.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}


news & opinion with no titillating non-news from the major non-news channels.


I am: progressive, not a wild-eyed Progressive; liberal, but shun liberals and Liberals; conservative, but some Conservatives worry me; absolutely NOT a libertarian. I am: an idealist, but no utopian; a pragmatist, but no Machiavellian. I am a realist who dreams.


I welcome all opinions.

Sunday, June 25, 2006

Reblogged: Disingenuous Dimwits
   Feingold: the Archetypical Braying Donkey

Harsh words, perhaps. But I have a very rational and logic explanation for portraying Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) as the ultimate personification of the Democrats’ traditional mascot.

Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki has offered amnesty to insurgents who have not committed terrorist acts, including those who have killed American and Iraqi forces in combat. On Meet the Press, Feingold, perhaps the one Democratic Senator who has honestly and consistently opposed the Iraq War, has expressed outrage over giving

amnesty for people who have killed or are trying to kill American troops, ... [and] we, as Americans, cannot tolerate the idea that people who have murdered American soldiers should get off scot-free.

Senator. A moment of your time, if you please. An armed conflict is a conflict between armed combatants. When the war is over, arms are laid down and combatants go home. Like it or not, the insurgency has been an armed conflict between the Iraqi insurgents on one side and Iraqi and coalition troops, especially American, on the other. Those who have committed acts of terrorism against non-combatants are explicitly exempt from al-Maliki’s peace offer.

The purpose of war is to prevail. Soldiers carry weapons, not for defense, but to kill the enemy. That is not murder, regardless of which side you are on. That is why when our own troops come home they will not be arrested for murder. If an insurgent has restricted his combat to enemy soldiers, if a peace is negotiated, then an amnesty is not even needed. They lay down their arms and go home and POWs are released. Combatants are not criminals, no matter how much you may hate them for killing our soldiers. That is in accordance with every notion of warfare.

If a significant number of insurgents accept the offer, it would be in complete alignment with the sacrifices our troops have already made in Iraq over the past three years and we would not be dishonoring their service. It would also be a resounding affirmation of President Bush’s strategy since Day One. We are not there to kill insurgents; we are there to help establish peace and democracy in Iraq, particularly as a bulwark against terrorism.

But the good Senator is in favor of one kind of amnesty,

I understand that there might have to be amnesty for certain individuals have—who have committed some kind of criminal acts.

You mean, crimes like murder? The beheading of civilians, of diplomats, perhaps?

Feingold is playing to both a 2006 and a 2008 audience. He cannot accept the Commander-in-Chief getting credit for ending a war, for prosecuting a war until the enemy gives up. He cannot accept the wind being taken out of his campaign sails.

Feingold’s politicking is what makes the horror of war, so horrible.


Post a Comment

<< Home