There’s been a lot of talk on The New Republic‘s attempted hit piece on LTC Allen West, who is running in Florida’s 22nd District. (You may remember The New Republic as the amateur rag that has a pretty consistent problem with reporters and contributers making up stories out of thin air.) The latest defense of LTC West in response to the piece comes from a columnist at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
What’s interesting now is that The New Republic, one of the biggest Hindenburgs of left-leaning gasbaggery, seems to think West is a figure of absurdity, a ridiculously unsuitable candidate, embodying all that was wrong with the Iraq war.
Truly? The man used what force he had to in order to get the bad guys, and he managed to do it cleverly enough that the detainee did not have “to be repaired.” This evidently thwarted an attack on Americans and, presumably, further attacks on Iraqis. As we now know, both from the failure of the Bush administration’s initial low-force policy in Iraq and through the ensuing success of the surge, a willingness to use force on the enemy actually wins over the majority of Iraq that wasn’t on board with the jihadists and Baathists to begin with.
West’s problem was that he used force in a way that the Army’s rules banned, which means the Army had to boot him out. Those rules do not at all bind voters in Florida from seeing West’s sacrifice of his career — the Times piece from 2004 suggests he knew that it was on the line from the start — as anything but the honorable placement of duty above self.
In short, just what you want out of a soldier — or a lawmaker.
I find it troubling that some think LTC Allen West’s decision to put his country before his career in the military is somehow a disqualification for office. But, given the history of The New Republic that I outlined above, it’s not surprising that they neither recognize nor appreciate honor and honesty when they see it.
You can donate to LTC Allen West’s campaign here.