And btw, I’m sure Bush is fully aware of Vegetius. He was a history major in college, and I’m sure the Vegetius quote is well known to officer graduates.
Oops. On re-reading my earlier message, I see I said that Senator Inhofe had a Medal of Honor. I meant Democratic senator Inouye.
I don’t really care what they “suggest” he’s saying, they link to his plan as their source. In his plan, he clearly states that he’s calling their bluff. Perhaps the NDO are mind-reading conservative Democrats. You did know that they are the conservative wing of the Democratic party, didn’t you? Should I start citing the Log Cabin Republicans when I want to know what the right is thinking? They don’t speak for me, nor for most Democrats I know, and they sure as hell don’t speak for Kerry, who says he’s going to call Iran’s bluff.
Until he does something, can we stick to what he says he’s going to do, not what someone thinks he’s going to do?
It says prepare for war, not start a war for no reason.
Get a load of the kid behind Kerry:
Watch out Senator! Dracula-boy incoming at 6 o’clock!!! :eek:
They didn’t disown him Blalron, they *supported *him. It wasn’t until he announced his decision not to run that they turned and adopted a stance 180 degrees from the one they supposedly believed in prior to the announcement.
But elucidator that course of action would cause the US to actually live up to its reponsibilities towards non-nuclear states under the nonproliferation treaty! Have you not learned from 9/11 that treaties are BAD THINGS, and that we should repudiate ALL such obligations? I know you think our commander in chief is a little slow, but even HE gets this. Witness last week’s US pullout from the newest global attempt to limit the spread of nuclear arms:
I feel safer already.
I’m sure you can provide me with a specific example of a Democrat that was fully in favor of the war earlier in 1968 but then completely reversed his position. Did Eugene McCarthy flip flop?
The Democratic Party is not a completely monolithic entity where every single member marches in lockstep. There was major strife amongst the dissenting anti-war democrats, and that infighting had much to do with LBJ dropping out of the race.
Hmmm…“Seek peace”…“Fight and win war”
Nope. Not the same.
But maybe I don’t understand these Latin and history scholars such as our current President. Is he aware that “Mexican” (his word for the language) is based on Latin also?
Come now, {b]Sam**.
Zoe, are you intentionally trying to be obtuse?
“…The mission is to fight and win war, and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.”
Let me parse it for you.
“Therefore prevent war from happening in the first place.” = “seeking peace”
“The mission is to fight and win war” = “Prepare yourself for war”.
Bush switched the clauses around (hence my use of the word “Paraphrase”), but the sentiment is identical.
Come on, Sam. Launching a war is not the same as preparing for a war.
The Latin tag roughly equates to: Be prepared, and therefore you can avoid war (re-arranging clauses for better cause-effect relationship).
The Bush quote roughly equates to: Fight and win a war quickly, this will lead to more peace.
The statements are ridiculously dissimilar. One advocates a way to avoid war, the other says that a quick war is the best way to peace.
Well, Hubert Humphrey leaps most readily to mind. I remember him strongly supporting Johnson’s pursuit of the war, and then three weeks later, after Johnson had dropped out and Nixon had announced his secret war plan, Humphrey, in high dudgeon, loudly and strongly began to proclaim the Vietnam war as a huge mistake, we never should have been there in the first place, etc., etc. And as I said, this was three weeks after I’d heard him supporting that very same war. And while I admittedly didn’t make notes as to which ones were doing it, it seemed to me at the time that most, if not all, of the prominent Democrat politicians were jumping on the same bandwagon, saying more or less “we don’t need Nixon’s plan, which will continue the war who knows how long, we just need to get out now!”
Lambchops: Bush didn’t make that speech to defend the Iraq war. He made it before the election. The meaning of what he was saying is pretty clear to anyone not intent in parsing evil intentions in every word Bush says.
Let’s get it straight. Bush was asked what the mission of the military was, and what the role of the Commander-in-Chief was. Bush’s response:
“[it is the] Commander-in-Chief who clearly sets the mission, and the mission is to fight and win war, and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.”
it’s typical tortured Bush English, but he was clearly paraphrasing Vegetius. I fail to see how you can draw any other conclusion. He was trying to say that the CinC’s job is to make the military really good at fighting war, so that they won’t have to. Peace through strength, which is also a re-statement of Vegetius.
Crude or refined?
Sam, I’m no fan of Bush, but I’m not trying to frame the guy up. I believe that either:
- his quote wasn’t intended to refer to the Vegetius quote; or
- he’s dramatically missed the meaning.
Vegetius is talking about preparation for war being a good thing in itself, as it leads to peace. Bush appears to be talking about preparing the military for war, taking them to fight a quick sharp war, and this leading to peace. Your interpretation relies on a reconstruction of what you believe Bush was trying to say, then a couple of changes in meaning - I think this is a stretch.
YMMV, and I don’t think it’s hugely important to the topic. I merely disagreed with your reading of the two quotes.
How do you possibly get,
"taking them to fight a quick sharp war, and this leading to peace. "
from
“and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.”
???
Seriously, I don’t get it. It seems absolutely crystal clear to me.
I think you’re wasting your time if you’re reading anything into polls right now. Roughly 5/6 of the voters have made up their mind, so this time out, random polling mostly ensures you’ll get a different mix of them at different times. In just about every poll in the last few months, no matter who’s lead or by how much, it’s been within the margin of error. Not to mention that the polls are contradicting each other. So to say Kerry sabotaged himself at the convention is ridiculous.
An overall national poll with the population split like this is pretty meaningless anyway, since the distribution of the electorate into particular states is what will probably determine the election. Unless there’s some kind of pronounced trend or someone takes a significant lead and holds it, there’s not even any point in reading them now.
“the mission is to fight and win war, and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place”
The Bush quote talks about fighting and winning war. I believe the only way to make any sense of the quote, without changing the meaning to what it ought to be, is to read the later section as discussing preventing future wars, not the proximate ones. Short war now, long peace later, that kind of thing.
I’ve changed my mind a little though, and am now kind of on your side. It’s possible that Bush’s speechwriter WAS going for the Vegetius quote, or something like that, and that Bush screwed it up, producing what we have before us. However, I believe the version of the quote (war now, peace later) is the only meaning one can get out of it in its current form.
Anyway, I think we should end this hijack now…
Whatever Kerry’s plan is, it’s automatically better than Bush’s piece of shit plan, if you can call it a plan. More like fucking flailing in the dark.
And Sam, weren’t you one of the people crying like a little bitch about all the Bush-bashing threads? So what do you do? The exact same thing, except bashing Kerry. :rolleyes:
Oh, you mean I’m not allowed to be critical at all? I think this is close to the first thread I’ve opened on Kerry. Can’t remember any others offhand. I even put it in the pit, expecting exactly the kind of response I got.
If I start posting five or six a day, feel free to give me a good dressing down.