Just One Small Flaw in Sullivan's Argument

I am still waiting for Bush to start his first war. This one was handed to him.
One kind word to a Fag, and...

Posted by Walter E. Wallis at July 27, 2004 1:46 PM

And herein lies what pisses me off about Dem opposition to our actually trying to win this thing:

If we are actually successful in preventing attacks on American soil, the Dems can keep saying that it's obvious (to them) there is no need for us to be on a serious war footing. Bush is a war monger!

If an attack comes, then it means Bush is a horrible wartime President and only the Dems can supply the country with the kind of war monger it takes to win wars.

It just bugs me that their wartime position is one that is obliged to attack good news and capitalize on bad news.

Posted by ccwbass at July 27, 2004 2:03 PM

The argument that the US (Bush) can NEVER act to pre-empt an attack nor can we act unilaterally in response is sophmoric and illogical. And it drives me nuts. That is exactly the sort of thing I expect from an 8th grade civics class: Testing the deep waters of philosophy with their new-found intellect.

Vanderleun wrote that a war plan after an attack would be automatic. He's exactly correct and a war plan SHOULD be automatic, by God! Full automatic. Kill them in their sleep and don't ask permission of the UN. Curtis LeMay said: "If you kill enough of them they stop fighting".

Dan Patterson
Winston-Salem, NC

Posted by Dan Patterson at July 27, 2004 2:27 PM

That would be the same LeMay who is the self described war criminal.

Posted by Charles Croninger at July 27, 2004 2:44 PM

When the field is striped for soccer, you don't continue to play american football.

Posted by Walter E. Wallis at July 27, 2004 3:20 PM

We need regime change in Iran and Saudi Arabia in the next 24 months or we need another war.

The Peoples Republic of China also needs to convince the brain dead midget in North Korea to, ummmm, step down, followed by immediate reunification under the exisiting South Korean constitution.

Posted by Old Dad at July 27, 2004 3:29 PM

Can anyone really imagine John Kerry running a successful operation to prop up the democratic elements within Iran. This is the down and dirty stuff where you have to figure out who is friend, who is foe, then help the friend while outwiting the foe. It's hard stuff. Will the operation last until it's over or will it stop when the 3 Purple Hearts are awarded.

Posted by J_Crater at July 27, 2004 6:38 PM

Andrew is 100% correct. There is no way Bush will start another war. However, I would not be surprised if there were a few more skirmishes and/or battles as the War on Terror continues.

Posted by m at July 27, 2004 9:12 PM

So, "m", try this one on for size: "No one seriously believes Andrew Sullivan will stop beating his wife."

Just as loaded, presumptive, and "true" (and bogus) as Andy's "100% correct" statement about Bush.


Posted by Eric B at July 28, 2004 3:19 AM

Well, um, yeah, that's probably true, about Andrew Sullivan and his, erm, wife. Or was that an attempt at being ironic? It'd have made the cliche a little more interesting, if it had, you know, worked.

Real bunch of Einsteins you've got rooting for you, boz.

("Questionable content?")

Posted by Barbara at July 28, 2004 11:56 AM

Perhaps my understatement was unappreciated. Bush won't start another war because the WoT is the only war that matters. Afghanistan was a battle. So was Iraq. So was Libya. So, too, will be Iran, Syria, and possibly North Korea. Many battles; One War. That is why Andrew is 100% correct (on this matter).

Posted by m at July 28, 2004 3:06 PM