November 22, 2006
California Conservative 'Cut And Run'
This is another "Things are tough, so let's quit" proclamation from a respected conservative.
Check out Ben Stein The Appeaser for the template. I'll respond to California Conservative in the same way.
In his article, "We Were Better Off With Saddam" - There, I Said It, he states:
A decisive victory in Iraq is still the best possible outcome, but without the political will on either the Iraqi or American side to do what is necessary, staying is madness. With the Democrats in power and Bush rolling over for them (not that he had the initiative anyway), there is no mission. Not another American soldier's life should be wasted in Iraq under these circumstances.
Regardless of the situation, no matter how bad any liberal goon tells you it is in Iraq, that does not mean you abandon your principles and support the enemy. California Conservative is essentially saying, "Let's throw Iraq to the wolves, because WE will be better off."
As with Ben Stein, I will retort by quoting Reagan's speech, A Time For Choosing:
The players are different, but the game is the same. Whether the slave master is a totalitarian regime, a brutal dictator, or an impotent U.S. government, I will always support the fight for freedom. In Iraq, or elsewhere. California Conservative should, too.
CC, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Posted by Richard at November 22, 2006 3:17 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goodrichardsalmanac.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/76
Comments
I wrote the article on the California Conservative that you are referring to and I think you missed the point.
I still believe that winning is the best solution, and said so.
I was merely surmising that under the situation we find ourselves in, not going in in the first place looks pretty good in comparison.
We are pussy footing around. That is a waste of time and a waste of soldier's lives. That is not the same as cutting and running because things are tough. It is a recognition that soldiers are dying for nothing when the leadership lacks the will to win.
If I was running the war (though I am glad I am not) we would have the initiative. Bagdad would be under martial law, Al Sadr would be dead, and his militia would be destroyed.
Posted by: SactoDan at November 22, 2006 5:56 PM
You left out the most salient point...
[Editor?s note: And most importantly, Saddam was a ruthless blood-thirsty dictator, who ruled by instilling fear among everyone. With public executions, rape rooms, and putting people through plastic shredders ? evidently, that?s the barbarism it takes to contain the savages that are carrying on the terrorist activity.]
Once we hear *any* Democrat utter a similar sentiment as a basis for objecting to our role in Iraq, then maybe we have a real basis for debate.
Posted by: California Conservative at November 22, 2006 8:32 PM
If any salient point was missed, it's that commenters at California Conservative have lost their moral grounding and all understanding of our objectives in Iraq.
How could you say, "We were better off with Saddam." With any sense of moral responsibility?
What selfishness brings you to the idea that it's all about us? Should we comdemn the people of Iraq to a life of oppression by Baathists? Should we subject them to brain-washing by Islamofascist sects?
Your position was lost when you responded to my condemnation by stating, "not going in in the first place looks pretty good in comparison."
You obviously don't understand my position, because you reitereate the precise point I'm disagreeing with you on.
The people of the United States have a moral responsibility to defend freedom at all costs. At all costs. Without freedom, we have nothing.
I don't refer only to the freedom of the Iraqi people. Saddam's regime was a threat to freedom loving people everywhere.
Posted by: Richard at November 22, 2006 10:16 PM