Words Can Kill
The American
Spectator gives us a historical example of exactly how a loyal opposition
should act during wartime. In 1942, the Republicans had plenty of ammunition
to use against FDR. Theories about his incompetence leading to Pearl Harbor,
or worse that FDR knew the attack would happen, were commonplace. The isolationist
United States was now sucked into a worldwide conflict that it was not prepared
for. So how should the Republicans react . . . ?
Savage FDR? Run on a campaign of “Roosevelt lied and people died”?
Should they go out and tell the American people just how dangerously incompetent
the man was, that the best thing to do was make peace with Hitler and Japan’s
Hirohito, then elect Republicans who would simply force FDR to bring home the
boys and let the rest of the world cope with chaos? After all, a few years earlier
FDR himself had turned back an ocean liner filled with 937 Jews escaping the
looming Holocaust. The idea of not making Hitler, Hirohito or Mussolini any
angrier than they were was certainly one approach.…
What happened in 1942?
The Republicans won the election, gaining 44 new House seats and 10 in the
Senate, not quite a majority, but erasing FDR’s control. Dewey won in New York
and was instantly bannered as a presidential sure thing. GOP gubernatorial candidates
won across the country.What was FDR’s reaction? The news account of his post-election press conference
reported FDR "laughs." Why? Said the headline: "Assumes New Congress
is for Winning, So Why Should Poll Make Any Difference?"And the Nazis and the Japanese? The so-called Axis Powers? What was their response?
The New York Times editorial page trumpeted "an admission from Berlin that
it would be ‘harboring an illusion’ to expect the Republican victory to bring
any change whatever in the policy of the United States." Focusing on
the silence of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, the paper concluded: "His
silence is proof of the fact that we have made the unity of our purpose apparent
to our enemies."We’re a long way from 1942.
Far from being silent, our enemies such as Osama bin Laden fairly regularly
send out tapes that regurgitate the Democrats’ talking points. Osama does not
need to work all that hard to put together a PR campaign – he has Michael Moore
on hand to do exactly that for him, who issues propaganda tailored to an American
audience in a way bin Laden could not achieve on his own, and could not purchase
with tens of millions of dollars.
(h/t Dean Esmay
and QandO)
Crossposted from WILLisms.com
Tags: War On Terror
“Personally, I think that Western Civilization is strong enough that it won’t collapse even if the Democrats are elected and pull out of Iraq.”
Let’s hope we never have to find that out. That would only be the beginning of the damage, btw.
Three years ago, there was a brief but loudly heralded play about the assasination of the President. Now we have the movie. Meanwhile, Michael Moore celebrates the terrorists and death and destruction they would bring to the US and western civilization if they were allowed to do so.
Those on the left tell us that they are not deranged, but I don’t recall any of the usual leftist suspects here, or elsewhere, condemning the remarks of Moore, or in any way distancing themselves from obscene notion of murdering a sitting President.
Don Myers? Puzzlefeet? WOOF and the rest? Not a peep of criticism for the demented Moore from any of them. What a surprise!
I agree Adam. And not all the ‘critiques’ from the Democrats are unfair or unhelpful. But all in all, showing a disunited face to the enemy is always a bad idea.
An unprincipled president might be able to use that to his advantage, you think?
Good thing we don’t have one of those right now.
Professor Shahid Alam
Northeastern University
In a fiendishly obscene essay, Professor Shahid Alam of Northeastern University portrays the mass-murdering thugs of 9/11 as heroes on the order of the American patriots of Lexington and Concord.
Michael Moore then picks up on this theme:
“The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win….I oppose the U.N. or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle…the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe — just maybe — God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.”
Is this an anti-war statement?
Look how INTOLERATE MM really is.
When terrorists attack we must show restraint and understand their hate for us. When we defend our liberty we “must now sacrifice their (American) children”.
Does this guy have a soul?
According to his statement he believes in a God who might forgive America if we just die enough and bleed enough. He sounds like an Islamic terrorist.
As much as I detest the things M.Moore says in that quote, I am partly glad his degenerate nature is on display and that it is hailed by the leftist kooks. Now we know who and what they really are.
And why would it take an unprincipled president to do so? What is unprinicpled about pointing out that one’s opponents regard partisan advantage as more important than national security?
I would think a principled president would be obliged to point out why he believes that nation’s security is more important than do his opponents.
I hope there is a special place reserved in hell for Michael Moore.
Well, World War II was a much more popular war than Iraq, so its not a fair comparison. Most Americans, including Republicans, wanted to fight the Nazis, so it wasn’t an issue – just like how now most Americans, including Democrats, want to fight in Afghanistan, so its not an issue.
Of course, that’s no excuse for a lot of the crap propaganda the extreme left has brought out, especially with the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Personally, I think that Western Civilization is strong enough that it won’t collapse even if the Democrats are elected and pull out of Iraq.
Professor Amiri Baraka
A.K.A. Evert Leroy Jones
Rutgers University , Stony Brook
After Jones became a Muslim and changed his name to Amiri Baraka, meaning “Blessed prince.” As Amiri Baraka, his literary and academic careers continued to thrive even as his ideological poisons took full possession of his writing.
His 1969 poem “Black Art,” reads, in part:
This same poem later celebrates “cracking steel knuckles in a Jew-lady’s mouth.”
Another Baraka poem, “Black People,” descends even further into venomous racism:
In another poem, Baraka writes, “rape the white girls. Rape their fathers, Cut the mother’s throats.”
Adam,
Since when does popularity dictate legitimate comparisons?
Oh yea- in “American Idol!”
Adam
War is never “popular.” War is the worst imaginabale cruelty, and it can’t be refined. It is a major sacrifice to secure peace. You talk about it as if you’re answering a question on a game show.
Ken,
well done.
The left gets so frustrated and sometimes even discouraged by the our rhetorical criticism of their patriotism, and dissent. Yet, these same liberals can’t seem to understand how the troops could possibly be demoralized by their relentless opposition, criticism and complaints directed at their efforts.