Comments on: Defeatist Democrats Aren’t Anything New

By: artgal

artgal — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 02:40:00 +0000

I wish to comment on Vicki's remarks; however, I must first acknowledge I thoroughly loved Condi Rice's statements, and Tammy, you did an absolutely EXCELLENT job in pointing out the defeatism of the past in relation to today. I'm sure McClellan would be enjoying a very vocal spot in today's political landscape, or maybe even with Katie Couric, were he alive today.

Vicki: Defeatism is a deterrent to victory whether during The Civil War or in today's War on Terror. It is a mindset employed by those who are pessimistic and are usually more smitten with their own quest for power than actually defending the country in which to exercise it!

There is also more taking place in the War on Terror than the fight occurring overseas. Do you not recognize that we are in the midst of a Civil War in America today? It may not include physical altercations, air attacks or bombings on our streets, but there is indeed a war being waged on the homefront for the heart and soul of our nation. It is dividing us greatly (one observation is at least we can see who wants to put us at risk in our own country), assaulting our way of life and putting our president and troops in peril during a very serious time. Whoever emerges victorious will determine the fate of America's future, not to mention the War on Terror, and the fate of millions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I might also add one cannot deny the very words and actions of Lincoln's time in relation to today. This is a very obvious and serious case of 'History Repeating Itself 101'. We are at a crossroads now just as we were in 1864.

Let's look at this mirror: there was a slave issue during the Civil War just as there exists a slave issue in the Middle East. Arrogant elitists declare Iraqis and Afghanis are not ready for freedom. Do you not see how this very discrimination parallels with the 1864 defeatist position of Democrats?

We can also observe that many factions divide Iraq as well. We hear some factions may become a different country from Iraq - seceding - as some states declared in Lincoln's time. Also for Lincoln's part, it was necessary to hold the union together in order to confront the issue of slavery. Had McClellan won, the subjugation of black men, women and children would have continued. Who knows if there would even be an America as we know it. I cannot help but think that today's Democrats would (or will) allow their own defeatism to continue the suffering of millions under barbaric Islamic Fascist F(rea)ks.

I am also quite perplexed as to why one would care if Saddam Hussein is on Bin Laden's hit list. I'm more concerned that my president is on that list along with our military and the rest of this country. Whatever hatred supposedly exists between Hussein and Bin Laden, you can be assured that they - and all Islamic Fascist F(rea)ks - are more united in their hatred toward us and, of course, Israel. That being said, the hatred alone serves as a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Whether the instruments are suicide bombers, brainwashing tactics, chemical bombs, nuclear bombs, or using our planes as bombs, it all stems from an indescribably evil and hate-filled mindset first. I'm not sorry to see the likes of Uday and Qusay Hussein erased from this planet. Certainly the sword of Zarquowi was a weapon of mass destruction - and I'm not sorry we took care of that!

As for the deficit: Freedom has a price. Perhaps eliminating some entitlements and federal dollars spent on aid to countries that hate us would be a more reasonable approach than stiffing the military and our national security.

It is pretty comfortable for Americans during this time of war as we are able to conduct our lives as we please. We can live this way since 'someone' has the foresight and determination to take this battle to the Idiot Savage Islamic Fascist F(rea)ks because 9/11 really did happen, and we don't want it to happen again. 'Someone' recognizes that if we face the tests of our time and do not back down, greater days will lie ahead for this country. I'm so grateful that 'someone' has more in common with the greatness of Lincoln than with a forgotten defeatist loserman.

America did not become who she is by throwing in the towel and adopting French as the national language. We did not adopt 'defeatism' as an acceptable platform, either. We rejected him in 2004 just as we did in 1864.

By: TB in Baltimore

TB in Baltimore — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 01:38:00 +0000

Great correlation by Condi (if we could just get her actions to be as good as her words). Tammy’s analysis was also good. Thanks for the link showing the Democratic Platform of 1864 – loved the comparisons to present day Democrats. History truly does repeat itself. Hopefully, the world won’t continue to ignore the current terrorist regimes like they did Hitler and others.

While Iraq may not be our country, I do believe that we (meaning all people that enjoy our freedom and libery – and not just Americans) have a responsibilty to help those that are oppressed by evil regimes. I feel especially strong about this as a woman, because it is usually woman and children receiving the worst treatment in these situations. And it doesn’t stop with Afghanistan and Iraq – we (again – not just Americans) have the same responsibility in other parts of the world.

We must also consider that the world has changed a lot since 1864. For the most part, the US was our world then. The world has gotten smaller and what happens in the Middle East and other parts of the world does affect us. We can’t just pull out and ignore it.

By: Tink

Tink — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 15:45:00 +0000

It seems that Secretary Rice has unknowingly admitted to what I think has been Bush's biggest mistake in Iraq. Because we did not go in with overwhelming destructive force (and still have not exercised it) our enemies have been allowed to rise up and gain a foothold in Iraq. And for that reason the war has dragged on, allowing the parallel universe of the peace movement to gain a foothold in America and around the world.
So along with the help of the MSM, the peace movement bangs their drums to wear people down and coerce them into thinking we need to get out of Iraq before the enemey is destroyed.

By: Section9

Section9 — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 12:36:00 +0000

The Left is beside itself with rage because Rice implies that liberals have taken leave of any moral purpose. She is right, of course. When the going gets tough, liberals run. Our enemies understand this. So does Rice. She is actually trying to shame them.

They know this, as does she, and it angers them no end. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that Leftists are capable of shame. I know they are capable of rationalization.

By: Talkin Horse

Talkin Horse — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 08:20:00 +0000

The reasonable question behind Vicki's jab is the question of whether Iraq is a vital interest of the US or a dangerous distraction. I can't claim to make a definitive answer; I'm not sure it's possible to definitively answer until the history books are written. Vicki argues that the Civil War was vital but Iraq was not. But the validity of the Civil War was far from clear in its time. As you can see, many Americans of the day (including legal scholars and most Democrats) considered the Constitution to be a voluntary compact from which one could withdraw. Some of those seceding states were of the original 13 colonies, and they could have avoided ever signing on in the first place. Sure, now that it's receded into history, it's unimaginable that secession could have been allowed, but this is spoken in hindsight, and largely based upon the precedent that was set there. But Vicki might point out, for example, that Vietnam clearly wasn't a vital interest, in that the bad guys won and the world didn't come to an end. But the Domino Theory seemed valid at the time, at least to some people. We thought Vietnam was vital. And I might also point out that England and France declared war on Germany when Germany marched into Poland; where's the vitality in that? WWII would never have happened if only England and France had minded their own business. That's what the Germans argued, anyway, and the isolationist factions in America agreed. And WWI was triggered by an assassination in the Balkans; no reasonable person would expect such an incident to set off a world war. Even in hindsight, that makes no sense. I'm not just trying to be rhetorical; most things are confusing while they're in their initial stages. The US sat out the initial stages of WWII (even though the conflict was indeed vital and we should have been in there earlier); then one fine day we were suddenly and through no choice of our own in the middle of it. Well, that was nice and simple, because we didn't have to think, but our passivity almost handed the world over to the Fascists. So you see, we're always doomed to murk and mistakes as things go down, even though they're clear in retrospect. That's an odd quirk of time: Our lives run forwards but we understand life backwards. God apparently has a sense of humor. Anyway, back to Iraq, the vitality of the thing (if indeed there is any) lies essentially in the engagement of the Islamofascists on their home turf. You may feel nostalgic for pre-invasion Iraq, but remember that that was a deteriorating stalemate. Sooner or later, either we were going to engage Saddam or he was going to get out of his cage. 9/11 convinced George Bush that we needed to engage the enemy in a proactive rather than a reactive way. A reversal from Bill Clinton's "put it off" approach. In retrospect, this was Clinton's big mistake in international affairs. Iraq was an instigator, and Saddam's hands were very bloody and very guilty. That's the argument, and it makes sense. But then, so did the Domino Theory. Again, we're all theorizing, but only history will answer for sure. I hope George Bush got it right, because these are dangerous times. Mistakes are unavoidable, but too many of them will kill us.

Sorry; I felt like ranting.

By: WK

WK — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 03:49:00 +0000

Vicki,

I couldnt care less if we are talking about a major fight for our civilization for your comparison that there is a difference that it is fought overseas instead of here. The distinction matters little to me.

Much of the American public has become complacent, that is a major explanation why the Dems will win. I will agree the GOP does not have a strong basis to run this time other than more of the same, which many are tiring of. Perhaps we need 2 years of Dem control of Congress to remind many of us what life would be like under alternative leadership.

Also however, Bush and the GOP are in this predicament because of his views on illegal immigration. He has alienated much of the base, and jeopardized representatives that should be reelected. He got reelected in 2004 with Iraq going on, so as angry as people are about Iraq, that is not what is costing Bush and the GOP. The illegal immigration question however is a key variable and why the GOP could well get hammered this November. The national security question while important, will not dig the GOP out of the hole this time it certainly appears.

I always think though, who would OBL rather see have power, the Dems or the GOP? Suddenly however, seeing another report on ABC News website that Pakistan has a deal working with al Qaeda to let them be in the tribal areas is a sad commentary on Bush's policy regarding Pakistan. If Musharraf gets killed or ousted, count Pakistan as the newest member of the Axis of Evil. This one with nukes. At least Bush had the sense to cut a deal with India.

By: Evil Roy

Evil Roy — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 03:03:00 +0000

And remember! Abe Lincoln was murdered by a democrat activist actor.

By: Vicki

Vicki — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 01:08:00 +0000

We are talking about a different country with Iraq. The American Civil War was ours and we fought it. The Iraqi people must stand up for themselves. They must fight their own "good fight" or it will not stand.

I'm sorry. Did I get confused for one second and forget that it was supposed to be about WMD? Did I forget for one second that Saddam Hussein was on Bin Laden's hit list? I guess I did because here WE are in Iraq fighting that ----- fight for him.

Meanwhile, our own national debt has grown by leaps and bounds.

Uh-huh. Well, Condi. At least you are not in immediate danger of being removed from the list of Tammy's most favorite people. That's something at least.

[Well, that petty sarcastic jab at our host adds so much to your comment. At least it exposes your frame of mind. You also used an obscenity in this post that has been removed. Consider yourself warned--ed.]

By: Pajamas Media

Pajamas Media — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 00:37:00 +0000

Rice Likens Iraq Wars Critics to Those of US Civil War:

The US Secretary of State compares the critics of both wars, saying that, in spite of their respective nay-sayers, both struggles were justified. “I’m sure that there were people who said, ‘why don’t we get out of this now, take…