Search This Blog

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Nattering Nabobs of Negativity

A famous politician who was more adept with his verbiage than he was with his ethical stance once called a group of journalists the "nattering nabobs of negativity." Three points to the one who identifies him first.

In this country, the NNN are the Democrats, yapping about Iraq while our very brave troops try to do a very difficult mission. Being sick, I tend to get angry easier than when I am well, and I referred to John Murtha as being a "weak-kneed and treasonous pacifist." A hermit dared me to say it to his face and I asked hermit to email Congressman Murtha and link him to the site so he could defend himself. Me versus Murtha ought to be a fair fight in person or via the internet, at least when I am not sick as a dog.

But sometimes my commenters help me rein myself in, and in fact a hermit, a guy I almost never agree with on anything, made me think. Do I really think that John Murtha is treasonous? Hmm. He served his country, which I admire and which is a patriotic act. I suppose I don't even want to think that he is treasonous. It would be a sad thing for a patriotic American to take such a bad turn in his life to go from Marine to Benedict Arnold. Okay, I guess I don't truly think he is treasonous. His service to his country automatically gives him the benefit of the doubt.

I believe strongly, however, that the stance Murtha takes is one invented by weak-kneed and treasonous pacifists who are willing to see this country be destroyed rather than continue as the strong and free entity it is today. It pains me that a military veteran such as himself could take such an anti-military and anti-freedom stand as he does on Iraq. I also believe he does so for purposes of political gain and that he doesn't seem to either see or care that his actions are dangerous to the troops on the ground in Iraq. The more the terrorists think they can scare the US out of Iraq, the more likely they are to find and set up some more IED's or blow themselves up in a public place. So I do believe that Murtha's motives are political in nature and therefore reprehensible. Yes, there, now there is a strong word I can endorse. I believe Murtha's actions are reprehensible.

You who agree with Murtha, start going to sites on the internet where soldiers are posting and see what the feet on the ground have to say. Go to Iraq the Model to see what an Iraqi point of view might be. Get a point of view from someone other than CNN or the Daily Kos.

Crawling back into my sick bed....thanks for the encouragement, creeper!

21 comments:

loboinok said...

Spiro Agnew... but I cheated.

Anonymous said...

Safire probably came up wih it, though - he was the speechwriter . . .

It was an appeal to pretty much the same emotions, with a similar situation and dynamics.

Another example of the historical and ideological chasm here - I would never think to use it as a useful descriptive category, but rather as an example of something bad. To my ear it sounds like, I dunno, somebody talking about the Teapot Dome scandal as a model for management of public lands . . . weird.

And in my timeline, it's part of a whole rightwing and specifically Nixon Administration smearing of the anti (Vietnam) war protestors, which is itself part of a broader pattern involving the squelching of dissent, a fundamental lack of trust in America, and a parade of illegal and immoral acts by a government that had lost its way. Furthermore, in my time, it turned out that the antiwar protestors were fundmentally right, COINTELPRO and the other espionage-related violations of civil rights were uncovered and denounced as unconstitutional and bad (hounding SDS members and college presidents out of jobs from the secrecy of an FBI field office, trying to get MLK Jr. to kill himself, or even just hiring folks to go onto college campuses and hide the signs announcing when this or that political club was meeting - not so good) and etc., etc., etc.

In y'all's timeline, on the other hand . . .

"weak-kneed and treasonous pacifists who are willing to see this country be destroyed rather than continue as the strong and free entity it is today"

This is what you imagine, because you've been given (or rather, given the materials to make) a view of the world where that's how things work (perhap). Perhaps it also has something to do with notions of authority and suchlike - hey, I dunno, I'm not in your head.

"Once again, criticism of the war in Iraq has been adroitly linked to criticism of the administration, and then to treason - something that would somehow, magically empower the enemy and demorialize our own troops. (from that Kevin Baker Harper's article.

Why do you think he's anti-military? I would think the folks responsible for our troops being short of armor might be considered anti-military . . . and anti-freedom?

"The more the terrorists think they can scare the US out of Iraq, the more likely they are to find and set up some."

You've interviewed many terrorists, yes?

Even beyond the other issues, this is an example of terrorists controlling our behavior, and a utilization of this threat in a way that works to the Administration's political advantage. Because of the terrorists are listening, we can't criticize any aspect of war effort (even if there is real mismanagement, incompetence, abuses, etc.) No matter how bad things get, we can't question the wisdom of 'staying the course' or any other administration opinion(~3/4 of Americans surveyed in a recent poll think the number of deaths are not acceptable). We can't express our dismay, our grief, our anger. We have to sit quietly with our hands folded, like good girls and boys. The media equivalent is a non-stop stream of good news about painted schools and minor government baby steps, with everything upsetting (like the daily suicide bombings, lately) briefly mentioned or ignored.

That's what it's always about. And one reason the cries of treason, etc., are again becoming so loud is that a majority of Americans don't see any sensible reason why we're in Iraq, don't think it was worth it, and don't trust either Bush or Republicans in general to manage it.

That's what happens when an administration sells a war based on forgeries. cherrypicked info, and ever-shifting causes. Eventually they look behind as they're marching, and realize no one is following. Bush decided the public was merely just another focus group. This is the result.

"someone other than CNN or the Daily Kos."
Because of course those are virtually the same, right?
Where do you get most of your news from?

Anyway, hope you feel better.

-Dan S.

Anonymous said...

Dan S. said

Here is a summary with quotes of the Harper's 'stab in the back' article.

"More than 21,000 Americans were killed in Vietnam during Nixon's time in office, and there were no Democrats to blame it on. The only political hope for the administration was to turn its gaze outward -- to blame the people....

Over and over, antiwar protesters were called Communists [or] perverts....Older, more established dissidents were ridiculed ... as "nattering nabobs of negativity," and, unforgettably, as "an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals." These invectives were, of course, doubly disingenuous; it was [VP Spiro] Agnew and [speechwriter William] Safire who very much wanted such persons to be known by the damning label "intellectual," and what the vice president was really calling them was fags."

highboy said...

Dan: Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat. JFK was a Democrat. Its not a right-wing conspiracy to shut up dissent. Its a left wing conspiracy to to make America weak. If we hadn't fought Vietnam, it is very very likely we'd all be speaking Russian right now, but that is liberalism for you, the ideology of the quick fix. Also, I fail to see having my picture taken with the enemy, aiding the enemy, (which is treason) spitting on soldiers, throwing bags of dog poop at soldiers, attacking them in airport and trying to rip their uniform off, setting soldiers rented cars on fire, making death threats to soldier's families, and so on are considered responsible dissent. But of course liberals don't like to talk about that aspect of their "dissent". It couldn't be that conservatives just wanted pot-smoking hippies that couldn't find their butt-hole with a funnel and a flashlight to leave our troops alone, huh?

""The more the terrorists think they can scare the US out of Iraq, the more likely they are to find and set up some."

You've interviewed many terrorists, yes?"

We've intercepted messages between these guys saying just that, yes. Unless of course you have your tin foil on and believe the whole thing was cooked up by the administration.

"No matter how bad things get, we can't question the wisdom of 'staying the course' or any other administration opinion"

No one said that, if you were right, and the war in Iraq was a mistake, it'd be different. Since you're not...

"The media equivalent is a non-stop stream of good news about painted schools and minor government baby steps, with everything upsetting (like the daily suicide bombings, lately) briefly mentioned or ignored."

That's odd, because from our view, its just the opposite. All I EVER hear about on CNN, NBC, or CBS is about suicide bombings and the latest American death toll. I never hear the good stuff, unless I turn on Fox News where they interview the troops actually over there, and not Sean Penn with or some other Hollywood quack with an agenda.

"That's what happens when an administration sells a war based on forgeries. cherrypicked info, and ever-shifting causes."

The ever-shifting causes part cracks me up. Ever-shifting would actually apply to war support from the flakes in the Democratic Party, who decide one day, "Yes, this intelligence looks good Bush." And then the next day (election year) "Bush lied to us!" Give me a break. Bush has always said by the way the reasons for invading Iraq, and hasn't changed them. What changes is the Dems focus on what parts of the argument to attack, because they still find themselves lagging in American support despite Bush's rock bottom poll numbers. WMDs was on of about 16 counts we had against Saddam. Violating 14 Gulf War Ceasefire Treaties was the biggest.

Anonymous said...

" If we hadn't fought Vietnam, it is very very likely we'd all be speaking Russian right now,"

The domino theory.
But actually, we lost Vietnam - not just ignored it and let it go communist out of neglect, but went in, fought, in one way or another, for almost 20 years, spent enormous sums of money, tens of thousands of soldiers died, and over 150,000 were wounded, and managed to demonstrate to the world that we could be beaten by peasants in pajamas. Yet we're not speaking Russian.

I'm sure you have an explanation for this, perhaps even a reasonable one. I would be interested to hear it.

"Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat. JFK was a Democrat"

Opposition to the war started after JFK was already dead, following the largescale escalation of the conflict uner LBJ. Yes, smooshing dissent was a bipartisan pasttime, under Presidents both Democratic and Republican, but it was in large part fueled by the right, and took on a special character as such.

" Also, I fail to see having my picture taken with the enemy,"
Jane was pretty stoopid.

"aiding the enemy"
examples?

" spitting on soldiers, throwing bags of dog poop at soldiers, attacking them in airport and trying to rip their uniform off, setting soldiers rented cars on fire, making death threats to soldier's families, and so on are considered responsible dissent. "

Well, they wouldn't be. But my understanding - possibly incorrect or misinformed - is that these in general, people have been unable to prove such things actually occurred - they usually turn out to have happened to a cousin of a friend of . . . and - as a large-scale response - seem to be an urban legend. Certainly individual incidents may have occurred, and some of the things you list beside the spitting, poop-hurling, and uniform-ripping may in fact be well documented.

However, this account is strangely familiar. Kevin Baker, in that Harper's article. refers to Lembcke's book on this issueThe Spitting Image, which points out that:
"Hermann Göring . . . liked to speak of how "very young boys, degenerate deserters, and prostitutes tore the insignia off our best front line soldiers and spat on their field gray uniforms.""

(*Not* that this is a Nazi tactic - rather, it's a general tactic that the Nazis used.)

" But of course liberals don't like to talk about that aspect of their "dissent"."
'Cause it doesn't seem to have happened? Which doesn't mean that folks did - and said - some awfully dumb things.

"We've intercepted messages between these guys saying just that, yes. Unless of course you have your tin foil on and believe the whole thing was cooked up by the administration."

Oh, it's entirely plausible - especially since they depend on achieving through public opinion what they probably can't through force of arms alone (whether they've been caught saying that the more they think they can scare us, the more they'll blow stuff up, I don't know.) You have links?

Of course, there are also the guys killing folks as part of sectarian conflict/slo-mo civil war. Not sure we know how they fit in, always.

"No one said that, if you were right, and the war in Iraq was a mistake, it'd be different. Since you're not..."

But we think we are, just as y'all think you are. So what happens in that situation? We ask the Decider?
Play Rock Scissors Paper? Flip a coin?

"The media equivalent is a non-stop stream of good news about painted schools and minor government baby steps, with everything upsetting (like the daily suicide bombings, lately) briefly mentioned or ignored."

That's odd, because from our view, its just the opposite."

I'm sorry, I was unclear - it seems that this is what is being requested, sometimes. It's not the state of affairs, and unstandably so, even without references to liberal media treachery. I might have gotten my garden all planted, the kids down the street might have gotten really good grades on their spelling tests, but if someone sets off a car bomb in front of the pizzeria, what is Action News going to report on?

And the truth of Iraq, while very complicated, has a lot of the latter. I have seen coverage of the other aspects, but those aren't really considered daily stories (perhaps unfortunately, but I dunno), while the next killing or explosion, unfortunately, is.

I have to run - one thing:

"WMDs was on of about 16 counts we had against Saddam. Violating 14 Gulf War Ceasefire Treaties was the biggest."

But they didn't sell the war to the public on Saddam's violation of the treaties. If they had, it wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

Radar: " Okay, I guess I don't truly think he is treasonous. His service to his country automatically gives him the benefit of the doubt."

Well, so did Benedict Arnold. While it's nice of you to reconsider, I don't want Murtha's actions getting upgraded from treasonous to reprehensible solely because of that fact. I want to hear that honest criticism of one's country - even during wartime - is not treason. If Murtha was hanging out with Iraqi insurgents and (knowingly, and in order to help them) broadcasting their propaganda to US audiences, then that would be a different issue, sure.

-Dan S.

A Hermit said...

Having a dissenting political opinion is not treason; patriotism means loyalty to one's country, not to one man or one party.

"“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” - Theodore Roosevelt


Instead of bouncing around in your own right wing echo chamber here are some other people you should think about listening to, Radar. You want to get into a pissing match about courage, honour and patriotism you can do it with these combat veterans; they're way more qualified than I am:


Democratic Veteran


Joe Galloway


bandofbrothers2006.org


Veterans Against Iraq War


Iraq Veterans Against the War


Vietnam Veterans Against the War

Tammy Duckworth (lost both legs in Iraq, running as a Democrat)

Paul Hackett (called a "puke" by draft avoider Rush Limbaugh)

It would be better for your country if Republicans really respected the troops, instead of launching knee-jerk character assassination campaigns every time one of them refuses to parrot the administration's talking points like a good little Party Member...

A Hermit

A Hermit said...

Although I was raised a Mennonite I am no longer a pacifist (for the record I favoured the intervention in Bosnia, opposed the Kosovo bombing campaign, was ambivalent about Gulf War I, supported the invasion of Afghanistan and utterly opposed the invasion of Iraq. All for pragmatic as well as ethical and legal reasons.)

But even in my pacifist Mennonite upbringing I was taught that those who choose to serve their country in war, to risk their lives for me and mine, deserve a particular respect. It always astonishes me that those who squeal loudest about "supporting the troops" are the ones who will turn on those troops like a pack of jackals when they don't like their political opinions.

Here's a thought Radar; maybe John Murtha, after 37 years in the Marines, including combat in Korea and Vietnam, a Bronze Star with Combat "V", two Purple Hearts,Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal knows more about war and soldiering than you could ever dream of in your dearest Tom Clancy fantasies.

Maybe after more than 30 years of service in the House, where he has been known as a tireless advocate for the men and women who serve their country in the US Armed Forces he knows more about the needs of the forces, their capabilities and their limits than you do. And maybe he understands and cares about them more than you ever could.

Maybe as a veteran and a patriot whose whole life has been spent in the service of his country he is acting out of love for his country, love for his fellow soldiers and love of justice; maybe he is the one who is right to be outraged at the civilians in the White House and the Pentagon who never served and who are destroying the military with their pig headed, shortsighted policies, their recklessness and their hubris. Maybe he is dismayed to see the country he loves wasting treasure, international influence and lives in pursuit of vainglory, no-bid contracts and raw political power.

Maybe he knows more, has better insights and is more of a man and more of a patriot than his armchair critics.

And if you can't even consider that possibility you are more of a koolaid drinker than I thought.

Respectfully, if angrily

A Hermit

radar said...

You know, I am man enough to admit I am wrong, which I did with this post in which I said, no, I will not call Murtha treasonous, just reprehensible. I realized the man should be given his due for honorable service.

But then we have some people who don't seem to get it. Hermit, you seem to want to linger on the treasonous stuff. You don't understand English, or what?

As to Murtha's long years of service, so stinkin' what? I was in the military also and in a special branch with a top secret clearance to boot. Big whip! Serving in the military doesn't guarantee good judgement.

I've been around 53 years and have some experience myself. Murtha's position on Iraq is hated by the men in combat in Iraq. I asked people to go read some millblogs and find out what the guys on the front lines think and I will bet you didn't do it. So you don't know what you are talking about. I asked you to go read Iraq the Model. Did you?

If you want to keep using CNN or a fake-but-accurate for your news source and won't take the time to research and find out from the people who are there what is really happening, then you probably don't want to know....ignorance is bliss?

Yeah, I'm sick and not as patient as I could be. But some of you guys are so out there....

~~~~~~~~~

Kennedy probably would have "won" the war in Vietnam if he had not been assassinated. I think he had the cojones to just go at them hard and give the South Vietnamese a chance to make a go of their government. We could have taken the entire countryside if we had decided to go full force. But Kennedy died before his time.

Johnson screwed it all up, sending in troops to die and then backing off of the bombing and support needed to finish the job. He set up ridiculous rules of engagement which guaranteed a lack of success. The result was a meatgrinder in which many more NV and VC died than did US troops but we were still dying in great numbers. Johnson was the total idiot and his advisors enabled him.

By the way, back then it really wasn't democrats or republicans protesting the war, it was students mixed in with a large amount of communists. The democrats were the administration, for crying out loud. The republicans believed that if they got LBJ out of there you could win in Vietnam within a couple of years.

The commies were smart enough to see the lay of the land. Discourage the home crowds and the military will be called back home. It worked.

Nixon didn't have the gumption to either decide to win or decide to pull out for far too long. But we had been fighting there for many years before he got a sniff at the CIC so Vietnam really wasn't Nixon's baby. Still, Nixon should have gone strong on the offensive if he wished to pull out. He could have negotiated a cease-fire and withdrawal on our terms. Instead he allowed the war to whimper to a sad conclusion, with the last of us scrambling to jump on choppers leaving Saigon just before the enemy came to take over. What a sad affair.

You jokers who blame Vietnam on Nixon are so clueless! Why do you think Johnson didn't run for another term? Because he had screwed up Vietnam so badly that no one thought he had a chance to win. For the dems to win they had to have a different guy running. RFK, the best of the Kennedys, was a guy I actually campaigned for. I believed he would either do what it would take to win the war or else quickly find a way to turn it over to the South on good terms. But he was killed.

Anyway, the Vietnam war was the democrat's baby and the democrats who could have handled the situation were assassinated, leaving a blowhard political hack who was a product of machine politics and backhanded deals in charge of both the country and the war. By the time Nixon took over, the war was so unpopular over here it was probably at that time unwinnable.

Don't think I am being kind to Nixon. Vietnam was a mess when he got it, but he sure didn't make it any better. He was intelligent, but he was arrogant and loathe to hear other opinions.

But people like Walter Cronkite were no help. The Tet offensive actually was a big win for us and the MSM painted it as a disaster. Liberal news media helped cower LBJ and keep him from actually waging war in Vietnam.

Now guys like Murtha are taking up the Cronkite mantle. I don't care if he wins the Nobel Peace Prize and the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes and has a mole on his arm that looks like the Virgin Mary, he is an idiot and his efforts to hinder the Iraq mission are detrimental to our troops.

Anonymous said...

"You jokers who blame Vietnam on Nixon are so clueless!"

I don't - just that he milked opposition to anti-war protestors big time.

" it was students mixed in with a large amount of communists."

Always the outside agitators. Always. Always groups that could be demonized or dismissed, mixed in with the enemy, Don't have to listen, then.

You left out the religious folks . . . .

-Dan S.

loboinok said...

"But actually, we lost Vietnam - not just ignored it and let it go communist out of neglect, but went in, fought, in one way or another, for almost 20 years, spent enormous sums of money, tens of thousands of soldiers died, and over 150,000 were wounded, and managed to demonstrate to the world that we could be beaten by peasants in pajamas."

Now support that liberal propaganda B.S. with links to sources and fact.


"If Murtha was hanging out with Iraqi insurgents and (knowingly, and in order to help them) broadcasting their propaganda to US audiences, then that would be a different issue, sure."

Liberals didn't feel that way about John Kerry and his little trip to Paris.

Would continue, but radar has reponded quite well I see.

A Hermit said...

"I asked people to go read some millblogs and find out what the guys on the front lines think and I will bet you didn't do it."

Been there done that; long before I ever posted a comment here. Now have you visited any of the links I gave you?

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone's opinions; but when the response is to attack the character, patriotism and courage of someone who has demonstrated clearly by decades of service and shed blood their commitment to and love for their country you really go too far. And it seems to be the right wing blowhards who are most prone to that tactic. Just look at the smear campaigns launched against Kerry, Cleland, Hacket, Shinseki, Zinni or the other dissenting generals, or even McCain in the 2000 campaign. All had their service...not their politics, their service...denigrated by their right wing political opponents and talking heads like Rush "I can't serve I've got a pimple on my ass" Limbaugh.

"If you want to keep using CNN or a fake-but-accurate for your news source and won't take the time to research and find out from the people who are there what is really happening, then you probably don't want to know....ignorance is bliss?"

I consider most of CNN's "reporting" to be little more than infotainment; I get my news from a wide variety of sources; radio, newspapers, internet. the CBC, BBC, Knight Ridder news service, papers from the NYT to the WaPo, to the Atlanta JournalConstitution, independant journalists like Dhar Jamail, academics like Juan Cole, and of course those military sites I linked you to (paid them a visit yet?).

And yes, I also read the other point of view, sometimes just for laughs but usually for insight and in case I'm missing anything.

So don't go spouting FoxNews propaganda and White House talking points at me and then accuse me of being ill informed, please.

-----------

History lesson:

Vietnam was never winnable, short of genocide. You were fighting people who had been waging war against foreign occupiers off and on for hundreds of years; first the Chinese, then the French, then the Japanese, the French again and then America. These "stab in the back" excuses ignore reality. The Vietnamese had more at stake then America did (it was their country, after all) and like all insurgencies they just had to outlast their opponents.

The mistake was made immediately following WWII when Truman agreed to help transport French troops to re-establish colonial power in Southeast Asia. (Ho Chi Min was writing a constitution for Vietnam based on Jefferson and Madison's principles at the time and resisting the radical Marxists.)

Vietnam was not "lost" because of protesters or the media; it turned into the disaster it was because of shortsightedness, an over-reliance on technology over sound tactics, a mistaken belief that short term military success equals political victory and a failure to understand the nature of the conflict, the motivation of the enemy and the historical forces at play.

Nixon took a bad situation and made it many times worse; he dropped more explosives on North Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos than were dropped by all sides in all theatres of WWII and still couldn't stop them. Military victory in Vietnam was never an achievable reality. The French General LeClerc famously said (in 1946!) "it would take 500,000 men to do it and even then it could not be done”. History proved him right.

You'd think more people would have the lessons of that conflict, but the same mistakes are being made today. This is what many veterans of both wars understand. It's by no means a universal opinion, soldiers are like the rest of us, they all have their own opinions, but then I'm not the one pretending to speak for all of them. I just listen quietly and (I hope) respectfully to both sides, look at the historic results and make up my own mind.

And radar, even if I disagree with someone who's been there and seen it firsthand I would never question their courage or their loyalty. I'll leave that to you and your friends on the right.

A Hermit

A Hermit said...

So, you see " "Nattering Nabobs of Negativity"; I see an administration and its supporters touting the "Tinkerbell" strategy; ignore the disaster unfolding before your eyes, clap your hands and think happy thoughts and everything will turn out fine.

And if doesn't, just clap louder...

Anonymous said...

"Now support that liberal propaganda B.S. with links to sources and fact."

What are you talking about?

"Liberals didn't feel that way about John Kerry and his little trip to Paris."
Because it was a different situation, and doesn't fit the parameters of my statement? Smart, maybe not so much, but treason? Nah.

Hermit, I am very impressed.

I was really astounded when I discovered some time ago that people were still repeating these '70s talking points. No doubt in 2030 there will be people who will continue to believe with their last breaths that Saddam set up 9/11, all the hijackers were Iraqi, and that we found nukes in Iraq. Hopefully there won't be people arguing that we only lost Iraq and the rest of the region (more so than now, even) because of the the liberals, and if they hadn't tied the military's hands by being too chicken to lob a couple of nukes . . .

-Dan S.

highboy said...

"but when the response is to attack the character, patriotism and courage of someone who has demonstrated clearly by decades of service and shed blood their commitment to and love for their country you really go too far. And it seems to be the right wing blowhards who are most prone to that tactic."

Kind of like all you liberals telling generals actually over there that they are wrong. Clean up your own back yard, as I said on another thread. You have enough anti-patriotism in your own country before you worry about mine. When you can't even lower a flag...

""I can't serve I've got a pimple on my ass" Limbaugh."

That was the military's policy, not Rush's. Get your facts straight. I've seen people get discharged for having one ear lower than the other.

"I get my news from a wide variety of sources; radio, newspapers, internet. the CBC, BBC, "

Oh my gosh, CBC? BBC? And you want to be taken seriously?

"So don't go spouting FoxNews propaganda and White House talking points at me and then accuse me of being ill informed, please."

Why because you rely on CANADA's news broadcasts? You're ill-informed.

"Vietnam was never winnable, short of genocide."

You obviously never served in the military. We could have taken Vietnam in less than a month, but it actually worked out better that we didn't, since for 10,000 days Russian dumped almost all of their funds into equipping the NVA, and ta da! Economic collapse, we win the Cold War! But anyway, it was a guerilla war, something we wrote the book on. Guerilla's will laugh if you threaten them with nukes, and they will laugh when you threaten them with air-strikes. They will crap themselves blind however when you send in helicopter gunships, like Cobras for example that will take away their mobility, a guerilla's strongest weapon. (Lyndon Johnson was an idiot, like-wise Nixon.)

"and like all insurgencies they just had to outlast their opponents."

Which is why Murtha, someone who knows this, is an idiot and a$$ for saying we should pull out of Iraq.

"So, you see " "Nattering Nabobs of Negativity"; I see an administration and its supporters touting the "Tinkerbell" strategy;"

As opposed to doing nothing about a ruthless dictator with lots of sarin gas with a rage against America.

And for the record, you don't know Murtha. I'm a vet, I've seen combat, that doesn't give a license to sell out. I've put with that guy for years playing politics instead of doing the right thing for my state. The same with Kerry. Veteran status doesn't exempt them from the same smear tactics they use to get elected.

radar said...

You said it well, Highboy!

As for the BBC, during the Iraq war the British Navy banned BBC coverage from being broadcast aboard ships because they were twisted so liberal as to practically be propaganda arms for Islamofascism. Remember that? Heck, you might as well just get your news from Al Jazeera...

radar said...

loboinok was the first to the Spiro answer and deserves the three points...even though he probably looked it up! Dan S gets honorable mention for bringing up a speechwriter who likely thought it up.

creeper said...

"Oh my gosh, CBC? BBC? And you want to be taken seriously?"

What's your beef with the BBC exactly?

highboy said...

"What's your beef with the BBC exactly?"

Its the second most liberally slanted news in the world, even by its own countries standards. CBC takes the number one spot though.

A Hermit said...

Look, I have access to a wider variety of media than the corporate, bottom line driven infotainment and official propaganda you Bush fanatics seem to think constitutes journalism, and I look at as many different sources as I possibly can.

Yeah, those damn facts have such a liberal bias....

A Well Read Hermit

highboy said...

"Look, I have access to a wider variety of media than the corporate, bottom line driven infotainment and official propaganda you Bush fanatics seem to think constitutes journalism, and I look at as many different sources as I possibly can. Yeah, those damn facts have such a liberal bias...."

I can tell. CBC and BBC are SOO reliable. Journalism constitutes reporting the truth. CBC says one thing and soldiers in Iraq say another. But hey, I guess you Canadians all the way up there in that ice berg have a better grasp on the war in Iraq then our soldiers and Generals like Tommy Franks.

Hawkeye® said...

I'm not going to get into the middle of this one, but if the Nattering Nabobs of Negativity are also Nit-wits and Nincompoops and Ninnies and Naysayers and Not-Normal, does that make them the NNNNNNNNN?

Inquiring minds need to know!