Explain This To Me

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2006
Posted on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 10:03:58 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Professor Althouse is a nice and bright person, that despite my significant differences with her views. But I must say this post is perplexing:

Okay, I'm depressed about the election.
. . . It's the failure of Americans to support the war. It's the folding and crumpling because things didn't go well enough and the way we conspicuously displayed that to our enemies. They're going to use that information.
For how long? Forever.

Huh? Folding and crumpling? Is that what you call realizing doing the same stupid thing over and over again will not yield different results? I really have to question whether Professor Althouse actually understands what has happened in Iraq. It is not minor setbacks. It is an unmitigated debacle. And she would have us continue that? She would have us stay the course? Explain that to me.

What makes it even stranger is this:

The only race I said much about was the Virginia Senate race. Go find those old posts and you'll see that, from "Macaca" on, I was hostile to George Allen, and, in numerous posts, I was positive about Webb. What I'm concerned about is national security and, consequently, the way the election was fought and is being interpreted. I'm upset because I think we have sent a terrible message to our enemies: Just hang on long enough and continue to inflict some damage, and the Americans will lose heart and give up.

The one candidate she favored, Jim Webb, is the embodiment of what she feels is the problem.

Professor Althouse, isn't Webb what you are complaining about? I sense some significant cognitive dissonance in your post. I suggest you take a moment and rethink on this. There is a certain lack of coherence in your post that is not the norm for you.

< No Club Fed for Enron's Andrew Fastow | Nobody Loves A Loser: Bush at 31% >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Explain This To Me | 20 comments (20 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Explain This (none / 0) (#1)
by wlgriffi on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 10:28:18 AM EST

"There is a certain lack of coherence in your post that is not the norm for you."

Alas,It appears that there is nothing but "lack of coherence" comming out of the "makers and shakers".

Dissonance? (none / 0) (#3)
by Edger on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 10:59:09 AM EST

I notice the past few days what looks suspiciously like some movement towards the Democratic Party being slowly and quietly infiltrated by Republican losers who are attempting a slow motion hijack, and are more concerned with "gaining and retaining power" than anything else.

They seem to be moving to the Democratic party for no other reason than it is the party holding congressional power now. Not because they are evolving their political values. Hence the rightward shift of the party.

I think some of the voters who may moved to the Democrats because they saw the GOP and Bush as incompetents may have done so for exactly this reason, a way to keep enough power to "keep on keepin' on", if you will. I see this also in some commenters here lately claiming to be Democrats, and with their subtext claiming they want to "save" the party by moving it to the "middle", so that it will "appeal" more to the right.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Huh? The insulting assumption that people are stupid sheep carries on.

They are interested I think not in what they can do differently and what positive changes they can bring about with the power the party now has, but more in the naked acquisition of as much power as possible to enable carrying on tha same old way, particularly in foreign policy.

Althouse, perhaps unconciously, perhaps not, is reflecting that I think:

I'm upset because I think we have sent a terrible message to our enemies: Just hang on long enough and continue to inflict some damage, and the Americans will lose heart and give up.

Her comment is straight out of the Bush/GOP fearmongering playbook.
Republicans in diguise cynically up to the same old tricks. Phttht.

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
--The Who, Won't Get Fooled Again

Phttht. (none / 0) (#9)
by Edger on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 12:17:15 PM EST

Carville wanting to replace Dean with Harold Ford as DNC Chair?

Harold Ford?


There's a Ford in your future (none / 0) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 04:27:19 PM EST

Don't look now edger, but Ford came within three points of being the first black Senator since Reconstruction, and that in a state with strong ties to the old south.

He will be back, either as Mayor of Memphis and then Governor or just as Governor.. all with an eye towards the Pres...

He has presence, speaks well, very low negatives and understands winning in the rest of the nation.

Dean would do well to listen to whatever Ford wants to tell him.


Ford in our future NOT (none / 0) (#16)
by bob5540 on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 04:50:38 PM EST

As one from Ford's home district, I can assure you there are already too many Fords in my future and thankfully one less. I just wish his soulmate Joe Lieberman had lost, too.


: Mayor Ford (none / 0) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:20:13 AM EST

I grant you that some of his relatives have a long and colorful history of indictments and charges, but that hasn't stopped him, or rubbed off on him.
If you live in Memphis get ready to say Mayor Ford.
He almost won because of one simple fact. His positioning of who he is, or at least who he wanted the electorate to think he is, was very much in the center with a dose of good ole Democratic populism thrown in.

xx (none / 0) (#12)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 04:07:31 PM EST

And Althouse, disliking the war's results, voted for Webb. If she ever scratches her hand she will probably cut her arm off.


Explain this to me (none / 0) (#4)
by Fr33d0m on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:03:25 AM EST

How can you call the author of this "Bright":

". . It's the failure of Americans to support the war. It's the folding and crumpling because things didn't go well enough and the way we conspicuously displayed that to our enemies. They're going to use that information."

Doesn't sound all that bright to me. More like a hack than anything. Some could be forgiven for this kind of talk before '04, even though the lie should have been obvious. By now you have to say such folks are either:

a. Too stupid to be taken seriously

b. Drunk on the cool aid

c. A charter member of the vast right wing conspiracy (otherwise known as all of the above)

After all only one person could be held responsible for abandoning the war on terror in Tora Bora.

Support for the war in Iraq presupposes support for abandoning the WOT. Anyone who sees value in supporting the war in Iraq has no credibility when in comes to support for a war or support for our troops. Not to mention having no credibility when it comes to being pro life.

: Mistakes (none / 0) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 04:18:24 PM EST

After all only one person could be held responsible for abandoning the war on terror in Tora Bora.
I love these deeeeeep thoughts on strategy. Tell me. Should FDR made sure that Patton had all the supplies he needed, or shoud he have agreed with Ike that politics said that we had to let Monty try and take out the missle launchers?
Remember, Patton claimed he could be in Berlin in three months... How many people did that decision kill?
Should FDR insisted that Ike not slow down and let the Soviets take Berlin? After all, Ike was in perfect position to do it, and would have only cost 10,000 or so dead and wounded... Since he didn't we gave the Soviets a position in Europe that hurt for 50 years.
Should Kennedy have invaded Cuba? He didn't and we are still seeing the results in Venezula..
Mistakes are in war. If you are lucky they cost, but are not fatal.

The problem in a nutshell (none / 0) (#5)
by chemoelectric on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:13:44 AM EST

Here is the problem in a nutshell (and thus very approximately)--

We have 'enemies' in Iraq simply because we invaded their feeble country for no good reason. If I take out my personal frustrations by beating my children, who then fight back, should I complain that I have to keep beating them or they'll stop respecting me?

What I should do is stop beating them and try to mitigate the damage I have done (and I won't be able to do it without psychiatric assistance, but not from Charles Krauthammer).

As for al-Qaeda, it's Bush who gave up without even a decent try, for lack of interest, and it was not the American people, who had to be duped. I think you will find Americans largely pleased if the government would only do something about bin-Laden and friends.

: Re: nutshell (none / 0) (#7)
by Edger on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:19:14 AM EST

Very nicely condensed, Chemo. Well put.

: That's funny (none / 0) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 04:20:36 PM EST

Do you really claim that we had no enemies in Iraq before we invaded them?
Gesh. That's funny. I mean really.

Won't Get Fooled Again (none / 0) (#6)
by Edger on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:17:37 AM EST

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war

: Lyrics... (none / 0) (#8)
by Edger on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 12:08:08 PM EST

Follow the links and the links inside the links. Connect the dots........

Outhouse reasoning (none / 0) (#10)
by David at Kmareka on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 01:30:30 PM EST

It's the folding and crumpling because things didn't go well enough and the way we conspicuously displayed that to our enemies.

A. What the less than inimitable Ms. Althouse calls "folding and crumpling" might be better--and less pejoratively--termed learning from experience and adapting. She seems to buy into the superficial Bush mindset that it is better to stay the course than admit error and adjust accordingly.

B. What ostensibly separates America from the lawless regimes or groups that it chooses to label as enemies is that we embrace--and hopefully model--democratic ideals that encourage the "conspicuous display" of policy disagreements and concerns. Doesn't such a display ultimately enhance rather than diminish this nation's image? Althouse just doesn't seem to get it. Or like it.

: Do you want to win???? (none / 0) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:28:28 AM EST

If the Demos had came forth with a strategy to win, rather than just leaving, you might have a point. But they didn't. Cut and run defines them well.
Now David, tell us what what you have learned from experience and what you would do to win the war.
You do want to win and establish democracy in Iraq don't you David? Don't you? David???? Don't you???

Simple (none / 0) (#11)
by WiB on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:11:38 PM EST

She responds emotionally instead of cognitively. She may be intelligent, but she uses her intelligence to serve what's primarily an emotional reaction. It's an approach that's probably worked out quite well for her over the years in reaching her students. But for clearly analyzing a fast-changing factual situation? Forget it.

Cart Before Horse (none / 0) (#18)
by john horse on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:09:15 AM EST

Professor Althouse puts the cart before the horse. Its the failure of the war that has caused the lack of support, not the lack of support that has caused the war to be a failure. The Bush administration screwed up in Iraq without anyone else's help thank you very much.

The question I have for Professor Althouse is why should the American people support a policy that has been a disaster. To use a analogy from a former Secretary of State, if American soldiers were being killed because they were being sent into battle with defective weapons should we keep quiet about it for fear that our complaints would provide aid and comfort to our enemies. If not, then how is a defective policy any different than a defective weapon?

xx (none / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 09:42:54 AM EST

Ernesto - I see that you are back on your usual anti-war excuse of "you must be a veteran to support the war."

Horse hockey and bull. That has never been true throughout history, is not true now and will not be true in the future. It is the saddest of straw horses.

And I speak as a veteran who spent 10 years in Naval Aviation. Did you serve?

What is true is that the non-combatants must support the combatants, and the failure to do so in the past has been looked upon with great disdain with mostly unpleasant side effects for the non-supporters. It is only recently, that they have been given any degree of respectability, and for that the country will eventually pay a heavy price.

It was this lack of support that General Giap recognized so plainly and established his strategy of not fighting battles, but guerrilla actions, killing enough Americans to allow the radical Left in the US, aided by the useful fools in the media, universities and some politicians to eventually undermine the effort to the point that the Demos gained control and fled. We are now on the same path.

And if we do not understand that the Islamic Fascists have recognized that, and are using the same strategy then we are truly stupid.

The difference is that though Vietnam triggered a large number of victories, we were dealing with nation states that understood that they could not attack us inside the US without suffering reprisals of horrific nature. I refer, of course, to MAD.

That is not the case now. We fight a war on two fronts. The first is a culture war in which the Islamic Fascists are determined to turn the world into Caliphates ruled by Imams and judged under Shari law. They will not compromise and see terrorist attacks as a way to make us slowly agree to obey their commands. Islam is not a religion of peace and has a long history proving it is not.

To those who like to call attention to the Crusades, etc., I note that we are not being attacked by the Catholic Church, Jews or any religious group not associated with Islam.

So if we lose in Iraq we can expect to pay a heavy price in the US, and as in Southeast Asia, we can expect to see millions die in the following chaos and power struggles. That you do not understand this speaks ill of your understanding of history.

: You can't even define winning... (none / 0) (#22)
by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:13:21 AM EST

..so it's no surprise you can't tell we're losing...and badly. And PLEASE get over your racist beliefs that formed in a small little corner of your small little mind. You've never met a Muslim in your life, have you?
For the record, I don't like religious fanatics, whether they be Christians, Jews or Muslims. But creating more of them is what you are advocating (and of course we must note that through history more people have been killed in the name of Jesus Christ than any other savior or messenger combined).
I was in the army in a combat MOS (13 Bravo- artillery) for 3 years. Shortly after I got out my old unit was sent to Panama City for Poppy Bush's takedown of his drug running erstwhile buddy. My unit provided fire support for the leveling of a civilian neighborhood. One of the long list of war crimes that the Bush family has employed the U.S. military to do for them in the name of the family business.
Quite simply, what we did there and what we are doing in Iraq is creating hatred for you and me. Every roadblock, every door kicked in, every shooting, detainment, interrogation results in more people that hate the U.S. occupation and by extension, you and me. Bin Laden wouldn't run our foreign policy any differently if he was trying to help his side get recruits. Would he?
Answer this one question: If the United States was being occupied by Saddam's invading army, and you had no job, electricty, running water, or civil liberties...would you want that foreign army to remain in the United States? That's where the Iraqis are right now. That's why this Althouse person needs to go over there and see what's going on. The thing is lost. And getting more lost everyday.
Vietnam and Iraq are perfect parallels in the sense that it is the United States government abusing people, including its own, for the purpose of establishing hedgemony for a handful of people to benefit from, while everyone else suffers the consequences. 'Twas ever thus of course, but it's about time people are waking up to it.
Your ramblings and hers are an insult to anyone who served in Vietnam and the new crop of victims in Iraq.