Aug 26 2007
Hitchens In The Ditch
The last two presidential terms have seen the complete disruption and dissolution of ‘political conventional wisdom’. It saw the end of the Democrats decades long hold on power when a Democrat Congress went down in flames under a naive Democrat President. We saw a GOP lose its mind in trying to impeach said Democrat President for lying under oath only to find America is not ready to impeach in the gray areas of inside beltway baseball. If the GOP had just let the stigma of Clinton’s act sink in and permeate the left with the stench of this horrific abuse of power for a simple CYA we would have seen an ever sinking liberal movement. A high crime and misdemeanor is something traitorous – not disgusting or pathetic. The American people had punished Clinton by neutering him with a GOP majority in Congress and felt they had done what was required. But the GOP could not live with that and went too far by going for full impeachment.
So we entered the 2000 election with both sides tarnished and no clear choice – something that turned the political conventional wisdom (PCW) on its head. Clinton’s impact on the out of control speculative economy he created started to crash just early enough to explode the PCW about good economies and incumbents. There was no precedence so the electorate blazed their own path – right down the middle.
The 9-11 attacks came and, as expected, threw the emerging political stalemate into disarray – Bush became a wartime leader and passed the early tests with flying colors. The electorate went with the GOP for national security, which is not a surprise. And the Democrats waited for an opportunity to tear down the President. Instead, the GOP turned on Bush many times using fear mongering and images of a traitorous President as they went hot headed on some issues. In the end they tore down their own leader in a fit of impatience. So the electorate went back into the state of political stalemate since the GOP had broken ranks with them.
But throughout all this upheaval the old anchors to quaint and out of date allegiances and political forces had been removed. Both the right and left are now damaged goods, which are seen as just as risky as promising as the other. And many political talking heads have just gone off the deep end. We have Bruce Fein, a stalwart conservative, calling for Bush’s impeachment because he monitors terrorists overseas and follows up on their contacts here in the US. To Fein this is treason because people in the US have rights to privacy. He seems to forget those rights dissolve when people are about to remove someone’s right to live.
We have Kucinich and others who have some bizarre conspiracy theory 9-11 was planned. We have people who think Saddam was safe to have around near al-Qaeda and there was no chance he would assist in a new 9-11 (it was never about the original one – it had to do with stopping future ones). We have fools like Tancredo calling for the nuclear bombing of Mecca, which would only enrage a quarter of the world’s population who are not fighting us right now. Apparently Tancredo is a Crusader who wants to finish a millennium long religious feud and knock off half the world’s population in the process.
And we have liberals like Christopher Hitchens coming out supporting the war in Iraq against his typical liberal allies for reasons in common with most sane and reasoned conservatives. But the fact is there is no PCW, no ground truth anymore, and some people now seem to be flitting in and out of reality as the security that comes with PCW is lost and they must wander on their own, sometimes touching those old anchors like Vietnam which were once so obvious and clearly understood. Hitchens is having a fit with Bush because Bush takes things on head on. Hitchens and others who live to be anchored to PCW do not understand why anyone would take something head on, when the PCW says these matters are firmly established and to ignore is the best hope these things will go away.
The Vietnam analogy to Iraq that has taken hold on the left is not to be ignored. In fact, it is this simple minded connection between two very different situations that can best exemplify why the left cannot protect this nation – it is beyond their ability and comprehension. Simply they don’t get it and never will. Not everyone can be a pilot, a surgeon, an artist – liberals cannot defend this nation. Hitchens, in going back to his roots, give folks like me all the ammunition we need to remind everyone why PCW needs to die – just like the PCW about al-Qaeda and attacks on the US died on 9-11.
Here is Hitchens getting in touch with his liberal roots and all things anti-conservative:
How do I dislike President George Bush? Let me count the ways. Most of them have to do with his contented assumption that ‘faith’ is, in and of itself, a virtue.
Faith is a virtue. So is confidence. Hitchens is, as all liberals are, a self doubting handwringer. “Faith” to him means he must go forth on little support, little analysis, little debate. But that is because he doesn’t understand the connection of Faith to the act of reconnecting with one’s core values. I would say faith and prayer are ways to go back on a regular basis and remind one’s self of those myriad of things they have come to hold true. Not on a whim, but hold true from experience, reflection and because people in their lives who they admire also hold true to those concepts. “Faith” in the mind of a liberal like Hitchens is blind and dumb obedience. He forgets that for someone to accept things as truth and for it to become part of their faith can take a lot of convincing and evidence to make happen.
Hitchens and his “Faith” (that mankind can do good without some religious framework to remind us to be good) is no different than Bush and his faith. But Hitchens is lost now that PCW is gone and he is lamely trying to regain is footing my impugning those of faith. It is the impugning of others that got us into this mess and keeps us from working together to do the greater good that can offset the message of al-Qaeda. So Hitchens does the one thing he despises in others, show he as truly gone off into the ditch.
In this real-world argument, there is a very strong temptation for opponents of the war to invoke the lessons of Vietnam. I must have written thousands of words attempting to show that there is absolutely no analogy between the two conflicts.
Then, addressing the convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars last week, the President came thundering down the pike to announce that a defeat in Iraq would be – guess what? – another Vietnam. As my hand smacks my brow, and as I ask myself not for the first time if Mr Bush suffers from some sort of political death wish, I quickly restate the reasons why he is wrong to join with his most venomous and ignorant critics in making this case.
Well Hitch, because those venomous and ignorant critics control the news media message to a great extent and with few exceptions. And to nail these critics with their idiotically simplistic views when they have been predicting defeat for years now is good politics. Vietnam is not Iraq. There is no Sino-Soviet communist power structure supporting al-Qaeda’s brutality and killing. That is enormous. al-Qaeda has not large power base behind it. Iran and Syria are there, but they are not world powers – they are wannabes.
In addition, there is not North Iraq that is a self sufficient entity. What could have been al-Qaeda controlled areas in Anbar and Diyala have risen up and thrown off al-Qaeda. That is akin to the Vietnamese in the North rising up and deposing the communists. That is a good analogy to point out to America and those who want to try and draw parallels.
There is not a draft filled military from which to cull malcontents like John Kerry to turn on their fellow soldiers. We have found many infiltrators who join up to simply write about fictional stories reminiscent of Kerry’s lies. But it is not pervasive. In fact it is just the opposite. While the military in Vietnam had a large percentage just trying to survive and avoid conflict (and many others who where doing all they could to win – make no mistake about it), today’s military in Iraq is out to win.
Hitchens points in the piece some differences that are irrelevant to our debate and expose nothing more than a trivia geek. What Bush is doing is pointing out differences which make the arguments by left look ludicrous and which show why, when comparing Iraq to Vietnam, one can conclude Iraq will NOT be a Vietnam.
We are not fighting an insurgency that has local backing and support from major super powers who are our equal. We are not fighting half heartedly, and our forces are more dedicated to winning than whining. There are many more but these four items are pivotal.
Bush always takes things head on. And with just about all the PCW that used to be so rock solid now more nostalgic than real, it is the perfect time to do this. People are looking for the new PCW – and it will probably be that Vietnam is not Iraq, and Iraq was worth the effort because al-Qaeda was exposed to the Muslim world as the fascists they are. And when that happened, the Muslim world turned against al-Qaeda and took a different path into the 21st century. Hitchens just doesn’t see it happening yet, so he is wandering around and lashing out. A fairly useless endeavor.
he last two presidential terms have seen the complete disruption and dissolution of ‘political conventional wisdom’
Make that 6 or 8 or 25.
A high crime and misdemeanor is something traitorous – not disgusting or pathetic.
True if the real deal is charged and not just the smoke to try to get the bees in the hive settled before you steal their honey.
Instead, the GOP turned on Bush many times using fear mongering and images of a traitorous President as they went hot headed on some issues.
Was this a typo or what? The only thing of major import the GOP side had was Meyers, Dubai Ports and Immigration reform. Your characterization by this sentence should have been Dem rather than GOP.
And we have liberals like Christopher Hitchens coming out supporting the war in Iraq against his typical liberal allies for reasons in common with most sane and reasoned conservatives.
We also have Hitchens bouncing his reasons why he thinks Bush’s VietNam anology is wrong for all the wrong reasons.
There is no Sino-Soviet communist power structure supporting al-Qaeda’s brutality and killing.
Well except for Russia supporting Iran in their nuclear power and beyond stuff and China supporting Pakistan to counterbalance India and all those Chinese and Russian RPG’s that are more common than household flies. Of course lets not forget all those Spanish origin AK-47’s.
That is enormous. al-Qaeda has not large power base behind it. Iran and Syria are there, but they are not world powers – they are wannabes.
Proxies of Russia like Angola to stir the pot to keep our attention off them. They will play them as long as they are useful and then cut them off at their knees.
Otherwise why would Russia who is fighting the Muslim’s in Chetneya be arming other Muslim countries? Oh and think about Bosnia. Big world isn’t it. Simple pawns being used to make us spend the energy.
one can conclude Iraq will NOT be a Vietnam.
Hitchens got it wrong when he played his multipoint counter. Bush is only talking about how the withdrawal will have a similar result if all is done wrong. No way was he saying it was a parallel set of circumstances leading up to that point.
We are not fighting an insurgency that has local backing and support from major super powers who are our equal. We are not fighting half heartedly, and our forces are more dedicated to winning than whining. There are many more but these four items are pivotal.
Partially we are, we have Bathist types and ex army who want to be the next guy to be Saddam or at least have their side back in power. And if you don’t think Russia and China are not playing 5 dimensional chess along with Turkey and the Saudi’s, you need to open up the viewfinder a little.
Durn ,
After Saddam’s statue fell I spent almost 6 months under contract chasing down all those fiber optic cables mapping them out across the country since China wouldn’t give up the maps for what they installed after the Gulf War.
Right now they are used as the backbone for all those cell phone networks across Iraq.
Think not, show me any pictures of all those telephone poles out in the desert roads between towns to prove me wrong.
Hardliners made a big deal out of how many people called in to kill immigration reform. Well as many or more called in to say stop the impeachment of Bill Clinton and did the Republicans listen? Hell no and it cost them in the election too.
I think what Clinton did was wrong wrong wrong, but it was not what the founders were thinking of when they thought of high crimes and misdemeanors.
And the right has turned on Bush. To say the ONLY things would be when they called Harriet Miers the charwoman and a crony and an example of betrayal on the part of the president or when Bush tried to sell our ports to terrorists so that they could kill us all because he had betrayed us or when they claimed that he along with the likes of John McCain and Senator Kyle were traitors who had sold us out to Mexico and that he was in fact the first Mexican American President, named Jorge and that he too should be impeached. blah blah blah.
But hey, that was all. When Noonan said Bush had ruined the party she was not really turning on him…just like she was being reasonable when she said the Republicans should give 2006 to the Democrats.
When Rush made some comment about Bush not keeping the support of certain people on Iraq if he did not buckle on immigration, that was not blackmail or anything.
I mean really it is ridiculous to say that the right did not stab Bush in the back. They did, time and again.
And the only comparison I would draw between Iraq and Viet Nam is that our reputation will be ruined and innocent people will suffer if we do not finish the job.
As for faith and Viet Nam and Hitchens, the man hates the Pope and Henry Kissinger very nearly as much as he ever hated Saddam.
And Iran is not the Soviet Union, they are bad and they need to be stopped, but they are not the USSR.
Terrye
You are usually good , but on this one you skated over the edge.
First Clinton had high crimes he had to answer for but politics prohibited such an assertion.
Dubai already sorts through almost 70% of the container freight in worldwide traffic and they are competent through just plain capitalistic reasons for making that so.
Do you actually think Miers was in any way qualified to be a Supreme Court nominee?
Remember this was the first one up GW had and we had a long list of very qualified experienced judges to pick from.
Heck I even remember commentary were he was supposed to have views on Alberto Gonzales hitting the superior bench.
Why would that be , except to give Schumer and a few others an ulcer?
I am not going to rehash the immigration issue with you or anyone else since you obviously were running on I just don’t understand why and demonstrated very well during the discussion back then that you never educated yourself on the actual content of the bill as it was written.
Yes I want immigration reform and it is badly needed to make things work.
But simply it was very wrong in the way they were trying to do it.
I am not the one that went over the edge Merlin.
Whether or not Miers was good, there was a process in place to vent her. After months and months of hearing about how the President should get to make his own nominations blah blah blah the right went stupid over this woman. They called her names, Coulter made some obnoxious comments about how she was not Ivy League, Frum said that even if she made all the right calls she would never be good enough. The point Merlin is that Bush knows the person, I don’t {and neither do you} and it was his call. A little less character assasination from the talking heads on the right would have been nice.
And the point about Dubai was the reaction of the right. People like Duncan Hunter made complete asses of themselves over this and now that is obvious that they over reacted {again} they just want to sort of forget about the absurd things they said about the president at the time. I am not talking about Dubai Ports itself, they were incidental to the process, the point was to make Bush back down.
I still think impeaching Clinton was stupid. They would have been doing a better job of using their time if they had been trying to do something useful like stave off the invasion from Mexico which they completely ignored until and unless it was useful to them.
I don’t think it was an invasion but the people who called Bush a traitor said it was just that. And yet somehow they were more concerned about Clinton and what the definition of is “is” than they were about Enron, or Osama or illegal immigration or any number of other things.
No, I am sorry Merlin, I am not the one that went off that cliff. Just read the comment sections of some blogs and you can get all the evidence you want of conservatives turning on Bush because he failed to do their bidding.
Here boy, good boy, fetch boy, heel. That is what they wanted.
Hitchens should keep his trap shut! A man without faith never can have a clear understanding due to his clouds in his mind. Most likely i am being ridiculed for that statement, but i don’t really care.
Holding Pres. Bush’s faith against him, not only by Hitchens, but also by a large majority of others, explain the narrowminded opinions they have of him.
I am also getting tired of Pres. Bush not getting his credit, he has done so much good. I am tired of people referring to him as ‘Bush” rather than President Bush, while Clinton, Carter, and his ilk are still being referred to as president.
I am also tired of non-americans attempt to constantly trash Pres. Bush. I am not a citizen of this country, but I have high respect for him.
He is a man of principles, his analogy of the consequenes of earlt withdrawal from Iraq vs. Vietnam are spot-on.
The turth hurts, but it could bring about a change, something the dems, and other selfish nutcases will never admit to.
I am tired of hearing that Pres. Bush has damaged the reputation of the US. The truth is, that it is the daily drumbeat by the liberal media, democrats, and others not even entitled to critizice of defaming this President.
All the names pinned on him by these idiots are not only damaging, but also not justified. That is what caused the damage. The world is watching, and listening, and if lies are told long enough, it becomes the truth.
So all those demonising this President should look into the mirror, and accept the cause, and blame for the damage to this country. It is them who have damaged the credibility of the US, with the help of the socialists in Europe, and elsewhere, including the tyrant places like Russia, China, and the Middle East.
It’s getting old, and I really hope for someone to come forward to be elected President, who has principles, honesty such as President Bush, and don’t give a dam about other opinions.
The President is not obligated to please the world, his obligation is to the american people, their safety, and wellbeing. So far, Pres. Bush has accomplished all those.
No attack, good economy etc., and naturally should a dem win the race in 2008, not only do I fear for this country, but whomever it is will use all the good results following Pres. Bush policies as feathers to crown their own heat.
Honesty is something not present with most politicians!
So, all those critizing, and demonizing this President need to take a hike, and try to clean the filth in front their own doors.
So here, you have it, and yes I am angry, and someday Pres. Bush, and his clarity of principles will be sorely missed.