With friends like these…

Comments

7 responses to “With friends like these…”

1. September 17, 2005

   Marcus

   You write, Americans who opposed the Iraq war or have come to think it was a mistake, but still think the U.S. has a right and a duty to respond to terrorism, using military force if necessary, and don’t necessarily hate the President (though they may be steadily losing confidence in him), don’t have anyone speaking for them.

   But isn’t that pretty much the stand of most of the high-profile Democrat politicians?

   Hatred for GW may be common among the lefty masses but I don’t really see that, say, in the big name Senators. Do you?

   Reply
2. September 18, 2005

   The young fogey

   Galloway drew boos from the crowd (at an event sponsored by a socialist organization!), when he suggested that Americans had it coming on 9/11

   Did those couple of thousands of people deserve to be murdered simply because most of them were Americans? Of course not. Did the US government’s actions bring on the attacks? Undoubtedly.

   Meanwhile, Cindy Sheehan, instead of trying to build any kind of big-tent anti-war movement appears content to preach to the hard-left choir, recently declaiming that the victims of Katrina were “collateral damage of George Bush’s insane and moronic policies in Iraq.”

   Insane and moronic policies in Iraq don’t affect the weather of course but Sheehan isn’t crazy – what she said is true in that the Louisiana National Guard, which exists to help in such natural disasters, were in Iraq and not in Louisiana where they should have been.

   the U.S. has a right and a duty to respond to terrorism, using military force if necessary

   Do the people who probably did 9/11 such as the Yemen-born Saudi Osama bin Laden deserve to be brought to justice? Of course. (It still hasn’t happened. Invading Afghanistan and Iraq did nothing to that end.) Responding to terrorism also meaning facing the problems that caused it, like propping up the state of Israel.

   Bush obviously shouldn’t be president, which is a different matter to hating the man. One may not like Clinton personally and for good reason but he was a far more serviceable chief executive.

   Reply
3. September 18, 2005

   jack perry

   I suspect that the rhetoric of people like Galloway and Sheehan will only turn them off.

   You’re right. It does. But, so does the rhetoric of Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton, and young fogey.

   (For the record, two-thirds of the Louisiana National Guard were in Iraq. They hadn’t been mobilized by the governor.)

   Reply
4. September 18, 2005

   Lee

   My personal views on foreign policy and intervention are probably to the “left” (or is it “right”? – hard to tell these days) of most of the American public. Still, I think anyone who’s anti-war and wants to get a hearing would do well not to say things that would undoubtedly alienate large swaths of that public.

   As I see it, the problem is that borderline crackpots (on both sides) tend to suck up all the oxygen when what we need is a genuine debate about the wisdom of our present course. That should include a debate about the policies that may contribute to hatred of the U.S., but those arguments need to be made from within a position of a prior commitment to the well-being of the U.S. if they’re going to get any traction. In other words, Cindy Sheehan may be right that George Bush’s policies are moronic (I would say more like misguided), but saying that isn’t really conducive to healthy debate.

   The big name Senators have generally shied away from anything more fundamental than a criticism of procedures and tactics – essentially the Kerry/H. Clinton tack (with a few notable suggestions like Byrd and Feingold).

   Reply
5. September 18, 2005

   Joshie

   well reasoned debate is boring. It’s much more fun to watch extremists scream at each other. Its much easier to understand too. Either you hate the war and america or you love the war and hate Osama. That’s easy to understand. Plus baby boomers can play out the same arguements they had in the 60’s and 70’s about Vietnam. Insanity sells.

   Reply
6. September 19, 2005

   Marcus

   Dear Young Fogey,

   You remark Sheehan isn’t crazy – what she said is true in that the Louisiana National Guard, which exists to help in such natural disasters, were in Iraq and not in Louisiana where they should have been.

   Of course, I agree CS isn’t crazy – though neither is GW. But you are mistaken as to the purpose of the NG. They are trained and maintained as part of the reserve structure of the American armed forces that, in turn, exist to fight wars. Any help they can provide in civilian emergencies is fortuitous in relation to their training, staffing, preparation, and mission.

   Reply
7. September 19, 2005

   Marvin

   I found Eric Alterman’s comments on the Galloway/Hitchens debate worth perusing. Hell must be something like listening to those two argue.

   Reply