Daniel, re Lindsey Graham’s suggestion that everyone should just “shut up” about the Libyan Non-War, you’ll recall that the last time the Senator attracted any attention in these parts he was also telling everyone to shut up — this time about Islam. Maybe it would be easier if he just issued the rest of us with an approved list of conversational topics.
Alternatively, here’s a suggestion for Senator Graham: Why don’t you shut up? Not permanently, but just long enough to:
a) reflect whether this apparently reflexive response of yours is really appropriate for a citizen-legislator in a self-governing republic;
b) articulate a rationale for the Libyan mission that would be so persuasive it would save you the trouble of making a fool of yourself by insisting that those who have the temerity to disagree with you are beyond the bounds of public discourse;
and c) spend ten minutes in a darkened room with a nice cup of herbal tea and ponder, re your assertion that those who won’t “shut up” are “empowering Qaddafi,” whether that line has any credibility coming from a member of the Congressional jet set who only two years ago was “empowering Qaddafi” by taking tea in the pock-marked transvestite’s tent as part of some greasy little Senatorial outreach mission.
It was striking that, at Monday’s debate, even the more hawkish candidates were unable to articulate a rationale for the present Afghan mission. It’s hard to win a war when you don’t have war aims, and, as I wrote in National Review a couple of weeks back, America has gotten into the habit of unwon wars — in part because a buffoon like Graham and his dictatorial air miles are what passes for geostrategic “expertise” in Washington.
Mark, stop beating around the bush and tell us how you really feel about Senator Graham.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMark,
You are being FAR, FAR too kind.
If I were to write MY suggestions for "Lindsey"... (*PAUSE*)... let's just say they wouldn't make it past the comment screener.
(*WINK*)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMark remembers Graham telling people to "shut up" over an issue involving Islam. I remember him telling "the bigots" to "shut up" over amnesty and illegal immigration. And now this.
He's a real charmer that Senator Grahamnesty.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe do have a goal in Libya. It's to remove Qaddafi from power. Unfortunately, we don't have the cojones to actually achieve our goal. The most obvious and expeditious method would be to bomb his home to kingdom come. But that would violate some imaginary, unenforceable international law or rule or whatever, as well as the scruples of certain people on the left.
So instead, we have to keep collaterally killing hundreds of civilians because we don't want to be accused of targeting one bad guy. (Although we didn't exhibit these scruples with respect to Bin Laden.)
So here's my revision to the Steyn rule: We shouldn't fight wars without a clear goal -- that we are willing to achieve as efficiently as possible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Unfortunately, we don't have the cojones to actually achieve our goal"
Its not a matter of testosterone. It is a matter of morality and economics as to why we ought not be there.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, see bjk comment above-re:lacking cojones (AKA fairness/political correctness)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama didn't commit military resources to Libya because he believes it's in our country's best interests to get rid of Qaddafi. He did so because NATO told him to, which is the same reason he'll continue to do so over the objection of Congress and the American people.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would see your reasoning and raise you this: he very likely joined NATO, only after the Arab League requested a no-fly-zone, as he would like to be "forced" to use the precedent against Israel in the near future. (to protect Palestinian "civilians" of course..)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseamen
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSpot on Mr Steyn, politicians never cease to amaze me with their delusions of grandeur, they really do believe that their election equals a confirmation of their elevated egotistical sense of entitlement to rule, they seem collectively unable to grasp the fact that it's their service that's required and not their orders.
They are supposed to serve the people, not decide how the people are to be served, maybe it's about time all politicians were told the truth of what it means to be an elected official.
Then again some people are seemingly agreeable to being told to shut up, after all they keep voting for these people.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt seems to me what Lindsey Graham is suggesting is this: we send our young men abroad to fight to protect our constitutional rights, and then diminish our constitutional rights to protect our young men fighting abroad.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrom what I've read of Steyn's opinions, he's not so much against these wars as the half-measures taken to fight them. That's a distinction without a difference, so in essence Steyn is just another gung-ho pro-intervention conservative like Graham, he just wants bigger bombs and fewer rules of engagement. No thanks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn your rush to denigrate neo-cons, you've entirely missed the point. Steyn condemns Graham for telling others to shut up in defense of a position Graham himself cannot articulate or support. It was right there in the title of the post to make it easier for you. Steyn mentions another issue on which Graham's politics require others shut up about it, a further clue as to the theme of this post.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNow, now, Henry ....
people must have their hobby-horses. ;)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI must take issue with your comment.
Yes, if we are to engage in a military action, we should act as the world's last remaining Superpower and prevail quickly with overwhelming force.
However, our job is not to act as the world's policeman. There are always unfortunate situations where thuggish dictators or repressive regimes are abusing their populations. There always have been. It is not our responsibility to try to right all wrongs in the world.
We have our own problems to deal with.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSenator graham's influence among his fellow legislators must be pretty weak for him to resort to a broadcast when he could simply have called the whips and his party officials without trying to embarrass his own party members. So, Mark, you can simply ignore him for it appears everyone else does.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI had the misfortune of watching Lindsey Graham's performance yesterday.
On the one hand, he claimed we were right to be engaged in Afghanistan against "radical Islam." How does this square with his support for the Libyan fiasco, when the rebels (so far as they can be identified) are apparently the ones motivated by jihadist ideology?
"Buffoon" is the mot juste for Lindsey Graham.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGraham is an embarrassment. I wish he and McCain would call it a day.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLindsey 2012!*
*Lohan. It would be less embarrassing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Buffoon" doesn't quite convey the danger represented by a sitting Senator holding such views.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse