Saturday, October 20, 2007

Sanchez, War & Stark: Some thoughts

Readers Note: I want to use excerpts from a comment by Scott on the To N&O:Retract Sanchez Story thread to make few comments. I’ll not hyperlink in this post. The excerpts are in italics; my comments are in plain.

John
___________________________

Given the results of the recent "surge" strategy (decrease in murders; decrease in violence overall), I think it is a bit premature for [the former American forces commander in Iraq, General] Sanchez, to make a statement that this strategy is "a desperate move that would not achieve long-term stability." The jury is still out on that, but there is clear evidence that the situation has improved recently offering some hope that long-term stability can be achieved.

Certainly things in the short-term are looking better. The “surge” appears to have contributed to that.

As for “long-term stability,” what is “long-term stability” and how do we know we’ve achieved it?

There are parts of the world where we’ve been supporting the efforts of the people for decades to secure their freedom but we still need an American military presence there to sustain any sort of stable democracy.

For example, most people agree that but for the presence of American military forces in South Korea and our pledge to protect that country, it would soon be overrun by North Korea; with the result that democracy would be as dead in South Korea as it is now in North Korea.

And that's almost 60 years after we began fighting there. When will Democrats begin asking for an immediate troop withdrawel from South Korea? I'd sure like to bring the troops there home.

Just within the last few days, Dennis Gibson of ABC News reported that there is no news from Iraq today because there were no reports of anything being exploded or anyone getting killed. Hey, Dennis, guess what? Given the last 4 years in that part of the world, that's news!

I’m happy for the recent good news but I don’t think we should judge our success or failure in Iraq based on events in the short-term.

Yes, I know people like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, ABC News’ Terry Moran and Rev. Al Sharpton do.

But I think Churchill had it right when he said, “In war: resolution.”

By that he meant “however long and whatever the cost may be.”

We know for sure, however, that the mainstream press can be counted on to present the news that fits their agenda, whether that is to portray a drugged-out prostitute, with a prior history of fabricating rape claims and other violations of the law, as a mother and student who was a victim of a brutal rape by white athletes or to focus on anti-Bush remarks and omit the criticism of the press that was included in the very same speech delivered by Sanchez or to call news that something good happened in Iraq (no deaths) "not news."

Scott, I’m very sorry to say what I think every decent American who follows the news would say to you: you're right.

Anyone who thinks they are getting anything newsworthy from the mainstream print and broadcast media, I can hook you up with someone who has prime real estate in the Everglades for sale cheap.

Thanks, Scott, but like you and many millions of Americans I’m not in the market to buy what most of MSM is selling. It’s too much like the stuff anti-Americans around the world want to shove down our throats.

As to Stark, I used to live in Fremont CA, which is in the East Bay about 15 miles south of Oakland, so Fortney was my congressman for 4 years. He has always been loose cannon. This was just the latest incident and by no means the worst.

I want to be careful regarding Stark’s comment and the excuse Democratic Party and liberal/leftist news organizations will offer for it: “That’s just Stark. He’s that way.”

Sorry, but Stark’s terrible statement about President Bush is right in line with statements equally, or more abhorrent and hurtful to America, statements and actions of other Democratic Party leaders.

Remember Sen. Ted Kennedy's statements at the time of Abu Ghraib that America's military was running a prison system as bad as Saddam's? How about Sen. Dick Durbin comparing what we were doning in Guantanamo to what the Nazi's did?

There's more. I'll be posting on it soon.

In the meantime consider this: when Stark said Thursday on the House floor,

"You're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement,"
not a single Democratic House member disagreed with him.

That tells us a lot, doesn't it?

Thanks for your comment, Scott.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

War is about the failure of politics. It seeks the resoulution of power by force. Sometimes you have to punch the other guy in the nose.

scott said...

Thanks, John, for featuring one of my comments.

I completely agree with you that no one, including Stark himself, should be allowed to excuse his despicable remarks about President Bush by passing them off as just "par for the course for Stark."

In fact, not only does such a track record not excuse him or his remarks in this case, that record calls into question Stark's fitness for office and the value system of 1) his congressional colleagues who refuse to sanction him and 2) the bloc of voters who continue to send such a person as Fortney Stark to represent them.