January 24, 2006
We're winning
Hitch has it right again. If I could be anywhere near as right as he is, I'd be okay with that.
Al-Quaida is losing, and they know it. Death fanatics don't sue for peace. They don't offer increasingly generous terms of peace (remember, they offered Europe a separate peace after Spain). They only do this if they're afraid they're going to lose.
The general that secured a Union victory during the Civil War was one Ulysses S. Grant, often called a "butcher" for his tactics, which were relatively simple: refuse to stop the attack or sound the surrender until your enemy is either defeated or driven from the field. He was dramatically unpopular with the American voting public, and his resignation was called for on numerous occasions. During one of his most bloody battles, Cold Harbor, he managed to lose 13,000 soldiers - more than have died or been wounded in the entire Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts - in 13 days, up to 7000 of them in 40 minutes.
Lincoln had this to say of him: "I cannot spare this man: he fights."
Well, I don't think we can spare Bush or Rumsfeld. They fight too. And though there cannot be war without casualties, the casualties have been exceptionally light. If the same percentage of the US population was killed/wounded today as was killed/wounded during Gettysburg, we'd be talking almost half a million casualties. Say what you like about the administration and the conduct of the war, we're offering surrender terms, and they're offering truce terms. Who do you think is winning, now?
Ryan you are wrong, again. How did or does Bush fight? Maybe he fights the Democrats and Democracy by lying and circumventing it: he is a divider not a uniter another promise broken, but with Bush that is the way business is done. Bush was honorably discharged, but with no medals, even though photos show he wore some previously, any explanations on this fighter? Also, for you and those who have served I ask this:" how does one serve 5 1/2 years without one medal or ribbon?
Posted by: sandy at January 24, 2006 08:47 PMandYou're Winning Ugly just had to add this to your theme, Ryan.
Look out for number onePosted by: sandy at January 24, 2006 09:00 PM
My country right or wrong
Let the devil take the hindmost
I was brought up to cheat
So long as the referee wasn't looking
I'm never wrong at all
I always fight the call
I don't admit it
But back in the dressing room
The other side is screaming
And we're winning, winning ugly, yeah
And we're winning, winning ugly
Rolling Stones wrote "Winning Ugly" don't want to get us in trouble with the copywrite laws, y'know.
Posted by: sandy at January 24, 2006 09:04 PMcopyright laws, sorry
Posted by: sandy at January 24, 2006 09:09 PMIrrelevant talking points... check, check, and check.
Grant didn't fire a shot either. He was a general. But he ordered troops to fight, and they did.
If you'd prefer I compare Bush to Lincoln, I can do that too. A largely misunderstood President that is looked back on as being a hero and elder statesman for fighting and winning what was at the time a tremendously unpopular war. There were riots in New York.
I'd really like to see you and your ilk riot. I really would. Not only would you gain something resembling credibility or moral fiber, but I'd be entertained for days.
Posted by: ryan at January 24, 2006 09:22 PMAs always your commentary is insightful and amusing Ryan, but I think you're wasting energy here. "Sandy" is obviously a MoveOn.org computer virus programmed to spew reflexive anti-Bush dogma every time it encounters certain key words while trolling through the internet. I presume the Rolling Stones reference derives from a built-in Infantilism Quota, perhaps included as a tribute to Cindy Sheehan.
There's no other way to explain such a response to an article about the declining strength of Al-Queda by the Hitch, who has demonstrated a willingness to object to the conduct of the war when necessary and, as a Trotskyist atheist with an almost psychotic loathing for Reagan, is hardly a textbook example of American Republicanism.
Perhaps an extended chain of moral equivocations or a recitation of Howard Dean-esque phrases - "violence breeds violence," etc. - might be enough to placate the program and encourage "Sandy" to move on to the next website. If we can somehow lure it to National Review the host computer's motherboard will probably fuse together and the irrelevant chatter will quit.
Posted by: Julian at January 24, 2006 10:27 PMAh, but Julian: you're mistaken if you think that sandy's (who may just be a real person, by the way), comments are a response to Hitch's article. They're nothing of the sort. That would presume reading and interacting with text. I don't think that's something we can assume here.
Posted by: ryan at January 24, 2006 10:50 PM