The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Friday, April 20, 2007

The Bottom Line on Winning and Losing

Malott has a great take on Harry "Shadow Boxer" Reids's claim that we have lost in Iraq: the equivalent of "Mission Accomplished" for radical Islam. Neal Boortz like others calls Reid a "traitor" and lays out his case very well. I don't think Tokyo Rose could be doing a better job than Reid and his fellow lefties. Michelle Malkin has posts with letters from our valiant servicemen responding to Reid here and here.

The bottom line on this winning and losing business is how would the status of the war be considered if there was no disagreement on whether we should be there in the first place? Without rehashing the justification for the war, IF all still felt it was justified would anybody be claiming that we are losing or that we lost in Iraq? Without the stigma, would Harry Reid be saying or even thinking we have lost? Absolutely not. And that is the point, the bottom line. Reid is not giving a genuine, realistic assessment of our prospects of victory in Iraq. He is playing politics of the worst kind. In fact, it was shameless how he appears to have been waiting in the wings and rubbing his hands waiting for a day to come that enough Iraqis would be killed by bombs. The bombs killing over 180 people happened and Reid jumps out like a Jack in the Box to undercut our troops.

While things have not and are not rosey in Iraq, if all were behind the cause nearly all would view the situation winnable instead of through a defeatist prism. The concept of "lost" is only based on the lack of will (personally and politically) to continue.

Labels: , , ,

17 Comments:

  • At 4:13 PM, Blogger PAW said…

    But in reality, things do fail and even rightous causes can be lost. You leave no room for that in your philosophy. Your thinking, the thinking that you respect and that you repeat here, is deeply flawed.

     
  • At 8:24 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    paw,

    Of course a righteous cause can be lost. The problem comes in the definition of "lose".

    My point is that Reid does not separate opinion of the war's justification FROM his opinion of the war's prospects. I do not recall if he voted for authorization. Either way, he disagrees now with starting the war and that was at the root of his claim that we have lost.

    I think that point was well argued and true. Where is the flaw?

     
  • At 11:16 PM, Blogger PAW said…

    Are you so sure about Reid's lack of separation? Again: not once but twice in this post you are arguing that if one felt that the war is justified, they cannot or would not claim that it is being lost. In reality, both things could be true (I support the war and we're losing it), unless you subscribe to the Tinkerbell theory of reality (believe in fairies or they die, or something like that, right? I'm not really up on my Peter Pan but that seems right. If I were looking for a nickname for you, I think I just found it...)

    This blog still quotes people who have been wrong for 4 years now: we're turning a corner, victory is in sight, and on and on. In all honesty, how many repeated obvious failures does it take to become a discredited conservative commentator? How long are you going to hang in there? And you claim Reid lacks the ability to separate opinion from reality. Absolutely incredible.

    Help me see this some other way where you're not completely off the deep end and the end-all/be-all poster child for hypocrisy.

     
  • At 12:54 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    paw,

    You are the most reasonable liberal I know. yet what is it that liberals do not understand what I say. Whenever my words are explained back to me it so often does not resemble what is going on in my head when I write them.

    Others I would think are distorting my words, but I know better of you. It is an odd phenomenon. 15 years ago I worked with a young college kid who was liberal. I would argue my points and his counter was so often as if he were arguing with someone else - so different was his perception of what I was saying compared to what I actually say. It took hours just to agree on what each was actually saying and rarely was there ever progress.

    Sure victory could be around the corner given the right conditions. It is my hope, but I do not consider it certain. The important thing is that we realize how disastrous failure would be and this is why victory is so important.

     
  • At 12:56 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    I am curious what you think of the recent guest here and at Malott's blog whom I have banned? In theory you and he are on the same side. I wonder what you think of him?

     
  • At 7:33 PM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    //It took hours just to agree on what each was actually saying and rarely was there ever progress.//

    It's like this, a lot of time is spent analyzing motives, intentions. And as well we should. But the time we take away from getting to the meat of the differences and actually create a dialogue about anything, we debate things like what the definition of "is" is.

    Not trying to be flippant, but that's the feeling I get when I try to debate a staunch liberal. And believe me when I tell you, I know many. They are good friends of mine and all that I know are wonderful people. (Our interests lie in many things, other than politics.) But I cannot get into a political conversation without hearing the latest "left wing" talking points that I can usually trace back to DU or MoveOn.

    I have to say that it's always refreshing when I can meet and debate with someone that can reason well, even if I don't agree with everything they do.

     
  • At 9:13 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    LA,

    One thing I have noticed is that liberals don't like labels. I don't mind taking labels and favor using them to quickly define where things are at and get to the main points. My old friend just would not take a label if you put a gun to his head. It was one of the main causes of the length of discussions. Instead of using a label I had to fill in with sentences of qualified identifiers which if not said quite to his liking usually cost another 15 minutes.

     
  • At 1:56 AM, Blogger SkyePuppy said…

    Funny,

    I got into an email debate with the lefty friend of a friend (now an acquaintance of mine). We went back and forth about the war, global warming, and other issues. Then he asked me a question, and my answer ended the conversation:

    Who is/was the better president: Clinton or GW Bush? I said Bush.

    To this lefty friend, I live on a different planet. He didn't reply, and I probably won't hear from for another 6 months, when he'll want to know if I'm finally ready to admit we're in Iraq for the oil and it's about time we pull out of there.

    He's a bit nicer than your old friend, but just as stupified that we could be so dense as to not understand what's so clear to them. But at least this guy knows I have a heart, so he cuts me some slack by trying again once or twice a year. It makes for a fun couple of days.

     
  • At 4:39 AM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    AICS

    //Instead of using a label I had to fill in with sentences of qualified identifiers which if not said quite to his liking usually cost another 15 minutes.//

    In other words, he liked red herrings?

     
  • At 9:11 PM, Blogger Mojo_Risin said…

    I think this is what Paw was referring to--when you said, "IF all still felt [the war] was justified would anybody be claiming that we are losing or that we lost in Iraq? ... Absolutely not." This statement seems to be an argument in Paw's favor. It is entirely possible for someone to have been for the war (say, for instance, some of the U.S. generals) and to now feel like we're losing or have lost it (say, for example, the U.S. generals again...)

    Later, you say, "If all were behind the cause nearly all would view the situation winnable instead of through a defeatist prism." There are many who have looked at the situation in Iraq and realized that we've assed up relations in the Middle East so much with this war that the only road that leads to a lasting peace in the region is the road away from Baghdad. As it stands, our presence there is only acting as a catalyst for Western hatred, and not as a beacon of liberty.

    Also, I won't speak for any politician--who knows WHAT they really believe--but aren't you forgetting all the "traitors" on the Republican side who also want a pullout? It's not as black and white as you point out.

     
  • At 9:12 PM, Blogger Mojo_Risin said…

    Also, a comment about labels:
    The problem with labels, as I see it, is that if you label someone, then you start arguing with the label, and not the person. A label carries with it a whole host of assumptions that may or may not be germane to the discussion. Debate teams sometimes use this tactic to try to oversimplify an opponent's view to the point of irrelevance. That's the problem with labels.

     
  • At 10:03 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    LA,

    :)

     
  • At 10:12 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Mojo,

    I see how my words can give the impression you and Paw have alluded to. When I am rushed I soemtimes don't have laser clarity. However, I was not saying that if someone agreed with a war that it cannot be lost. I am saying specifically that with Reid that being against staying in Iraq and the claim that we are losing are linked. If the war were not unpopular (I did not want to open this can, but say we found stockpiles of WMD) even if the war went exactly the same Reid would not be claiming that we lost.

    I have one more point on this but it is worthy of a post. I hope to have it up by tomorrow.

    As for labels, you make a fair point, but I also make a fair point that liberals use their avoidance of labels to muddy the discussion and keep from a clear concise debate. (at least from my experience)

     
  • At 9:48 AM, Blogger Mojo_Risin said…

    There's one link I can see between pre-Iraq feeling and a sense of losing the war.

    Unfortunately, the U.S. strategy to get us into the war was a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. We made up lies to get in (Iraq had WMDs and a deep connection to 9/11). Once those lies were discovered, as was bound to happen, any leeway the world (more specifically, the Middle East) was giving us HAD to be taken away. So we lost it even before we got there.

     
  • At 10:50 AM, Blogger PAW said…

    Sorry to abandon my post - I was boarding this weekend with a friend from Peru, shutting down Breckenridge for the season....

    Tinkerbell wrote: You are the most reasonable liberal I know...

    Who, me? I'm only aiming for "neither easily dismissible nor clownish," and a couple other humble goals.

    Tinkerbell wrote: I am curious what you think of the recent guest here and at Malott's blog whom I have banned?

    I commented on my initial impressions over at the 'Pupster's (ma chérie can display such grace sometimes...). That was when he still for the most part engaged in some semblance of a debate. Of course I haven't been pleased with his turn towards wholesale belligerence - who would? I've seen that behavior erupt from both sides, though, and ultimately, forced to choose, I like my crazies more than I like your crazies (of course). Not much more to say about that.

    Ok. I'm done with the Tinkerbell.

     
  • At 10:51 AM, Blogger PAW said…

    LA, What is DU? I assume you don't mean depleted uranium. Most days I really could use some points - in all honesty, I usually feel like I'm out here on my own, working up themes that sometimes could be very fine points for my team.

    You guys really rock with your points. I mean that. It's something to respect in a lot of ways, given that much of politics is about message. For a con guy to criticize the pervasiveness of liberal talking points takes a lot of balls.

     
  • At 11:11 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    paw,

    pixie dust blowing your way. Aww, you ducked and it hit Jacob.

    DU is democraticunderground.com and LA forgot talkingpointsmemo.com

    Hey where do I find these conservative talking points? It might make my job easier.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home