Going after Gen. McCaffrey

The NY Times is again going after a retired General criticizing his commentary on the war. They do it not by arguing against the substance of his comments so much as about what they perceive as his motivations for those comments.

It is as if they were reading the commentary in this blog and instead of addressing the arguments head on decided to make the argument about me personally. This seems to be a regular tactic of the left in this country, but I don't recall the Times ever devoting seven internet pages to the motivation of war critics. I guess they are just assumed to be altruistic.

The fact is the critics of the war have their own agendas too, but you rarely see those agendas being used to discount the integrity of their arguments.

I don't recall any exploration of the motivation of those who were so desperate for defeat in Iraq that they would seize on any excuse.

What this type of reporting looks like is an attempt to silence anyone who offers arguments in support of victory. It reminds me of the left's attempts to shut down talk radio and Fox News. They just can't stand a competing point of view.

I think it has something to do with the weakness of the anti war argument. They have to find someway to hush reasoned argument. Because the left is so ignorant of warfare in general they are particularly unable to argue against people like Gen. McCaffrey on the merits.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t...
Read more

Is the F-35 obsolete?

Headline USA: Pentagon Fires Back after Musk Calls Its Most Expensive Project ‘Obsolete’ 'Yeah, as I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Musk is, currently, a private citizen, I'm not going to make any comments about what a private citizen may have to say about the F-35....'   ... ... Drones appear to be replacing jets for many operations.  The Russia-Ukraine war is an example of that.  Drones are often hard to detect and can be used for intelligence operations as well as for attacking enemy targets.  It would not surprise me to see drones engaging other drones in combat.  They also cost much less than manned fighters.  
Read more