patriam deserimus casei gratia

It shows a false weakening of resolve, which gives comfort and perhaps even support to the enemy. Even kerry admits we have to stay in for the long haul, but there's a difference between offering constructive criticism and just kicking down the sand castle. By making these sort of comments, it's hard to imagine that the terrorists don't interpret it as proof their insurgiency is working. Much like france's actions prior to this war more than likely contributed greatly to saddam's intrasegence. Saddam might be a bit crazy, but he's not stupid. So why did he balk the weapon inspectors when he knew he had zilch? A good part of it is that he really didn't think the US had the stones to invade when france and germany was throwing up so much opposition. He expected france to save him with it's constant criticism and wearing down of US support. It emboldened him to resist.

In the case of pelosi, I can very easily see some insugient with a satalite dish and CNN watching her and coming to the conclusion that aha, look at how our actions are causing these gaping cracks in the US leadership. (they don't know she's just a partisan hack making political hay while the sun shines) If we can just keep attacking and kill some more americans, they'll cut tail and run soon just like they did in vietnam and the russians in afghanistan.

Since that is NOT going to happen (according to both kerry and bush) in the near future, all her comments do is spur on the insurgients to kill more americans and run more attacks in the belief that their strategy is working and a few more dead will cause the complete collapse of american resolve.

From:

silas7.livejournal.com

But their strategy isn't working. Both Bush and Kerry have pledged not to be driven out of Iraq. The Senator isn't saying that the President should pull our troops out of Iraq, she is saying that his handling of it is incompetent.

I fully admit she is being partisan and has ulterior motives. But the reasons people think he's incompetent isn't because she says so. He and his cabinet are responsible for getting us here. American troops acting w/out supervision are responsible for the prison abuses. This could have been handled in a better way, and I'm sure there were better plans than what is being practiced.

From:

The whole question is what is the dem platform on iraq. I assume kerry, as its nominee gets to more or less set the position. If kerry were advocating a pullout, then I can accept pelosi's comments since there is this conflict over whether to stay or leave. Since that is not the case though, her comments shine in a completely different light for me. It's not as if she's offering constructive criticism, and we know for a fact that kerry if he wins won't pull out (or so he claims). That means that in the end, you have the same result but all she's done is given hope to the insurgients, a false hope, that the fracture is deep enough to split the leadership and if they can just kill a few more americans they can cause the US to turn tail and leave.

I guess for me, the problem is that the dems don't have anything better in this case and they want it both ways. They want to be able to have kerry talk about staying the course while also undermining the very mission with their comments. It's a doubletalk that regardless of its effects on the insurgients, makes me sort of ill.

From:

silas7.livejournal.com

Fair enough. I don't have as firm a grasp on what the democrats vision of stabilizing Iraq is like. It's also odd considering that we are turning over sovereignty to Iraq in a month of so. If our presence is really diminished, will attacks slow down? Most Iraqi's don't have any faith in this turnover, so I guess we'll have to see what happens in the next few months.

From:

ex-sjc.livejournal.com

So, in order to protect our open society, and to establish an open society in Iraq, the House Minority Leader should shut up?

I have the feeling insurgents will attack U.S. forces regardless of what Pelosi says. And she's only pointing something out that has been obvious to a lot of people for a good long time. This is the risk you run when you're a "democracy."

From:

If this is all she has to say, then she should shut up just from the self-realization she's an ass. If she had something constructive to argue...oh I don't know, that more funding should be given for discretionary rebuilding by local commanders on the ground, or that all prisons there should have 24-7 surviellance so that abuses don't occur, or hell, anything, then I'd more than welcome her point of view. As it is, all she's offering is petulant whining and comfort to the enemy with absolutely no gain to be had. After all, what is the upside of her comments?

From:

ex-sjc.livejournal.com

"Comfort to the enemy?" Come now. Like I said before, I don't really think a guy on the fence is suddenly going to pick up an AK-47 because Pelosi opened her mouth. What's actually going on is that the Republican attack apparatus has been in full SHUT YOUR FUCKING HOLE TRAITOR mode ever since 9/11 -- hell, even during the Florida electoral debacle in 2000, when Gore should have "gotten out of the way" -- and the more they have to cover for what may be the most incompetent administration since U.S. Grant, and one of the most spectacular foreign-policy blunders in world history, the more frenzied they become, because they've invested way too much in this presidency. So when the House Minority Leader, a pretty significant political figure, points out that the Bush Administration is just screwing everything up left and right, they have to explode.

Also, it would seem the insurgency in Iraq was doing just fine (sadly) before Pelosi spoke. I would love for someone to come up with something constructive on how to resolve this mess the U.S. is in, for I fear its repercussions go far, far beyond what we're seeing now. And sure, if Pelosi were advancing a great plan for how to deal with this, it'd be much more constructive. My sense, though, is that there's no one in power right now who would take any constructive steps. More funding for discretionary rebuilding? Sounds great to me! Will the CPA or the Pentagon authorize it? I don't know. 24-7 surveillance on prisons? Again, sounds great, except that the current abuses we're seeing were specifically imported from Guantanamo Bay and put in place as the standard program. I think there's a ton of stuff that we can do (and that should have been done) to make the situation better, but I don't frankly think the current leadership had the gumption -- or the inclination -- to implement them.

I would love for Kerry to come right out and lay out a plan for dealing with this Iraq mess. Hell, he's going to be savaged by the Republicans no matter what he says, why not just shoot straight? But I can see why he's being cautious -- if he plays it the wrong way, he's going to be torn to shreds, and politically it's wiser for him to lay low and wait until it's closer to the convention. I would love for someone to have a solution to this fucked-up situation the U.S. put itself into. And although utterly partisan and completely political (I grant this unreservedly), Pelosi's statement cuts to the heart of the matter: the Bush administration has fucked things up more than anyone thought humanly possible, and it seems completely unable to deal with it.

I'm not really in disagreement with you, I don't think; I just think that the situation is so bad that Pelosi's statement isn't going to be the tipping point for a new wave of al-Qaeda recruitment, is all.

From:

Regardless of free speech there are limits, both legal and of common sense. Can't yell fire in a crowded theater if there isn't one and call it free speech.

Pelosi brings nothing to the table but empty self-serving rhetoric. As a public servant that kind of behavior should not be acceptable, regardless of political affiliation. As henwy says, at least offer us something, or critique a specific policy. Saying the emperor has no clothes and proving it are two very different things.

From:

So our putative insurgent, by definition already, uh, insurging and dead set on getting US troops out of the country, upon hearing the same arguments and criticisms that have been made since even before the war began (it being an election year, when criticism of the President has been constant), is suddenly inspired to go and blow something up that he wouldn't otherwise have?

I guess I don't buy it, and I certainly see Bush's "Bring it on" as a more dangerous thing to say.

From:

I disagree. While both statements are problematic the difference is bush's statement projects strength, pelosi's statement projects weakness. It's not even a question of which is more likely to cause an uptick in attacks. Look at vietnam and afghanistan (in the 80's). Or an even better example from recent times, somalia. They have learned that the great world powers can be forced to cut and run due to symbolic, political hits. It's hard to imagine that they don't reap comfort from pelosi's comments and it's also hard to believe that they don't see this as another giant step toward their goal. They KNOW they can't beat the us millitarily. I mean...it's horrible that 900 US troops or thereabouts have died but looking at it millitarily, it's a drop in the bucket. It's not even close to being significant. The only way the insurgients can win this war is if the will of the US collapses, and that has to be a political collapse. It's hard to interpret pelosi's comments as being anything other than a step in that direction.

From:

I think Bush's statement projects more schoolyard bully bluster, myself, but I see what you mean.

Nonetheless: we already have a publicly announced withdrawal date, which must have some bearing on this question of weakness vs. resolve. No matter what, we're supposedly outie in five weeks, which I myself happen to think is disastrously soon, but whatever.

I fully expect that no matter who says what on CNN, the insurgents will fight on until we leave (leaving the field open for civil war), or send in more troops (ours or an international force) to crush them. Neither option is necessarily desirable.

From:

Well, that date is the beginning of the withdrawal. There will still be a number of troops and the largest US embassy in the world stationed in the country placed there. But it will be the end of the large scale operations and the influx of troops will stop.

From:

(And hello, by the way, and thanks for replying.)

From:

canonfire.livejournal.com

I guess her comments fall on the terrorist category which the president established the "with us or against us" either/or. I'm getting more than a bit confused as to who the "us" is.

From:

The us would be those countries who favor not flying suicide planes into buildings filled with civilians on purpose, or using car bombs to kill politicians trying to restore peace and democracy to a country, or force children to remain starving and poorly educated so they won't rise up against the theocracy, or a government that forces women to a near slave-role with little freedoms, or...
never mind.

I think I made my point.

her comments aren't terrorist. They are just irresponsible on the level of childish.

"I can't attack your specific policies since the economy has turned up (jobs, housing ownership, consumer confidence), the taliban is out of power, Saddam hussein is in prison, and a new government is set to be installed in Iraq. So...er...phhbbbbbt!"

Do our enemies, you know the ones doing the above to us and others, really need to see an elected American official acting like a 4 year old? Do our troops? Do you get my point?

From:

I think I made my point.

Hmm. Except it's not so simple as that, and once you've invoked Good Vs. Evil and assume that you are Good and that anyone who opposes you therefore supports Evil, whether they mean to or not, you place yourself dangerously beyond criticism.

I am sure that Pelosi could indeed go into specifics in a setting not set up for soundbites; just sticking to the military realm the Taliban may be out of power, but Afghanistan is still a mess; Saddam is in prison, but the terrorist population in Iraq has only grown; a new government is coming to Iraq -- only a little over a month from now!--, but as you have just pointed out, the people who are supposed to run it are being blown up. Is it really so childish to suggest that Bush and co. could have done a better job?

(I am spending the WP not to make cheap shots about theocracy and women's rights.)

Anyway -- I have three hours til a deadline, so I'll let you all hash this out.

From:

I think this might be where it comes down to a difference in willingness to draw lines. I see regimes like Saddam's and the Taliban as immoral. I see homicide bombers who target civilians as immoral. I see militia groups dedicated to killing innocents and preventing the transfer of power to a democratically elected government as immoral. I work from that perspective, and it colors all my views.

Afghanistan is less of a mess now then when it was controlled almost entirely by the Taliban. With them in place there was no hope for a better future, or reconstruction, or new freedoms. The terrorists population in Iraq has grown according to the studies I have read becasue insurgents are coming from outside the country to attack our soldiers (Syrians, Iranians, etc.) and join the militia groups. And yes there have been deaths among the Iraqi leadership, proof that these madmen see the transfer of power and the end of their immoral/inhumane way of life possibly coming to an end. it is a tragedy but unavoidable given the desperate tactics of the people who oppose change. And you are well within your rights to suggest the job was not done in the best way, but is it necessary to use insults and inflammatory rhetoric to do it?

(and if you would like to argue the relative social freedoms of the average American and the average pre-war Iraqi or Afghan, sure. Our system isn't perfect, but it at least allows for perfection to be an attainable goal. Something to work for. It also allows us to talk about it and not be shot, or to leave if we don't like it. I think spending the WPs on both sides is a good idea.)

From:

and if you would like to argue the relative social freedoms of the average American and the average pre-war Iraqi or Afghan, sure

Such a putative discussion would rather focus on the relative social freedoms of the average American today and the average pre-war American.

That's why my commenting on the threats to women's rights under Bush (and I don't just mean abortion) or on the growing influence of people who wish WE had a theocracy would have been a cheap shot, because it's a separate matter. I think we can all agree that, e.g., "better than the Taliban" is a pretty low standard.

Eek. It's three p.m. Must focus on work, even if this is more interesting.

From:

S'ok I'm off to the Cape! Have a great weekend. Thanks for the discussion.

From:

In addition to the astute comments of henwy, the President of the United States is the commander in Chief of the armed forces of this nation. In order to carry out the order of a commanding officer you need to have faith in their capability to lead and their resolve to support you. Questioning the policy decisions of an administration is one thing, especially with an issue as complex as any which involves the deployment of soldiers into combat. Personal attacks on the president on the other hand undermine his credibility with the soldiers serving in conflict and directly affect their morale, which can have a direct reflection in the field performance of a soldier (ie. casualties).

I am in no way saying that Pelosi, who has made a career of statements like this which do little to further public discourse and are more like schoolyard antics of two year olds, does not have the right, or even the duty as an elected official to comment on policy or question the effectiveness of strategy. (and yes, I know, there are attack-dogs on the other side of the aisle too before anyone gets their Hanes in a bunch, but we're talking about this particular instance) But calling the CIC incompetent, and that the deaths of soldiers was on his shoulders, is simply nothing more than partisan rhetoric at the expense of those serving overseas.
The danger to our soldiers, in addition to showing our enemies that we lack any kind of cohesiveness, is in making them think that their service is meaningless and the office they serve is incompetent. Again, disagree with policies or strategies all day and night, but attacking the office and the person who sits in it is offensive and shows a lack of maturity and intelligence.

From:

Troop morale is important, but if they can keep up their belief in their mission on the face of whatever terrible things are happening to them (or that they are being forced to do) on the ground, I can't imagine that election-year squabbles are going to affect them too much.

attacking the office and the person who sits in it is offensive</>

But what if you genuinely believe that this particular CIC's policies and his personal style of command, directly as regards the prosecution of the war, are disastrous? Are you supposed to remain silent?

Admittedly Pelosi's comments, as reported, have little of constructive value -- but even if they did, I am certain we would still be hearing the same "why does that liberal chick hate America?" replies from the right.

From:

We might. And those people would be just as wrong as she is.

As I said questioning policies is the duty of the Minority and the other branches of our government. But the current president was sworn into office and intends to govern based on his principles and beliefs. Unlike Congress the office of the Presidency should not be run as a poll-watching popularity contest. The reason we have an Executive branch is to make the tough and unpopular choices sometimes that a Legislature is often incapable of doing. And there are a large portion of Americans who agreed with what Bush did and still do. And as I recall congress voted overwhelmingly to give the President the authority to fight the war on terror. Since then has the Taliban/al queda/random extremist faction launched a successful attack on our home soil? Where are the fighting? And against our soldiers and not killing civilians right?

People forget this is a war. Death is an inevitability. We are fighting against people who fundamentally believe that our way of life is evil and are willing to explode themselves, their sons, and anyone else they can to harm us in the slightest way. There are no easy answers where America lands in boats and the sun rises over a free land of happy shiny people. There are thousands of murderers-to-be who want to prevent that. The only solution to that is to kill them, to find them, hunt them down and annihilate their way of thinking and their means of harming us. Brutal and harsh? Yes, it is. But there are no half measures when dealing with fanatics who would willingly give their lives for a cause. The only defense against that is a willingness to do the same and to remember why it is that you are doing so.

From:

cook-ting.livejournal.com

I had this really good rant. I was just about to post it when I thought about how fundamentally disrespectful it would be to both you and your question to slide off topic into another tirade about my hatred for all the filthy little Gammas that run this country.

I honestly believe that criticizing the president at times of both war and peace is a fundamental duty of citizens and the media. He's our employee, not a divinely appointed ruler. The idea that criticizing government is bad for America is wrong because it does more damage than the terrorists could ever manage. It ends a vibrant section of american political life in the interests of quelling descent. I'd think any president interested in his actual job performance would welcome criticism, as it would allow him to change policies that aren't in keeping with the fundamental beliefs of the citizenry.

But then, I am a liberal. As you know, I'm in league with freedom-hating terrorists, evildoers, and satan.

From:

And as I said criticism is good. But if I came into your kitchen after eating in your rest. and said "You are incompetent! The soup was not to my liking, the waiter was slow, and you have mismanaged things terribly! You are an idiot and a poor cook." you would have every right to hit me with a gravy boat.

But if I said "The soup appeared to have too much garlic, and was watery. The waitstaff need more support in the form of more buspersons. Perhaps we need additional funding for a second night manager." Then we could have civil discourse about the problem. And in the case of the issue we are discussing, a public debate on the issue rather than the partisan stupidity she has created.

(deleted comment)

From:

Er, yes they do. Personally I'm in favor of adults taking responsibility when they act like idiots. All she has to say is that her comments were in poor taste/choice.

So its okay to go around broadly insulting those you don't agree with? So I am a mature and rational adult if I spew off that all Democrats are whiny, pinko, commie, tree-hugging, tax-and-spend, multiculturalist asswipe traitors? Sure its within my rights to think that, but I'd be an idiot and a jerk, instead of just a jerk. And I'm not even an elected official with a responsibility to lead and be a role-model. She called him incompetent, a serious charge since he's ostensibly the leader of the free world with enough explosive power under his command to irradiate the globe 100x over. If she doesn't like the policy attack that and do so with somthing other than he's poopy-pants please.

(deleted comment)

From: