Remember the Alamo!
Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) said the following in a speech on the House floor on Tuesday (Think Progress has the video):
Seriously, has anyone ever said anything more soul-crushingly stupid in a Congressional speech? Is it even possible?
For starters, what a bizarre and unnecessary anachronism. His blackberry? Why couldn't Davy Crockett have received this hypothetical message in, say, letter form? As a commenter at Think Progress put it:
As for the historical analogy itself, if memory serves, the decision to defend the Alamo turned out not to have been a very good one. If I remember right, just about everyone died, needlessly. In fact, the phrase 'epic strategic blunder' comes to mind. So perhaps the Alamo is not the best analogy for Akin to invoke in a debate about how best to extract ourselves from what just about everyone now agrees is another epic strategic blunder.
But since we've already come this far, let's ask another seemingly pertinent question. There were approximately 150 fighters at the Alamo, not nearly enough to successfully defend the fort. Under those circumstances, Congressman Akin, which option do you think Davy Crockett would have preferred?
So to say we're going to support our troops but we're not going to send them any reinforcements is on the face of it contradictory.As Atrios would say: Ouch, the stupid. It burns!
Could you picture Davy Crockett at the Alamo looking at his Blackberry getting a message from Congress? “Davy Crockett, we support you. The only thing is we are not going to send any troops.” I’m sure that would really be impressive to Davy Crockett.
Seriously, has anyone ever said anything more soul-crushingly stupid in a Congressional speech? Is it even possible?
For starters, what a bizarre and unnecessary anachronism. His blackberry? Why couldn't Davy Crockett have received this hypothetical message in, say, letter form? As a commenter at Think Progress put it:
I think Davy Crockett would be more impressed with the odd contraption that is sending him messages in 1836 and why it was Congress calling when Texas wasn’t annexed until 1845.And for that matter, is this how Congress communicates with the troops even today? When Congress passes this resolution, is it going to be communicated to the troops via blackberry? Is that standard operating procedure? If so, we might want to look into that.
“OMG Davy, u r on ur own, lollers ;) C-gress”
As for the historical analogy itself, if memory serves, the decision to defend the Alamo turned out not to have been a very good one. If I remember right, just about everyone died, needlessly. In fact, the phrase 'epic strategic blunder' comes to mind. So perhaps the Alamo is not the best analogy for Akin to invoke in a debate about how best to extract ourselves from what just about everyone now agrees is another epic strategic blunder.
But since we've already come this far, let's ask another seemingly pertinent question. There were approximately 150 fighters at the Alamo, not nearly enough to successfully defend the fort. Under those circumstances, Congressman Akin, which option do you think Davy Crockett would have preferred?
A) a "surge" of 20 more men, orMy guess is B, but I guess I shouldn't say so out loud. It might give aid and comfort to Santa Ana.
B) a rescue chopper (if he can use random historical anachronisms, why can't I?)
posted by A.L. at 12:15 AM
5 Comments:
The Congressman nailed it and you know it!
Well, if Congressman Arkin could send twenty modern US soldiers -- remember Crockett has a blackberry -- I think such an Alamo surge would do the trick.
Imagine Santa Ana's surprise when suddenly confronted by automatic weapons.
If Ozzy Osbourne gets arrested for urinating on Iraq, the analogy will gain credence.
This may be a really really dumb question, but is it Santa Ana or Sana Ana?
If you Google Santa Ana you get many sites, in English. But, if you Google Sana Ana all the sites are in Spanish.
Ironically, the defenders at the Alamo were told that no troops were going to be sent to support them. Sam Houston was trying to raise his army at the time and was not able to get enough support.
The lengthy siege of the Alamo gave him enough extra time (and something to rally around) so that he was able to raise his army and eventually win independence for Texas.
Not sure from which perspective you would say the choice to defend the Alamo was not a good one.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home