Wednesday, December 21, 2005


Noscitur a Sociis

The translation of the title of this post is: It is known by its companions. This is a legal maxim that helps courts interpret statutes, et al. If a word in a contract or, more often, in a statute is ambiguous, its meaning is determined by the words it is associated with in context.

However, you don't have to limit the maxim to law. Do we not judge people by the company they keep? We tend to avoid our friends who have gained new, horrible friends (and we say it's because we don't like the friends, but it's because we think less of our friend as well).

And we certainly apply it in politics. This brings us, at last, to the point of this post. A lot of people on the right are warning the Democrats that if they keep up their attacks on the President's conduct of the Global War against militant Islamicists, they are going to be branded with the label 'soft on defense,' or worse. I don't think the leadership is listening. And the anti-victory statements of the leadership--Dean, Pelosi, Kerry, Reid, and Murtha (I guess) rubs off on the rank and file.

Let's review:

Howard Dean talking about Iraq earlier this month.
"The idea that we are going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong."

"I will be supporting the Murtha resolution," House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi said of his plan calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq at the earliest practicable date... "

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) on the successful filibuster by Democrats of renewal of critical parts of the USA PATRIOT Act:
"Think about what happened 20 minutes ago in the United States Senate. We killed the Patriot Act." (Applause). See the video at the Political Teen.

Representative John Murtha (D-PA) on his plan to cut and run in Iraq:
My plan calls:
To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.

To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

And recently the Democrats have filibustered renewal of the effective parts of the USA PATRIOT Act and an appropriations bill, the bulk of which is for defense, that is, for our troops fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. (They'll have to hold a bake sale for more .223 rounds, I guess).

President Bush was vulnerable last election, but the Democrats ran Kerry and it all turned out fine. The Republicans have made many misteps these past few years (out of control spending and lax border enforcement being the worst for me) but the Democrats inability to actually support America in this war (other than good guy Joe Lieberman) makes the continued Republican control of the House and Senate all but assured. But they can't say they weren't warned.

Here are some of the warnings:

David White at the AIE.

Vice President Cheney in this Reuters story.

Rush Limbaugh on his radio show, listened to by 18,000,000, on average.

Jonah Goldberg and Linda Chavez at Townhall.

"the Global War against militant Islamicists"

Wow, that sounds like a big war. You think after you guys win that one you might devote a little attention to this fellow called Osama Ben Laden . With all of your incompetence, torture, cronyism, leaking, and warrantless wiretaps, You seem to have forgotten about him.
It is a big war. Wish the Democrats would take it seriously. I'll cop to incompetence and cronyism, because those are part of politics on both sides, but what torture, and leaking? No one has told me any Republican torture and leaking (oh of course you meant Plame, who just retired from the CIA and has had her picture published world wide for at least the third time--yea, a shame she's so damaged). I don't believe I have forgotten about Osama Bin Laden. Nor, I believe, has our government, but I also believe he's relatively neutralzed somewhere in Pakistan. I wrote a lot about warrantless wiretaps below. Keep scrolling; it's just possible you'll learn something. Maybe not.
Hey Roger,

You are right. The democrats are killing themselves on this one. I for one applaude the killing of the Patriot Act, but pulling out of the war pre-maturely is a mistake. I think we have to stay until the elected government of Iraq askes us to leave. I was against going in, but now that we are there, we have to pullout based on events on the ground and not grandstanding in Washington.
Yeah thats what I remember President Bush promising when he came to Ground Zero a few days after 9/11:

"We will relativly neutralize Osama Ben Laden".
"I'll cop to incompetence and cronyism, because those are part of politics on both sides"

Whenever somebody says " All poititians do it" or both parties are guilty of that", I know its a Republican talking.

I've hear Bill Clinton called a lot of things, but I've never heard anyone call him incompetent.

I actually think that Howard Dean is correct. We (the United States) is not going to win GW2 in the conventional sense, by which I mean the way Germany and Japan were defeted in WWII.

It is difficult to define victory in this context inasmuch as the administration has attempted to establish other reasons for going to war after the original one (WMDs) proved unfindable at best and non existent at worst.

The United States is no longer involved ina convential war. It seems as if we are in involved in a guerilla war w/ foreign Islamist radicals; diehard Baathists; and others who, if they are Iraqis and confine themselves to killing coalition forces as opposed to blowing up their fellow countymen, may be considered patriots.

This war will end when coalition forces w/draw from Iraq, whenever that may be. My own thinking has coalesced to the point where even though I think chaos will ultimately follow our w/drawal, I do not believe we should w/draw until one or both of 2 things occur: either Iraqi security forces a re able to stand on their own feet or the duly elected government asks us to leave.

I am interested in your position as to whether we should have dismantled the Iraqi army in the fashion that we did. Perhaps you expressed it b/f I became a regular reader. @ the same time, please define your concept of victory in GW2.
Tony, I'm in Florida with the folks and the computer kinda sucks so this will be short. I think you are charitable to Dean to say he meant no conventional victory. He said pretty much what you said, we can't beat radical islamicist in any sense. All will be chaos in the end. I think we can (and have) done good. I will admit that the early returns of the recent elections are freaking me out. We go to war to prevent Iraq becoming a repressive theorcracy through terror and it becomes one through the ballat box. Oh well, when you let people decide, sometimes they decide your opnion doesn't matter. But stop with the original reason was WMD. Look at the preambles of the resolution regarding regime change in Iraq--not even a majority talk about WMD. Look at Bush's speeches to get the resolution from Congress to use force in Iraq--again, a minority of the reasoning was WMD. It was only when Bush went to the UN and tried to get Europe involved that WMD became the premier focus (I think it was a mistake to do that but I also thought there were big stockpiles of WMD too--we should have kept the balance between WMD and Saddam is Hitler lite and we (big we) need to take him out). Anyway, you, I think have it backward. The original reason was Saddam equals Hitler and he has weapons and not the other way around.
Was disanding the army a mistake? Probably, but we de-nazified in Germany until we discovered too many necessary competent people had been nazi in name if not spirit and gave that up. so it's an understandable mistake. The bigger mistake was not following the Afghan model and getting a popularly elected government as soon as possible(however, maybe they knew about the clerics dying to get into office and really clamping down so that might have explained the delay and reluctance. Anyway, Merry Christmas. Talk to you when I get back.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?