Schultz said he even called for a “no” vote on war, telling his audience that while it’s okay for him to oppose war in Syria, it’s not okay for conservatives to oppose war in Syria, because he believes his motives are pure.Okay, leaving aside the fact that he's getting the neocon and Tea Party wings of the GOP all mixed up (the former opposes Obama because he doesn't want to bomb Syria enough and the latter doesn't believe in bombing anybody that isn't actively deploying landing craft against Myrtle Beach) his logic is just absolutely pretzeled.
“But my motives are a heck of a lot different than the motives of these conservatives,” he claimed.
He wants Obama to get his war because racism even though he opposes the war but he's not a racist just in favor of peace and Rethuglicans oppose the war because racism so they should vote for the war so The Most Remarkable President Of Our Lifetime gets his war to show they're not racist and George Bush fits in there somewhere, I'm sure.
Huh-wha? I am beginning to think I'm not mentally limber enough to do politics anymore, because that guy's powers of rationalization show that his mind is as flexible as a Romanian gymnast.
21 comments:
He merely has a bionic rationalization hamster.
@og and I can tell you where he most likely keeps that hamster
Matt: let me know where i should send your inteenets.
Some people are so open-minded that their brains fell out a long time ago....
JT
Tam, my observation of the Tea Party wing is they'd be ok with war if the target was The UK or Jerusalem too.
They're not quite as "only our own shores" as the Libertarian Party.
Target being defended I mean. Realized I wasn't totally clear there.
I think Syria would be a perfect place to deploy the 201ST Community Organizers regiment and the 105th Hollywood Combat brigade.
Gung-ho!
Gerry
Ed Shultz makes Sgt. Shultz from "Hogan's Heroes" look like an alumni from Hidleburg University.......Cheney's heart as a football?, anyone?
Very much enjoyed this post - thanks.
erich martell
Scott J --
Yup. An attack upon an ally with whom we have a mutual defense treaty is definately a red line. That's what the whole "mutual defense treaty" thingie is for, after all.
Me? I'm in both camps of the "Republican" party, and almost every Tea Party type I've discussed this with is in the same basic camp:
1. Al Qaida is NOT a treaty ally (yet, give TOTUS some time), so that doesn't apply.
2. No likelyhood that such a strike would ultimately result in a better situation for the US.
3. Even if the resistance was 100% angelic Good Guys, we damned sure aren't going to hit Syria hard enough to do anything but burnish our credentials as "Cursaders who bomb Muslims for no good reason" for the terror-monger propaganda artists.
If it ain't a big enough deal to take down the Assad regieme and pacify the damned country, it ain't a big enough deal to justify pissing away blood and treasure for a "pinprick" that isn;t going to work anyway.
Don't get me wrong -- I don't think force should EVER be taken off the table when dealing with nations like Syria. I don't even oppose "limited strikes" short of total war when applying such force. I just think that even if force is justified, there is no point in using it if it isn't going to succeed.
Now, if the doctrine was, "Use CBRN ordnance against your own people, and we will target the chain of command that ordered the strikes, right up to the NCA himself, and we will use whatever weapons, tactics, or levels of force we choose to, and will take as long as we need to to get it done," that would be an effective strategy.
But Obama has already - and very publically - removed that tool from the toolbox, even before Kerry started licking his own sole.
Scott J, not sure what TEA party folks you are hanging with, so I can't speak to your experience, but the ones I have met are big on the Taxed Enough Already mantra of the TEA party and dont like the idea of wasting good money launching expensive ordinance at a country that isn't a threat to the U.S. of A. Especially if the targets are going to not really affect said country. They certainly aren't going to push for an attack on the U.K or Israel.
BTW, Tam, I'm still laughing from the "they went and checked" comment from yesterday, discussed that last night while mowing the lawn with my LEO neighbor who got shot about 10 years ago, he concurs. Keep up the free ice cream, I know I don't deserve it but it makes me smile.
Sobriant, you need to read my follow-up.
I'm always interested in folks characterization of what the "TEA Party" is or is not. I'm not a member of any party but I find more congruence with what I think and believe at the TEA events I've been to than anywhere else in the spectrum.
I think Geodkyt has put it well, though I don't think somebody using CBRN weapons on their own people are necessarily causus belli for the USA, God knows we've stood by and let plenty of folks commit genocide with everything from nerve agents to garden tools. I and mine have been sent to too many places already to hang it out for reasons other than the national security interests of the USA for me to be in favor of further adventures. No matter how anyone brays that our national interests are somehow involved in the Syrian civil war; I have yet to see how that could possibly be so.
Oh and for the record I have been to TEA Party rallies and subscribed to some of their pages on the book of face.
I had been a strong supporter of the dead elephants for many years and gave them much more pass than I should have because I figured I had to be on a team that did win in order to advance ideas that mattered to me.
I saw the TEA Party as mess to excise team blue of the sorts of folks who thought The Patriot Act was a grand idea.
Sadly that ship seems to have lost its sails as evidenced by weepy still holding the Speaker's gavel for example.
I have considered myself politically homeless for quite some time in spite of what my voter registration says. I often tend to despair like "we aren't voting our way out of this mess" as expressed by CA at WRSA and others.
I too was (am) frequently despairing but our recent squeaker victory over Bloomies minions and money have given me reason to continue work with the ballot box for at least one more cycle.
If Morse had "won" I'd be doing nothing but rucking up the Incline with my M1 and going to the range...
Tam, take my word for it. Your problem understanding Ed Schultz ain't 'cause he is smarter than you.
Boat Guy, I'll continue to try the ballot box until many cartridge boxes have been emptied our way.
I observed to Vanderboegh of Sipsey Street a few years ago that our side is going to have to suffer many more Alamos before we can claim that moral high ground he so dearly craves.
I can't imagine the burden leftists must constantly carry. I mean, seeing into the souls of everybody and being able to tell what they really think and feel, combined with the compulsion to explain it to everyone and to identify their true motivation?
Wouldn't that take much of the fun out of life? Plus make you unpopular at parties?
Walter Russell Mead has a good analysis of the Syria situation as seen through his "spectrum" theory of US foreign policy.
A person by the name of Von Moltke wrote a book on the subject ...
Before you go to war, you should first decide what you want to accomplish with that war.
Then you must come up with a workable plan for accomplishing this.
If you can do neither, then you might want to consider not going to war.
Hell, Kristophr, I think that was in the syllabus of Sargon the Great's officer academy. . . {grin}
Post a Comment