Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Rush and "we can't win"
This morning Rush is running a masterful and vicious piece of false reasoning, in defense of the R brand. I call it vicious because at other times and in other circumstances, Rush has shown that he understands the falseness of the reasoning.
He is distinguishing between two sides: 1. The Bush approach, which is "valorous" and "visionary", and will inevitably lead to victory, vs 2. The "we can't win" approach.
He says that our military can certainly defeat the Arabs in Iraq.
This is true, but Rush leaves out the most important factor.
Our military, when allowed to run at full speed, could in fact defeat anyone.
But our military, hobbled by Bush's "hearts and minds" rules of engagement, will not defeat anyone. And our current goal in Iraq is unachievable.
And the Bush "vision", as well as the Bush way of fighting delicately, has already been tried by Wilson. It didn't work.
At one time (rather briefly) Rush actually led the argument toward fighting harder.
Now, for tactical reasons I don't understand, or just out of plain old R-brand team loyalty, he is playing a clever game.
Sorry, Rush, it doesn't work. ¶ 10:29 AM
He is distinguishing between two sides: 1. The Bush approach, which is "valorous" and "visionary", and will inevitably lead to victory, vs 2. The "we can't win" approach.
He says that our military can certainly defeat the Arabs in Iraq.
This is true, but Rush leaves out the most important factor.
Our military, when allowed to run at full speed, could in fact defeat anyone.
But our military, hobbled by Bush's "hearts and minds" rules of engagement, will not defeat anyone. And our current goal in Iraq is unachievable.
And the Bush "vision", as well as the Bush way of fighting delicately, has already been tried by Wilson. It didn't work.
At one time (rather briefly) Rush actually led the argument toward fighting harder.
Now, for tactical reasons I don't understand, or just out of plain old R-brand team loyalty, he is playing a clever game.
Sorry, Rush, it doesn't work. ¶ 10:29 AM
