Re: The New Republic Controversy
Earlier, I wrote about a series of “diaries” in The New Republic from an anonymous soldier-writer. Wes informs us that TNR has now published an account by the man in which he identifies himself and stands by his claims.
The exchange in TNR is fascinating and illuminating, both as to the power of the media – both MSM and blogs – and the nature of the Iraq war debate in America. The New Republic is a very sensible, credible, intelligent journal of American opinion. It provides the disgracefully rare view of the hawkish Left, and it does so with good humor and journalistic honesty.
I hate to be snarky again (okay, it doesn’t really bother me at all), but it tells us something about almost all of the angry-Left blogs that they loathe TNR, even though they both represent Democratic Party viewpoints. Kos, C&L, Atrios, FireDogLake, HuffPost, Tbogg, and on and on are the reincarnation of the Christian Coalition of the 1990’s, or even the Moral Majority of the 1980’s. They are a collection of self-righteous, poorly-read, insolent, and isolated fanatics who just know that they are right on everything and, despite their official pronouncements to the contrary, they truly hate those who have a different viewpoint — even (or perhaps especially) if those others are from their own political party.
Dave - the Infidel Sage
gurusteve
E the Wise
DFV the Scribe
Andre the Defiant
Wes
pg - your humble messenger
hairybeast
Drowning Creek
What the hell were you smoking on your fishing trip?
What Digby Said.
Be sure to read the right-wing blogosphere’s reaction summarized by Sadly No! that she links, and try again, Veatch.
Scribe your point is spot on and very well stated.
There is also the “soldiers are baby killers, but it is not their fault because they are war weary and are brainwashed to behave that way” crap being peddled again. We have gone from the always insincere “we support ‘da troops” by the hard left to them finally starting to feel that current fashion will allow them to trot out the old, worn out whore of making demons of the military.
They take certain instances which they blow out of proportion and try and apply some theory developed by some jackass sociologists, which our tax dollars funded the reach for, and put a bow on that pig and the young, naïve and the intellectually lazy believe it. It happened in Vietnam and it is happening now.
I am sorry, I watched it happen before and it is happening again. It was repugnant and disgusting then and it is now. Hell, even Jon Voight caught a clue after 30 years and finally learned something…
I hope Kerry gets in the race and wins. The country deserves his self-serving, self-justifying BS.
Andre, what is your point? That some people made accusations, so what? No one here made any accusations we have to take back. Now we will get to find out about this guy who had a blog and then made arrangements to write for TNR before he went. The thing that made his “reporting” a problem was that no one knew who he was and as a result nobody could verify the facts. Is that concept hard to comprehend?
I consider the facts if true to be trivial in the grand scheme of this war. Being rude and cruel to people and animals is tragically something that young males do, groups tend to exacerbate that behavior. It calls for discipline for sure it certainly does not compare to Nan King as has been mentioned on here before.
So as to be clear let me quote you Badgers Forward’s post on Private Scott Thomas Beuachamp…
Has the left-wing viewpoint not proven itself worthy of consideration at this point? The right has been in control (and completely in control) for the last seven years, and their grand schemes in Iraq have been nothing but trouble. How can you say that the side who was against the war and the overall strategy will be to blame for the results of the very things they were against? I’m not as well-read (or seen nearly as much) as you folks, but all I’ve seen in terms of the Right has been a repetitive cycle of the very behaviors you mentioned. The only difference is that they keep insisting they were right when all objective and measurable indications point towards being wrong.
Trying to tone down my comments and show some deference here, so please don’t jump all over me, pgwarner.
Pgwarner, good find on the Voight opinion. I hadn’t seen that.
The behavior of troops during a time of war is always a concern of commanders. One of the hallmarks of the American military has been that from its very inception the incredible lack of depredations it has been guilty of. Yes there has been some by units and individuals but they are comparatively very rare.
We, as a culture, have never sanctioned something of the order of Nan King or the Katyn Massacre. Contrast our treatment of POWs in all our wars, including this one, with any country at anytime.
Our commanders understand that armies can become barbaric and they take steps to prevent this, and my goodness they do a good job. Said commanders have for over 200 years have never come close to threatening our liberty, it should be noted.
Having said that, will there be crimes committed by our troops, the answer is yes of course. You have close to two hundred thousand young males over there. Violent crime will occur. I would argue that it is low by comparison.
These facts have been independent of party or ideology throughout our history.
The military’s conduct in this war is not an issue in how well the war has gone, nor does it provide any kind of moral justification for either side. It is decidedly not the issue that people try to make, except as a propaganda tool. Check out what Bryan Preston has to say about it. He certainly says it better than me…
(This whole TNR stuff is starting to smell like a rotten fish. Michelle Malkin has quite a bit on it, the video is interesting.)
I will try to answer you Wes in the best way I know how regarding your question in #4 and bring all this together.
The “hard” left-wing that I believe the Scribe is referring to has nothing but hate to offer. There are no solutions to be found originating with them. The Liberal-left, which includes most of the presidential candidates, offer no solutions either. They only use the war as away to disgrace Bush and the Republicans. They see this as all right morally as long as they get in power, then they will straighten it out.
No matter what a person’s political leanings are, the fact that the war has not gone well does not mean the following is true:
1) That we were wrong to go in and it really was a war of aggression.
Iran is not a threat in Iraq, to us or our interests, or our allies, and it’s interests are purely defensive.
2) That Bush was lying and made up the WMD threat at the behest of Cheney and the neocon conspiracy to justify a preplanned invasion of Iraq.
3) Our troops conduct is bad and they are baby killers; therefore we need to leave on a moral basis.
4) The Iraqis were better off under Saddam.
5) Afghanistan is the only real war about terrorism.
6) We just need to leave, they will be better off without us, all Iraqis want us out anyway.
7) It costs too much money to stay.
9) That Bush is a lying, stupid, Christian fundamentalist, fascist, who is leading us down the road to perdition.
10) The American people want us out of Iraq and Bush is doing the wrong thing, and in thwarting their will and should be impeached.
There are more, but let us stop there for now. All of those things maybe not the case and the war could still be going badly. Having been for or against the war before its start may make a person feel righteous, it stll offers no solution.
The only politician I have seen who seems to only care about doing what is right no matter what the personal political cost is Bush. My God, he could have cut and run and saved himself so much grief. He could have abdicated his moral responsibility under a representative form government, and gone with the flow, and screwed the Iraqis when it got tuff. He may be dead solid wrong and the Lord knows he made some mistakes, but not due to the reasons in #2, #9 and #10 above.
There are different military scenarios that can still be tried, but they still require sacrifice (BTW did bush ever lie about that). The hard-left braying like some stupid
jackassdonkey that the price is already too high just cheapens the sacrifices all ready made. You don’t approach the liberty of 27 million people (14 million under 14 years old, do you think they value their future?), the security of 300 million, the over all well being of the region and the world with some kind of life budget. Or maybe you do; what is your life worth if you loose your liberty?I hope and pray Bush has found his Grant in David H. Petraeus and the surge works. Even if it does not work it still does not validate the hard-left or the Liberal-left politically, morally, or intellectually. They will still have no solutions.
Many of your ten points are misleading and very pointed. And seem to imply that either all must be true or none must be true, when many statements are putting words in my mouth. Further, I would say that life does not deal with true and false, and there is a substantial amount of gray that you would prefer to ignore. Iraqis were better off by Saddam being deposed, but that does not mean that they are better off in the current situation or, even if they are, that they are as well-off as they could have been under different leadership.
As for Bush doing what is right, what you mean to say is “doing what he feels is right”. And that is not necessarily a good thing. Going by what you feel is right does not necessarily mean going by truth or by investigating what the best thing to do might be. A good president knows the difference and is willing to question when a change is necessary, as well as being willing and eager to listen to opinions that are different from his own. Bush’s position on all issues has never changed once (not that I remember, anyway), and that does not make him an effective leader.
But my primary point was to ask how you can be so sure that the left’s position was the wrong one when your own positions have proven to have serious problems. I don’t understand why you can still be so sure that you were correct and still not question whether you were or not. This isn’t a question of what is or isn’t true, it’s a question of resolve, and why the ones whose viewpoint has been shut out for so many years are considered to be the stubborn ones when the situation has been deteriorating and nobody is trying to find a new course of action.
They are pointed and not misleading and you may accept some and reject others. I was not hanging them on you and not arguing to you but making a point.
This whole paragraph is your opinion of Bush. That is all fine and dandy are you are entitled to have one. I understand how you feel, and I took great pains to show that. Bush is wrong and the Left’s plan is?
I never said he was perfect, what I said in #6 was…
You keep demanding I be a Bush apologist, and I keep saying I don’t agree with your characterization, but still where is plan from the Left?
That got a WTF from me buddy, sorry! I hate to break this down so piece meal, but I think its necessary to illustrate things. The “Left’s position is, and darnit only is, that the Right’s position is wrong. Work with me here, that is the point I keep pounding over and over and over. It is like in Dude Where’s My Car?, When the drive through clerk says “and then!, and then!, and then!”. Again for pity’s sake where is the Left’s solution?
Again, what does that have to do with a solution?
Further, do you really think this how politics works and is that really a realistic description of my or the Right’s position?
Wes, lets continue over on the “A War We Just Might Win” as the subject is now the same.
I cutoff half my comment in #*, will make those points in the other thread, Jeez.