Who Says War Can't Be Fun?
I heard from another lefty columnist. I mean, I wrote her first, she didn't just write to me spontaneously, no. "Spontaneous" better describes the column she wrote that prompted my email.
I was tempted to write, "Does too" in keeping with the general level of these attempts to refute the President, and also because there's always a big choice to be made, at least for me – am I willing to deal with the inevitable burgeoning stupidity that my response might elicit?
Today, I was.
That's because Trudy's column appeared in the Sacramento Bee which, only a few days before, had published the most insipid editorial I have seen on this same subject. And if you decide to have a look, you'll be able to see that mine is the first comment about said editorial.
So I wrote the following to our faceless, and (I came to find) brainless columnist:
Rather than point out the obfuscation and untruths in a pointless effort to show you the error of your ways (that only works with people who are willing to recognize such errors, and besides, I have a
strong suspicion that you already know where you've erred), I'll simply ask how it is you feel that the Iraqi factions cannot be brought together to govern themselves in some suitable time frame (for you), yet you think "a serious U.S. diplomatic initiative" with Iraq's "neighbors" that includes our sworn and intractable enemies could bring about a satisfactory result (faster and more comprehensively), for us as well as for those same Iraqi factions that can't agree amongst themselves?
And regarding your title, have you been saying the same thing for years to those on the left who have been trying to tie Iraq to Vietnam in their never ending effort to embrace defeat, and who are now feeling a bit co-opted?
In the opening chapter of Trudy's book of shotgun responses, she included the following:
"I have repeatedly opposed Democratic calls for a swift pullout or a timeline, and have written repeatedly that an ill-considered pullout, without regional diplomacy, would lead to a situation worse than Vietnam"
I was subsequently treated to a tour of Trudy's mind, and I invite you to enjoy some of the highlights, as well as how I answered her… uh… visions:
First Trudy wondered, because I felt it perfectly justifiable if we were to attack Iran for supplying weapons to terrorists who are killing our troops and for developing nuclear weapons which it appears fully intent on using, if I would also want to attack Saudi Arabia because, as she put it, "wealthy Saudis' were funding the Sunnis?
Me: "Do you see what you did there? You equated arms funneled by a hostile government with (possibly) arms supplied by "wealthy Saudis…Not to mention that you offer no proof of your assertion. But if the Saudi government was developing nuclear weapons with the intent of
using them, I might think an attack was in order…"
The it became "Trudy in Wonderland"…
Trudy: "If a faction of the Revolutionary guards did do so, I find this comparable to the widespread transfer of funds by Saudis"
Me: "I'm sure you do. How convenient."
Trudy: "whose details (the wealthy Saudis), I'm sure, are often well known to Saudi and US intelligence."
Me: "I see. So you don't have those details, but somebody does, and they're just not saying?"
Trudy: "the Bush administration has repeatedly talked of "regime change" in Iran, so why would we expect Iran to co-operate inside Iraq."
Me: "Or outside it, say, in 'a serious diplomatic initiative?'" Not to mention that it isn't a case of Iran failing to "co-operate," it's an act of war."
Trudy: "There is no surer way to guarantee failure of our Iraq venture than to bomb Iran, which would doom our mission in Iraq (as Iraqi Shiite militias turn against US troops)"
Me: "Objection, your honor, witness is engaging in gross speculation both in terms of what form of action we might take and in the reaction to it from Shiite -Arabs- vis-a-vis Shiite Persians."
Trudy: "(and) probably send oil prices through the roof."
Me: "And although there is nothing whatsoever to support that assertion, you think that's sufficient reason to allow Iran to continue killing our troops and developing nuclear weapons?"
Trudy: "And, oh yes, it won't end Iran's nuclear program, nor will it lead to regime change."
Me" "Objection again, your honor, defendant has created a straw man (bombing Iran) and then employs more speculation in an effort to knock it down."
— Intermission —
Remember, this began with Trudy's assertion that Mr. Bush's Iraq-Vietnam comparison didn't work, and look how far we've come…!?!
Trudy: "U.S. military commanders on the ground in Iraq, and in the Pentagon think that such a course would be disastrous."
Me: "Your honor, please direct the witness to focus on her original assertion that we should engage Iran in a diplomatic effort. All she's doing now is presenting reasons why her original idea wouldn't be a good idea for either side."
Trudy: "Only an administration that botched Iraq so badly could dream up such a lose-lose proposition."
Me: "I've already said that I had no love for this Administration, and I would completely agree that the operation was badly botched for years… as would Col. Ralph Peters (whom you should be reading this week in the Post, and no, not that Post), but this isn't about righting a course with you. As I suspected, you are merely one of the few on the left who has some semblance of a conscience and understands that what the wacko left wants would be, to use your word, "disastrous" in the true sense, not disastrous in the sense of a scenario you've made up in great detail and seem to believe is imminent.
Your original column was about the feasibility of engaging Iran and Syria in some nebulous effort to stabilize Iraq, and now we, together, have demonstrated that your idea is absurd. Although I must say, once you got started, you really didn't need my help. So I guess in that sense, you're to be congratulated.
Well, I figured I wouldn't hear from Ole Trud after that, and I haven't so I thought I should send her a short wrap-up note because I felt the above might have overwhelmed her already frazzled… what would you call them… thought processes?
I figured you wouldn't reply to my last response, so I'd like to simplify it.
Your headline was: "Tying Iraq to Vietnam doesn't work"
Now I know that you may not have written that headline, but it was, nevertheless, your point. However, Mr. Bush compared Iraq to Vietnam in a very narrow way – he said that a pullout from Iraq now would cause worse suffering in its aftermath than we saw in the aftermath of our Vietnam involvement.
And in your first response to me, you said this:
"I have repeatedly opposed Democratic calls for a swift pullout or a timeline, and have written repeatedly that an ill-considered pullout, without regional diplomacy, would lead to a situation worse than Vietnam."
So there you have it. You and Mr. Bush agree and you have, in your own words, said that -his- Vietnam comparison… does work.
Happy to be of assistance, as I remain,
I'm sure it's just that Trudy had left for the day, and I look forward to her response after she's had plenty of rest.