Go Back to the B3 Home Page
Complaints, compliments, arguments? Email me.
[<< "Question Mark #34: 'What's So Funny?'"] [Archive Index] [>>"Kerry slams Condi"]
03/27/2004 Archived Entry: "Reagan's Navy Secretary weighs in"
Reagan's Navy Secretary weighs in.
It should give anyone who listens pause as all these straight-arrow military types line up to criticize Bush. 'War president?' Not according to this guy. To be fair, he's also pretty critical of Kerry, but for different reasons.
Bush used his father's political influence to move past many on the Texas Guard's waiting list. He was not required to attend Officer Candidate School to earn his commission. He lost his flight status after failing to show up for a required annual physical. These facts alone raise the eyebrows of those who took a different path in a war that for the Marine Corps brought more casualties than even World War II.The Bush campaign now claims that these issues are largely moot and that Bush has proved himself as a competent and daring "war president." And yet his actions in Iraq, and the vicious attacks against anyone who disagrees with his administration's logic, give many veterans serious pause.
Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region that never has known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence.
There is no historical precedent for taking such action when our country was not being directly threatened. The reckless course that Bush and his advisers have set will affect the economic and military energy of our nation for decades. It is only the tactical competence of our military that, to this point, has protected him from the harsh judgment that he deserves.
At the same time, those around Bush, many of whom came of age during Vietnam and almost none of whom served, have attempted to assassinate the character and insult the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them. Some have impugned the culture, history and integrity of entire nations, particularly in Europe, that have been our country's great friends for generations and, in some cases, for centuries.
Bush has yet to fire a single person responsible for this strategy. Nor has he reined in those who have made irresponsible comments while claiming to represent his administration. One only can conclude that he agrees with both their methods and their message.
Replies: 7 people speak up
"There is no historical precedent for taking such action when our country was not being directly threatened."
I think we've fought more wars with this precedent than without it. Other than the Civil War and the War of 1812, do any qualify as directly threatening us? Let's be pedantic here as a point of history.
Posted by Julian @ 03/27/2004 08:36 PM NY
Well, a coast liner was sunk with americans on it during WW1, and then there was pearl harbor during WW2. The revolutionary war seems like it was a good war, as well.
Posted by Historian @ 03/27/2004 09:01 PM NY
Pish and tuttle. Obviously James Webb is, like Richard Clark, a deeply planted Al-Qaida operative who fiendishly wormed his way into the bowels of a Republican administration, the better to destroy America.
Historian: Good points. The Lusitania was as much a "justification" for a war that had already been decided on as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, IMHO.
For a genuine precedent for Iraq I think you have to go back to the Mexican War (1846). Ulysses S. Grant called it, many years later, the most shameful action the US ever indulged in. (Like Kerry, he fought in it.)
Of course, since I like Webb's arguments a WHOLE lot, I am not going to give him a real hard time about that one line. :)
Posted by Xan @ 03/27/2004 10:29 PM NY
Webb's comments are lucid, logical and to the point. I had not truly thought out the nature of the strategic blunder that is the occupation of Iraq. All political BS aside, someone gave Bush some bad advice, and he did not have the forethought to look at the world picture as it truly is.
We simply do not have the manpower to maintain this defensive posture at the center of the terrorists "home field". Secretary Webb, in my opinion, nailed it.
Too bad we don't have any major candidates possessed with the ability of truly rational thought.
Posted by Murphy @ 03/28/2004 01:06 PM NY
I don't get you, Murphy. You seem like a genuinely good man, looking for answers, and not afraid to see the facts as they stand. I need you to explain this to me: Why, exactly, does Kerry NOT possess the ability of "truly rational thought"?
Also: No one gave Bush bad advice about Iraq. This was his dream from the very beginning of his Presidency, according to no less than his former Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill. Didn't you see what he said? The first Cabinet meeting, ten days into the Bush term, was focussed on Saddam Hussein.
Dude, if you want rational thought to reign, sometimes you have to look in places you might think would never have it--like a Democratic candidate, maybe? At this point, it's ABB--I would vote for any other REPUBLICAN candidate than Bush. Well--excepting DeLay, Lott and a few others.
Later.
Posted by Daddy-O @ 03/28/2004 08:47 PM NY
Daddy-O,
I'm not finished researching Kerry. Could take a while. I think I have a little time yet to make a final decision (say, until late October), but for right now I remain unconvinced. All I've seen thus far is Kerry and his supporters lobbing one-line verbal bombs at the present administration. Bush is, well, Bush (not a terribly flattering label). I want to see how Kerry will handle things. One good, long speech about what he will do and do well, instead of speech after speech of name-calling and criticism. April is approaching and all I see from the left is material suitable for a Triumph the Insult Comic Dog routine.
Am I wrong to remain hopeful that someone will pop up with something of substance?
Posted by Murphy @ 03/29/2004 08:33 AM NY
*taps on the screen* Hello, Kerry already *gave* the speech. Even Fox News covered it uninterrupted.
Posted by None @ 03/29/2004 12:57 PM NY
