RSS Feed MenuMy column for The Week argues that President Obama’s West Point speech was not as bad as it sounded.
President Obama’s challenge is to persuade the country that Afghanistan is worth it. A grand Churchillian oration would be utterly counter-productive to that end. Imagine that Obama had delivered to the West Point cadets an updated version of the tremendous Churchillian words:
“Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.”
The television audience would have wondered: Has this man lost his mind? A phrase like “however long and hard the road may be” only raises the awkward question: Wait a minute – if it is going to be as hard and long as all that, maybe we should just forget this whole faraway war before it revs up.
Americans cannot be inspired to risk all for Afghanistan. But they can be persuaded that the war is necessary and winnable – if the promises are delivered in ways that sound considered and credible.
ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 8:40 am
Chekote // Dec 3, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Otto
“What is the point of still harping on Bush?”
……Because his administration is to a large extent the author of our misfortunes both domestic and foreign…….he took over a country that was in pretty good shape and ran it off the road…..much of tough policy making decisions being made by the Obama administration are aimed at either cleaning up his mess or at least ameliorating its worst consequences…….you can’t ignore the virus when deciding how you are going to treat swine flu…….and at the human level he’s brought grief to thousands of American homes quite unnecesarily……..you may think this all unimportant…..I don’t
ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 8:50 am
balconesfault // Dec 3, 2009 at 11:56 pm
“ahh – ok, Frum is saving GOP-er from himself, and this site from getting the label of tolerating race-baiting comments.”
…….Is Frum bowdlerizing the pure gopher insanity?…….I can’t say I’d noticed but then I don’t read his stuff…..just see a grey mass of ranting and move on
BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:00 am
“ahh – ok, Frum is saving GOP-er from himself, and this site from getting the label of tolerating race-baiting comments.”
They also removed the racist remarks of their own contributor Linnane. Also removing any reference to his remarks in that or any other thread. That’s Stalin like to me.
Your own guy makes racist remarks and it’s like it never happened. Amazing.
ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:00 am
sinz54 // Dec 3, 2009 at 9:01 pm
……Sinz (and others who might be interested) there are a couple of opeds in this morning’s NYT by Brooks and the conservative British military historian Max Hastings which dissect Obama’s approach to decision making (Brooks) and the reality of the Afghanistan situation and Obama’s approach to it (Hastings)……they are both outstanding, up in the Lippman league …….Hastings is the author of several outstanding books about WW 2 and most recently an excellent one about Churchill’s wartime governance and he nails the situation in Afghanistan to perfection.
ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:09 am
BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:00 am
“They also removed the racist remarks of their own contributor Linnane. Also removing any reference to his remarks in that or any other thread. That’s Stalin like to me.
Your own guy makes racist remarks and it’s like it never happened. Amazing.”
……Linnane is a total fruitcake like gopher……checking out his blog pic confirms that……it’s so grotesque as to be funny……..as for Stalinism it’s long been a feature of right wing publishing……..I seem to remember Michael Kinsley saying much the same about the oped page of the WSJ when he stopped writing for them but then extremism of right and left isn’t that different as people like Arendt, Berlin and Koestler observed long ago
cpanza // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:17 am
I was part of that exchange alongside BarryS with Sean Linnane. Personally, I think his column here at FF damages the reputation of the site, and I’m surprised Frum continues it. IMO, his columns are not clearly written, and his replies to commentators are rude and unprofessional.
BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:26 am
Linnane admitted in that exchange that his own blog had a racist element. Then he lamely stated that he could not remove the racist comments. You are right cpanza he does not contribute anything positive to this site, Frum should be ashamed publishing someone with his racist views.
ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:29 am
80 cpanza // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:17 am
“his columns are not clearly written, and his replies to commentators are rude and unprofessional.”
…….well that would be because he’s a nut case who has crawled out from under a rock……but Frum has a few other odd diarists here too like the obsessional father in law………He personally is the only one who is grade A material…….the rest are kids with bad neckties or industry/think tank shills……this is potentially a good blog but he needs to invest in some real talent like Larison or other conservative writers who are both articulate and have some intellectual bottom
BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:30 am
If Frum is editing MI-GOPers posts to make them less stupid, then he is failing. What gets through the censor is a whole shedload of stupid. Maybe he should let us see the un edited mess of non thought in all it’s glory.
ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:37 am
BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:30 am
“Maybe he should let us see the un edited mess of non thought in all it’s glory. ”
……….the mind trembles………actually repetition has moved gopher from the merely amusing to deeply tedious……even the three stooges routines ultimately became boring
sinz54 // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:55 am
balconesfault: does this influence in any way your core belief – that national security issues are always best left in the hands of Republicans over Democrats?
I don’t believe I said “always.”
I think the way things turned out, it might have been better if Gore had been elected in 2000 instead of Bush. I think Gore would have invaded Afghanistan pretty much the same way as Bush did; the CIA had a plan to use the Northern Alliance to topple the Taliban even before the 2000 elections, so whoever got elected could just dust it off and put it into effect. Gore would likely have NOT invaded Iraq, so we would have been better off. I fully admit that. Unlike other conservatives, I always respected Gore’s intellect. Surprise!
The Democratic Party has had a number of defense experts whom I respected: Sam Nunn, for example. But they don’t get to write the Dem Platform. What has bothered me is that the heart of the Dem Party is antiwar, having taken the wrong lessons from the Vietnam War. And frankly, they are uncomfortable at the very thought of America’s unique superpower role in the world.
A Boston Globe poll of delegates to the 2004 Dem Convention (less than 3 years after 9-11) revealed that they considered terrorism to be the LEAST important issue facing America. They just didn’t care about it, even though we had been hit less than 3 years earlier.
And among the biggest “netroots” supporters of Dems in the 2006 and 2008 elections was Moveon.org, whose founders, Tom Matzzie and Eli Pariser, are self-described pacifists. In the days immediately after 9-11. Eli Pariser opposed ANY military action to attack al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
There are just too many peaceniks all over the Dem Party for me to trust that they will defend America’s vital interests, if such a defense requires force.
Even Obama, in his speech at West Point, had to take pains to explain why he believed that this Afghanistan War is not another Vietnam. He was clearly talking to the left-wing of his own party.
Every time the U.S. Government considers the use of military force, the liberals in the Dem Party reflexively call it “another Vietnam.” They did that with the Gulf War too. Most of the Dems voted against the Gulf War, led by Ted Kennedy who predicted 5,000 to 10,000 KIA. They were prepared to see a sovereign member of the United Nations–Kuwait–get conquered, despite their oft-proclaimed love of the U.N.
Notice that the biggest opposition to Obama’ surge in Afghanistan is coming, not from the GOP, but from the left-wing of his own party. In fact, here in Massachusetts where I live, most of the Dem candidates for senator (to replace Kennedy) have announced their opposition. Yet this left-wing has no other answer for how to keep America safe from terrorism. THEY JUST DON’T CARE ABOUT IT.
The Dem Party, particularly its left-wing, has to get over its reflexive pacifism before I can trust it to keep America safe. And it has to adopt a realistic view of the way the world really works. It’s NOT a bunch of decent, honorable leaders getting together to fight common problems. That’s Star Trek, not the real world. It’s a bunch of ambitious, sometimes brutal men who grab off as much power and wealth as they can. And many of them are not afraid to use force.
We wouldn’t be here today if a liberal–FDR–hadn’t accepted that principle. But today’s liberals are of a very different stripe.
MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:03 am
BarryS or whatever name you’re using in this thread for now, I have to admit I’ve never seen a guy spend more time trying to discredit others than you do.
You are 100% anti-Frum, democrat activist troll 24×7 –almost as bad as Otto.
And that the two of you echo-chamber nonsense back and forth on a blog dedicated to rebuilding the conservative movement and returning the GOP to majority status tells us all how petty and bitter your life must be outside these posts.
You think playing from the Saul Alinsky book will win you credits or chits here? Hardly, it just underscores how pathetic it really is for all those multiple posting names you’ve played out here just toyou can suggest a dynamic of agreement with your view that doesn’t exist. Sad. Dishonest, naturally. And sad.
We were talking about how Obama’s speech wasn’t somehow as bad as his delivery before the snoozing West Point cadets –who knew their CIC was using them as props.
Try to stay on topic? And when you enter the echo chamber with Otto or even one of your manufactured names, remember you aren’t fooling anyone. It’s as transparent as the hairplugs on JoeBiden’s head.
ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:06 am
sinz54 // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:55 am
“I think the way things turned out, it might have been better if Gore had been elected in 2000 instead of Bush. I think Gore would have invaded Afghanistan pretty much the same way as Bush did; the CIA had a plan to use the Northern Alliance to topple the Taliban even before the 2000 elections, so whoever got elected could just dust it off and put it into effect. Gore would likely have NOT invaded Iraq, so we would have been better off. I fully admit that. Unlike other conservatives, I always respected Gore’s intellect. Surprise!”
…..Amazement I’d say…….I actually agree with your likely scenario had Gore been elected but then it’s possible, not probable but possible, that had we had a president in the WH more focussed on the threat from Islamic fundamentalism then 9/11 might not have happened at all
” Notice that the biggest opposition to Obama’ surge in Afghanistan is coming, not from the GOP, but from the left-wing of his own party. ”
……you may not have noticed but the country is divided down the middle on this so this is not about the left wing of the Democratic party despite your constant attempts to frame it this way…..there are even some notable conservative who think we need to pull the plug
MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:10 am
txanne claims “And to let stand MI-Goper calling me basically, a traitor.”
Wow, txanne… a few threads ago you said we were all calling you a liar. You got nailed for that ridiculous accustation and retreated back under the rocks. Now you claim you’ve been labeled a “traitor”? Really. Because I said you accepted the doubling of US troop deaths under Obama?
I’m still trying to understand why a far Left democrat activist troll like you is posting on a blog dedicated to rebuilding the conservative movement and returning the GOP to majority status? Maybe like with balconesfault and all his multiple named fake postings, you’re here to disrupt and annoy?
If that were the case, you wouldn’t be a traitor… just a tool. I think you’re more a conscientious objector on the War on Terror –like Obama. Try to stay on topic and out of the echo chamber, sweetie.
balconesfault // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:18 am
Sinz – certainly there is a lot of truth in what you say … although I will point out that what you’re faulting the Democratic Party for actually incuding a debate on issues of national defense. As you note, Gore most certainly would have responded to 9/11 with an overthrow of the Taliban, perhaps one even more focussed and therefore successful on catching and eliminating Al Qaeda before they could escape the country (that is, if he were actually allowed to remain as President with a GOP majority in Congress … I have always had my suspicions that had Gore been President on 9/11/01, Articles of Impeachment would have been drafted on 9/12/01). And as you note here, President Obama has made what you consider the right call on Afghanistan. And it’s unlikely that under a President Kerry, we’d have turned into some surrender-monkey mode, despite the rantings of a MI-GOPer. And President Bill Clinton pressed our military attacks on Iraq as far as international law would permit, while steadily building a program of targeting Bin Laden in Afghanistan that did not achieve under his Presidency the terms he deemed actionable (good intelligence providing a clean shot at Bin Laden that would not kill some royalty from oil rich states) that didn’t seem to have any followup between 1/23/01 and 9/11/01.
Frankly, I’m happy with a party that challenges the supposition that we should be ready to march to war every time the POTUS signals the clarion call. On the GOP side, the set of Congressmen who would question any military decision by a sitting Republican President consists of one – Ron Paul. I’m not excited about the POTUS having imperial powers.
ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:18 am
…..Bad news for the usual suspects……the US economy shows further signs of recovery from the worst recession since the war that was created by Bush and the Republicans
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091204/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy
……Sorry guys…….the Deluge has been postponed
MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:03 am
AutomaticBS’er, I wish I had a nickel for everytime Obama or a WH press person has said, “it’s over, move on, nothing to see here.” Chirping those talking points sure keeps you busy, pal.
The recession is still undercutting American families and all the Bush Bashing you can muster on this site isn’t changing that truth. 3.5% growth –a tentative number that economists now believe was mostly created by the Cash4Japs program and the modest recovery on Wall St. Of course, when we’re as far down in the pits as Obama and the Congressional Democrats have put us, it’s not hard for any fact to seem to be a wild improvement.
Remember Obama telling us if we passed the Stimulus Spending Spree unemployment would stay under 8%?
Remember Obama telling us that the economy was recovering in Feb while he worked to implement Bush-Cheney’s Secret Plan to save Afghanistan?
Remember Obama telling us that we needed his Health Scare Reform plan to relieve the burden of rising health care insurance costs on business only to find out now his plan will escalate and speed-up the rising cost?
Remember Obama telling us that “green jobs” would fix our economy and that’s why he was spending $1.4t on new green techonologies? Why we needed Cap & Trade taxes? To jumpstart green jobs!
Just yesterady, Obama held a Jobs Summit and who do you think was missing at the table? The US Chamber, AManufAssn, NFIB –three groups who represent over 185m employers in America. Some job conference, eh? Who was there? Labor. ACORN. BigPharm. The head of the Trial Lawyers! Any business CEO who wants to sleep in Lincoln’s Bedroom. Wow, talk about the “right” people.
Home foreclosures still at a record breaking pace.
Business bankruptcies and insolvencies unbated.
Bankruptcies now spreading to public govt enterprises like state govts, schools, hospitals and cities.
Economists estimate the real unemployment is closer to 18.7%, not the Obama-rosie 10.2%.
National deficit now passing $12.1 trillion as I type.
Our natl trade deficit at $36.8 billion as I type.
Otto, will it really take people jumping off bridges and killing themselves before democrat activists like you realize Americans are still hurting and just wishing the economic news away won’t ease their pain?
It is so callously partisan of you and your pals. Life in the cheap seats for you guys must be nice once you check your conscience at the door. I can’t join you in the peanut gallery, otto.
Too many Americans still are hurting to take much solace in a yahoo news story from a pro-democrat website. You can. You need the reassurance that Obama isn’t just Carter’s 2nd Term. You need to forget the stunning defeats in VA and NJ. You need to look elsewhere and away from 2010.
I still feel for my fellow Americans… I can’t join you in your false cheer and bravado when Americans still weep in the dark hours of the night fretting over losing their homes, their jobs, their savings and now, because of Obama’s Spending Spree, they can’t even promise a better tomorrow to their kids.
balconesfault // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:47 am
MI-GOPer Remember Obama telling us if we passed the Stimulus Spending Spree unemployment would stay under 8%?
I don’t remember that – and it would have been an odd claim, when February 2009 saw the unemployment rate reach 8.1%, and the stimulus bill was only signed in the middle of that month … and was on a trajectory that had seen it rise by at least 0.4% each of the previous 5 months in a row.
What you’re referring to is not a declaration by Obama, but an economic report called “The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan” from Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president’s top economic adviser, published Jan 9, 2009. The problem was that their baseline, along with the baseline of the CBO, was too low – they projected an unemployment peak of about 9% in 2010. Instead, we blew through that number by May 2009, before any part of the stimulus bill except for some of the tax cuts had really gone into effect.
Refusal to admit that the Iraq War was a mistake has seriously damaged the Republican brand with many independent voters. Refusal to accept that the stimulus bill is going to be viewed by late next year as a major contributor to reversing the jobs collapse is going to be a second blow. It is so difficult to sell ideology when the reality people see in front of them suggests the ideology is badly flawed.
balconesfault // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:48 am
National deficit now passing $12.1 trillion as I type.
Ahh – the combination of blustering certitude and economic ignorance that makes MI-GOPer that special person he is …
SpartacusIsNotDead // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Sinz wrote: “Every time the U.S. Government considers the use of military force, the liberals in the Dem Party reflexively call it “another Vietnam.” They did that with the Gulf War too.”
Other than the individuals you named, none of which are congressmen or policymakers, I’m not sure who these liberals are who wield such power in the Democratic party.
Moreover, the comparisons to Vietnam are not reflexive. They are based on features of that conflict that have also been present in subsequent conflicts (no clear and substantial U.S. interest at stake, no objectively measured goal, no defined exit strategy, lukewarm public support, etc.). These features by themselves do not mean these subsequent conflicts are another Vietnam, but they do mean that extra caution and analysis are required before going to war.
With respect to the Gulf War, that very well could have turned into another Vietnam had Bush I not exercised the wisdom that he did both leading up to the war, during its conduct and in the aftermath. Bush II showed just how easy it is to screw up a war and waste trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives and over a hundred thousand foreign civilian lives.
Lastly, if either side is guilty of reflexively characterizing all military conflicts, it is the Right, who seem to reflexively compare every conflict to WWII despite that fact that none of our conflicts since then have had any of the significant features of that war. This is quite ironic given the Right’s posture leading up to WWII.
sinz54 // Dec 7, 2009 at 9:46 am
balconesfault:
It’s been said that two events defined the entire debate about foreign policy in the post WW2 era: One was Munich and the other was Korea (later replaced by Vietnam).
There were many, conservatives but also quite a few liberal hawks like Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, who considered any unilateral concessions to the Soviets to be the equivalent of the Munich accord that Chamberlain signed in 1938.
And then there are the doves, who consider any firmness in U.S. foreign policy likely to lead to military intervention, and then inevitably (they claim) to “another Vietnam.”
So hawks are always afraid of another Munich, and doves are always afraid of another Vietnam.
And that has continued even after the Cold War ended.