Skip to comments.Karl Rove nails the anti-victory neurosis of the Left
Posted on 07/03/2005 12:37:13 PM PDT by 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
DANG! That was good.!!
what do we do about it?
Can that story about Christopher possibly be true?
I thought on 9/11/01, at about 11:00 am that we would never again in my lifetime see a democrat in the White House. I certainly hope history will prove me correct.
Let's never forget how many times we were hit while Bill "BJ" Clinton was in office. From the first attack on the trade center to the USS Cole. And Bush did nothing either until 9/11, but after that, he did a lot. But there's a hell of a lot more to be done. And we can't do it all, some of the rest of the world's "infidels" will also have to start getting seriously series about stopping the jihadis.
And by that, Mr. Christopher, et al, I mean we need to start killing a whole lot more of them. More publicly, and scare the heck out of their little medieval minds by burying them in pig skin, etc. Even Bush is all in the "hearts and minds" mode, the heck with that, their "hearts and minds" should be nothing more than targets to us.
Quote of the Week.
Walter Cronkite made his famous report declaring the war lost and what do you know, overnight, the war was lost.
And the libs have been pounding on that same button ever since 9/11, hoping to work that old black magic.
That would make a great tagline!
He was too busy doing the work of the American people.
What an awful way to treat one's friends.
Bruce Herschensohn wrote this five years ago, and it's as true now as it was then:
"Unlike the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month or V-E Day or V-J Day, the end of the Cold War has no date. Even with all its witnesses, no one is sure exactly when it ended. For that matter, no one could say for certain the exact date it began. So the Cold War ended in the same fuzzy way in which it started.
"Maybe it was July 6, 1990, when NATO announced that the Soviet Union was no longer an adversary. Maybe it was one of those days in late August 1990, when one republic of the USSR after another declared independence. Maybe it was March 31, 1991, when the Warsaw Pact military alliance disbanded. Maybe it was Dec. 18, 1991, when the Commonwealth of Independent States was inaugurated. Maybe it was Dec. 26, 1991, when the USSR was formally dissolved. However, because of the drama in the destruction of the symbol of the Soviet Empire, the date that has become recognized is Nov. 9, 1989, when the Berlin Wall crumbled.
"Since that event 10 years ago, there has been an absence of public dialogue regarding the role of U.S. liberals and conservatives during the post-Khrushchev period. That absence of dialogue has left young people with the mistaken belief that the United States was united in its quest to end the expansion of the Soviet system. It's a lie.
"It was the conservatives who wanted to build U.S. military forces to a position so strong that the Soviet Union would go broke trying to keep up. Opposing those efforts were Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri V. Andropov, Konstantin U. Chernenko and the leadership of the liberals in the U.S.
"It was the conservatives in the U.S. who opposed a nuclear moratorium that would have guaranteed superiority of nuclear forces by the Soviet Union. Endorsing a nuclear moratorium were Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and the leadership of the liberals.
"It was the conservatives who wanted the neutron warhead deployed in Western Europe to deter a potential invasion by Soviet tanks. Opposing were Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and the leadership of the liberals.
"It was the conservatives who supported the liberation of Grenada that brought about free elections in that island-nation. Opposing the liberation were Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and the leadership of the liberals.
"It was the conservatives who advocated the deployment of Pershing missiles for the protection of Western Europe. Endorsing a nuclear freeze that would have prevented that were Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and the leadership of the liberals.
"It was the conservatives who backed a Strategic Defense Initiative to make an enemy's intercontinental ballistic missiles worthless. Opposing such a defensive system for the United States were Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and the leadership of the liberals.
"It was the conservatives who accused the Soviet Union of violating arms treaties. Denying the violations were Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and the leadership of the liberals.
"It was the conservatives who wanted to bring down the Sandinistas of Nicaragua. Embracing Daniel Ortega and opposing the Nicaraguan resistance were Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and the leadership of the liberals.
"And it was a conservative president, Ronald Reagan, who accurately described the Soviet Union and its satellite states as an "evil empire." Ridiculing Reagan were Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and the leadership of the liberals.
"Important chapters of the history of the Cold War have been quickly eliminated, misinforming the new generation. Such misinformation is a common quest after battles have been won. Traveling through Europe shortly after World War II, it was difficult to find anyone who did not claim that they spent the war years as members of the underground. Some of them were telling the truth. Many of them were lying. During the first decade after the Berlin Wall fell, it has become common for older Americans to tell the new generation that they supported those who fought against Soviet communism. Some of them are telling the truth. Many are lying. The only difference in the years after the end of World War II and the years after the destruction of the Berlin Wall is that the delete key on computers has replaced the old red erasers."
It needs to be emphasized that this war is quite different from Vietnam. American withdrawal from Vietnam did end that war, at least for America. Premature withdrawal from Iraq and/or Afghanistan will only make the war worse - much worse - for America. That is the lesson of 9/11, if it wasn't already clear.
Ed Koch: I'm voting for Bush
New York Democrat: Kerry doesn't have stomach to go after terrorists
That was an excellent read. I do disagree with this, though:
"Liberals simply have not got the will to kill our mortal enemies. They just want to shoot them in the shoulder."
I don't think they would even go that far. And they certainly would never do the "dirty work" themselves.
"nails the 'weak America' crowd"
YES HE DOES! AND SPENDLY!!
I only take exception to one event - the NK soldiers did not ENTER INTO THE EMBASSY. They were killed outside the embassy.
Col. Beckwith: "Yes, Mister Deputy. 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?"
Ed Koch, a righteous Jew!
OK, that's four. Now name another one.
I thought so.
New tagline bump!
#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.
#4) When the Soviets decided to withdraw from Afghanistan in Feb 1989 he made fatwah against the US that same month.
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.
Ed Koch has already endorsed Hillary for 2008.
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.
Liberals (now we use the new hidey term de jour "progressive") hate being exposed.
Has hitlary changed her israel position?
She stopped kissing arafats widow?
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.
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.
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!
How about the Afghanistan civil war 1989-1996. The Taliban came into power in 1996 with the blessing of the Clinton Administration.
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.
Liberals would do it... with a tranquilizer dart filled with ritalin... After all, the terrorists just have ADD.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.