Friday, December 30, 2005

Liberals Are Dangerous

“I don’t like you, cause you’re gonna get me killed.”

During the 1990s Bill Clinton’s military inadequacies were largely ignored in the euphoria of the economic boom and the distractions of his female problems. Consequently, the first attack on the World Trade Center and the terrorist strike at the USS Cole faded from memory and were not thought of as attacks on fortress-America. September 11, 2001 changed all that.

George Bush’s presidency awoke to the danger. “National-security-minded Democratic politicians fell over each other, voting for all sorts of tough measures. They passed the Patriot Act, approved the war in Afghanistan, voted to authorize the removal of Saddam Hussein, and nodded when they were briefed about Guantanamo or wiretap intercepts of suspect phone calls to and from the Middle East.” (Victor Davis Hansen, National Review Online, 12/30/05)

Then an ugly thing happened within the Democratic Party. They remembered Vietnam and how opposition to that war was a political winner for a string of politicians beginning with John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, who forgot that his brother started the war and made a career of opposing the US military. Howard Dean woke up the anti-war fever swamp types, Michael Moore provided the artistic propaganda and George Sorros the bucks. Democrats followed like liberal lemmings and lost the 2004 election big-time.

One would think that the Democratic Party would have learned the lesson that Americans do not like to be attacked by foreigners. Instead they assailed President Bush for his strategy, calling the war in Iraq a diversion from the main task of defeating al-Qaeda. He was accused of using distorted intelligence about the presence of WMD to invade Iraq. And they are now calling for impeachment because Bush used his war powers to obtain wiretaps on calls between foreign terrorists and suspected American supporters. It’s like history is repeating itself.

Peter Schweizer wrote (Opinion Journal, 12/30/05) about how Franklin D. Roosevelt faced very similar critics during World War II. FDR was criticized on the basis that Germany did not pose an immediate military threat to the United States the way that Japan did. He was accused of purposely ignoring evidence that Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor. Part of FDR's motivation for defeating Germany first was fear that the Nazis were working on an atomic bomb, whereas it was later revealed that Germany did not have much of a program. And he put over one hundred thousand Japanese Americans into internment camps.

Bush is in many ways FDR's strategic soul mate. His war on terror is a total global war against a movement comprised of terrorist groups and their state sponsors. By ousting both Saddam and the Taliban, he has removed two important components of the worldwide terrorist movement. And his grand strategy is slowly achieving results.” (Schweizer)

Of course Democrats fail to see the similarities between these two presidents and their wars, as that would cast aspersions on their sainted FDR. But Franklin was one tough son of a bitch. From one of his addresses to the nation he explained his treatment of war protesters: “The best way of dealing with the few slackers or trouble makers in our midst is, first, to shame them by patriotic example, and, if that fails, to use the sovereignty of Government.”

The inevitable tension between protecting the country and maintaining civil liberties goes back to the founding. Lincoln spoke of it during the Civil War:
Is there, in all republics, this inherent and fatal weakness? Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and for the rest of the war, military officers could arrest U.S. citizens and hold them indefinitely without presenting evidence against them. In 1863, Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Act, effectively endorsing Lincoln's earlier suspension of the "Great Writ."

Like the Tory sympathizers in the Revolutionary War, the Northern secessionists of the Civil War, or the “secret agents and their dupes” that FDR dealt with in WWII, the left wing obstructionist Democrats need to be put in a place where they can do no harm. I’d suggest France.


Blogger Reign of Reason said...

You're right: GW 'woke to the danger' -- because he was sleeping.

Clinton and Berger told W and Condi that terrorism would be the #1 prob they faced. At first, they denied the conversations/briefings even occurred, but the 9/11 commission report documents them under oath.

So much for the 'morals and values' crowd -- they can't even tell us the truth about the exchange of information with the previous administration.

As for Clinton's failings, there were 37 Americans killed in the 90's as a result of terrorist attacks... How many died in the Kobar towers under Reagan? What was his response?

I'm sick of bloggers who paint a lopsided picture of reality to further their view of (non) reality.

12:45 PM  
Blogger Bill Lama said...

Dear ror,

OK. Let's discuss your reality.

You ask your conservative friends: "What would you be saying if a Republican was in office in the 90's and Clinton was responsible for 3+ years of war in Iraq while those responsible for killing 3000+ American's run free?"

A Republican was president in the 90s (You may remember Bush Senior) and we said and still say that he bungled the conclusion of the First Gulf War. After encouraging the Kurds and the Shia to stand up to Sadaam he failed to support them against Sadaam's revenge. Bush Junior is a better man than his dad.

As for "those responsible for killing 3000+ American's" most of al Qaida in Afghanistan are dead and the rest are hardly "running free." We still have 15,000 troops there to hunt down the remnants of al Qaida, including bin Laden.

Please don't be sick, at least not here.

1:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


The refusal to recognize the similarity between Iraq and WWII isn't out of deference to FDR. It's because there really isn't one.

When are you going to recognize that the Iraq war was a huge mistake based on a string of lies, most of which are now well-understood? The neocon line just doesn't work any more. Even Bush chose to admit some mistakes while everyone was in euphoria over the relatively peaceful elections.

You're still saying Saddam was an "important component" in global terrorism. How so? The guy was a murderer, but he no longer posed any kind of threat to anyone except the poor Iraqis. As a threat to the rest of the world he ranked below a long list of others - headed by Iran, N Korea and Syria.

The Iraq invasion has certainly provided a very convenient focal point (which didn't exist before) for people to kill Americans, and there is an inexhaustable supply of people who will step up to do that. It will probably (though not certainly) result in the disintegration of Iraq and the enhancement of Iranian influence in the Middle East. NONE OF THESE THINGS ARE GOOD.

Victory in WWII was one of this country's finest achievements. The invasion of Iraq will probably prove to be one of its worst. This statement is not unpatriotic and it doesn't show disloyalty to our troops (the usual neocon response). It just accepts a likely outcome in the hope that we can deal with it realistically in the future.


2:37 PM  
Blogger Reign of Reason said...

Bush Sr. wasn't the greatest president. But at least he knew the cost of going into Baghdad and overthrowing Saddam. We are paying that price now for an uncertain (at absolute BEST) outcome. … unless you’d care to personally guarantee that things will be better in Iraq for Iraqi’s and American’s as a result of our action/policy.

Let’s look at the words of Bush Sr.’s National Sec Advisor: Brent Scowcroft – a hawk by any measure:

Scowcroft said. “How do the neocons bring democracy to Iraq? You invade, you threaten and pressure, you evangelize.” And now, Scowcroft said, America is suffering from the consequences of that brand of revolutionary utopianism. “This was said to be part of the war on terror, but Iraq feeds terrorism,” he said.

Yes, we have captured many al Qaida in Afghanistan and elsewhere. I personally helped track down some in Iraq… But how many more Osama's has our foreign policy created in the last 4 years? I can tell you far, far more than we have captured or killed.

By any measure we are creating more hatred abroad: from our practice of rendition, to torture to spying on American citizens (an impeachable breach). This administration has NOTHING in common with FDR -- or any other administration... It has at its head an incompetent, self-proclaimed drifter whose resume (before he was 40) consists of living off his dad's name and money -- while getting drunk.

The sooner this embarrassment leaves office the better the entire world will be...

In case you've forgotten -- here's there text of the 4th Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

How much more clear can that be?

4:03 PM  
Blogger Reign of Reason said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

4:13 PM  
Blogger Reign of Reason said...

“Is there, in all republics, this inherent and fatal weakness? Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?"

By god man... Lincoln faced a situation in which nearly half the citizens of the union were trying to secede... We were fighting Americans for gods sake!!! Washington was in the back yard of the battle…

Besides, Chief Justice Taney wrote an opinion during that time CONDEMING Lincoln for suspending habeas corpus!

Please draw a relevant analogy. And please don’t waste my time saying we need to spy on Americans without a warrant: that’s exactly what the FISA court is for.

Do you understand what it means to live in a free country?

4:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...




4:30 PM  
Blogger Bill Lama said...

reign of reason:

Bush Sr made a serious mistake not finishing off Sadaam's regime. It led to attrocities against the Iraqi people, Iraq support of PLO suicide bombers, alQaida training in Iraq, corruption on a massive scale involving our so called allies in France, Germany, Russia...(You may remember the UN oil for food scandal) and the rise of terror organizations under Clinton's watch.

The UN sanctions were headed for an end and Sadaam's WMD program would have heated up, aided by our friends. The UN stalling gave him plenty of time to move the stockpiles to Syria.

Scowcroft (a hawk?) and the rest of the "realists" should be eating crow with the success of Democracy in Iraq.

You say you helped in Iraq. Well my grandson has been there and is scheduled to go again. I know and communicate with many soldiers of all ranks. Your pesimism is rare and misguided.

The reading of the 4th ammendment does not prohibit warrantless searches in time of war. The Supreme Court has ruled on this. Check it out. If the president did not use every opportunity to intercept terrorist's communications then he should be impeached.

I really wonder what you are so worried about. I worry about another attack on America.

4:56 PM  
Blogger Bill Lama said...


After all the investigations you still maintain there were a "string of lies." That's just amazing, and it's why the Democrats may never again regain national power. Most people are getting sick of that baseless rhetoric.

The US military has done a great job in Afghanistan and Iraq and control is being passed to the Iraqi forces. By any measure this has been an amazing success. You should talk with some military folks.

As far as I'm concerned, your attitude about our war is unpatriotic. There is no way to support the troops without supporting their mission. Ask them.

5:06 PM  
Blogger Yolo Cowboy said...

I really love all the arm-chair quarterbacking going on in the MSM and on the blogesphere about the Executive branches authority to conduct warrant-less surveillance of possible terror suspects.

I am not a constitutional law professor and even among them there is a split on the legality of this type of surveillance. I would like to point out an opinion offered by Cass Sunstein, Professor at the University of Chicago Law School. Many in the Con-Law arena attest to his expertise and to make it an even bitterer pill for the left to swallow, professor Sunstein is a liberal.
While not giving the President a free pass on this type of surveillance, he does shoot holes in the 4th amendment and FISA argument echoed from the left.

Read his paper on this.

5:29 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home