Karl Rove nails the anti-victory neurosis of the Left

The Star [South Chicago] ^ | 7/3/5 | Michael Bowers

[SmithL]

Col. Charles Beckwith, founder of the Delta Force, tells a story about White House planning in April 1980 for the mission to rescue our 53 hostages in Tehran. Beckwith had visited the White House Situation Room to brief President Carter.

In the meeting, according to one writer, "Charlie mentioned that his Delta shooters would 'take out' the hostage guards.

"Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher looked over at Charlie, eyebrows raised. 'Take them out,' Colonel?"

Beckwith replied: "Yes, Mister Deputy Secretary. We're going to double-tap 'em. Shoot 'em each in the head — twice."

Christopher protested: "Couldn't you just shoot them in the shoulder or something?"

And liberals wonder why conservatives consider them weak.

Now, before you accuse me of painting with a broad brush, let me say many Democrats do not seek a weak America. For example, Joe Lieberman does not. Zell Miller does not. Sam Nunn does not. John F. Kennedy did not. Alive today, he'd be a hawk.

However, it is eminently fair to say that virtually all those bound to a weak America also are bound to the Democratic Party.

Karl Rove was 100 percent accurate with his June 22 comments: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9-11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

Liberals are livid, mainly because, secretly, they know Rove has them nailed. Their party in the past 60 years has a rich history of appeasement, defeatism, naivete, fear and weakness.

Liberals simply have not got the will to kill our mortal enemies. They just want to shoot them in the shoulder.

Consider two moments from the century that was: Yalta 1945 and Vietnam 1968-74.

At Yalta, President Roosevelt gave away Eastern Europe to Stalin. At the time, our side had had nearly three decades to size up the evil of the Soviet Union. It was, after all, the nation that murdered 5,000 officers — the cream of Poland's military — at Katyn Forest in 1940.

And yet, as Roosevelt told a confidante: "I think that if I give (Stalin) everything I possibly can without demanding anything in return, then, noblesse oblige, he will not attempt to annex anything and will work to build a peaceful and democratic world."

FDR was wrong. For millions of Eastern Europeans, his assessment meant oppression. For thousands, it meant death. For example, ask Peter Fechter, the young German who tried to escape East Berlin in August 1962.

Ah, but wait — you cannot ask poor Mr. Fechter. Shot by East German border guards, he slowly bled to death in no man's land at the Berlin Wall.

American troops heard his cries but dared not rescue him lest they be shot themselves. Fechter was 18. Today, he would be 61. His corpse is Roosevelt's legacy. His corpse, plus the corpses of 1,064 others — and all these at the Berlin Wall alone.

Now, Vietnam. In a book on the war, Col. Harry Summers recounts an incident from the 1974 Paris peace talks. Summers told Col. Tu of the North Vietnamese army, "You know, you never beat us on the battlefield."

Col. Tu replied, "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."

Indeed it was. The communists did not have to win on the ground. They had to win on the TV screens of America's living rooms.

Doing so, they benefited immensely from the collaboration of America's reporters. The most egregious example is how our press magically transformed the Tet Offensive from a great defeat for the communists (which it was) into a great defeat for the Americans (which it was not).

Reporters were shocked that a handful of Viet Cong were able to take a cab to the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, blow their way into the compound and kill a few U.S. soldiers.

Indeed, this was disturbing. But in the big picture, it counted for virtually nothing. The Tet Offensive was a disaster for the North. The Viet Cong were wiped out: 50,000 dead. The communists were left to fight with only their uniformed troops.

But why would a reporter bother with such mundane analysis when he can embark on the sexy task of doomsaying? Walter Cronkite made his famous report declaring the war lost — and what do you know, overnight, the war was lost.

Nothing changes. Thirty-seven years later, we may lose the Iraq war because of the protests of America's victory-haters.

Again, my caveat: Many Democrats are not weak Americans. But nearly all weak Americans are Democrats.

Therefore, I think I am entitled to say that when it comes to national security, the Democrats are the party that harbors the timid and the self-handcuffed.

You could say they are the party of Atticus Finch, the heroic lawyer but misguided father in "To Kill a Mockingbird," who told his brave daughter Scout, "I forbid you to fight."

Likewise, Democrats forbid America to fight. For 70 years, they refused to take communism seriously. Now, they refuse to take terrorism seriously. They simply cannot believe our enemies mean us harm.

Thank God, George W. Bush knows better.

At the White House in 1980, a shocked Warren Christopher asked: "You mean you're really going to shoot to kill? You really are?"

Yes, we really are. And for some Americans, it's time to grow a spine.

Michael Bowers is a copy editor and page designer for The Star. Send e-mail to mbowers@starnewspapers.com.

[dixiechick2000]

Great read!

New tagline bump!

[Chi-townChief]

CHICAGOLAND PING

[Milligan]

Questions...

#1) Did Osama received aid from the CIA when the Soviet's invaded Afghanistan back in 1979. Some say he did but others said he provided his own money to fight the Soviets.


#2) Was Osama an important Majahdeen leader or was he one of many who came in to fight the Soviets?

#3) If Osama didn't take aid from the US then he's a hyprocrite in his Feb 12, 2003 message saying it was okay to fight along the Iraqi socialist.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2751019.stm

#4) When the Soviets decided to withdraw from Afghanistan in Feb 1989 he made fatwah against the US that same month.
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm
If his band of merry men could take out the Soviets they could take out the United States. I'm baffled when socialist workers of the world aligned themselves with AQ. What would happen to the secularist if AQ set up theocracies around the world? Are they useful idiots for the AQ?

My enemy's enemy is my friend.

[Defiant]

Ed Koch has already endorsed Hillary for 2008.

[expatpat]

Excellent post!

[justshutupandtakeit]

Answers:
1- No. Our aid went primarily to the Northern Alliance forces not bin Laden.
2-He was important but one of several including the dude he offed right before 9/11.
3 - That was no question
4- Nor was that a question.

[TADSLOS]

Good stuff.

[longtermmemmory]

Liberals (now we use the new hidey term de jour "progressive") hate being exposed.

[longtermmemmory]

Has hitlary changed her israel position?

She stopped kissing arafats widow?

[Fledermaus]

Bowers had me until he wrote, "Thank God, George W. Bush knows this".

Does he really? Why do we then allow fighters to pour over the Iraqi border from Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia? Why are we not killing them as they cross before they get into safehouses?

I know much of the WOT is fought behind the scenes, but what is seen at it's face looks weak and unorganized. Why doesn't this administration fight the public perception part against the liars in the press better?

Let those described in this article and by Rove whine. I don't give a rats behind. I want to see a strong face on a strong military that is allowed to leave a large and strong footprint.

Don't mess with us or you will die. Some day, somewhere.

[Milligan]

Did my own research over this week end. Why I'm asking silly questions is that I have to go and visit my anti-war relatives back in Massachusetts. They think F911 is gospel. I just like to poke a whole in one of Moore's conspriacry theories.

They like to gnaw on this one..."The evil CIA funded Bin Laden!" After digging around the internet I came up with two articles. Osama was rabid anti-American way back during the 1980's. There were two groups fighting the Soviets in the Afghanistan. The Arab-Afghan and Afghan natives.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98115,00.html

http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists/binladen/2.htm


His fatwah's shows his intent to topple American infidels just like he did with the Soviet Union atheist.

This is bad news for my relatives they are practicing Wickins!

[justshutupandtakeit]

Here are their lies:

1 US funded Osama;
2 US provided Saddam with weapons;
3 Saddam not involved in terrorism or terrorist attacks on the US;
4 Bush allowed bin Laden's relatives to leave after 9/11 but it was Richard Clark who actually gave approval after FBI clearance;
5 Bush claimed Saddam had WMD and that was the reason to go to war. He actually gave many reasons which were repeats of charges made in the Regime Change in Iraq Act passed in late 90s and signed by Clinton.
6 Al Queda and Saddam were enemies. Fact was they had been working together since the early nineties. The Pharmaceutical factory Clinton blew up in the Sudan was a joint Al Queda/Iraqi operation.

There are tons of stuff here to clobber those dunces with have fun.

[Milligan]

How about the Afghanistan civil war 1989-1996. The Taliban came into power in 1996 with the blessing of the Clinton Administration.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/howthe.htm

http://www.historyguy.com/afghan_civil_war.html

Far fetch?

[Christopher Lincoln]

Until I see real evidence of it, I will continue to disbelieve that Bin Ladin had anything to do with the Afghan resistance to Soviet aggression. I suggest that already in 1979, he was quite clear on who his real enemy was, and it was not the Soviet Union.

It isn't strange that AQ and the Taliban should have taken credit, after the fact, for driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan; the communists themselves had used that line many times, with great success.

[spintreebob]

They just want to shoot them in the shoulder."
I don't think they would even go that far.

Liberals would do it... with a tranquilizer dart filled with ritalin... After all, the terrorists just have ADD.