? Some high ranking insurgents, possibly so. Saddam? We held him, but we did not need much from him, since he was out of the insurgent loop by then, and the Iraqis had more than enough to convict him. Perhaps I missed something.
Perhaps some other folks missed something, or several things. The WMD question in Iraq was universally answered in the affirmative before the war. Anti-war types in this country said he’d use the weapons on us. The Russians, French, et al agreed that he had them, but were sure that they could negotiate them away. (While making billions evading the UN sanctions. ) Every afternoon I heard on NPR that the UN inspection team, UNSCOM, had been led down another rabbit trail, to a warehouse that had been scrubbed clean before their arrival. If you were Saddam and there were no weapons, and cooperation was the way to avoid an invasion, the deaths of your monster sons, your eventual hanging by your own people, wouldn’t you cooperate with the inspectors?
Four hundred weapons have been found. The David Kay report says very plainly that there were weapons and dual use programs, easily converted back to weapon production. Captured Iraqi documents point in the same direction, dormant or disguised programs, ready to be reactivated, as soon as those pesky UN guys were out of there.
Finally, if President Bush was lying, was his CIA Director, a Clinton holdover, lying, or Hillary Clinton, in 1998, when George W. Bush was still governor of Texas, or Al Gore, or John Kerry? How did Governor Bush manipulate CIA reports back then?
What bothers me about this “Bush lied” business is that it is a lie that is easily contradicted by universally acknowledged evidence. It is almost as if a very large scale experiment in the manipulation of public opinion is being conducted, on us, right now. That’s more than a little spooky.
It is also disturbing that we tiptoe around the idea that the core of people who oppose the war, do so because they believe that this is a war for “the Man”, the Capitalist conspirator, or whatever. People who do not believe in God, Who is, by definition, outside the physical universe and therefore invisible, still believe in the Man, inside the universe, but still invisible. Sure, we do have some very rich people. But, for example, just whom did Oprah Winfrey rob to get her billion bucks? There is a nearly complete flight from reason in all this. A war for oil? I used to believe that, too, fifteen years ago. Since then, we’ve seen oil prices rise and fall many times, responding to pressure in the international auction that is the oil market. There is no evidence of any mechanism whereby anyone pays tribute to anyone in America. In earlier empires, Roman, Egyptian, Atheninan, Arab, Russian, Spanish, there was tribute extracted. Everyone knew which way the wealth flowed. America, however, is a commercial empire. We create wealth, from previously valuless raw materials, like, oh, oil,
Iraq is a mess, the only winner has been Iran.
Saddam waterboarded?
Used as a figure of speech. A euphemism meaning to chastise and not to be taken literally. Designed to excite the terrorists’ apologizers who always seem concerned about the waterboarding of some terrorists prisoners while ignoring the murders committed by them. The commentor should substitute “kicked their ass” for “waterboarded.”
D. Knight – well, that proves it, I guess. If we’re not convinced by that, say it louder and slower next time.
Well done as usual Neo except for the part about Lincoln. God Bless his memory he saved the nation but,…
Lincoln – strength – grasp of military matters? Its enough to make me die laughing (actually since I’ve become asthmatic) The man who selected and supported the disastrous series of modicums who supplanted Napolean McClellan had a grasp of strategy? The man who insisted that valuable forces be kept from the battle to protect Washington DC against marauding Rebel cavalry companies had a grasp of strategy?
Lincoln’s only strength in the war, and the only one that mattered was his incessant search for a general who would just fight without cease, and his stubborn “preserve the union, preserve the union, preserve the union” attitude. Everything else is wishful remembrence of things that never were.