Nuancing Neville - Democrat Style
By haystack Posted in Harry Reid | Liberals | Nancy Pelosi | War on Terror — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
There has been much mention of Pelosi's remarks on CNN's late Edition this week (10 February, 2008). Read one HERE, another HERE, and another HERE, and many of these based on stories HERE, HERE, and HERE. Pelosi has a well-enough established track record of trashing or outright denying success in Iraq, so there's nothing wildly newsworthy about her performance on CNN. However, if I might be so bold, I suggest we need just a wee bit o' context and historical perspective so that the larger point...that of our Democrat friends insisting they not learn from history, so that we might be reminded of what blindness in the face of evil might bring us. As Chamberlain de-planed after capitulating to Hitler, he said this:
"We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe.
We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."
And before going in the house, all snuggly and warm and unwilling to "see" what he would later become (unwittingly) complicit with helping to cause:
"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time...Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."
The Democrats, too, want us to enjoy a nice quiet sleep...apparently.
More below the fold...
Now, I fairly give Chamberlain a wide swath of understanding (if not forgiveness), for he had personally ENDURED World War I and needed to do everything in his power to avoid personal responsibility for bringing THAT horror back to his people. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the rest of the Democrats who CONTINUE to believe ceding "little things" to our enemy in the short term will bring great and good new depths to their political power and control over the longer term, apparently REFUSE to see 9/11 and the other attacks dating back to the Reagan years as ever having had anything to do with THEM in the first place. The only other logical conclusion here is that they actually WANT millions dead, so long as they can reign supreme...in control of America for a generation. Either way, I have a problem with that.
The Democrats now, in choosing a Chamberlain path to political victory, refuse to believe we face anything remotely resembling that which the world faced in 1938...so long as it furthers their cause of accumulating power. There's a very big yet subtly nuanced difference here between the 1938 Chamberlain and the 2008 Democrats...at least Chamberlain cared about the suffering and sacrifice he knew his people would have to endure were he to decide wrongly about the fate of Britain...sadly, Pelosi and Reid and others have much more cynical motives as they show complete disdain for such apparent "trivialities" regarding Americans today.
Under their leadership, Reid and Pelosi have fought relentlessly to end the Iraq campaign; this at the behest of those who elected them to majority status that insisted Iraq needed to be stopped and withdrawn from. All at once they have supported the notion that there is, in fact, a war on terror...while continuing to insist it is singly and solely to be fought in Afghanistan, and that Bush's ability to prevent further attacks on American soil was somehow just dumb luck or unrelated and accidental.
Choosing to narrowly define "their" war on terror as one that ONLY requires us to find and kill Osama Bin Laden shows just how little they understand (or care) about what Radical Islamic Jihad is or what risks this millions-strong movement might expose us to, not only here in America but around the non-Islamic world.
One of the more striking pieces of nonsense from Speaker Pelosi can be found in THIS little gem from Earthtimes (of all places). Pelosi, in a release regarding "Congressional testimony by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, on the proposed fiscal year 2009 defense budget:"
"Today's testimony by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff confirms our warning that the war in Iraq has seriously undermined our nation's military strength and readiness, and therefore our national security.
"Admiral Michael Mullen's testimony before Congress today that our troops are 'significantly stressed' by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan underscores the national security threat posed by the President's failed Iraq policy. Admiral Mullen's warning that 'the pace of ongoing operations has prevented our forces from fully training for the full spectrum of operations and impacts our ability to be ready to counter future threats' should make clear that the issue of military readiness is not an abstract concept, but a timely and critical serious threat to the safety of the American people.
"We need a New Direction in our Iraq policy, one that will bring our troops home honorably, safely, and soon."
Clearly, Pelosi sees that we need a Military ready to face threats, while simultaneously insisting that we don't currently face any. To suggest we bring 'em all home so they can gear up for a war she doesn't seem to think we're already fighting shows just how ridiculous the Democrats have made themselves out to appear.
Or, she is willing to lose ground in Iraq and Afghanistan (however well or poorly we might have been fighting for it there in recent years) in hopes of winning more seats in Congress...and, of course, PRAYING we don't get hit again here at home before then. And just what, exactly, would Pelosi do if we WERE hit again? To whom would she capitulate in order to garner more Congressional seats?
The logic escapes me, but one thing is clear-the threat the Democrats see is the one that endangers their political majority status. They obviously don't care how many lives might be lost here at home in the meantime...or how many might be lost on the soil of our allies. What other conclusion can be drawn?
« If it's Tuesday, it must be time for Reid to muck up energy policy. — Comments (13) | Democrat Dementia — Comments (7) »
Nuancing Neville - Democrat Style 13 Comments (0 topical, 13 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
... but I'm pretty sure that reducing violence by itself was never the point of the surge. IIRC, the idea was to reduce violence assuming that would allow the Iraqi political process to mature. That has quite clearly not happened.
...in fact, it could be argued that more political reconciliation has occurred in Iraq, than in the Democrat-led U.S. Congress:
The UN's Staffan de Mistura said he would present a positive picture of progress in Iraq in a report to the UN Security Council despite earlier serious misgivings
"At the beginning of [2007]... we were genuinely concerned by the lack of progress on national dialogue," he told Reuters news agency by telephone.
"Today that has substantially changed. It has changed our mind from being worried or from being pessimistic."
The UN report would, he said, "compliment" Iraq's government on its work at fostering reconciliation.
"Iraq needs to maintain the momentum, 2008 is going to be a crucial year," Mr de Mistura added.
Withdrawing Democrats from Congress makes far more sense for national security, the spread of freedom, and humanitarian purposes than withdrawing troops from Iraq.
--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
You have to listen to the folks that are talking about the progress there, not just the latest bombing to kill 10 people in a market. The big news, politically, is that the government has agreed to invite Bathists at certain levels back into government or a pension. The interesting part of the pension is that in their culture, to accept the pension is to agree that all is over with. Sort of like a check from the auto insurance company, "by signing here you agree to not bring further claim, etc." This is a major step forward in political unification and healing of the rifts. If it can't be explained in two words or photographed, it is very hard to learn about what goes on over there. So you really have to look.
Pelosi is a fool to think she is doing anything other than emboldening our enemies. We tried ignoring the bad people and they blew up our Marines while they slept. They attached our ship. They downed commercial airliners. They destroyed two embassies. They attacked unsuccessfully the World Trade Center. They attacked again and destroyed them both along with many lives. They attacked our military headquarters, again taking more lives. They held our diplomats hostage with the whole world watching and we did nothing. So I think we have tried sit with our thumbs up our pipes and it hasn't worked out so well. Ever since we brought the fight to them, we have severely limited there network's ability to spread their putrid hatred. They have been relegated to a Spartan mountainous region of the Peshawar (they do not even have running water!) I even like the idea that Mullah Omar and Osama probably don't have access to good old Charmin. I have been camping before and it gets old after a while. Especially with all those military drones shooting hellfires flying around.
...Lean not on your own understanding...You have to listen to
Chamberlain assumed everyone wanted to avoid war and that Hitler, if brought to the negotiation table would see reason. Even after a German military buildup in complete violation of the Versailles Treaty, the invasion Rhineland, the Spanish Civil War, the Anschluss with Austria, and the partition of the Sudetenland, the British Prime Minister assumed he and his German counterpart could make a list of their differences and go through them with a pencil. At one point, he pondered giving Germany Angola and Congo in exchange for cooperation (without consulting their Portugeuse and Belgian owners respectably)!
Alarmed air force and intelligence officials went to Winston Churchill with their information on the German military build-up, and the lackluster British forces since they knew the Tory government would ignore it. No amount of eloquence or logic could compel the Prime Minister to listen to reason. After Munich, a despondent Churchill said:
"Chamberlain had to choose between war and shame. He has chosen shame now. He will get war - later."
Chamberlain lied to the British people on the state of their military, especially air defenses relative to Germany, to avoid making armnaments an election issue. He surrounded himself with yes-men who agreed with his appeasement policy and marginalized anyone who disagreed with his assessment of Hitler, even through September 1, 1939 - when he thought sending an ultimatum to Hitler might not be a good idea since he doubted the German leader would agree.
Although the stakes aren't nearly as high as they were for the British in 1939, the current batch of Congressional Democrats are just as deluded as Chamberlain on the nature and mettle of our enemy. Last week, terrorists connected to Al Qaeda strapped explosives to two women with down syndrome, waited for them to wander into a crowded area, and detonated the bombs, killing over 100 people in the process.
And wherever men are fighting against barbarism, tyranny, and massacre, for freedom, law, and honour, let them remember that the fame of their deeds, even though they may be exterminated, may perhaps be celebrated as long as the world rolls round. ~ Winston Churchill
Chamberlain suffers by even a loose comparison.
Britain was not yet at war with Germany, we on the other hand are achieving success in a major front of the war we've been since 9/11. The Prime Minister was not, could not, therefore be arguing for retreat in an ongoing war the likes of which we are in and will be in for years yet to come.
Great Britain did not have 3,000 dead civilians after an attack on their soil, we did.
While it is always advisable to keep Chamberlain in mind as an historical lesson and Haystack's reminder is laudable, yet I don't think his memory should be tarred by even an innocent comparison, if inadvertent, to the human dregs otherwise known as the Democratic Party.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
"Going over the cliff, flags flying, is still going over the cliff." - Ronald Reagan, as quoted by Robert McFarlane
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile -- hoping it will eat him last. -- Winston Churchill
because the example of Chamberlain cuts both ways.
For example, Chamberlain was fanatical believer in party discipline. Once the war started, he could not abide any criticism, and he implied that criticism of a government in wartime was unpatriotic.
In contrast, he lost power in some of the darkest days of the war, as France was being overrun, and the decisions made in that crucible led to Churchill coming to power.
If those who say criticism of the conduct of a war is unpatriotic, that we must stand by the commander in chief no matter what, they are also following the example of Chamberlain.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Churchill and Chamberlain both had a pretty good idea what the cost of going to war would be. One thought it was worth it and the other didn't. I'm glad Churchill chose as he did, but Britain paid a heavy price, as did the rest of the world (e.g. rise of Soviet Union to superpower status and the resulting mass murder/genocide, among others). What is the cost we are willing to pay?
Rep. Murtha proposed his troop withdrawl / redeployment, and the idea went around the Dems' house that we needed to reconstitute our Armed Forces as a rapid deployment emergency response team. I always wondered: if the conditions in Iraq at that time were not sufficiently brutal and threatening to require American troop intervention, then just what level of violence would it take to trigger it?
Having a Military that is ready to face threats, as Ms. Pelosi would have it, is wholly inadequate if the CinC is blind to, or is ignorant of, threats.
I think Obama's policy of personally chatting with the mad men of the world has a certain Neville-ness to it.