31 Comments

1. Rhod:

At the same time that Bush announced the resignation, or termination, of Rumsfeld, he cautioned our enemies not to “laugh” that the Democrats obtained majorities. It does have its funny side, but if this was a warning that the campaign against them would continue, if in other ways, it seems unwise.

He had no authority to speak for the Democrats, and even less power now than he had before. None of our enemies can seriously think that the Democratic Party has a policy they need to fear, at least not now. Al Qaeda and others will recognize the warning as bogus, as I do.

The most likely result in the short term will be more outrageous and wicked acts of terrorism. Al Qaeda and others recognize a distant victory because a mood for withdrawl and denial has already won at the polls, and only needs to be urged to completion. They might not even be right. Who knows?

This war will go one, whoever is in charge, but the Democrats need to define the war as something more pressing than a problem requiring a “solution” (Pelosi).

Nov 11, 2006 - 9:34 am 2. ic:

“I think it’s closer to a 100.” A 100 only? This war started in the 7th century, took a breathing at the door of Vienna, and continues now. It’ll go on and on and on and on and ……………

Nov 11, 2006 - 9:47 am 3. Terrye:

It had to happen sooner or later, this is a two party system. It will be interesting to see how the conservative Democrats like the one who carried my district will respond. AlQaida and the mad mullahs pretty much called the country in general and the Democrats in particular cowards. Maybe they should think about that and decide how they will respond so that the nation does not lose faith in them before their terms even begin.

I have gotten to the place where I do not agree with a lot of the pundits. I guess I have read too many opeds. I think Hinderaker has a point, but I also think that we have to remember that change is inevitable. Rumsfeld is a tired old man with a lot of enemies, he is not immortal. I would hope that some of these people would give Gates a chance, rather than going after him the way they did Harriet Miers.

Noonan has been hoping for a defeat for Republicans for months now so I am not surprised at her response.

How long will it last? That depends on the kind of weapons these guys get hold of. This is not the middle ages.

Nov 11, 2006 - 10:42 am 4. Barry Dauphin:

I’ve often enjoyed much of Peggy Noonan’s writing over the years, but lately she has been getting on my nerves. After being one of the first to suggest that Bush was not holding spending in check because the WoT was priority number 1 and he was doing whatever he could to keep moving on that front, she then chides him later for that very sort of thing.

Her op-ed today was mixed with things both true and detached. Yes, this is likely to be a long war and we need seriousness from both parties. Then she talks about another strike on America as if it were a scene from a Hollywood movie where everything goes right at the end. The way her editorial came across today suggests to me she is turning into a sunny fatalist and that she focuses on absorbing hits (that we will recover from) instead of going out to strike at the enemy. I think she hangs out too much with too many Manhatten Dems.

Nov 11, 2006 - 11:56 am 5. Barry Dauphin:

Also, I do not buy the Tom Friedman/Colin Powell Pottery Barn B.S. We didn’t break it in the way they suggested; it was broken when we got there.

Nov 11, 2006 - 11:58 am 6. Terrye:

The Anchoress has some interesting thoughts on this as well as some observations on both the right and left. I have to say I usually agree with the Anchoress and this time is no exception.

Nov 11, 2006 - 12:12 pm 7. GaryK:

Unless we are willing to settle this thing with massive nuclear strikes on several Muslim countries, and we aren’t even close to the mood or situation that would make this acceptable, I predict this is going to last a generation or more.

Unless we deprive the Muslim world of its oil revenues buy switching to alternative fuels or seizing their oilfields (a prospect I think remote) their attempts to take over the world will continue. I think we will suffer some major casualties here in the U.S. and may lose a few cities before this is over and even when we “win” the final words of Muhammad–the “Perfect man” to be emulated in all things–”I was ordered to fight all men until they say, “There is no God but Allah,” will remian in Muslim’s hearts, which means it will never really be over.

Nov 11, 2006 - 12:34 pm 8. Skookumchuk:

“Who do we hate now?” they ask in their caves, “the evil woman from San Francisco or the old infidel from Texas?

Umm, the old infidel from Texas.

Nov 11, 2006 - 12:56 pm 9. Godzilla:

But, but, Peggy, if the democrats taking a stake in the WOT is good, then we won’t have a divided government anymore. How will we confuse our enemies? They will simply hate us all equally.

Such bliss…ALL of us will be able to get behind, and support, the latest of our politically correct, morally superior, and civilian-conscious wars. How about we all join in with a big Whoop.

Peggy is too in love with the sound of her words, and the errors and contradictions in her logic are subtle but there.

Nov 11, 2006 - 12:57 pm 10. ricpic:

Let one, just one American city be nuked and this won’t be a hundred year war, it won’t be a thirty year war, I doubt it will be a thirty month war. The rag heads will be running out of their caves, what’s left of them, shrieking screaming begging “O pleez Mister Satan, pleez pleez STOP!!!” Just you wait.

Nov 11, 2006 - 1:10 pm 11. patrick neid:

the war will continue as it has until it’s done. pelosi and crew don’t believe a word of their “we were lied to” charade that they parroted for the last few years. strictly campaign dribble to appear different. actually kerry probably does think he was lied to!

i continue to believe the dems will be on their best behavior with the white house being their real goal. bush will have his way with the war along with their chirping opinions. the vast center of this country-the jacksonian core-want a victory of some sort. redeploying to Okinawa is not part of that.

on the bright side we may finally start seeing ‘glass half full’ stories coming out of afghanistan and iraq as the MSM supports the dems in their supposed new direction with bush and the war. there are and have been countless great stories in this war that are never printed. so chin up, i think the next two years won’t be that bad. if there is a terrorist attack here, which i doubt, pelosi will act like a woman scorned and al qaeda will rue the day.

if hillary gets the white house then get concerned. the gloves will come off pelosi and crew and the great socialist experiment will resume.

Nov 11, 2006 - 3:47 pm 12. Roger:

“Great socialist experiment”?…. Er, Patrick, I don’t know what country you’re living in, but I’ve never seen much socialism here except on the margins. The Clintons (very rich people) are hardly socialistic, nor are their (even richer) Hollywood friends. Hypocrites? Now that’s another matter. But socialists? Ever visit a real socialist country, my friend? Thinking of the USA or one of its major parties as even remotely socialist is silly.

Nov 11, 2006 - 4:03 pm 13. patrick neid:

roger,

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened” (Norman Thomas, 1936 presidential candidate on the Socialist ticket)

forgive me for striking you as silly but get your eyesight checked. the clinton’s and the hollywood crowd are perfect socialist candidates as were the communists that came before them. the fact that our free market capitalism, which they gladly suckle, has rebuffed their efforts does not mean that their “experiment” has died. a casual review of the leading communists and socialists–now called progressives– throughout history will show that they almost always come from the monied crowd. the ‘rule of the elite’ is not an accident.

as for socialist countries i’ve had extended stays in many. when you take a close look at the democrat platform of the last 25 years it is not unlike many in europe. the difference is simply one of time. europe is about 30 years ahead of us.

Nov 11, 2006 - 6:04 pm 14. Roger:

Well, Patrick, believe what you wish… but if you check my bio, you will see that I know these people. Now I may be “blind” but to me the socialism of these folks is about as deep as their koi ponds. It’s all for show – and little more. I will agree that makes them more pathetic and hypocritical, but I assure you they spend far more time with their tax lawyers than they ever did reading Marx (if they read him at all).

Nov 11, 2006 - 7:31 pm 15. Sandy P:

Roger, they are socialists and gun-grabbers.

What do you call Evita trying to grab 1/6 or 1/8 of the economy in 1993-94?????

60 member of the democrats are meeting w/Mcgovern, they’re the “progressive” wing of the party.

They call themselves progressives because they can’t call themselves socialists. Sanders can get away w/it cos he’s not a coward and his state knew what they were voting for.

They want socialism for the rest of us while they still keep theirs.

Nov 11, 2006 - 8:52 pm 16. cubanbob:

Roger no offense, but having been taxed at 70% during the Jimmah Administration I beg to differ.

Nov 11, 2006 - 8:55 pm 17. wennejunk:

ricpic,

They will not nuke an American City for a long time.

They will however, attempt (and possibly succeed) in nuking an Israeli city or military base through a previously unknown proxy.

Israel will respond in kind+ with the recipient being whomever Mossad IDs as the perp.

The remaining living government in (choose a country) will cry innocence, the world will unify in their condemnation of Israel as the MSM chooses to show the burned bodies and destroyed city(s) – undoctored for a change.

The left, recognizing the threat to the USA will immediately join in the anti-Israel feeding frenzy and attempt to cut all aid to Israel.

Failing to so, we will then experience our own nuclear event, but will not respond in kind due to our inability to pin the blame on any one country. Anti-Muslim hate crime legislation will quickly pass and we will trip over ourselves to prove that America is a muslim friendly country and we will need their help (and Saudi petro dollars) to help rebuild our shattered economy.

I can keep going, its just fantasy speculation, but this is as likely as any other scenario. They will not hit the US until they are sure we will not respond. In fact, if they hit San Francisco and say they were merely executing God’s will, American outrage would be substantially muted.

Nov 11, 2006 - 9:46 pm 18. Lem:

We have Bin Laden triangulating now?
This is the kind of wishful thinking that inadvertently humanizes the enemy and leads people to believe we could negotiate our way out of the WOT.

Al Qaeda’s war is not against term limits or partial birth abortion. They will not be dissuaded by nuanced attempts at parting babies. They want to kill us, and they are willing to sacrifice themselves not only when necessary or as a last resort.

“According to a widely circulated treatise, using weapons of mass destruction to kill up to 10 million Americans would be perfectly permissible” – Islam, Terror and the second nuclear age. NYT Magazine 10-29-06.

They don’t hate us in our terms.

Nov 11, 2006 - 10:35 pm 19. patrick neid:

roger,

after splitting hairs i think we agree on much. the hollywood hypocrisy element is the easiest. but where i will stick to my position is on the democrat platform of the last 25 years. in fact purists would submit that the “new deal” was the opening chapter. i would also add that i understand the allure that the elites of easy money find with being progressive. it feels good. everything for everybody. however they retain their protected status–they keep the dacha! they got their’s. the problem is i also know that it ultimately kills the golden goose. for proof look to europe. with my position i’m left with starving people who refuse to learn how to fish. unfettered capitalism is always the bad guy. who wants to support that in the public square least of whom would be actors.

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the
blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.”

Winston Churchill

now if you want to argue that down deep that the democrat position is really political but only appears socialist, ok. but as an outsider looking in listening to their goals and aspirations they certainly act-no pun intended-like card carrying socialists–excuse me, i forgot, progressives. a brief review of hillary’s original health plan is at best scary—jail time for doctors who refused to join the state run medical program while continuing to accept private cash payments. yikes. she may be the next president. fasten your seatbelts.

in closing i never suggested you were blind, i simply suggested you have your vision checked as regards socialism on the left–specifically hillary, pelosi and crew.

Nov 11, 2006 - 10:50 pm 20. Terrye:

I think we are making the mistake of assuming that everyone who wants national health insurance is a socialist. They are not, they look at Canada and wonder why we can’t have something like that. It is no more revolutionary than that. Laissez faire is every bit as dead as the Soviet Union, we should remember that.

I do not know what will happen and I lost all interest in what Noonan had to say back when she started her “Republicans deserve to lose” campaign. Like so many people on the mouthy Right she became her own worse enemy [and theirs].

But the truth is the Democrats won a very slim majority, now all we can do is wait and see what they do with it. I for one am out of the prediction department for the time being. Crystal ball ain’t workin.

Nov 12, 2006 - 3:12 am 21. Rhod:

I’m about Roger’s age, maybe a year or two older, and I share his opinions on the impurities of the socialist ideas of the Democrats…and others like them. I know these people because I lived among them, and I passed through their (latest) defining era as an adult.

The sappy sentimentality and sanctimony in collectivist thinking is a long way from a fully-formed socialism. Henry Wallace, for instance, was a socialist; he had the goods, he knew what he wanted,he discounted the effects his system would have on individual liberty.

He had organized ideas about how to arrange the economic systems to meet his ends, and for better or worse, he saw a place for himself in it. The difference is, when William Koenstler expressed his wish to work on a Cuban collective farm, he was just being a asshole; Wallace would have meant it.

A clown like, say, Tom Hayden, who would claim to be a socialist, is a tyrant wanting to adjust the imbalances of his fantasy world by punishing those who have more than their neighbors. Hayden’s an accountant with a claw hammer. He doesn’t want to distribute justice, he wants to inflict it. You can say the same for almost any petty bureaucrat or NYC toff with a vacation home in the Northeast, especially in CT, MA and VT.

And maybe Hayden is the best example of the remaining “socialists” in this country. They’re more than a little pissed at a particular class of American in the first place, and since the gibbet is out of style, other methods of punishment are necessary. And this self-righteousness will always find a way to conceal itself under the camoflauge of humanitarianism and concern for others. But they’re always concerned about someone other than you, and that’s not socialism.

Nov 12, 2006 - 4:07 am 22. Always right:

Call it socialism or not, I see we are heading down similar road in the “cradle to grave” european style government. People elect those politicians promising more and subjugate their own personal responsibilities.

It is not because intellectually people don’t understand the penalties, it is the thinking: Future generation will have to pay for it, but (hopefully) it will not be in my lifetime.

Terry,
If it starts out with universal healthcare, where does it stop? It won’t be “just this one case”, there are plenty of other classes of people “also deserving” (whatever, fill in your own blank).

Nov 12, 2006 - 4:27 am 23. ricpic:

wennejunk,

I won’t argue you point by point. I’ll just say that you underestimate the power and fury of an aroused America. I’m talking pickup truck, redneck, flyover America. The people who carry this country and are generally ignored and/or crapped on till the going gets tough. They won’t allow a tepid non-response, no matter who sits in power.

AFTER THE NUKE

When the worst comes
(And it will)
Maybe
Maybe then
Mohammed will get
What he so richly deserves.

If not
If We do not respond
With a fury ten times Mohammed’s
IF LIFE DOES NOT BEAT DEATH TO DEATH
Then
Then we are truly
Doomed.

Nov 12, 2006 - 7:24 am 24. Sandy P:

Terrye, they want Canada’s system because they don’t know it doesn’t work.

Nov 12, 2006 - 8:35 am 25. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

“You break it, you keep it” was a clueless comment, implying that it (Iraq) wasn’t already broken. It seems likely that those fond of this phrase value apparent stability and order above all else, regardless of what is happening beneath the surface.

Nov 12, 2006 - 3:45 pm 26. Terry Gain:

At current birth rates it will take Muslims no longer than 75 years to prevail.

They are unlikely to lose this war unless they nuke an American city.

That’s not to say they won’t.

Nov 12, 2006 - 9:12 pm 27. Rhod:

Breaking and Keeping was Powell’s remark, I think, as was “Wash, Rinse, Repeat”, the second being the destruction of your enemies with no intention of building a new “state”. If the Rinse doesn’t work, do it again. Continued warfare. In any case, Powell and his kind don’t know that peace is achieved, never just maintained.

Nov 13, 2006 - 4:48 am 28. sbw:

The length of the war will be so long as it takes us to understand what’s worth standing up for and then to learn to explain to others why.

Nov 13, 2006 - 11:53 am 29. Lawrence Auster:

To clarify my previous comment, we need to drop the fantasy war against “Muslim radicals” and instead a serious strategy of Western self-defense against Islam as such.

This strategy consists of:

1. Speaking the truth about Islam, both to ourselves and to the Muslims. This truth is that Islam is incompatible with the liberty and existence of Western society, and that we must defend ourselves from it by removing it from our midst.

2. Stopping virtually all Muslim immigration into the West while adopting a range of measures that will result in the steady return, both forcible and voluntary, of Muslims to their ancestral lands. Most of it will be voluntary, as they will not want to live in the West when the West ceases to welcome them and starts restricting them in all kinds of ways.

3. Tightly restricting travel of Muslims in the West.

4. Stating that we have no design to destroy Islam as such. If they want to go on practicing Islam in their own countries, we will not interfere. But we must take away from them any ability or opportunity to export Islam to non-Islamic countries.

5. Maintaining forward bases in or near the Mideast from which to launch rapid raids to disrupt or destroy Muslim regimes that threaten us. This does not involve taking over any Muslim countries or reforming them, just destroying and killing any threatening regime.

6. Development of energy resources. If we need in the short term to maintain control over Persian Gulf oil, so be it.

7. The aim is not endless confrontation, but the end of confrontaton by removing Islam from our midest and isolating it. As long as we are “involved” with Muslims, the conflict will be endless. The only way to peace is by the separation of Islam from the West, and from other non-Islamic societies as well. That separation can only happen as the result of concerted Western and non-Islamic action.

The strategy I’ve laid out here is a real strategy of Western self-preservation. An American political leadership that defended the West in the way I’ve described, instead of engaging in Bush-type futile policing and democratizing activities in Muslim countries, would win electoral majorities over the anti-American left.

Nov 13, 2006 - 7:13 pm 30. Lawrence Auster:

Mr. Simon, you kindly posted my second comment, but not the first comment of which the second was a follow-up. The first comment makes a distinct point that needs to be heard. All the pro-war people think we’re in a war. But we’re not in a war. The pro-war people are in despair that the American people did not have the fiber to “stay the course.” But even Mark Steyn, who said to the president the other week that we’re not on the offense in Iraq, then turns around and blames the American voters for not having the fiber to stay the course. But the whole point is that Bush has not given the country a course with which to stay. I have been showing for three years at my website and at FrontPage (on the one or two ocasions when David Horowitz permitted me to criticize the Bush policy) that the U.S. in Iraq is not doing any of the things that the Bush supporters imagine we’re doing.

Remember Rush Limbaugh’s explanation of what he meant when he had said that he had been carrying water for Republicans? He meant that there were Republicans who somehow failed to state their true conservative positions, so Rush did it for them. Well, by the same token, the entire pro-war Republican base has been carrying the water for Bush. They think that Bush is waging a war, but that he’s failing to _articulate_ it, so his supporters say, “Bush is leading us in in a war, there is no substitute for victory,” blah blah, when in reality Bush has many times indicated that his goal is not to defeat the insurgency but to hand the baton to the Iraqis and get out. Saying that Bush is leading us in a war, when he is not, is water carrying. It is making believe that Bush stands for something and is doing something that in reality he does not stand for and is not doing. That was the point of my first comment and I hope you will post it.

Nov 13, 2006 - 10:14 pm 31. Bostonian:

Lawrence:”When in reality Bush has many times indicated that his goal is not to defeat the insurgency but to hand the baton to the Iraqis and get out. Saying that Bush is leading us in a war, when he is not, is water carrying.”

OK, for the hundred thousandth time, the war that Bush is leading is a war of ideas, not a war against Iraq.

So yes, of course, he wants to hand the baton to the Iraqis and get out. That has been crystal clear to those of us paying attention.

I don’t think it’s really that hard to understand.

Nov 15, 2006 - 7:08 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: