I have long thought that "we" have lost our will to actually FIGHT. Sure, we will toss million dollar laser guided bombs into empty C and C buildings at 3 am, maybe kill the janitor, but actually KILL the enemy in combat operations? Too brutal.
Of course casualties should be kept to a minimum, but combat breaks things and kills people. The leap from reducing "collateral" or non combatant casuaties to a loss of the will to inflict death on enemy combatants has been made.
The gyrations these Human "Rights" idiots will go to are astounding to me.
We have lost our collective will to fight AT ALL. I don't mean opposition to this particular cause, I mean there is a substantial segment of the population that doesn's want ANY blood spilled for any reason.
And that scares me.
I'm surprised they didn't pull the race card! Morons
I am actually surprised by the general public's patience for this war at all. I think Pres. Clinton's handy work during the 90's helped produce this kind of thing even being brought forward. Many people think cases like this are dumb, however, we haven't (as a country) been in situations like this recently and now we have to work through it. This war's success, the emergence of democracy in the Middle East (however imperfect, or "nuanced!") will beat back the people who argue that any death during war is a war crime, and who conveniently forget that they are humanitarians with no backbone (ie) talk the talk but not much more - or what was it, Peg, cajones?! I think that was it.
We have to keep pressing facts of this case (here, other places, in conversation) or cede the ground to the other side (Left or enemy, take your pick). I do not doubt, and sorry if I offend anyone, that some abuses take place, but I do not think it is systemactically encouraged, nor do I think the alternative to this war, or our efforts against terrorism, is anything near acceptable. And I think there are ample feelings like this in the public or Abu Graibe would have had even greater ripples then it has.
Adele, how true. HRW and all the other little lefty nanny useful idiots are a bunch of self-loathing cowards bent on weakening us to the point of destruction. Anyone who doubts this should listen to that cretin Ward Churchill or the latest moron to gain fame, Nancy Soderberg.
I don't think the vast majority of the country does have any patience for this. Even the mealymouthed Keifer Sutherland's character uses much-needed torture tactics (extremely mild from what I've read, although they'd sure work on me) on "24" to get our enemies to talk, even if in TV interviews he is overcome with ambivalence when justifying it. Plenty of reflexive libs that I work with think we are not being hard ENOUGH on enemy combatants. They are like Nancy Soderberg: they love America (apparently) but hate that W is getting the credit for our and others' successes. W, like Reagan, doesn't give a fig whether he's hated (and he knows he's beloved by many).
I often think the American left wants another attack because it would be bad for Bush. They don't know what hardasses America can be, and I hope I'm wrong but I can't help thinking we ain't seen nothin' yet. In the meantime, I despise the impossible position this has put our defenders in!
Silly rabbits. The CIA killed Hamadi - the SEALs got left holding the bag. The point is that the freakin' hearings are closed, and so the SEALs don't have the chance to exculpate themselves publicly. The story is not getting out because the hearings are closed. Y'all beat up on the left all you want, but they're not out to get you. They're out to get the commanders and civilian brass. You're so busy beating up on HRW, you're not seeing that the CIA and Sec Def office has sold the SEALs down the river for this. HRW doesn't care out nailing SEALs. They want to take down Rumsfeld. Think about it for a second, for crying out loud.
I'm sure it has A LOT to do with the fact the hearings are closed, but I know I was, and I think Peg was, reflecting on a subversivness that intentionally tries to weaken us - a la the international criminal court, belief in the UN because it checks the US - a position much like Europe's - and other stuff you all know and which we've gone over.
I heard a professor once remark, during a lecture he was giving against the Patriot Act, that "the US is not always going to be on top." I won't take the time to explain the entire context but it was definately said with some satisfaction (and anticipation, I might add). I wondered to myself "and how soon would you get us there?" Since I worked at the place hosting him, all I could do was ask him if he had an alternative and which people in the audience were waiting for him to talk about (he never did). Boy, was he mad! 
I'm open to the idea that someone wants Rumsfeld out and so they sacrifice SEALs (or others). But the shit sticks to begin with because there's a vein of support out there for doing what they're doing and they try to manipulate that to their advantage.
Ahab,
You are correct about the overall situation. This post was not meant to comment on that situation, and in fact I am not at liberty to make that case although I agree (or not!).
It was the Lt. Pantano case that made me think something was really stinky up in the Pentagon's direction regarding the railroading of troops for just doing their job. That and Nat'l Guard troops getting their homes repossessed in violation of the SSRA, and the Bush Administration does WHAT about it? **crickets**
I think we've been played by a faux-hawk bait and switch with the current administration. That or he's just choking on pretzels again...
Commenting by HaloScan
