- comment
James Atticus Bowden - body
- Gilmore spent all that he got - after the Car Tax was paid. I wish he hadn't, but that isn't a cardinal sin.
Dunno about his characterization of a position as the Catholic position - news to me if it is true.
But, he is right about our Army being an Army of Occupation. It is a technical military term, not a perjorative. The big problems in Iraq came from Rumsfeld's failure to plan for an Occupation - as the Army was prepared to do and advocated.
I've written about this since 03. After you conquer a country, you occupy it - for some period of time.
- comment Spank That Donkey
- body
- The General Assembly is going to spend all that they get period, and more. We have a current budget deficit because they spent a 6% PROJECTED revenue growth, and our economy could only deliver 3%.
This argument that Gov. Gilmore spending like a drunken Democratic Governor is specious!
Gov. Gilmore is the only Governor who has relieved the citizens of this Commonwealth of Taxes, by sending that money back to the localities to replace a tax burden formally levied there!
He rolled back college tuition 20% and froze it for four years! He lowered a barrier to working class citizens to prosper in this nation, something that the Liberals only pay lip service too!
JAB you are dead on, RWL is just trying to dream up something as an issue, because his preferred candidate is totally naked on any experience matters concerning the military, national defense or foreign policy.... muchless being a veteran.
Unless going to Richmond for GA sessions counts as foreign policy experience outside of NOVA!
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Jim -- I actually contacted Ramesh over at the National Review because I wanted to make 100% certain that this wasn't just a hit piece or rumor.
Turns out the account is true, and confirmed by several others in the room.
I was shocked, to say the least. I thought that era had come and gone...
Furthermore, if you read the WaPo op-ed, he didn't say American troops were simply occupying (as in a military sense). The direct quote was:
"I urge that we stop thinking it is our responsibility to solve the Iraq conflict. It is not. We behave as an occupier, defining what the future of Iraq will be. We suggest their troop strength. We dictate to their parliament. Some politicians even suggest we partition their country. Worst of all, we are starting to suggest that we will define "benchmarks," which gives us an excuse for withdrawal if Iraqis cannot perform the impossible."
That is not a military observation... that is a direct critique. I'm not sure there's another way to reconcile the text.
My thoughts, anyhow.
- comment Spank That Donkey
- body
- Shuan you link to the WaPo article that quotes Gov. Gilmore:
"Like you, I reject the Democrats' policy of an immediate withdrawal or a withdrawal on a timetable. Unfortunately, they are playing to the polls to obtain political advantage at home, to the detriment of the United States. But I also believe we cannot continue our present policy. We must find a third way."
Exactly how do you square that with echoing the MoveOn.org time table for retreat? Have they changed the word reject in the English?
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- The difference between "withdrawal on a timetable" and a "deliberate drawdown of troops" is what precisely, Chris?
...and how does it contrast with the Warner's position on the war, which is decidedly Clintonian in perspective?
It also doesn't clarify Gilmore's characterization of our men and women in uniform as "occupiers" in Iraq... which if a Democrat had done, you and I *both* would hang that commie from a yardarm.
- comment Jeff
- body
- This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
- comment James Atticus Bowden
- body
- Hang me from the yardarm. We are occupying Iraq.
The op ed I've had on my mind since 2003 is the speech that Bush 'shoulda' given in Feb 03 outlining how long the Occupation would likely be, depends on our war aims, - of 7 to 30 years at least.
- comment manassas max
- body
- This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Manassas Max,
Your first (and last) warning... and I do ban IPs.
If you're going to discuss things here, have the integrity to do it under your own name please.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Jeff,
Same goes for you.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Jim/Chris --
Here's the problem... twofold in my mind.
(1) This is not an occupation. Either one believes we were there in Iraq to liberate the country... or not. If the removal of Saddam Hussein was done for the purposes of liberating Iraq and removing a security threat, there is in no way shape or form an American presence in Iraq "occupying" the nation as if we were the puppetmasters. It runs contrary to the entire purpose, effort, and mission (and frankly to the way Americans have waged war in the past). If it is an occupation, then the libs are right -- we need to leave IMMEDIATELY.
(2) The military definition of an occupation is not the definition Gilmore employed in this op-ed. Gilmore's langauage (or better still, the language of the individual who wrote this piece for Gilmore's bid for president) insists we are "behav(ing) as an occupier, defining what the future of Iraq will be."
Now I don't entirely blame Gilmore for all these statements in the op-ed. BUt an explanation of what he means would be awful nice, because if he doesn't explain them, Mark Warner will... and in the most unflattering terms.
My argument? Our troops are not part of some occupation force there to run the Iraqi government, nor should they be described as such. In addition, it is irresponsible to call for a "deliberate drawdown" in the middle of the surge.
The last time politicians ran a war, 50,000 Americans came home in bodybags from the jungles of Vietnam. Why are some so terribly insistent upon reproducing this formula in Iraq?
- comment James Atticus Bowden
- body
- Rumsfeld ran the war as poorly as MacNamara. Read (http://americancivilization.net/
articles/2005/Rumsfeld_is_McNamara.
pdf) and other pieces where I say so on my archive at www.americancivilization.net. He probably cost us 2 years and at least 1500 American lives by screwing up the Occupation.
The U.S. Army occupied Mexico, the South, Europe - 10 full years ibn Germany until 1955 when we changed status, 10 years in Japan. Marines Occupied Nicaragua, Haiti, etc during the early 20th Century.
The Army knows how to run an Occupation. Ask Dave Petraus.
12 Comments:
Dunno about his characterization of a position as the Catholic position - news to me if it is true.
But, he is right about our Army being an Army of Occupation. It is a technical military term, not a perjorative. The big problems in Iraq came from Rumsfeld's failure to plan for an Occupation - as the Army was prepared to do and advocated.
I've written about this since 03. After you conquer a country, you occupy it - for some period of time.
This argument that Gov. Gilmore spending like a drunken Democratic Governor is specious!
Gov. Gilmore is the only Governor who has relieved the citizens of this Commonwealth of Taxes, by sending that money back to the localities to replace a tax burden formally levied there!
He rolled back college tuition 20% and froze it for four years! He lowered a barrier to working class citizens to prosper in this nation, something that the Liberals only pay lip service too!
JAB you are dead on, RWL is just trying to dream up something as an issue, because his preferred candidate is totally naked on any experience matters concerning the military, national defense or foreign policy.... muchless being a veteran.
Unless going to Richmond for GA sessions counts as foreign policy experience outside of NOVA!
Turns out the account is true, and confirmed by several others in the room.
I was shocked, to say the least. I thought that era had come and gone...
Furthermore, if you read the WaPo op-ed, he didn't say American troops were simply occupying (as in a military sense). The direct quote was:
"I urge that we stop thinking it is our responsibility to solve the Iraq conflict. It is not. We behave as an occupier, defining what the future of Iraq will be. We suggest their troop strength. We dictate to their parliament. Some politicians even suggest we partition their country. Worst of all, we are starting to suggest that we will define "benchmarks," which gives us an excuse for withdrawal if Iraqis cannot perform the impossible."
That is not a military observation... that is a direct critique. I'm not sure there's another way to reconcile the text.
My thoughts, anyhow.
"Like you, I reject the Democrats' policy of an immediate withdrawal or a withdrawal on a timetable. Unfortunately, they are playing to the polls to obtain political advantage at home, to the detriment of the United States. But I also believe we cannot continue our present policy. We must find a third way."
Exactly how do you square that with echoing the MoveOn.org time table for retreat? Have they changed the word reject in the English?
...and how does it contrast with the Warner's position on the war, which is decidedly Clintonian in perspective?
It also doesn't clarify Gilmore's characterization of our men and women in uniform as "occupiers" in Iraq... which if a Democrat had done, you and I *both* would hang that commie from a yardarm.
The op ed I've had on my mind since 2003 is the speech that Bush 'shoulda' given in Feb 03 outlining how long the Occupation would likely be, depends on our war aims, - of 7 to 30 years at least.
Your first (and last) warning... and I do ban IPs.
If you're going to discuss things here, have the integrity to do it under your own name please.
Same goes for you.
Here's the problem... twofold in my mind.
(1) This is not an occupation. Either one believes we were there in Iraq to liberate the country... or not. If the removal of Saddam Hussein was done for the purposes of liberating Iraq and removing a security threat, there is in no way shape or form an American presence in Iraq "occupying" the nation as if we were the puppetmasters. It runs contrary to the entire purpose, effort, and mission (and frankly to the way Americans have waged war in the past). If it is an occupation, then the libs are right -- we need to leave IMMEDIATELY.
(2) The military definition of an occupation is not the definition Gilmore employed in this op-ed. Gilmore's langauage (or better still, the language of the individual who wrote this piece for Gilmore's bid for president) insists we are "behav(ing) as an occupier, defining what the future of Iraq will be."
Now I don't entirely blame Gilmore for all these statements in the op-ed. BUt an explanation of what he means would be awful nice, because if he doesn't explain them, Mark Warner will... and in the most unflattering terms.
My argument? Our troops are not part of some occupation force there to run the Iraqi government, nor should they be described as such. In addition, it is irresponsible to call for a "deliberate drawdown" in the middle of the surge.
The last time politicians ran a war, 50,000 Americans came home in bodybags from the jungles of Vietnam. Why are some so terribly insistent upon reproducing this formula in Iraq?
articles/2005/Rumsfeld_is_McNamara.
pdf) and other pieces where I say so on my archive at www.americancivilization.net. He probably cost us 2 years and at least 1500 American lives by screwing up the Occupation.
The U.S. Army occupied Mexico, the South, Europe - 10 full years ibn Germany until 1955 when we changed status, 10 years in Japan. Marines Occupied Nicaragua, Haiti, etc during the early 20th Century.
The Army knows how to run an Occupation. Ask Dave Petraus.
Post a Comment
Home