it's the war, stupid

[theknife]

congrats to the Dems for a job well done

and after 6 years of being a free-range chicken hawk, the Prez gets himself a leash

[malvachat]

I don't finks you like him very much.

[daddydirt]

the pendulum turns, and the Dems take a page out of Rove's own book to turn the tables on him. god bless america.

much as Clinton overreacted against drug users to avoid being perceived as soft on drugs, i wouldn't be too surprised to see the Dems follow the same pattern in the "war on terror". Dean is already backpedaling about withdrawal from Iraq.

only time will tell which side is right. i happen to think that not engaging the jihadists now will only bring more death and destruction in the future; thousands dead today as opposed to millions tomorrow. there were many well-intentioned politicians in the 1930's who were proved wrong by not crushing Hitler while they could. they and we learned the hard way.

you've been using that tired chicken hawk "argument" for a while. someone should have called you on it before now.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/J...cken_hawk_slur

The cry of ``chicken hawk" is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action. But there is no difference, in terms of the background and judgment required, between deciding to go to war and deciding not to. If only those who served in uniform during wartime have the moral standing and experience to back a war, then only they have the moral standing and experience to oppose a war. Those who mock the views of ``chicken hawks" ought to be just as dismissive of ``chicken doves."

In any case, the whole premise of the ``chicken hawk" attack -- that military experience is a prerequisite for making sound pronouncements on foreign policy -- is illogical and ahistorical.

``There is no evidence that generals as a class make wiser national security policymakers than civilians," notes Eliot A. Cohen, a leading scholar of military and strategic affairs at Johns Hopkins University. ``George C. Marshall, our greatest soldier-statesman after George Washington, opposed shipping arms to Britain in 1940. His boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nary a day in uniform, thought otherwise. Whose judgment looks better?"

Some combat veterans display great sagacity when it comes to matters of state and strategy. Some display none at all. General George B. McLellan had a distinguished military career, eventually rising to general in chief of the Union armies; Abraham Lincoln served but a few weeks in a militia unit that saw no action. Whose wisdom better served the nation -- the military man who was hypercautious about sending men into battle, or the ``chicken hawk" president who pressed aggressively for military action?

The founders of the American republic were unambiguous in rejecting any hint of military supremacy. Under the Constitution, military leaders take their orders from civilian leaders, who are subject in turn to the judgment of ordinary voters. Those who wear the uniform in wartime are entitled to their countrymen's esteem and lasting gratitude. But for well over two centuries, Americans have insisted that when it comes to security and defense policy, soldiers and veterans get no more of a say than anyone else.

You don't need medical training to express an opinion on healthcare. You don't have to be on the police force to comment on matters of law and order. You don't have to be a parent or a teacher or a graduate to be heard on the educational controversies of the day. You don't have to be a journalist to comment on this or any other column.

And whether you have fought for your country or never had that honor, you have every right to weigh in on questions of war and peace. Those who cackle ``Chicken hawk!" are not making an argument. They are merely trying to stifle one, and deserve to be ignored.

[theknife]

i'd agree i've probably over-used the term "chickenhawk" in referring to online war cheerleaders. but i think it's entirely appropriate for describing those politicians who possess and exercise the power to make war, but have never been willing to actually go fight one. it's hypocrisy of the worst sort - entirely different than just having an opinion or making pronouncements.

Bush with his phantom Guard service qualifies here, as does Cheney with his six draft deferments.

[theknife]

btw, i do believe the election results will provide Bush with his best possible opportunity to salvage his tattered legacy.

had the GOP eked out a victory, the Prez would have resolutely stayed the course - all the way to the bottom of the political abyss.

but if the Prez can swallow his pride and work with the Dems, any kind of strategy shift in Iraq and elsewhere will only help improve his standing as well. Reagan and Clinton both had to work with majority opposition in their final years and they both looked good doing it.

it's a character test of sorts for him - let's see if he is up for it.

[albed]

Exit polls showed corruption led voter motivations with the economy and terrorism following and the "war" in fourth place.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15614139/
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...556294,00.html


Some districts have the economy highest but none had the "war" first.

[malvachat]

Here he is,the old people hater.
You won't get any medals for that.

[daddydirt]

Originally Posted by theknife

.....but i think it's entirely appropriate for describing those politicians who possess and exercise the power to make war, but have never been willing to actually go fight one. it's hypocrisy of the worst sort - entirely different than just having an opinion or making pronouncements.

Bush with his phantom Guard service qualifies here, as does Cheney with his six draft deferments.

tk, if you can read the above article and still not see how your logic is flawed, there's nothing left to say.

[naz]

Rumsfeld resigns in completely non-war related move towards appeasing critics of the administration. What's he secretary for again?

[JackSpratts]

and just last week bush said rummy (and cheney) would stay on.

Both those men are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them.

flip

flop

he's the recider.

- js.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by daddydirt

tk, if you can read the above article and still not see how your logic is flawed, there's nothing left to say.

dd, that article doesn't quite touch on the kind of politician i'm referring to - i'm talking about those who actively sought to avoid military service. a fine line, but a distinct one, imo.

[JackSpratts]

tick

tock

senate now tied.

- js.

[Sinner]

With Rumsfeld gone, What happens to "Stay the Course" ??

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Since "The Course" has never been anything as far as I can tell but an arrogant and unrealistic fantasy sold to a paranoid populace by a bunch of assholes with delusions of grandeur, perhaps "staying it" will begin to seem as ludicrous as it actually is.

But that's just my take.

[TankGirl]

CNN:

World reaction: Democratic win welcomed

MADRID, Spain (AP) -- The seismic shift that midterm elections brought to Washington's political landscape was welcomed by many Wednesday in a world sharply opposed to the war in Iraq and outraged over the harsh methods the Bush administration has employed in fighting terrorism.

From Paris to Pakistan, politicians, analysts and ordinary citizens said they hoped the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives would force President Bush to adopt a more conciliatory approach to the globe's laundry list of crises, and teach a president many see as a "cowboy" a lesson in humility.

[naz]

Originally Posted by Sinner

With Rumsfeld gone, What happens to "Stay the Course" ??

I guess it's escalation or de-escalation? I'm pretty happy about him going, but I wish he'd have went in 04 and Powell had stayed instead. It's not like the situation has gotten better in the meantime.

[floydian slip]

what has changed? nothing!

meet the new boss
same as the old boss

its funny to see the media play this as a new beggining or a change in power. the people with the money and the power are still controling the little puppets we call congressmen.

we still have the perpetual war on poverty, drugs, terror blah blah blah.

[naz]

As far as foriegn policy goes (which is my interest), the neo-con ideologues are out and the Bush41 realpolitikers are in. Which can only be a good thing. The Council on Foriegn Relations has a long and interesting article on the new era emering in the M.E: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/

THE END OF AN ERA

Just over two centuries since Napoleon's arrival in Egypt heralded the advent of the modern Middle East -- some 80 years after the demise of the Ottoman Empire, 50 years after the end of colonialism, and less than 20 years after the end of the Cold War -- the American era in the Middle East, the fourth in the region's modern history, has ended. Visions of a new, Europe-like region -- peaceful, prosperous, democratic -- will not be realized. Much more likely is the emergence of a new Middle East that will cause great harm to itself, the United States, and the world ....

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200611...ddle-east.html

[Mazer]

No, Floyd's right. It's my understanding that most people around the world expect the mood surrounding America's foreign policy to calm down a bit, but they doubt the policy itself will change much. About the only thing congress has the ability to change is defense funding, but nobody in congress is willing to endanger the troops by refusing to pay for the equipment they need to stay alive. The executive branch still presides over military and diplomatic affairs.

[naz]

Originally Posted by Mazer

The executive branch still presides over military and diplomatic affairs.

I wouldn't disagree with that, but there will be a new approach taken by the executive in response to both the changing political reality and context domestically and the reality of the worsening situation American foriegn policy has found itself in the last six years. Whether or not you want to attribute this change to the elections or not is perhaps arguable, but it's at least a significant factor.

Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, the neo-cons are all gone. Alright, Cheney's still there. These were the chief cheerleaders for war and coined the new lexicon of the last 6 years, Global War on Terror, Pre-emptive Strike and Enemy Combatant. They argued the World had changed since 9/11 and that meant changes in the way power was projected.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have become an abject failure and are heading for a strategic defeat. It's been 6 years and 3 years and they are worsening, year on year.

So the administration is being forced to change to a foriegn policy based on realism rather than ideology for both political (message from the electorate) and practical reasons.

President George W Bush has turned back to the "wise men" of his father's administration that senior foreign policy officials have derided over the past six years as out-of-touch and overly willing to compromise and accommodate America's adversaries.

Robert Gates, the new Pentagon chief, is the self-described "ultimate insider". A CIA boss under Mr Bush Snr, he served alongside James Baker, then secretary of state. Both men have been privately horrified at the conduct of the Iraq war.

Their new centre-stage positions could have profound implications for the future of the Iraq war and Iran, with which Mr Gates favours dialogue.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...wuselec310.xml

These are smart guys, they faced down the Soviets and Saddam and won twice, back when the U.S could still win a war and keep it won. Let's see if Bush takes Baker's recommendations on board when he reports in a few weeks. That will show whether things have changed or not.