The lives of a nation's finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent people suffer and die. Commerce is disrupted; economies are damaged; strategic interests shielded by years of patient statecraft are endangered as the exigencies of war and diplomacy conflict. Not the valor with which it is fought nor the nobility of the cause it serves, can glorify war.
Whatever gains are secured, it is loss the veteran remembers most keenly.
Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war. However heady the appeal of a call to arms, however just the cause, we should still shed a tear for all that is lost when war claims its wages from us.
...I am, from hard experience and the judgment it informs, a realistic idealist. I know we must work very hard and very creatively to build new foundations for a stable and enduring peace. We cannot wish the world to be a better place....
This is from a good speech by John McCain. (That link is to a story on the speech, here is the entire work)
Not a great speech, but a good speech, and since I've praised Barack Obama's writing (and that of his presumed staff), I thought in the interests of equal time I would tell you: I think this is a good speech.
Better than I've seen him give in a while, if not ever; certainly better than anything I've seen Mrs. Clinton say lately.
For me to think it a great speech, I would have to feel that I can trust John McCain, and FWIW I agree with DNC Chairman Howard Dean:
McCain's ``new appreciation for diplomacy has no credibility after he mimicked President Bush's misleading case for a unilateral war of choice when it mattered most. Why should the American people now trust John McCain to offer anything more than four more years of President Bush's reckless economic policies and failed foreign policy?''
Further to the above, for me to think it a great speech, I would have to find some other way of seeing what McCain's been saying about keeping our troops in Iraq as anything other than "wishing the world were a better place."
Or to re-re-state a question I've been asking almost three years now, Where you gonna get 'em, John?
To be a great speech, it would have to name names and place blame. It is not sufficent to say ''Passive defense alone cannot protect us,'' in reference to the lessons learned from 9/11. You must name the president on whose watch this occured.
Speaking of which...ETA via the War Room at Salon:
Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war.
-- Sen. John McCain, March 26, 2008
...If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed.
It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger.
-- President George W. Bush, March 13, 2008
For me to think it a great speech, I would have to forget the differences between what candidate Bush said, and the way president Bush led (and I use the word loosely). From the story linked above:
Duke University professor Bruce Jentleson...who served as a policy advisor to then-presidential candidate Al Gore, said McCain's speech reminded him of Gov. George W. Bush in 2000, who pledged a ''humble'' foreign policy and dismissed ''nation-building.'' The question for McCain is, Jentleson said, ``is this really what the policy would be about?''
For me to think it a great speech, I would have not to know that
Six-and-a-half years earlier, McCain used...almost the exact same language to drum up popular support for military action in the greater war on terror.
Except then, McCain added:
Shed a tear, and then get on with the business of killing our enemies as quickly as we can, and as ruthlessly as we must...Let's get on with it."
Still and all, though, a well-written speech is a well-written speech.
No wonder he wanted to use it again.
No comments:
Post a Comment