27 August 2005

So Why Did Eric Minameyer Support Schmidt?

The Smoke Eater reports that Eric Minameyer, the man responsible for swiftboating Paul Hackett, is now taking Hackett's position on Iraq on his (Minameyer's) blog:

We need to exit ASAP, by which I mean as soon as sufficient Iraqi security forces exist to defend the constitutional government. The cost to our economy, in the lives of Americans, and in the loss of unity of the country are too great to extend the mission past that.

Smoke Eater pointed out to Minameyer that this is pretty much what Hackett has been saying for several months, to which Minameyer responded that he, too had been saying it for several months. Minameyer then attempted to cast his view as something totally different by parsing minor differences and then-- and I am not making this up-- he accused Hackett of inciting insurgents with his rhetoric. Maj. Hackett still has 5 months left to serve, by the way.

Here is the new Republican viewpoint on Iraq: We need to get out, but if you say we need to get out because we were wrong to go in, then you are wrong and are inciting insurgents. If you say we have to pull out but we were right to go in, then you are right and down with Jesus.


Eric Minamyer said...

The rhetoric to which I refer is calling the president names. This only encourages our enemies. I thought that was clear.

Also my position on Iraq has not changed. Train and get out.

Eric Minamyer said...

BTW I said "encouraging insurgents" not "inciting".

WestEnder said...

Thanks to Mr. Minameyer for responding with clarification.

Although there may be a technical difference between "inciting" and "encouraging", that was not in my mind as I made the post, and I'm not sure that the difference is all that meaningful.

I understand that GOP instructions are to charge anyone who criticizes Bush with having a postive effect on insurgents. There is no evidence that this is actually the case, and repeating it ad infinitum does not make it the case.

This argument is like saying Cincinnati sports fans shouldn't criticize the Bengals because doing so only encourages the opponents.

Perhaps Mr. Minameyer will come out and say UC fans shouldn't criticize Nancy Zimpher because doing so only encourages other Big East teams?

E. Gooding said...

Want to talk about "encouraging the insurgents" try this quote on for size:

"There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on."

E. Gooding said...

Above quote by George Bush - June 2, 2003

Eric Minamyer said...

President Bush was wrong to say that and I criticized him at the time. But this is another example of excusing someone by pointing out how someone else was wrong.

It is not criticizing Bush or the war effort that is the issue, it is how one does it. My position is a criticism of the administration since I disagree with them.

Calling Bush an SOB is taken differently in the Arab culture than in our profane language culture. If you cannot see that this name-calling serves no purpose and only gives comfort to our enemy, you are fooling yourself.

A student of history knows that revolutions are won by the persistent. Al Queda hates Bush and his father.

I defend the right of Americans to disagree and debate. I think the name-calling could stop. Is there really a defense to it?

WestEnder said...

First of all, if Mr. Minameyer is someone who objects to name-calling and foul language, I would think he'd have his hands full monitoring the White House.

Second, if he is aware of the fact that the Arab world takes certain things a bit different than our good ol' fashioned American way, then I think once again he'd have your hands full monitoring the White House.

To ignore the devastating effect Bush's foreign policy has had on the Arab world and focus on a canididate's words strikes me as not only disingenuous, but outrageously hypocritical.

If he were truly concerned about the effectiveness of American foreign policy and its effect on the Arab world, he would not support Bush.

My conclusion is that he, like most Bush supporters, is not concerned about Arabs. Based on his simplistic Al Queda comment, I presume he is like most Bush supporters who think Al Queda represents most Arabs, and therefore most Muslims, and therefore most Muslims are anti-U.S., and therefore they are wrong, and therefore they must be taught a lesson.