Will We Win or Not Win? The Enemy Wants to Know!
It has long been known that if something is repeated enough, and said loudly enough, that it will APPEAR to reflect the view of the majority, whether it is or not. For many months, the Postmodernists, made up mostly (but not exclusively) of Democrats, have been hammering the "talking point" of the lie that the President lied to get us into the war in Iraq. They attempted to sound as if they were speaking for a majority of Americans with repititions and volume.
Last night, the Republicans forced the Postmodernists' hand; they forced them to put their money where their mouths are by publicly showing the citizens of the United States where they stood on the issue of withdrawing our military from Iraq.
Along with Americans, the enemy watched the outcome of the vote on the resolution with baited breath; the result would be a benchmark on the progress made by one side or the other.
The result was a resounding rejection of the Postmodernists' attempt to do further harm to our country--at least for now, in this way. But a Postmodernist's work is never done; they will, as the Terminator said, "be back," with another issue, another method. Always, however, they will use the same strategy, that of trying to sound as if they represent majority views.
The problem, however, remains. By refusing to conduct the war in a manner that leaves no doubt that the goal is to win militarily, we leave ourselves open to the interpretation that we are willing to cut and run. Aristotle's "Law of Identity" states that "A is A"--something is either "A" or it is "not A;" it is not, as is so often misinterpreted, "A or B." In other words, we either win or we don't win; there is no middle ground. It isn't a matter of we "win or lose." I repeat: We win or we don't win.
If we withdraw before accomplishing the goal, we don't win.
At the beginning of the conflict, Our Leader promised that our military would be allowed to do what it does best--win. Such has, once again, not been the case, and we are now experiencing the consequences.
We can still pull the fat out of the fire, but will we? I stress the word "will." Given the mixed premises of Our Leader, there is serious room for doubt. At the very best, if he made the decision to get on with achieving victory, the indecisiveness, the lack of recognition of the nature of the enemy, has made this thing far more costly than was necessary. Bush 2 and Bush 1 share a potentially fatal flaw, and that is his failure to appreciate the importance of reality, never better illustrated than when Bush 1 said that he didn't understand "...the 'vision' thing." He just couldn't analyze an idea or problem, pick out the essential elements, then pull them all together to formulate, in a single sentence or two, the nature of the goal or solution.
We have only a short time until the next election, and as the Postmodernists continue the loud and continuous drumbeat of their efforts to "deconstruct" our country, to recreate it in a way that it is a 180 from what the Founders gave us, it becomes critical that we elect someone who understands the problem, and who has the vision to pursue a reality-based solution.
If we fail to do so... Well.
Last night, the Republicans forced the Postmodernists' hand; they forced them to put their money where their mouths are by publicly showing the citizens of the United States where they stood on the issue of withdrawing our military from Iraq.
Along with Americans, the enemy watched the outcome of the vote on the resolution with baited breath; the result would be a benchmark on the progress made by one side or the other.
The result was a resounding rejection of the Postmodernists' attempt to do further harm to our country--at least for now, in this way. But a Postmodernist's work is never done; they will, as the Terminator said, "be back," with another issue, another method. Always, however, they will use the same strategy, that of trying to sound as if they represent majority views.
The problem, however, remains. By refusing to conduct the war in a manner that leaves no doubt that the goal is to win militarily, we leave ourselves open to the interpretation that we are willing to cut and run. Aristotle's "Law of Identity" states that "A is A"--something is either "A" or it is "not A;" it is not, as is so often misinterpreted, "A or B." In other words, we either win or we don't win; there is no middle ground. It isn't a matter of we "win or lose." I repeat: We win or we don't win.
If we withdraw before accomplishing the goal, we don't win.
At the beginning of the conflict, Our Leader promised that our military would be allowed to do what it does best--win. Such has, once again, not been the case, and we are now experiencing the consequences.
We can still pull the fat out of the fire, but will we? I stress the word "will." Given the mixed premises of Our Leader, there is serious room for doubt. At the very best, if he made the decision to get on with achieving victory, the indecisiveness, the lack of recognition of the nature of the enemy, has made this thing far more costly than was necessary. Bush 2 and Bush 1 share a potentially fatal flaw, and that is his failure to appreciate the importance of reality, never better illustrated than when Bush 1 said that he didn't understand "...the 'vision' thing." He just couldn't analyze an idea or problem, pick out the essential elements, then pull them all together to formulate, in a single sentence or two, the nature of the goal or solution.
We have only a short time until the next election, and as the Postmodernists continue the loud and continuous drumbeat of their efforts to "deconstruct" our country, to recreate it in a way that it is a 180 from what the Founders gave us, it becomes critical that we elect someone who understands the problem, and who has the vision to pursue a reality-based solution.
If we fail to do so... Well.
posted by Cubed © @ 11/19/2005 07:02:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home