Monday, September 22, 2008

harrogate's education

Someone calling themselves "harrogate" made the following comment in response to my post, "Why Democrats would not allow a vote on honoring our troops."

Starting the war with Iraq, by contrast, didn't "cause Americans to be killed."

Starting wars with Russia and with Iran, by contrast, won't "cause Americans to be killed."

Stay alert, and stay with Fox.


His comment so vividly demonstrates what's wrong with the Left today that I thought I would feature it in a post for everyone to see.

Of course the Left claims that there were no WMD's and that Bush lied. Leaving such juvenile claims aside, we know that all of the world's intelligence agencies thought Saddam's Iraq had WMD's, and indeed even Clinton's DOJ indicted him and Joe Wilson told the CIA in 2/02 that Iraq had met with officals in Niger and had tried to purchase yellowcake. And even Fitzgerald told the 9/11 Commission that Iraq and al Qaida had agreed to work together on a "enemy of my enemy is my friend" basis.

So the question then became, should Bush ignore all of this or should he push Saddam?
He pushed Saddam and Saddam was less than forthcoming, even when it was evident that the US would invade. Why? Read what Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union speech.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.


So based on what he knew and believed, Bush invaded.

And once the invasion was started we could not afford to lose. If we had withdrawn after destroying Iraq's infrastructure and political class Iran would have seized the country and it would have been in a political position to control, even more so than now, the flow of oil to Europe and sponsor terrorist attacks against the US with no fear of retaliation from Europe.

War is a terrible thing, dear harrogate. But the only thing worse than war is losing a war.

So the ideal is to win And to win as quickly as possible with as few loss of American lives as possible. Yes. American lives.

Now let's revisit the post:

On February 9th, 1933, the ruling elite of the world’s great Civilization held a debate in the Oxford Union. With thunderclouds growing dark across the English Channel, at a time when resolute action could still have averted the worst catastrophe the world has ever known, these elites resolved that “This House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country.”

The Resolution passed by a vote of 275 to 153. Needless to say, this vote did not avert the fight. It guaranteed it.


When you tell your enemy you won't fight you leave the time and place of the attack up to the enemy. By our careless actions since December of 1979 and the creation of the modern Islamic radical movement by Carter's failure to act until 9/11/2001 we told them that we were weak, could be bullied and would not fight back.

Well, 9/ll proved them wrong but the hard core Left, raised on the hate America radicalism of the 60's almost immediately started attacking the country. As the war started demonstrators in Oakland tried to block the loading of ammunition on ships. Idiots went to Baghdad as "human shields" to save and protect our enemies.

And al-Qaida and the other terrorists watched and remembered Vietnam.

As the General of North Vietnam, Bui Tin, who received the surrender of South Vietnam said:

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?

A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.


And that has continued in this battle of WWIV and the Left's actions have caused the war to be longer because it has improved the morale of the enemy and has given them cause to believe if they can wait a bit longer Hussein and the Democrats will give them a political victory.

Now you know, harrogate. You can't plead ignorance again.

1 comment:

  1. It will be interesting to see the apocalyptic justifications of people like you, when the GOP drags the country into war with Iran and Russia, too.

    Lines have been long drawn in the sand (heh) on Iraq. You talk a lot about how wise Bush was. Probably most Americans don't see it that way anymore. Maybe war as a last resort. Maybe a President who would rather, if he had his druthers, not be at war. Seems attractive to most voters this time. But the milk is spilt, we are there, and our embassy and bases there are gaudy, enormous, and not going anywhere ever.

    As for new bouncing baby wars there is all sorts of opportunity for new Strains of Rah-Rah kill em all rhetoric. Certainly you will do your part.

    Still. Give McCain credit. McCain has lied his arse off this campaign, but one thing he has done a pretty good job of being honest about, is in communicating eagerness to go to war with Iran and ("we're all Georgians today") Russia. And he vows to keep us a permanent presence in Iraq, 100 years no big deal.

    But, sigh. Many who vote McCain won't be doing it beccause they want any part of these wars. Or because they hold the lives of their loved onese so cheaply that they would sign off on, say, their only son being KIA in Georgia. Nor will they be voting for him to reward the GOP for its record on the economy, after eight years in the White House and only recently removed from 6 years of controlling the entire Federal Government. Which has worked out so well.

    While there is a lot that will help McCain, so much so that it looks like he will win. None of his electoral advantages appear related to issues. Hmmmmm.

    And so the people of this country will have a hard time pleading "we didn't know" if this time next year McCain is doing what he's said he will do. Fortunately they will have the likes of you to remind them of their duties to accept it all.

    ReplyDelete