Clint Quotes
Posted by Dirty Harry on Saturday, January 3rd, 2009
Via Esquire, we learn Clint is no navel gazer:
I don’t know if I can tell you exactly when the pussy generation started. Maybe when people started asking about the meaning of life. …
You wonder sometimes. What will we do if something really big happens? Look how fast — seven years — people have been able to forget 9/11. Maybe you remember if you lost a relative or a loved one. But the public can get pretty blasé about stuff like that. Nobody got blasé about Pearl Harbor.
You start right around 1967 and call the whole stinkin’ bunch: Generation P.
Thanks to Tattoo for the link.
Filed in General |
Growltigeron 03 Jan 2009 at 7:41 am 1It started with the “Better Red Than Dead” crowd. Many of the BRTD crowd actually embraced communism (sort of like the current crop of Hollywoodites enthralled with Cuba and Che).
This segued into “What If They Gave A War and Nobody Came?” crowd. Then, for nigh onto twenty years, the Islamic radicals “gave a war” and we didn’t show up. The “What If They Gave a War…” question was answered on 9-11. Though none of the liberales (sic) have verbalized it, I suspect they’d embrace “Better Muslim than Dead” philosophy.
EPorvaznikon 03 Jan 2009 at 7:44 am 2Hmm, I prefer to think of 1967ish as the Muscle Car Generation. Generation P crept in about 10-15 years later, not long after the hippies really started digging their claws into the US education system, spreading their touchy-feely crap and drugging kids into Bolivia if they got out of line.
“Talking out of turn, that’s a paddling … Looking out the window, that’s a paddling.”
JASPER
Floyd R. Turboon 03 Jan 2009 at 7:53 am 3That was OK, but I’d rather have had the questions with the quotes. The Analects of Clint don’t always come off well or coherently — which is Esquire’s bad, not his. “Pussy Generation” is a keeper though.
I disagree a bit with Eric. The so-called “Greatest” generation gave us coddled Baby Boomers — the law of unintended consequences no doubt, but the adoption of Dr. Spock parenting by the WW2 generation has been disastrous. It exploded when Boomers took over and spread their culture cancer.
Bobon 03 Jan 2009 at 8:05 am 4The progeny of the “Better Dead than Red” — the ‘enlightened’ folks who are all about civil liberties and so-called ‘human rights’ keep their cowardly mouths shut when it comes to the horrid abuse of women, children, free speech and other rights in the Muslim world.
In this crowd, principles ALWAYS takes a backseat to multi-culturalism. It’s the way people can convince themselves they stand for something, when they stand for NOTHING. I’ll never forget a conversation I had with a dear liberal friend of mine about women’s rights. Boy, we’re American Christians awful, but my friend would NOT condemn female genital mutilation because (paraphrasing) “who am I to tell THEM what to do in their culture.” I tried for 15 minutes to get her to say the forced removal of the clitoris in pre-pubescent girls was, ahem, a “bad” thing. She wouldn’t give in. And, she’s a really decent person.
Allows one to maintain one’s smug superiority at no cost whatsoever. Triumph of evil . . . good people stay silent. Easy, from the comfort of the Judeo-Christian USA.
Can’t shake the feeling that if push came to shove, people like this would, with a quick rationalization or twenty, don the burka, inform on their parents/neighbors to the Nazis/Communists, etc.
Floyd R. Turboon 03 Jan 2009 at 8:27 am 5Why does Esquire do that? The Analects of Clint is a dumb idea — not Clint’s fault. “Pussy Generation” is a keeper though.
I disagree with Eric a bit. The so-called “Greatest” generation started this mess with the molly-coddling of the baby Boomers. Law of unintended consequences and all that, but when the Boomers took over they spread their cancer.
Floyd R. Turboon 03 Jan 2009 at 8:27 am 6Hello?
mjkon 03 Jan 2009 at 8:45 am 7My generation (known as “x”) is definitely part of the Generation P. So many of them couldn’t stand up for anything. They have all the answers even if they don’t have all the facts or know the questions.
My parents insured that me and my brother were trained a tiny bit different than that. Which is why we’re a tiny bit different than our peers.
mjkon 03 Jan 2009 at 8:47 am 8“Allows one to maintain one’s smug superiority at no cost whatsoever. Triumph of evil . . . good people stay silent. Easy, from the comfort of the Judeo-Christian USA.
Can’t shake the feeling that if push came to shove, people like this would, with a quick rationalization or twenty, don the burka, inform on their parents/neighbors to the Nazis/Communists, etc.”
Bob, you are exactly right. People like this WOULD screw others over for money or for the glory of informing. It’s pathetic. Of course, I’ve been informed that calling my cousins balls-less wonders is probably not the best way to make friends. Too bad it’s true.
Ninoon 03 Jan 2009 at 8:56 am 9Clint is hardly a right winger…one of his latest movies was on so called mercy killing..these characters always end up doing just that…first they are portrayed as nice regular folks..like Spencer Tracy and Father Flanagan..then soon more and more their flicks start sprouting the commie line…this is to neutralize the average animal on the farm…conditioning the flock to react a certain way is an art and has JEdgar called them..Masters of Deciet..Bush was illustrated as a nice old guy ,plain and honest…yeh sure,,Clinton as a bubba type but still a progressive..then McCain has a flag waver who likes to trade with china and reaps money from the military industrial complex in their endless no win wars…now its the redeemer..always pic’d from the body up showing him in a dreamy way…wonder what is in store for this poor character ……at least he is honest..an anti-semetic muslim that can hardly complete one sentence and ends each word on a high plaintive note…
EPorvaznikon 03 Jan 2009 at 8:58 am 10Baby Boomers, hippies. What’s the difference most times, Floyd?
joefrogon 03 Jan 2009 at 9:20 am 11Anybody else think that Clint could still beat up the liberal punks in Hollywood half his age?
Floyd R. Turboon 03 Jan 2009 at 9:24 am 12EP… true dat. I just think that the Boomer guilt at blaming their parents in the 1960s for everything resulting in the hagiography of the “Greatest” generation (in many cases deserved of course) covers over the real wrong — the WW2 generation raised a narcissistic, pathologically stunted generation. They saved the word and then turned it over to big teenagers.
Stephanieon 03 Jan 2009 at 9:28 am 13I know Clint could beat up the Leftist punks in Hollywood half his age. Hell if he gave cLooney that look with his raised eye brow ala Gunny Highway cLooney would pee in his pants. Its a fact of life.
And Generation P hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So funny. Hippys suck gutter water.
StevefromMKEon 03 Jan 2009 at 9:30 am 14The Greatest Generation didn’t “raise” the boomers the way they turned out, they just lived through WWI, the Great Depression and WWII and just didn’t wish to see their kids go through the same thing.
Full Metal Deer Platoonon 03 Jan 2009 at 9:33 am 15When Clint was Mayor of Carmel, was he a Republican, Democrat, or Independent?
Stephanieon 03 Jan 2009 at 10:05 am 16I believe he was either a Republican or an Independent which means he leans Libertarian…oh oh….heh.
sauropodon 03 Jan 2009 at 10:15 am 17“I don’t know if I can tell you exactly when the pussy generation started. Maybe when people started asking about the meaning of life.”
Huh. I just lost a lot of respect for Eastwood, if this is how he really feels. Does he actually think that Buddha, Socrates, Jesus, Dante, Shakespeare, and Mother Teresa (to name a few) were “pussies”?
Clint, the unexamined life is not worth living. And people who ask about the meaning of life have contributed more to the moral advancement of humanity than all the spaghetti Westerns ever made.
maatkareon 03 Jan 2009 at 10:23 am 18Mayor Clint was a Republican, but he calls himself libertarian. (and actually, George Mallory, not Hillary said the quote about climbing Everest “because it’s there.”) He’s big on conservation (opposed a new freeway cutting through a state beach a while back that got a lot of press) and voted for Governor Arnold. I’ll watch anything the man does, but I was still pretty underwhelmed by Gran Torino.
CWon 03 Jan 2009 at 11:06 am 19Eastwood deserves credit for some key choices he made about filming Gran Torino (both admirably ‘gutsy’),
both of which are very unusual choices in Hollywood today,
(with a big star playing the lead role):
1. He did not have the screenplay rewritten at all.
He filmed it as written by the original writer(s).
2. He did not edit out the protagonist’s repellant qualities,
to make him more likable to more viewers.
[This reminds me of William Goldman’s comments,
in his book Adventures in the Screen Trade,
on ‘business as usual’, with an exception being
Robert Duvall’s performance in The Great Santini.]
People who might really like Gran Torino (if their expectations of it were accurate) might be disappointed with it — or even choose not to see it at all — if they are misled as to what to expect of it. That would be unfortunate.
For what it’s worth,
I found Gran Torino very worthwhile and rewarding.
Texas Billy Rayon 03 Jan 2009 at 11:15 am 20To EPorvaznik:
Not all us baby boomers were hippies. SOME of us, myself included, did stuff like join the Marine Corps, volunteer for Viet Nam, volunteer to fly medevacs and we have always loved our country (almost as much as some of us love Texas).
We like Eastwood ’cause his characters usually don’t give a sh*t about political correctness. I didn’t like his suggestion in Iwo Jima Diary that the Japs treated captured Americans with anything less than brutality.
Semper Fi
EPorvaznikon 03 Jan 2009 at 11:46 am 21That’s why I put most, TBR (and thanks for being that exception, especially the military service). I see a huge difference in my dad (1st or 2nd year of the Boomers, Navy man, conservative as hell), his younger brother (little more than a year younger, who served in Vietnam and also very conservative) and his youngest (by five years), a prototypical hippie if ever there was one. Sadly, too many from your generation who were more like my 2nd uncle wound up in the “educational” system.
maatkareon 03 Jan 2009 at 12:30 pm 22Thank you for your service, Texas Billy Ray, too bad about those Cowboys.
CW, I knew what to expect from Gran Torino, I just was expecting a little more based on the reviews and comments. I’m glad I saw it, it just wasn’t all that. (and I’m certainly in the minority as I thoroughly enjoyed “Changeling”) As I said in another thread, “The Wrestler” affected me much more, and that featured a much less likable protagonist.
**slight spoiler**
The gutsy choice would have been if he had REMAINED an unrepentant racist, and we know that’s not going to happen. A redemptive arc for the protagonist isn’t exactly a novel choice to filmaking. (and even if he had, it’s Clint–you can’t ever hate him) I just couldn’t get past the painfully wooden performances of his supporting cast. And maybe it just made me sad because Clint finally looks SO old.
Growltigeron 03 Jan 2009 at 1:14 pm 23“Can’t shake the feeling that if push came to shove, people like this would, with a quick rationalization or twenty, don the burka, inform on their parents/neighbors to the Nazis/Communists, etc.”
Sure they would. That’s a reason they’re the “P Generation”.
Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateuron 03 Jan 2009 at 1:53 pm 24Actually, my honored and revered namesake said it best in “Magnum Force”: (Adopting the perfict timbre of whisper and growl) A man’s got to know his limitations.
Generation P and its advocates long ago realized that they did not have the fortitude or courage to stand up like free men and women and claim their birthright. Why bother to risk potential failure when you can live half a life in the shadows of mediocrity, never lifting your gaze enough when you receive the beneificence of the nanny state to see the shakles and chains of your own making marking you for the lazy coward you are?
I’m ashamed to call the 52%ers my fellow countrymen.
Mashaon 03 Jan 2009 at 3:57 pm 25This is a great discussion, and a lot of interesting points have already been made. I have 2 comments-
1. Clint Eastwood is a Libertarian, although I’m not sure if he subscribes to isolationist foreign policy as most libertarians do. In any case it expalins some of his later movies that have been characterized as “liberal.”
2. People who have religion don’t need to search for “meaning of life” since they believe their life was given to them by G-d and is therefore by definition meaningful. When people lose their faith is when they need to look for something else to give their life meaning, and more often than not they end up looking in all the wrong places.
Jack Marinoon 03 Jan 2009 at 4:17 pm 26Clint his whole life was a conservative republican up until the moved in with that actress that had his kid out of wedlock. Here is a grown man trying to be ‘hip movie star’ Then he makes these leftist slant films just to win a couple of Oscars. He bad mouths Bush, the war so the AMPAS will vote for him to win all these awards. When you cross the line and join the dark side for the sake of an award then you lose sight of the greatness award you have earned…. your life’s work in films. No golden statue that liberals covert can ever change the body of the work of a lifetime.
Clint sold out plain and simple, he isn’t the man of ideals as he once was. I think he nows it too
Katoon 03 Jan 2009 at 4:20 pm 27It’s very hard to pigeonhole Clint. On the one hand, he can criticize moral ambiguity and admonish the public for forgetting 9/11 so quickly: “Nobody got blase about Pearl Harbor.” But he can also make back-to-back movies — Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima — that subvert the justification for America’s actions in World War II. I guess when you’re in your 70s, it’s forgiveable if you get a little confused at times.
Joe Weldonon 03 Jan 2009 at 4:56 pm 28I agree with you guys, Jack Marino and Kato.
A while ago on TV, Clint said he thought that this was no longer a country that could’ve won WW2.
Then on Sunday Morning Shootout, when asked about how convincingly right-wing he played Dirty Harry, he said, “Then I guess we did our job’ - suggesting it was all an act, and that he was really liberal.
Then he makes back-to-back WW2 Iwo Jima movies that suggest that Japanese troops were decent and honorable - and our GI’s, not so much.
Now, he’s a tough-talkin’ Archie Bunker-type SOB, even playing one in Gran Turino.
I don’y know WTF to make of him anymore.
Clint, you can’t be a conservative badass AND a liberal icon. Make up your mind.
Joe Weldonon 03 Jan 2009 at 4:58 pm 29I meant - ‘I don’t know WTF to make of him anymore.’
Kiton 03 Jan 2009 at 5:07 pm 30Joe,
I think what he meant by the Dirty Harry comment is that that is how Callahan was intended and that he, the director, Milius, and the rest “did their job.”
About him being both lib icon and cons badass: Maybe he just doesn’t want to be classified as either.
Or he just did the Iwo Jima films in order to keep working in Hollywood: A tribute* to the Liberal Hollywood Empire by Eastwood.
*Tribute as in the payments made by provinces to an empire, not a dedication to another person, idea, or thing.
Mashaon 03 Jan 2009 at 5:47 pm 31Saying this is not the same country that won WW2 does not make him a liberal. Rush Limbaugh talks repeatedly of all the sacrifices the American people made during WW2 that would be unthinkable today. Taken together with Clint’s statement on the P. Generation, that makes perfect sense.
I didn’t see Clint’s “pro-Japanese” movies, but my understanding was he was trying to portray WW2 from the Japanese POV. That would not in itself make those movies anti-American. For example, in Neal Stephenson’s Cryptonomicon the reader spends a lot of time with a Japanese soldier, getting his POV, sympathizing with him, appreciating his honor and dedication, and yet never forgetting that the regime he’s fighting for is evil.
Plissken79on 03 Jan 2009 at 6:31 pm 32Letters from Iwo Jima was a harsh and critical portrayal of Japanese militarism, not an unabashed valentine to the Japanese war effort despite the fact it shows a handful of Japanese soldiers and one officer as honorable (Stalingrad and Cross of Iron did the same thing, nobody claims they were pro-Nazi)
And Jack Marino, Unforgiven is liberal Oscar bait? Get some perspective and calm down please
Texas Billy Rayon 03 Jan 2009 at 6:35 pm 33The wife found a limited engagement over at the Grapevine cinema near Dallas. Theater was full.
Very good movie. Not real twisty plot but enjoyable. I love the M1 Garand. No mistaking that sound when the 8 round clip is inserted and a round chambered. The sound kinda says, “Homie, stop!”
Clint is really grizzled up these days. A fer cry from Rowdy Yates.
I won’t spoil anything for ya’ll but he is First Cav, not a Marine in this picture. I’da made his character a Marine survivor of the Frozen Chosin, but us Devil Dogs are rather prejudiced in that way. The First Cav boys did know how to fight.
Texas Billy Rayon 03 Jan 2009 at 6:42 pm 34Oh, I can take a story told from the Jap perspective no sweat. However, the Japs on Iwo Jima DID NOT TREAT captured Marines with the slightes mote of decency.
They TORTURED our boys brutally and continually. Other than that bit, I thought Iwo Diary was a good movie.
One of these days, Hollywood will do a biographical on Chesty Puller. Now THAT is a Marine for the silver screen. Five freaking Navy Crosses.
Then how about a good movie about the Marine saga on Guadalcanal. They have not told that story yet.
Plissken79on 03 Jan 2009 at 6:55 pm 35Two points Texas Billy Ray. One scene in Letters clearly shows the Japanese bayonetting a captured Marine to death (not to mention the scene in Flags where Ryan Phillippe comes across his friend’s dismembered corpse).
The other scene where the junior officer spares the Marines’ life is justified solely by the fact that officer had lived in America, and had an great interest in and perhaps sympathy for this particular soldier. But given how brutal and cold most of the other Japanese officers (and some of the soldiers) come across, I doubt Eastwood was trying to portray this particular scene as the norm with regards to Japanese treatment of American POWs
Loved Clint Eastwood’s original quotes, by the way.
As for more Marines in the Pacific theatre stories, the long-awaited companion piece to Band of Brothers should be out on HBO this year, it is called The Pacific, I believe
Texas Billy Rayon 03 Jan 2009 at 7:22 pm 36Thanks, I’d forgot about the HBO series. Sounded good. I have the entire episode guide stored somewhere. Gotta dig it up.
I just get worked up with the idea that Iwo Diary might cause (and this country if full of them) a lot of dimwits to think that the one lucky captured Marine was representative. Kinda like so many people think we were mean for nuking Japan, when in fact we’d been fire-bombing them all up and down their whole country. The nukes actually reduced Jap casualties although less important that saving more American and Allied lives. In either case, the Japs got what they deserved.
Recall what was going on over on Chichi Jima Island at the time. Jap prison troops ritually cannibalizing American Fly Boys. Did any of ya’ll read “Fly Boys?”
Plissken79on 03 Jan 2009 at 8:06 pm 37Good point, hopefully the dimwits who would assume that scene was representative of Japanese treatment of POWs would not be the type to see a 2.5 hour film largely in Japanese about a battle that occurred over 60 years ago.
Truman’s decisions regards to Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the correct one, of course. Casualties if Operation Downfall was implemented would have been tremedous on both sides
Kiton 03 Jan 2009 at 11:04 pm 38Plissken79,
“Good point, hopefully the dimwits who would assume that scene was representative of Japanese treatment of POWs would not be the type to see a 2.5 hour film largely in Japanese about a battle that occurred over 60 years ago.”
Good one!
“Casualties if Operation Downfall was implemented would have been tremedous on both sides”
In the book THE CENTURY there was a photo of Japanese housewives being trained to fight U.S. soldiers with bamboo sticks. Now read this paragraph again.
newman65on 04 Jan 2009 at 2:41 am 39Saw Gran Torino on New Year’s. Loved it. While the overall ending was predictable the actual specifics of it I did not expect.
As to his BDS - I’ve never heard any comments from him criticizing Bush but I hardly think criticizing Bush warrants him losing his “conservative” credentials.
I’m conservative and personally think Bush is one of the worst presidents of my lifetime. If we’re not lockstep we’re out of the club now?
Outlaw 13on 04 Jan 2009 at 4:55 am 40After having read all the comments I find it interesting that there are those of us who can’t look at Mr. Eastwood’s statement about the “pussification of America” or the “Pussy Generation” as he calls it and say that either there is some value in it or disagree.
No, it degenerates into an argument about whether Mr. Eastwood is fundamentally flawed because he made a statement where he disagreed with President Bush back in ‘06, or he had a child out of wedlock. Maybe so, maybe he isn’t the icon some would make he out to be. It doesn’t really have anything to do however with the truth of his statement about Generation P.
I agree that there’s far too much navel gazing going on…and that is a direct result of how successful the “Greatest Generation” was in doing their jobs. They did it too well. They allowed their kids the freedom to do basically what they want, when they wanted and how ever often they wanted to do it…not a good recipe for discipline in your life.
Fortunately I have a job where I work with a lot of people who have escaped that fate and aren’t pussies (for the most part).
…and Texas Billy Ray, those 1st CAV guys still know how to fight, First Team!
Texas Billy Rayon 04 Jan 2009 at 7:07 am 41Granted, Bush is sure not conservative when it comes to domestic spending and his incredible weakness on illegal immigration.
Just glad we had him over Kerry or Gore when it came time to deal with 9/11.
Nothing wrong with dissent in this nation. We all do it eventually. I think I have about four years of loud dissent coming up.
Torino is a decent flick.
PerfectTommyon 04 Jan 2009 at 8:30 am 42“I’m conservative and personally think Bush is one of the worst presidents of my lifetime.”
I don’t know how long your lifetime has been Newman, and I’ll grant Bush’s weaknesses in domestic spending and immigration, but if you think Bush was worse than Carter and Clinton (or even his father), then I’d think you’ve bought a little too heavily into the media hype.
Bush’s defense of this country after 9/11 and his supreme court appointments alone are worthy of any conservative’s repect.
newman65on 04 Jan 2009 at 10:34 am 43Tommy note I said “one of the worst”.
I’m 43 so I go back to LBJ (technically). Carter was definitely the worst by far, not even a contest. But I’d have to rank W either 2nd or 3rd along with his father.
The immediate response to 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan are his only real successes IMHO (though I like his court appointments). But while the initial conduct of the Iraq war (though I think the reasoning for that decision was not totaly sound but whichever) they had no clue what to do after defeating Saddam’s forces. Thus the war has dragged on for almost 6 years, it wasn’t until last year that they applied the necessary resources to complete the job (and they were forced to do so). Imagine if they had applied the “surge” resources and tactics in 2003.
On top of foreign policy from Child Left Behind to Immigration to spending like a drunken sailor to now bailing out anyone and everyone who made bad decisions I don’t find a lot to like.
Only thing worse would be if Al Gore or John Kerry had won. Sheesh if Gore had won we’d STILL be apologizing to the Muslim world for 9/11 being OUR fault. :O)
PerfectTommyon 04 Jan 2009 at 1:38 pm 44Newman, what about Bush’s two supreme court appointments? Two solid picks with Roberts and Alito. Even Reagan only got 1 good pick out of three (Scalia - good, O’Conner and Kennedy, not so much.)
And the tax cuts were also an accomplishment.
And setting a standard of decency after the Clinton years was an accomplishment. Perhaps we just have to acknowledge that “in our lifetime” (I’m four years older) draws from a fairly narrow, but even then, Nixon set many more liberal policies in cement than Bush 43 and sullied the R brand much more than Bush.
Stephanieon 04 Jan 2009 at 1:49 pm 45First off outstanding comments Outlaw….awesome.
Secondly Newman, give W a break. Sure he screwed up some domestic policy issues. I wept real tears when he tried to shove McCain Kennedy down our throats and then would not veto McCain Feingold but dammit lets look at the big picture. Have we been attacked on our soil since 9-11? NO. Thats one big freaking NO to because let me tell you Newman its not like Achmed the terrorist hasn’t been trying. OK?
So you can complain and whine….not vote and then have more to complain about but let me say at least we are all here able to talk about it. One of these days people like Newman will wish W was still President. Because things are going to get really bad before they get better. Doubt me? Read the Forgotten Man.
Outlaw 13on 04 Jan 2009 at 2:50 pm 46Sort of a thread hijack…but I have to put my 2 cents in on this…
Where to begin…I guess we can go from the top and work down.
You can go back with 20/20 hindsight and talk about the rationalization for the invasion of Iraq if you want, but to be fair you need to look at the decisions that were made using the information they had at the time.
If I recall correctly there were more than a few people on board with the whole let’s go get Saddam thing (I’m pretty sure it was in all the papers and on TV). After the invasion there was a period of relative clam and when I got on the ground there around the spring of ‘04 is when the insurgency really got going.
To say that no-one in the administration had a clue about what to do is pure conjecture. If you can fault the President for anything he allowed the people at DOD (the professionals) run the war their way too much. He didn’t remove people for bad performance like he should have and was done in past wars.
There is no evidence that “The Surge” strategy would have worked if applied in ‘03. A main part of “The Surge” was “the Sons of Iraq” a program that was begun in part due to the Anbar Awakening. The Anbar Awakening occurred when the people of Anbar Provence who formerly supported AQI came to the conclusion after AQ decided to start lopping off hands and heads as well as raping the neighborhood women that maybe the Americans weren’t so bad after all, joined our side and started fighting against the terrorists (who for the most part were not native Iraqis).
I was in Iraq in 04-05 and again in 06-07 during the surge. You comments that commanders (who were the people running the war by the way not the POTUS) had no clue is ridiculous. Historically most insurgencies fail and it usually takes between 7-10 years to defeat them.
I’m sorry the war has dragged on longer than you would have liked it…I not particularly happy about my impending third deployment as well. Maybe we should have fought harder. Maybe instead of Monday morning quarterbacking, if everyone would have pitched in and worked for victory at something other than politics this thing may have been over sooner. Who knows how many of those goons we fought held on for another day because they saw of “leaders” fighting among themselves back in the USA. It was the conduct of our former leaders (before GWB) that lead Bin Ladin to believe that we wouldn’t have the stomach for this fight. Actions do have consequences.
PerfectTommyon 04 Jan 2009 at 2:58 pm 47Thank you for your service, Outlaw 13.
Stephanieon 04 Jan 2009 at 3:07 pm 48I would agree with you Outlaw on what you said. I honestly think it was rather bold to take down Saddam for the simple reason the President knew he could get his butt gnawed on but he did it anyway. Ultimately, and Newman proving positive is the President whether intelligent and thoughtful people like US want to believe it or not will get the lions share of responsibility for whatever happens on his watch, whether its his or not. Look at the Depression. It was Roosevelt’s fault it went on longer because he decided to spend money on programs that didn’t work but as a band aid. He and his socialist cronies made it worse. But does he get responsibility for it? No. Why? Because Hoover is the one who gets the blame. Roosevelt gets the mantle of savior for making it worse.
Its dumb to blame W for 9-11. People still do it. It matters not to members of the leftwing that W wasn’t President while 9-11 was being planned. No. It matters not that not one but several serious attacks were aimed at Americans during the 90’s. W gets blamed and Clinton because for whatever reason some intellectual lightweight can bring up gets kudos.
Its dumb to blame W for the economic crisis. Take a look at the long history of this mess from beginnings to end. But because W is President and because people are too stupid to think about things he gets to be the whipping boy.
Sure W hung onto people who should have been sent packing when things were getting hairy in Iraq but that was then. Ulitmately he was right.
Look at it this way: Its a simple battle problem. Do we want these freaks here setting off car bombs and doing their thing? Or do we want to take the war to them? THe best defense is a good offense. I know Clausewitz always said the best strategy is a defensive one but in this war its not. Patton also proved that going hammer and tongs at the enemy, closing with him worked, where as waiting to see what he does makes us vulnerable.
YatYason 04 Jan 2009 at 6:18 pm 49Outlaw 13:
Having served in Iraq from mid 2005 to early 2006, I heartily agree with what you stated. Although, I wish the current startegy would have been adopted in early 2006.
Maybe, If Clint used his talents to make movies about today’s military in Iraq and Afghanistan there would be a decrease of those that are part of the pussy generation.