Ustwo

Well apparently the Democrats didn't want to impeach old Cheney, but the Republicans have voted to help them find their way and open up the impeachment of Dick Cheney. Obviously the democrats don't want to talk about this sort of thing and the republicans want to rub their noses in it, but thats not what I wanted to talk about.....

This is what I wanted to talk about.....


This is a very interesting quote, and not beacause of the laughable political sound byte they tried to create. The funny part is the phrase 'honorably redeploy' because I've heard it before.

I used to be something of a WWII Pacific war buff, blame my Grandfather who served there as a marine. One thing the Japanese were known for was never retreating, no matter what they faced. Now I don't know if this is myth or true, but I was taught they had no word for retreat. Reguardless, no Japanese commander would ever order his men to retreat, it just wasn't in their thinking.

Well in all wars, not all battles are winable in the eyes of their commanding officer, and you will have to forgive me as I forget the officer or the battle, its been at least 20 years since I read this, but one officer came up with an interesting solution to the problem of ordering a retreat. In the face of a superior American force, he issued the following order, "Turn around and advance!"

Well its been, as I said 20 years since I've read this, and at least several years since I would have thought of this at all, but as soon as I saw 'honorably redeploy' my first thought was to that Japanese commander saying 'Turn around and advance!'

Honorably redeploy.....

If Iraq is 'unwinnable' or at least not worth winning as its apparent the democrats think, why don't they want to use the words 'retreat?' 'We have been beaten we are pulling out.' 'There is no way we can win this conflict, goodluck Iraq!'

Instead we get 'honorably redeploy' where we are leaving, yet retaining our honor. Interesting.....

There are 24 entries at dictionary.com for 'honor'

I wonder which one applies here?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

filtherton

I've seen polls that suggest that there are a lot of american people wouldn't mind seeing cheney's head on the proverbial pike. It's not like he's much of a charmer, and the fact that he publicly contradicts the things his president says, like continuing to insist on an iraq-9/11 connection, isn't exactly an endearing quality.

That little bit about honorably redeploying is funny, but only because it's a reminder of how hard the democrats in charge of the party are still trying to out-republican the republicans- and how bad they are at it.

Willravel

Pelosi's backing down is a big reason as to why I made the Dem thread. She was talking a big game, took office, and became a typical Dem rep: scared.

Kucinich may be 2' 4" and grant wishes if you catch him, but he has massive balls. He's not afraid of anyone or anything, which is one reason I respect him.

ratbastid

Flip-floppers!

Seriously, though, there was an awful lot of unrelated snarkiness in that post, Ustwo. I think that's the first time I've ever seen a threadjack IN the OP.

Honorably Redeploy. Why not just admit defeat? Would it really collapse our economy and send people screaming in the streets to admit that America failed at something? America has failed at LOTS of things in its history. We can only move forward as a nation when we tell the truth to ourselves about our past.

joshbaumgartner

It is interesting that you choose the Japanese in WWII as an example of steadfast refusal to accept retreat as an option, even to the point of making just the thought of it treasonous in nature. You are of course absolutely correct: The Japanese were so ingrained with the idea that retreat or compromise was unthinkable, dishonorable, and of course utterly un-Japanese, that they suffered greatly at the hands of a more adaptable, flexible, and capable enemy. But even then it took not only the utter destruction of their navy, air forces, and most of their industry, but beign pulverized by nuclear weapons before they were willing to admit a change of course might be warranted.

I sure hope it doesn't take America that much destruction before people realize there is nothing dishonorable or traitorous about seeking to make the best move for the country, regardless of which direction it may be.

Elphaba

Given that most Iraqi's would like the US occupation to end because they believe our presence is drawing outside interference, redeploying need not be viewed as a defeat. Redeploying "over the horizon" as Senator Murtha recommended long ago is a viable solution in my opinion, and would be more "honorable" than simply packing up and going home. But "honor" and "defeat" are being politicized in this debate and as such, have no real meaning.

I don't see Pelosi as frightened at all. She simply cannot be perceived as maneuvering herself closer to the presidency and the distraction that would cause.

::waves at Josh::

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

fastom

Here is a video...

joshbaumgartner

::waves back::

Indeed, those terms are I think so polluted in the political context that they hardly have real meaning within such a discussion. Inevitably, they are wielded for their conotations, not their relevance.

host

...why do your comments, in reaction to Pelosi's reminder that she has long been on record as an advocate for redeploying troops to existing US bases in more rural areas of Iraq, as well as out of the country, sound so much like those of William Rusher, on the CNP/Salem Comm. website, townhall.com, 13 months ago?

By the way...you don't suppose that Pelosi spokesman <a href="http://www.twincities.com/politics/ci_7385887?nclick_check=1">Nadeam Elshami</a> is an Arab or a Persian?

Ustwo, you seem to at least be standing on the front porch of the dwelling that houses "the answer" that explains (excuses ?) a failed presidency, or you may already know what resides inside. Your questions are apparantly answered by author, journalist, and 2000 Maryland, US senate GOP primary candidate, Kenneth R. Timmerman:
I'm sure that you can learn more at the forum linked in the preceding "article" (It leads to three pages of agreeable reactions) :
http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php...wthread/24422/

...and, guess what? Mr. Timmerman, in his new book, tells us who all "the traitors" are in the US government, besides the 250, or so, house democrats. The book's revelation is that Bush is an excellent president who is a victim of his own good nature, in failing to purge the government and the administration of all those who sabotaged his administraion, and the country, through treasonous acts.
Timmerman was nominated recently for the Nobel prize, along with John Bolton:
"Curt", over at http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/11/...n-on-traitors/ was kind enough to provide a link to Timmerman's Nov. 7th "interview", with Michael Medved on CNP/Salem Radio, edited by Curt to remove the commerical interruptions. I listened to it on the car radio, and Medved gushed about it being the best book he had ever read.
Startling revelations... Karen Kiatkowski is accused by Timmerman as being a LaRouche "mole", and Timmerman made some advance accusations:

Here is one of the comments in reaction to the Timmerman interview, at floppingaces, from the preceding link:
So, Ustwo, I understand why you were asking what "honorably redeploying", actually means. If the tiny sliver of discredited, neocon influence (author Timmerman is a mouthpiece for <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2055232&postcount=1">JINSA</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Security_Policy">CSP</a> as well as co-founder of) :
..is still shaping your political views, you're probably in agreement with likud party in Israel, and the Council for National Policy (CNP) in the US, and what the CNP uses 1200 Salem Talk Radio and it's Salem Comm., website, townhall.com to convey:

<i>The people who disagree with Mr. Bush's foreign and military policy goals are democrats of the "extreme left", "looney liberals", "traitors", or all three.</i>

I have a question. Why do you suppose John Hindraker of powerlineblog, Michael Medved, and "Curt", so enthusiastically embrace Timmerman's book and the accusations contained in it? Do they really believe that Bush's only failing was being too soft on the "traitors on the inside"? Do you?