WILLisms.com: With All Due Haste

« Ron Paul Sucks! | WILLisms.com | Kos Needs Hillary More Than Hillary Needs Kos »

With All Due Haste

USA Today reports that it will take big bucks to transport new bomb-resistant vehicles to Iraq quickly -

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has asked Congress for nearly $750 million to urgently airlift needed armored vehicles to troops facing roadside bombs in Iraq, according to budget documents.The emergency funding request would allow the military to fly many of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles to troops rather than send them by ship, which takes weeks. The flight takes 13 hours, allowing for same-day delivery, said Lt. Col. Ed Thomas, an Air Force spokesman.

Michael O'Hanlon of 'A War We Just Might Win' fame had this to say about this proposed airlift - "It's ridiculous that it took this long to send MRAPs . . . it's an example of wishfulness and politics getting in the way of protection for troops. It's a bad mistake verging on the unconscionable."

So much for O'Hanlon being a Bush lapdog.

As for the unconscionability of not having the MRAP delivered, consider that the military has set an 'aggressive' timetable to build MRAPs, some of which have not been properly tested, and for whom there are only two steel mills in the U.S. producing the necessary armor. Not even saying O'Hanlon is wrong here, but just take a look at the context and judge for yourself if this is a major screwup, a minor screwup, or par for the course.

At least we know O'Hanlon isn't in the political camp that looks for affirmation instead of information.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 9 August 2007 12:50 AM

Comments

Eh, par for the course for government. This is why the most frightening phrase in the world is "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help".

Posted by: k2aggie07 at August 9, 2007 12:27 PM

Exactly. Who in their right minds expects anything close to perfection in government?

This seems like a minor screwup/par for the course to me.

I can see O'Hanlon's point though - these vehicles will save lives and limbs. They will obviate al-Qaeda's worst weapon. Get the MRAPs to Iraq yesterday.

Posted by: Ken McCacken at August 9, 2007 01:30 PM

the topic seems to be geared more towards trying to salvage a scrap of legitmacy to the failed "liberal anti war critic" O hanlon / Pollack abomination. well, you've got your work cut out for you. But your extention of the intellectual dishonesty of that article and it's prsentation could make you one of many footnotes for historians discussing this issue, itself a footnotes to the massive lies / iraq encyclopedia to be written by my future great grandson Herman

Posted by: lester at August 10, 2007 08:24 PM

The truth hurts, eh Lester?

Posted by: Ken McCacken at August 10, 2007 09:22 PM

yeah it does. luckily therree is none in the topic. o hanlon was and is a war supporter and so was pollock. they've been wrong on Iraq every step of the way. they're Joe Lie-berals and presenting them as "war critics" was probably the last lie the hawks will ever tell

Posted by: lester at August 11, 2007 01:35 PM

So . . . when O'Hanlon and Pollack said the war had been mismanaged and incompetently handled . . . they were wrong, Lester?

You don't know anything about them beyond the DailyKos talking points, do you.

Posted by: Ken McCacken at August 11, 2007 06:37 PM

I don't know what the dailykos talking points are. I know who both of these guys are. EVERYONE says the war has been mismanaged and incompetently handled. Joe Lieberman, John Mcain, virtually every hawk on this war has ceded that point. That does not make one a "war critic". you can't be a hawk and a "critic". More to the point, only conservatives care about this story, what does THAT tell you? No liberals i know pay attention to the brookings institute or support the stuff these guys generally say about american involvement in the middle east. they aren't remotely influential. dennis kucinich, noam chomsky, people like that are who they listen too.

Posted by: lester at August 12, 2007 11:23 AM

Well first off, you completely contradicted yourself. First you said that O'Hanlon and Pollack were wrong about the war, then you said that they were correct by saying the war was mismanaged and incompetently handled.

So much for your consistency and ability to reason.

Next, you say that they are not remotely influential. Oh really? Then I guess the firestorm they created with their op-ed didn't really happen. Denial doesn't really work Lester, does it.

If you think Noam Chomsky and Dennis Kucinich have more influence than these guys and the Brookings Insitution, you do indeed have your head in the sand.

Posted by: Ken McCacken at August 12, 2007 07:16 PM

first

http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_07_16/article1.html

^how to win in iraq

now. like i said EVERYONE has been critical of how the war was handled. the surge itself and general patreaus' strategy is nothing if not a repudiation of the previous one.

So Bush and petreaus are "war critics" too. the war was a bad idea that was ALSO carried out badly. o hanlon and pollack get the second part but not the first. which means nothing because everyone gets the second part right.

and it depends what you see as "influential". Do you think the people at democratic underground or daily kos read the output of the brookings institute? a beltway, hawkish think tank? Do you know how much they HATE joe lieberman?

So who is "influenced" by mr ohanlon and mr pollack?

misguided democratic presidential candidates? perhaps. republicans? evidently, at least now.

Posted by: lester at August 12, 2007 07:23 PM

Being influential at DU or Kos, frankly, doesn't mean a damn thing.

They are the fringe element far out of the mainstream of American political life.

Posted by: Ken McCacken at August 12, 2007 09:42 PM

there is no such thing as american political life. DU and KOS are popular websites. that is how I cam gaging this word "influential"

Posted by: lester at August 13, 2007 12:04 PM

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/12/ohanlon/index.html