It’s Always Dangerous to Set a Precedent
July 17th, 2007 by xformed
That title is something driven home by studies at the Naval War College. Between history and politics under the personal microscope, that was a powerful message, for, you never know when you’ll have to live by it (or, as you will see, answer up to your opposing behaviors regarding the topic you yourself brought up).
In skydiving, we used to know “the ‘one eye’ (camera) don’t lie.” In the age of the Internet, the old stuff you publish has a bad habit of being uncovered in a few quick keystrokes:
Note to James Webb (D-VA): Pay attention to what you said in 1995.
James Webb and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) had their dust-up last Sunday Morning. James Webb admonished his fellow senator to not put political words in the mouths of the troops (Oh, then he quoted some poll that supported us getting out saying the troops are like the population is their sentiments about the war – I most strongly find that out of place).
Anyhow, Mark Levin was doing some reading of a 1995 essay on his show last night:
About a year ago I made a presentation to a group of high-powered account executives at one of the world’s largest investment banks. My speech discussed Vietnam’s current demographics, its economic future, and the desirability of doing business there. During the question-and-answer period I was challenged by a gentlemen of about my age who had never been to Vietnam and who in his youth had obviously been opposed to the war. Why, he asked rather snidely, would I want to do business with the communists when I had tried to kill them as a Marine? Where was my consistency of thought? And indeed why did we even fight a war if they were so keen to do business with us?
I answered by pointing out that I have always believed in the strength of the culture and people of Vietnam, that the conditions now emerging in that country are approaching, however slowly, what I and others wanted to see twenty-five years ago; and that it was the communist government’s actions, not American intransigence, which had held back the country during the last two decades.
Before the next question was asked, I was interrupted by another million-dollar-a-year man, who it turned out was a Yale graduate and an Army veteran of the Vietnam War. He had become so angry from old memories that his face was on fire.
[…]
Oh, and it gets better. Here’s the entire editorial, written by a Vietnam combat vet, and he’s pretty angry at the “elites.”
Yep, you saw, if you took that jump, who wrote it.
I am left to wonder what the promised political pay off is on the table for such an opposing presentation last Sunday…
This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 17th, 2007 at 8:32 am and is filed under Geo-Political, History, Leadership, Military, Military History, Political. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
July 17th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Astonishing. That was a very powerful and insightful commentary. And yet …
Political payoff? You think? It is almost impossible to imagine the two viewpoints coexisting in the same head. It goes beyond hypocrisy into Twilight Zone brainwashing fantasies.
See if you can get him to comment specifically on how he manages to have such excellent 20-20 hindsight into Vietnam but sees Iraq through such a clouded and distorted lens. And how it is he came to join up with those who want America to lose.
I wonder, is there a medication problem behind this?
July 17th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Brian;
I did some more work on this topic at another site where I write.
While I was typing, I included the thought that maybe he’s been offered SecDef by Hillary….so long as he keeps the proscribed talking points on track.