Hey Basmati,

Whenever anyone asks me who is a true partisan hack, I can always refer them to you.

Show me one sentence where I intentionally and deliberately accused Parker or Carter of being unpatriotic! It wasn't hard for me to admit they were patriotic because I never accused them of not being so!

You folks on the left are SOOOO sensitive about this issue it makes me sick.

You ask for names? Why? DO you honestly believe that all critics of the president and the Iraq war love their country? That's about as silly as saying that all critics of the war don't love their country. There are plenty of people, like that professor from Colorado, who openly, clearly despise not only America, but the West in general, almost as much as the fundamentalist Muslims do. I know this for a fact. I was in academia and saw it firsthand.

THe problem is you guys can't handle certain truths, like the fact that if we pull out of Iraq now, it will be seen as a victory for al Qaeda. They have stated this. It's obvious. So when someone like Cheney says that's the case, Pelosi gets her knickers in a wad and whines about being called unpatriotic. NO! SHe's not unpatriotic, she's just stupid and unwilling to admit the negative consequences of her narrow-minded, shortsighted, self-serving calls for immediate withdrawal.

Spare me your McCarthy-esque call for names to prove something which is manifest. Granted, the number of people who hate this country are in a small minority, but there are plenty of people who when asked, "Has America been a force for good or evil in the 20th century and in her history?" who will say "predominantly evil."

My questioning of the critics'(in general) patriotism was an attempt to blow apart this stupid fiction that all criticism or dissent is motivated by patriotism. That's total BS. Sorry.

You ask me why they hate this country? Probably because they hate themselves. They probably had bad childhoods or suffered some tragedy and now blame "society" for their miserableness. It's a common pathology. Find me some left-wing malcontent and I'll show you someone whose family background is not exactly one of nurturing love, support and stability.

There are other reasons, but that's a predominant one. And by that, I mean such mental states are more a function of psychology than ideology. Malcontents and poor, suffering souls find an ideology to explain their misery and then impose it on others.

This obsession with people like you about Bush being a fascist or our country being headed towards theocracy is as fatuous as it is deliusional. Do you even know what fascism means? It would mean that 1) government would own the means of production for major industry, and 2) it would systematically deny civil rights to select minorities and to the population in general in the realms of freedom of expression and religion. 1) is certainly not going to happen and neither is 2). We have the CONSTITUTION and abused as it is, the fundamental concepts of freedom and liberty are upheld due to our system of checks and balances. Even if Bush were a fascist, he would be constrained in his attempts to impose fascism by Congress and the Courts.

So stop, stop with this stupid notion that Bush has some sort of fascist agenda and that it's being telegraphed by his and other conservatives' supposed accusations of being unpatriotic.

Also, stop commending me with your ridiculous sense of self-righteousness and condescension. I don't need your commendation for rejecting a charge which I never made.

There's a reason I don't respond to your posts, Basmati. You're a hack, a malcontent, and utterly blinded by your ideology. You're not someone with whom I can have a semblance of a reasoned argument, unlike Hack or Carter (Parker's in your league, too).

Sorry to disappoint you, but there it is.

Gosh Trey, you seem very angry today. Angrier than usual, and that's saying something.

I agree with you that a lot of people get very touchy...heck, sensitive even!...when you question their patriotism, as you often do. A lot of people, heck I'd go so far to say a MAJORITY of people (myself included) think that you, Trey Hoffman, are singularly unqualified to judge the patriotism of others! This majority includes, but is not limited to, armed forces veterans!

I know the last time this issue arose, you whined piteously and self-righteously that veterans were claiming the sole right to comment on issues. Trey, you and I both know that's a strawman and a misdirection.

Nobody is denying you the right to babble incessantly about the "unassailable truth" of your particular political beliefs! People are simply asking you to quit assailing the patriotism of those you disagree with.

Trey, I know you feel that attacking someone's patriotism is just one little technique in your rhetorical arsenal. I wouldn't be surprised if you've justified doing this in your own mind. I think that you cheapen and coarsen the debate around here when you question the patriotism of those that do not share your noxious and toxic beliefs.

You ask if I understand what fascism is....Trey, I want you to know that I understand very well what fascism is! Did you know that one of the core tenets of fascism is equating dissent with treason? Does that strike a chord with you?

Trey, the primary difference between you and I (in my opinion) is that I love my country more than the president, and you appear to love your president more than your country. You appear to me to have a deep-seated need for authority and order in your life, and you lean very heavily towards solutions that a great many people would consider "totaliterian", "authoritarian" and yes, "fascist".

Now, I'm not accusing you of being a Nazi, even though you seem to bring up Hitler more than any other poster here. There are differing shades of fascism, heck "Justice" Scalia (now there's any oxymoron!) attended a fascist private school in his youth (after "fascist" became a pejorative, it was renamed a "statist" school). And yes, I cheapen the debate myself here when I refer to your fellow fascist ArmyMajorRetired as "Herr Major". You see Trey, I'm flawed like you.

I'm a partisan, Trey, just like you are! As such I expect you to disagree with my opinions! I welcome that! Heck, call me names if you must!

Just don't question my patriotism. Ever.

_______________________________________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross" - Upson Sinclair, 1906

Basmati,

I owe you an apology. I was angry, but it was the anger built up over months of reading your posts and I just vented it in one response. My name-calling and anger were inappropriate and I do apologize for it.

I still think you're imagining things when you say I am accusing specific people of being unpatriotic, and I never ever equated dissent with treason. (By the way, let's all remember that Fascism is little more than a combination of socialism with overly aggressive nationalism and racism. Based on some of your posts, I think you lean more towards the socialist side of the spectrum so that would make you too a potential "fascist", by your silly definition of the term [which you still have failed to produce; instead, you just use the word to stifle dissent from your party line]).

I don't know how much more I can say on that particular topic, but you go ahead and keep imagining that I love Bush more than my country and all that other nonsense because I know you need to in order for you to fit people and events into your limited, exceedingly partisan framework.

You won't hear from me again.

Trey

Those vents keep us from waking up, grabbing clippers or umbrellas, and goin all Britney Spears on people! It's healthy,man, and I enjoyed it.

Kevin "Hack" King

Kevin,

By your definition, if we would have stopped at Iwo Jima, or Bastonne, it would not have been a retreat because it wasn't our land.

That's not the definition. And let's remember: lefties and liberals always claim we lost Vietnam. No we didn't. We fought the North Vietnamese to a truce. Yet, the Dems in Congress prevented us from supporting South Vietnam and so the NOrth DID finally win the war.

So isn't it ironic that the party which called Vietnam a "loss" now wants to refer to a real loss as an "early withdrawal." You're right: it does depend on who's in the White House to shape someone's view.

Our not talking about Afghanistan enough is not the fault of Bush and has absolutely no bearing on whether or how we get out of Iraq. It is a separate, albeit important, issue. I certainly hear about it plenty, if only it's a liberal journalist or politican whining about why we're not talking about it.

As for Bosnia, you have to admit the circumstances were different. Did Clinton have Congressional approval for action there? Did the Republicans initially vote for military action, and then later call for cutting funding? Did we already have 140,000 troops on the ground when Republicans were calling for funding cuts? No, I doubt it. And Milosovic, though evil, had not violated 17 UN resolutions or refused to abide by a cease fire and used chemical weapons.

Different circumstances my friend.

So, hey, if you think it is okay to withdraw now and that doing so will not result in a worse situation than we have now, you are entitled to your opinion. I just think you're being naive and only focusing on one side of the equation (the desire to get our troops out of a conflict which you felt to be illegimitate from the beginning), while ignoring the other.

As for nation building, this was Bush's attempt to solve a problem in the MIddle East. It was a risk and a gamble it's not paying off, at least not now. I happen to think if we had handled it with a stronger hand it would've had a chance at success, but perhaps you're right--we shouldn't have tried from the outset. Of course, initially, our only desire was to remove Saddam. We sought to nation build to give the Iraqis some liberty and to create a buffer state in the Middle East to counter the crazies in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

Our nation building certainly worked out well in post-WWII Europe, but it probably won't work so well in the screwed up Middle East.

I am saddened by this situation, by the loss of life and the harm to American credibility in the world. We elected Bush because he was the most electable. He has turned out to be a less than stellar executive, but I challenge anyone to do well given the catastrophe of 9/11. I also fault, however, the Democrats for refusing to get over the 2000 election and to use every stumble, real or imagined, to beat up the president and the war effort. IT was such carping that I think really contributed to our inability to successfully control the situation after the initial invasion.

Then again, that's what terrorism really sets out to do: get Democratic countries to violate their own standards and eventually capitulate out of shame or a desire to just get out of a mess.

Cheers,
Trey

I'll be uncharacteristically brief.

This is not WWII. There were no civil wars in Germany, Japan, or Italy. And your statement below I believe is accurate:

"As for nation building, this was Bush's attempt to solve a problem in the Middle East. It was a risk and a gamble it's not paying off, at least not now. "

I do believe this was a gamble. And not of necessity, but of an uninformed and incomplete view of the middle east. This "gamble" could have been avoided if a son had listened to a father.

We don't hear about Afghanistan because the decider has not decided to make it a national priority. He is the president. He makes the calls.

If you believe dems clamoring about the 2000 election have hindered this president, then you must believe Ken Starr and republican clamoring about oral sex did the same in the late 90s. Same game, different teams, right?

So, Trey, are the Brits retreating cowards along with the Danes, or is VP Cheney correct that their leaving as we surge is a sign of success?

Kevin "Hack" King

Kevin,

(I may disagree with you and we are all influenced by the lenses through which we see the world, but at least you and Carter are reasonable and charitable enough to carry on spirited arguments. I appreciate that.)

The reason there were no civil wars after WWII in the countries we occupied and rebuilt is because we utterly destroyed them and subdued them. We did no such thing in Iraq. I agree that Rumsfeld's strategy of a quick and light victory without a massive presence was a mistake. It did win the initial conflict, but was insufficient for the follow-up tasks.

Granted, the analogy I made isn't perfect, but neither are yours.

My point is that we do indeed occasionally engage in nation building when doing so serves our national security, and when it is morally binding up on us to do so.

Are you serious that all Bush had to do was listen to his dad to avoid making a mistake in Iraq? I think it was a little more complex than that.

Please demonstrate to me how the Bush Admin. has systematically ignored Afghanistan. We were able to get rid of the Taliban with hardly any troops by using the local insurgency combined with our airpower. Holding on has been hard and would indeed require more troops b/c Afghanistan is way messed up. Point taken. But, as you know, our resources are not unlimited and more of our boys are dying in Iraq so that's where the focus is.

So, you're going to blame the Republicans' witch-hunt for Clinton for which of his policy failures? Let's remember: Clinton lied under oath and got himself into that trouble by abusing women, his office, and the dignity of the presidency. As minor as the charges may have been (although Paula Jones' and Jaunita Broderick's charges were pretty serious), his subsequent dissembling was indeed a concern.

Anyway, Clinton did successfully pursue his campaign in Bosnia and Kosovo and we're still there, ensuring the peace is kept. Some Repbulicans may have tried to pull funding, but it wasn't pulled, was it? Meanwhile, what did Clinton do about Saddam? He left that problem for the next administration to deal with.

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not saying that calling for retreat is equal to being a coward. And I'm certainly not saying the troops should be labelled that! What I am saying is that if we do withdraw before securing the peace, our enemies will think of us as cowards. And that's a dangerous thing.

Also, I honestly don't know enough about the Brits' and Danes' areas of control to know whether or not withdrawal is justifiable. Cheney and Rice could indeed by guilty of happy talk. They are politicians, after all. But I simply don't know. I do know that the war is even more unpopular in Britain and Denmark than here and wouldn't be surprised if the withdrawal were premature and motivated more by domestic policy concerns than by foreign policy realities.

Peace out,
Trey

Greetings.

As concise as possible:
"Please demonstrate to me how the Bush Admin. has systematically ignored Afghanistan."

We diverted 3.5 X the number of troops in Afghanistan to Iraq. We then turned Afghanistan over to NATO. Poppy production is back, OBL is not captured, Al Qaeida still functions, we have lost towns this month to Taliban control, and the NATO commander is begging for more help. Allow or deny?

"So, you're going to blame the Republicans' witch-hunt for Clinton for which of his policy failures?"

You remember President Clinton's first ever attack on Al Qaeida by a US president? He sent cruise missiles to destroy an Al Qaeida training facility. What did the "fight terrorists where they train and live" Republicans say? That Clinton was wagging the dog, trying to divert US attention from himself. Imagine that! He wanted us to think about terrorist training camps as opposed to his sexual behavior. Allow or deny?

"Cheney and Rice could indeed [be] guilty of happy talk. They are politicians, after all."

"Happy talk" is another term for lying or being disengenuous.
Secretary Rice used liberally conotations of mushroom clouds and domestic terror from Iraq in the lead up to the war in Iraq. Cheney gave us happy talk of a cheap war paid for by Iraq; a dying insurgency; a favorable US greeting; winning hearts and minds. You know the routine, Trey. So why do you NOW believe that a troop surge by the US in the midsts of allied pull-outs is the recipe for success? Because the Pres or VP said so? Because one General in a sea of doubters says so? Fool me once.....we can't get fooled again.
allow or deny

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

ps. My blog entry, "Why troop surge will fail" will give, I believe, accurate historical precedent. G'Day friend

Hack,

Seriously, are you going to cite Clinton's bombing of a Sudanese aspirin factory as a good example of his attacking Al Qaeda? That argument's so weak I don't think I need to respond.

Fine, you contend that fewer troops and partnering with NATO constitutes "ignoring." Could it be that it is a legitimate response to the nature and size of the conflict? Isn't it a good thing that we are working with allies there? Now you are casting that as an example of "ignoring"? Again, that's pretty weak.

Let's talk about Cheney's and Rice's scenarios of truly catastrophic terrorist attacks. Now, if you're like some of the left out there, you believe such threats were used as disingenuous scare tactics to justify the war and grab more executive power. They were pure scare tactics, right? Well, maybe, maybe not. First, I don't have such a dim, cynical, dark view of the motivations and thinking process of the president and his advisors. I also have no evidence for that view.

But do you honestly believe Saddam would have withheld WMDs from terrorist organizations? Do you believe he was a responsible player on the world stage who could continue to be trusted with any arsenal?

I know you enjoy dismissing the Bush administrations concerns, but I happen to think, and so do many like Richard Lugar, that those scenarios were realistic and all-the-more probable in a post 9/11 world.

YOu and your buddies keep accusing me of accepting something just because it is the party line or because Bush said so. This trope may conform well with your world view, but it doesn't make you correct. It is insulting to me and all who hold a conservative position and makes it exceedingly difficult to debate on a polite, equitable basis.

I'll ignore it this time. but next time you accuse me of mindless regurgitation of the party line, I'll know you're not a serious interlocutor.

Trey

VP Cheney's and Secretary Rice's motives in their rhetoric during the run up to war in Iraq. I'm not sure where I accused you of towing a party line, but your ideas of staying the course and military perseverence do fall neatly in line with the administration's current message. You mention that having few troops in Afghanistan might be due to the relatively smaller importance and size of that campaign. I, along with many other war fighters, consider Al Qaeda's home turf to be of great importance. I consider the resurgent poppy trade there, a trade that can generate large amounts of cash for weapons, a very big deal. I consider its proximity to nuclear Pakistan, and optomistic Iran, a very big deal. I consider attempts on the VP's life a very, very big deal! As to your contention that the warnings by Condi Rice and Dick Cheney were not scare tactics; images of immenent nuclear dangers from Iraq, or Iraq giving nuclear or WMD ability to terrorists; or mushroom clouds being the final evidence (since we didn't have ACTUAL evidence); statements that have been refuted or are unsubstantiated conjecture? First, George Tenet tried to get the yellow cake claims pulled from the State of the Union address of 2003 and did get it pulled from other Presidential speeches. How did VP Cheney get the claims put back in? And why did he continue the claims even after the intelligence community labeled them unfounded? Because he is forthright and honest? I don't think so. But here is the "big one." The reason I was never on board with the reasons we were given for the necessity to attack Iraq? Iraq was a threat to NO ONE! Remember Trey, I was a part of Southern Watch. I was a member of the team which performed constant overflight and surveillence of Iraq since 1994. Saddam could not fly a helicopter without permission. We tracked both surface and air traffic. We knew everything they did militarily. If anything flew in Iraq, it was because we let it fly. The US had such air superiority over Iraq, we created a new, more accurate term: Air Dominance. The occaisional unguided manpad or sporadic radar were typically a result of Iraq's destroyed command and control network. And none of us were ever hit in OSW. When certain national leaders started referring to the immediate threat posed by Saddam, I was taken aback. I couldn't believe they were serious. What had we spent year's doing over the skies of Iraq? So, I guess you can flex to reason number 5 for the invasion: To stop genocide. Only question now Trey, is why aren't we in Darfur,Sudan, North Korea, Communist China, Rwanda, Somalia? When do we start on the rest of the global tyrants? And if this is truly a global war on those who hate us, why do you and almost all conservatives gasp at the suggestion of a draft? Are we all going to live and fight like this is a war, or are we going to eat popcorn and watch it on TV like it's a John Wayne flick that ends when we turn our tubes off? Condi Rice tried to compare this war to fighting Hitler. Okay! Where are the War bonds? Bring on the Marshal Plan. Let's roll, and get this draft functioning. Let's fight this war! Or we can send 20,000 more soldiers into a civil war, grab a soda, and hope for the best. Just food for thought......

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

Didn't see a word I didn't think was absolutely correct about Afghanistan! If we had stayed there with the troops, the terrorists would have been done for by now. OSB would be dead and Saddam would have not let them into Iraq. The poppies would have been gone and they would be raising figs for us to eat.

I would like to believe that if we would have taken care of business there, Iraq would not be the issue it is now. Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but I truly believe this.

Jeff,

Sorry. My reply was a blanket one and by nature could not take into the subtle or not so subtle differences in my interlocutors viewpoints or positions on my good nature.

Sometimes brevity, instead of being the soul of wit, is a perverter of it.

So, any injustice done to you was unintended and I apologize for it.

Peace,
Trey

There was no injustice nor any apology needed. I believe we came to a gentleman's agreement that I would consider your opinions as your own instead of implying you were following talking points and wanted to be sure you saw my letter that way. Anyway, I responded with another devastatingly brilliant rebuttal letter to the editor for you to enjoy where I skewer you for unfailing support for almost every failed policy taken by the administration. You'll love it!

Also, you made an interesting statement: "Then again, that's what terrorism really sets out to do: get Democratic countries to violate their own standards..." Eventually we must debate the fact that the administration has given the terrorists what they never could have achieved by themselves. Brush up on your Patriot Act vs. the Constitution argument. I'll throw in a little rendition and Gitmo.

Peace and Love
Jeff

How can you accuse me of "unfailing support for almost every failed policy" when I admitted I could be wrong about Iraq or even the surge?

So much for intellectual honesty in this bunch.

Don't read too much into my remark about terrorism and Democracies. If the Patriot Act is so evil, why hasn't it been junked by the Supreme Court yet? I've heard A TON of belly-aching about the Patriot Act but precious few concrete explanations of which statutes violate the Constitution and why. Please educate me.

As for extending Constitutional rights to "enemy combatants" at GITMO, I'm glad you're so happy about that. I thought the Constitution only applied to citizens.

What I really meant is that in the rough and tumble of fighting terrorism, which is so evil and duplicitous, we are forced on more of a tactical level to committing acts which are contrary to our nature and best practices. That's also true of war. I am SAD about that reality, not giddily thinking how I can apply that to a duly constituted law which is subject to judicial review.

Hope your latest letter was as fun to write as it seems!

I'm getting a little bored with this whole thing. It's obvious we're not going to convince each other and I'm getting very, very tired of being accused of saying things I didn't and arguing with people whose primary assumption is that George Bush is evil and intends evil things for our country.

Trey

My letter is actually mostly about diplomacy with Iran and Syria (again). Also, I know your response here is generic but I have never said that the Pres. is evil or intends evil things for our country nor do I believe that. I think he is just wrong on policy issues. I am satisfied with the SC decision about constitutional rights for combatants at Gitmo, I was thinking of Geneva Convention rights. As for the Patriot Act complaint, I'm working on it. Finally, as to my letter being fun: it was! You're one of the few who can argue your side effectively, I didn't know we were trying to convince each other.
Peace
Jeff