A fool, not a traitor
Mike Thompson, D-CA, goes to great lengths in an op-ed piece in today's Washington Post to tell us that he is a Vietnam combat veteran. Although he must get at least one gold star for not using the dreaded Q-word (quagmire), it is clear that he compares any pending war to eliminate Saddam with our failed attempt to keep Southeast Asia from going communist.
Thompson makes the invidious comparison between anti-Vietnam war protestors tipping over a bus carrying wounded soldiers with "conservative radio talk show hosts questioning my fact-finding trip to Iraq." Take that, Rush Limbaugh! In your face, Ollie North! The good congressman then goes on to whine about how he just can't get the truth from his almighty perch on the House Armed Services Committee. Or, as he puts it, classified briefings "that raise more questions than answers."
Well, of course, this is simply a statement by the congressman that he trusts Saddam more than he trusts the Executive Branch of our government. To be fair, Thompson is the best of a sorry lot. His two coconspirators, Bonoir (D-Saudi Arabia), and McDermott, D-WA, went beyond poor judgment to well into quisling territory. Thompson is defended, sort of, by left-but-not-insanely-so E. J. Dionne, also in today's Post.
It is one thing to assess a coming battle, or even a prolonged conflict, with expert eyes. But service as a 19-year old soldier, even combat service, hardly confers this expertise. The fact that generals have varying opinions on how hard or easy our (second) conquest of Iraq might be in no way makes Thompson (or me, or thee, for that matter) an expert. Thompson is likely correct when he cites the now conventional wisdom that there will be extensive urban fighting with high casualty rates on both sides. The real question, lost in Thompson's self-absorption, is whether that is a price we pay now or later, when "urban" may mean New York City or Washington, DC, and the high casualty rates are only from unarmed U.S. civilians.
Finally, Thompson reveals himself to be among the "well, it's not really their fault" school of apologists for terrorist and rogue state alike. This has become a classic line among the hate-America crowd, when asked to explain terrorism or other bad things: "we need to eliminate the sense of hopelessness that serves as a host for parasitic terrorist cells". Yep, that must be it -- just forgot to mention poverty and lack of free women's abortion clinics on each corner.
Well, that must certainly explain the largely middle class if not wealthy core around which al queda was built, not to mention that Iraq is one of the wealthiest of Arab states. The hopelessness seems to have been supplied by Saddam and his crew of relatives and other sickos.
Iraq delanda est.
Mike Thompson, D-CA, goes to great lengths in an op-ed piece in today's Washington Post to tell us that he is a Vietnam combat veteran. Although he must get at least one gold star for not using the dreaded Q-word (quagmire), it is clear that he compares any pending war to eliminate Saddam with our failed attempt to keep Southeast Asia from going communist.
Thompson makes the invidious comparison between anti-Vietnam war protestors tipping over a bus carrying wounded soldiers with "conservative radio talk show hosts questioning my fact-finding trip to Iraq." Take that, Rush Limbaugh! In your face, Ollie North! The good congressman then goes on to whine about how he just can't get the truth from his almighty perch on the House Armed Services Committee. Or, as he puts it, classified briefings "that raise more questions than answers."
Well, of course, this is simply a statement by the congressman that he trusts Saddam more than he trusts the Executive Branch of our government. To be fair, Thompson is the best of a sorry lot. His two coconspirators, Bonoir (D-Saudi Arabia), and McDermott, D-WA, went beyond poor judgment to well into quisling territory. Thompson is defended, sort of, by left-but-not-insanely-so E. J. Dionne, also in today's Post.
It is one thing to assess a coming battle, or even a prolonged conflict, with expert eyes. But service as a 19-year old soldier, even combat service, hardly confers this expertise. The fact that generals have varying opinions on how hard or easy our (second) conquest of Iraq might be in no way makes Thompson (or me, or thee, for that matter) an expert. Thompson is likely correct when he cites the now conventional wisdom that there will be extensive urban fighting with high casualty rates on both sides. The real question, lost in Thompson's self-absorption, is whether that is a price we pay now or later, when "urban" may mean New York City or Washington, DC, and the high casualty rates are only from unarmed U.S. civilians.
Finally, Thompson reveals himself to be among the "well, it's not really their fault" school of apologists for terrorist and rogue state alike. This has become a classic line among the hate-America crowd, when asked to explain terrorism or other bad things: "we need to eliminate the sense of hopelessness that serves as a host for parasitic terrorist cells". Yep, that must be it -- just forgot to mention poverty and lack of free women's abortion clinics on each corner.
Well, that must certainly explain the largely middle class if not wealthy core around which al queda was built, not to mention that Iraq is one of the wealthiest of Arab states. The hopelessness seems to have been supplied by Saddam and his crew of relatives and other sickos.
Iraq delanda est.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home