| |
Main
Date: 07 Nov 2006 11:29:58
From: larry
Subject: Even Michael Kinsley warns against Democrat victory
|
From a column in Today Washington Post:
"Competence, of course, brings us back to Iraq. Apparently and
unfortunately, President Bush is right that the Democrats have no
"plan for victory." (Neither does he, of course. Nor, for that matter,
do I. But I don't claim to have one. And I didn't start it.) For
national security in general, the Democrats' plan is so
according-to-type that you cringe with embarrassment: It's mostly
about new cash benefits for veterans. Regarding Iraq specifically, the
Democrats' plan has two parts. First, they want Iraqis to take on
"primary responsibility for securing and governing their country."
Then they want "responsible redeployment" (great euphemism) of
American forces.
Older readers may recognize this formula. It's Vietnamization -- the
Nixon-Kissinger plan for extracting us from a previous mistake. But
Vietnamization was not a plan for victory. It was a plan for what was
called "peace with honor" and is now known as "defeat."
Maybe "A New Direction for America" is just a campaign document --
although it seems to have had no effect at all on the campaign. My
fear is that the House Democrats might try to use it as a basis for
governing.
kinsleym@washpost.com
Larry
|
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 23:00:44
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Even Michael Kinsley warns against Democrat victory
|
"larry" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote in message
news:4jn1l21uh41fe6ou1uun4010egao3a2t8o@4ax.com...
> From a column in Today Washington Post:
>
> "Competence, of course, brings us back to Iraq. Apparently and
> unfortunately, President Bush is right that the Democrats have no
> "plan for victory." (Neither does he, of course. Nor, for that matter,
> do I. But I don't claim to have one. And I didn't start it.) For
> national security in general, the Democrats' plan is so
> according-to-type that you cringe with embarrassment: It's mostly
> about new cash benefits for veterans. Regarding Iraq specifically, the
> Democrats' plan has two parts. First, they want Iraqis to take on
> "primary responsibility for securing and governing their country."
> Then they want "responsible redeployment" (great euphemism) of
> American forces.
>
> Older readers may recognize this formula. It's Vietnamization -- the
> Nixon-Kissinger plan for extracting us from a previous mistake. But
> Vietnamization was not a plan for victory. It was a plan for what was
> called "peace with honor" and is now known as "defeat."
>
> Maybe "A New Direction for America" is just a campaign document --
> although it seems to have had no effect at all on the campaign. My
> fear is that the House Democrats might try to use it as a basis for
> governing.
>
> kinsleym@washpost.com
>
> Larry
Nice call on the election larry --- your record is perfect -- 0 for
everything.---
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 01:57:58
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Even Michael Kinsley warns against Democrat victory
|
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 11:29:58 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:
>Older readers may recognize this formula. It's Vietnamization -- the
>Nixon-Kissinger plan for extracting us from a previous mistake. But
>Vietnamization was not a plan for victory. It was a plan for what was
>called "peace with honor" and is now known as "defeat."
It may be measured as a defeat - if war is a game. If war is about
reality, the question is - who would be better off if we had stayed in
Vietnam until the North was defeated? Vietnam? The U.S.? The
taxpayers?
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 12:51:17
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Even Michael Kinsley warns against Democrat victory
|
John B. wrote:
> larry wrote:
> > From a column in Today Washington Post:
> >
> > "Competence, of course, brings us back to Iraq. Apparently and
> > unfortunately, President Bush is right that the Democrats have no
> > "plan for victory." (Neither does he, of course. Nor, for that matter,
> > do I. But I don't claim to have one. And I didn't start it.) For
> > national security in general, the Democrats' plan is so
> > according-to-type that you cringe with embarrassment: It's mostly
> > about new cash benefits for veterans. Regarding Iraq specifically, the
> > Democrats' plan has two parts. First, they want Iraqis to take on
> > "primary responsibility for securing and governing their country."
> > Then they want "responsible redeployment" (great euphemism) of
> > American forces.
> >
> > Older readers may recognize this formula. It's Vietnamization -- the
> > Nixon-Kissinger plan for extracting us from a previous mistake. But
> > Vietnamization was not a plan for victory. It was a plan for what was
> > called "peace with honor" and is now known as "defeat."
> >
> > Maybe "A New Direction for America" is just a campaign document --
> > although it seems to have had no effect at all on the campaign. My
> > fear is that the House Democrats might try to use it as a basis for
> > governing.
> >
> > kinsleym@washpost.com
> >
> > Larry
>
>
> If you read the entire op-ed, not just the parts Larry wants you to
> read, you'll see that Kinsley is not "against a Democratic victory."
> Also note that George Will wrote a few weeks ago that the Republicans
> have done such a miserable job of governing that if the Democrats can't
> pick up enough House seats today to gain a majority, "they should go
> into another line of work."
One can only hope!
Tex
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 12:25:49
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Even Michael Kinsley warns against Democrat victory
|
larry wrote:
> From a column in Today Washington Post:
>
> "Competence, of course, brings us back to Iraq. Apparently and
> unfortunately, President Bush is right that the Democrats have no
> "plan for victory." (Neither does he, of course. Nor, for that matter,
> do I. But I don't claim to have one. And I didn't start it.) For
> national security in general, the Democrats' plan is so
> according-to-type that you cringe with embarrassment: It's mostly
> about new cash benefits for veterans. Regarding Iraq specifically, the
> Democrats' plan has two parts. First, they want Iraqis to take on
> "primary responsibility for securing and governing their country."
> Then they want "responsible redeployment" (great euphemism) of
> American forces.
>
> Older readers may recognize this formula. It's Vietnamization -- the
> Nixon-Kissinger plan for extracting us from a previous mistake. But
> Vietnamization was not a plan for victory. It was a plan for what was
> called "peace with honor" and is now known as "defeat."
>
> Maybe "A New Direction for America" is just a campaign document --
> although it seems to have had no effect at all on the campaign. My
> fear is that the House Democrats might try to use it as a basis for
> governing.
>
> kinsleym@washpost.com
>
> Larry
If you read the entire op-ed, not just the parts Larry wants you to
read, you'll see that Kinsley is not "against a Democratic victory."
Also note that George Will wrote a few weeks ago that the Republicans
have done such a miserable job of governing that if the Democrats can't
pick up enough House seats today to gain a majority, "they should go
into another line of work."
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 14:15:44
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Even Michael Kinsley warns against Democrat victory
|
In article <4jn1l21uh41fe6ou1uun4010egao3a2t8o@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:
> From a column in Today Washington Post:
>
> "Competence, of course, brings us back to Iraq. Apparently and
> unfortunately, President Bush is right that the Democrats have no
> "plan for victory." (Neither does he, of course. Nor, for that matter,
> do I. But I don't claim to have one. And I didn't start it.) For
> national security in general, the Democrats' plan is so
> according-to-type that you cringe with embarrassment: It's mostly
> about new cash benefits for veterans. Regarding Iraq specifically, the
> Democrats' plan has two parts. First, they want Iraqis to take on
> "primary responsibility for securing and governing their country."
> Then they want "responsible redeployment" (great euphemism) of
> American forces.
>
> Older readers may recognize this formula. It's Vietnamization -- the
> Nixon-Kissinger plan for extracting us from a previous mistake. But
> Vietnamization was not a plan for victory. It was a plan for what was
> called "peace with honor" and is now known as "defeat."
>
> Maybe "A New Direction for America" is just a campaign document --
> although it seems to have had no effect at all on the campaign. My
> fear is that the House Democrats might try to use it as a basis for
> governing.
>
> kinsleym@washpost.com
>
> Larry
and of course, us leaving Vietnam left that country in horrible shape,
never able to succeed economically or politically, or even be peaceful,
huh?
|
|
