Dumb and Dumber
John Warner is either senile or a bald-faced liar. On the NewsHour yesterday, he claimed:
1) Bush is more committed and resolved to secure victory in Iraq than any other President.
2) Unlike Vietnam, Congress will not deny Bush all the resources he requests.
Guess Warner never watched and listened to LBJ and Nixon. From 1964-1967, LBJ publicly expressed resolve to win every bit as forcefully (if not more so) than Bush does today. The fact that much later we discovered that LBJ did have doubts towards the end of his term only indicates that the man had a brain and could see that the war wasn’t going so well and he’d run out of options to improve the situation. Don’t have that to worry about with Mr. deaf, dumb and blind. If it’s not good news about Iraq, he’s deaf. If it’s not scripted for him, he’s effectively dumb. And he’s blind to the fact that he could ever be wrong (even though he’s never been right about anything other than his political affiliation).
Was Nixon merely lobbing a Hail Mary when he expanded the war into Cambodia? He sure looked as if he had a steely resolve to win. (He didn’t even betray that he was impacted by the slaughter of students at Kent State and Jackson State that were only at or around protests against the expansion of the war. IIRC, whatever he said went something like, “the deaths were “regrettable” but no liberal pinko commies in the US were going to derail his agenda.”)
Did Congress balk at LBJ’s funding requests? If so, he must have been a financial wizard to get 500,000 troops over there. And those troops were not expected to bring their own gear or pay for their own way home when on leave. Let’s also not overlook the fact that LBJ didn’t deploy the National Guard and had to fund the training of at least 500,000 troops nnually (most only did one tour in ‘Nam). The injured were mostly treated like shit by the government when they returned, in part due to limited funding and in part due to the limitations medical knowledge back then. That war cost this country plenty of money, but it’s also important to remember that the country and Congress worried mightily about deficit spending in those days. So, the military probably didn’t get as much money as they wanted. So what? Would more bombs have won more hearts and minds? Bush may be getting his funding requests approved, but only an idiot would fail to notice that benefits for Vets have been cut and the troops are not adequately equipped. Not to mention the fact that the heavy equipment is wearing out and not being replaced. So, how much does Bush really need to wage his war? And why hasn’t he asked for it? Because Congress and the country would have sticker shock and not give it to him.
Then there’s John Kerry.
What planet does this guy live on? Bush says “stay the course” to victory and Kerry says “stay the course” to a win. I know that Bush’s definition of “victory” is different from Kerry’s definition of a win, but based on how they have both described it publicly, there is no difference. A stable democratic Iraq courtesy of the US military. IOW words, they share a pipe dream -- or would that be a pipe filled with really good dope?
Kerry has the instincts or intuition of a slug,. He’s no Murtha picking up the stench of defeat in Iraq, that’s for sure. What the hell did Kerry learn from Vietnam? Obviously not an ability to assess a military situation. For an “intellectual,” he sure doesn’t seem to grasp the legal, social and political realities in Iraq. If Kerry were half as smart as he thinks he is, he might not parse everything down to the point of being indistinguishable from the gobbledygook that spews from the lips of GWB. Please John, go back to being an anonymous mediocre Senator with a fabulously wealthy wife and leave room on the national stage for someone better from the left.
With these are the smart ones in the Senate.