A Day Which Will Live in Infamy and a Man Who Will Live in Ignominy
Terry McAuliffe, the soon-to-be-outgoing Chairman of the Democratic National Committee released a statement today that leads me to believe I have woken up in some alternate dimension where everything I hold to be true is, in fact, false.
The subject matter was ostensibly a Pearl Harbor remembrance. He praised the unity shown by the nation 63 years ago today as the citizenry learned about a vicious attack on an American Naval base on a clear blue peaceful morning. Of course, he completely glosses over the fact that America was deeply divided at the time about whether they should send supplies, munitions, aid or (especially) troops to Europe or if they should stay home and not get involved in another of Europe's seemingly endless territory wars. Suddenly, the decision was made for them. If Japan could attack us an ocean away from home, then certainly Germany, if successful, wouldn't stop at the shores of the Atlantic. The sleeping giant was awoken and he made ready for war. America did not ask to be included in the war, only to be left alone, but if we would have to fight, we wage war on our terms: complete and to unconditional victory.
After the attack, Americans knew the cost of staying their mighty hands and retreating from the world: isolation, degradation and subjugation. Instead of passively accepting that, we sent millions of soldiers to fight for four long years, and, sadly, a half million to die. We knew the cost of war, but we knew the price of freedom as well.
The parallels to September 11th are unavoidable. There was a war on elsewhere in the world that didn't encroach on our lands (usually), but threatened our values. Our enemies were not content to just attack our allies, but agitated for direct battle with us. This time, however, most of us were unaware of the war waiting for us.
When attacked this time on a clear blue peaceful morning, we again bound ourselves together as Americans with ties of love, patriotism, and (unfortunately) fear. We were one people, one country determined to act while we could to ensure our continued existence and to completely, utterly and totally defeat the enemy who dared disturb our slumber. We would fight, as we have always fought, for peace, for the end of fighting, to rid the world of yet another vile ideology of suppression and oppression, to once again make the world safe for Democracy.
But then, something happened. Something altered the course of our new war from the path of World War II. From complete united victory.
In World War II, we didn't immediately attack Japan and lay siege to Germany. We couldn't. We had to fight the fights we could win, and then hope we did. We fought in Africa to prove our men's virtues and abilities before we could effectively fight in Europe. We fought the Japanese in the Philippines and en route to Australia because we could not yet fight them in Japan. It was understood that this war would be long, would cover many fronts and would be fought, must be fought against all of the enemies of the United States, not just Japan. Germany provided succor and support to Japan in its bid on the Pacific and so they were enemies too (not to mention, of course, their brutal attacks on our cultural mother, England). Americans were united not just on December 8, 1941, but also on June 6, 1944 when the war seemed nearly interminable and we were secretly launching our most ambitious assault, disregarding the uncertainty of victory. Americans believed in the necessity of the war and in the justice of the war.
This time though, the cries for "No Imperial America," "Give Peace a Chance" "This War Can Not be Won" began almost immediately with the commencement of hostilities in Afghanistan. It only quieted when our brute force military chased the Taliban out of Kabul in only two months time. It started its crescendo then as the case was being made for an invasion of Iraq, culminating in the shrill cries of "No Blood for Oil," and the screams of voluntary human shields who willingly placed themselves in front of Saddam's military installations to try to prevent the US from destroying them. Where was the unity? Where was the steadfast belief that America must win the war she's in, whether she started it or not? The War on Terror is a very long war, still in its infancy; a war that must be fought on many fronts (financial, political, social and martial); and a war against another vile ideology of suppression and oppression. But this time, we don't have the charismatic face of Hitler to rail against. There is no Rising-Sun Flag to aim for. Our enemy is faceless. He has no country, no homeland to invade, no border to cross. He is liquid, mercurial, a chameleon, able to attack and fade back into the civilian populace whose attire and appearance he hides behind.
We must be creative and completely united in our struggle against an enemy whose main weapon isn't the ability to make young men willing to blow themselves up in a cafe, but is the ability to make our own media question our motivations or our actions, so that he can point to it and say "They know they are evil and yet they come to destroy us all anyway."
And so the protestors from before the Battle for Iraq and the Battle for Afghanistan played right into their hands by decrying every action of America as evil. Every time someone yelled "No Blood for Oil," a terrorist got his wings. It gave comfort and solace to the terrorists that American could not stomach a protracted war. Americans would call their troops home at the first sight of blood. I am thankful that President Bush is not that kind of man. I am thankful that the American people re-elected him.
The Democrats were united only in that they opposed everything about George W. Bush and America's self-interest. They were otherwise divided in how much they should oppose it, whether America should just declare a stalemate or should be defeated completely to "teach us a lesson," over just which actions contributed to which root causes which caused those poor militants and activists to kill us. Every major issue had 15 different viewpoints in the Democratic Party this year. In fact, their whole nomination was a battle to see who could be more anti-war and still have the credentials to seem the most capable when dealing with National Security.
And then Terry McAuliffe has the gall to say national unity 63 years ago enabled Americans to go forward and defeat the country's enemies, but the same kind of unity needed now was being undermined by Republican disagreements over provisions of the yet-to-be-voted on intelligence reform bill. (Italics quoted from the Washington Post article in the Title Link).
He goes on to say:
Wait. The REPUBLICANS are impeding the War on Terror? What was the political affiliation of all of those useful idiots who protested and continue to protest everything America does? Who is the party who could not get a coherent message broadcast to oust a completely oustable President? Who is the party of obstruction? Who is the party of intolerance? Right. Terry McAuliffe's Democratic Party.
He goes on to say:
Of course the Democrats abhor political games and would never be so crass as to play them (like, for instance, using an attack on America to bolster a ridiculous attack on a group of Senators who are fighting to ensure that the pressure to do something doesn't prevent them from doing the right thing). Obviously if the Republicans want to be thorough in the passage of the intelligence reform bill, they are dividing the nation and are divided themselves.
I think McAuliffe is intelligent enough to make his arguments for the Intel-Reform bill he wants to see without subverting the truly astounding sacrifices made and tragedies withstood by America's Greatest Generation (tm) to do so. It is shameful and cheapens those men and women and himself. I think those men and women can handle it with no damage, but I am doubtful of Mr. McAuliffe's ability to endure the same.
The subject matter was ostensibly a Pearl Harbor remembrance. He praised the unity shown by the nation 63 years ago today as the citizenry learned about a vicious attack on an American Naval base on a clear blue peaceful morning. Of course, he completely glosses over the fact that America was deeply divided at the time about whether they should send supplies, munitions, aid or (especially) troops to Europe or if they should stay home and not get involved in another of Europe's seemingly endless territory wars. Suddenly, the decision was made for them. If Japan could attack us an ocean away from home, then certainly Germany, if successful, wouldn't stop at the shores of the Atlantic. The sleeping giant was awoken and he made ready for war. America did not ask to be included in the war, only to be left alone, but if we would have to fight, we wage war on our terms: complete and to unconditional victory.
After the attack, Americans knew the cost of staying their mighty hands and retreating from the world: isolation, degradation and subjugation. Instead of passively accepting that, we sent millions of soldiers to fight for four long years, and, sadly, a half million to die. We knew the cost of war, but we knew the price of freedom as well.
The parallels to September 11th are unavoidable. There was a war on elsewhere in the world that didn't encroach on our lands (usually), but threatened our values. Our enemies were not content to just attack our allies, but agitated for direct battle with us. This time, however, most of us were unaware of the war waiting for us.
When attacked this time on a clear blue peaceful morning, we again bound ourselves together as Americans with ties of love, patriotism, and (unfortunately) fear. We were one people, one country determined to act while we could to ensure our continued existence and to completely, utterly and totally defeat the enemy who dared disturb our slumber. We would fight, as we have always fought, for peace, for the end of fighting, to rid the world of yet another vile ideology of suppression and oppression, to once again make the world safe for Democracy.
But then, something happened. Something altered the course of our new war from the path of World War II. From complete united victory.
In World War II, we didn't immediately attack Japan and lay siege to Germany. We couldn't. We had to fight the fights we could win, and then hope we did. We fought in Africa to prove our men's virtues and abilities before we could effectively fight in Europe. We fought the Japanese in the Philippines and en route to Australia because we could not yet fight them in Japan. It was understood that this war would be long, would cover many fronts and would be fought, must be fought against all of the enemies of the United States, not just Japan. Germany provided succor and support to Japan in its bid on the Pacific and so they were enemies too (not to mention, of course, their brutal attacks on our cultural mother, England). Americans were united not just on December 8, 1941, but also on June 6, 1944 when the war seemed nearly interminable and we were secretly launching our most ambitious assault, disregarding the uncertainty of victory. Americans believed in the necessity of the war and in the justice of the war.
This time though, the cries for "No Imperial America," "Give Peace a Chance" "This War Can Not be Won" began almost immediately with the commencement of hostilities in Afghanistan. It only quieted when our brute force military chased the Taliban out of Kabul in only two months time. It started its crescendo then as the case was being made for an invasion of Iraq, culminating in the shrill cries of "No Blood for Oil," and the screams of voluntary human shields who willingly placed themselves in front of Saddam's military installations to try to prevent the US from destroying them. Where was the unity? Where was the steadfast belief that America must win the war she's in, whether she started it or not? The War on Terror is a very long war, still in its infancy; a war that must be fought on many fronts (financial, political, social and martial); and a war against another vile ideology of suppression and oppression. But this time, we don't have the charismatic face of Hitler to rail against. There is no Rising-Sun Flag to aim for. Our enemy is faceless. He has no country, no homeland to invade, no border to cross. He is liquid, mercurial, a chameleon, able to attack and fade back into the civilian populace whose attire and appearance he hides behind.
We must be creative and completely united in our struggle against an enemy whose main weapon isn't the ability to make young men willing to blow themselves up in a cafe, but is the ability to make our own media question our motivations or our actions, so that he can point to it and say "They know they are evil and yet they come to destroy us all anyway."
And so the protestors from before the Battle for Iraq and the Battle for Afghanistan played right into their hands by decrying every action of America as evil. Every time someone yelled "No Blood for Oil," a terrorist got his wings. It gave comfort and solace to the terrorists that American could not stomach a protracted war. Americans would call their troops home at the first sight of blood. I am thankful that President Bush is not that kind of man. I am thankful that the American people re-elected him.
The Democrats were united only in that they opposed everything about George W. Bush and America's self-interest. They were otherwise divided in how much they should oppose it, whether America should just declare a stalemate or should be defeated completely to "teach us a lesson," over just which actions contributed to which root causes which caused those poor militants and activists to kill us. Every major issue had 15 different viewpoints in the Democratic Party this year. In fact, their whole nomination was a battle to see who could be more anti-war and still have the credentials to seem the most capable when dealing with National Security.
And then Terry McAuliffe has the gall to say national unity 63 years ago enabled Americans to go forward and defeat the country's enemies, but the same kind of unity needed now was being undermined by Republican disagreements over provisions of the yet-to-be-voted on intelligence reform bill. (Italics quoted from the Washington Post article in the Title Link).
He goes on to say:
"While we as a nation are united in this fight, there are clearly deep divisions within the Republican Party, divisions that are impeding our fight against terrorism."
Wait. The REPUBLICANS are impeding the War on Terror? What was the political affiliation of all of those useful idiots who protested and continue to protest everything America does? Who is the party who could not get a coherent message broadcast to oust a completely oustable President? Who is the party of obstruction? Who is the party of intolerance? Right. Terry McAuliffe's Democratic Party.
He goes on to say:
"Moving forward, it is my sincere hope that the Republicans running Washington will stop playing their political games and start fighting for the American people, just as our honored veterans did 63 years ago."
Of course the Democrats abhor political games and would never be so crass as to play them (like, for instance, using an attack on America to bolster a ridiculous attack on a group of Senators who are fighting to ensure that the pressure to do something doesn't prevent them from doing the right thing). Obviously if the Republicans want to be thorough in the passage of the intelligence reform bill, they are dividing the nation and are divided themselves.
I think McAuliffe is intelligent enough to make his arguments for the Intel-Reform bill he wants to see without subverting the truly astounding sacrifices made and tragedies withstood by America's Greatest Generation (tm) to do so. It is shameful and cheapens those men and women and himself. I think those men and women can handle it with no damage, but I am doubtful of Mr. McAuliffe's ability to endure the same.
posted by Mister Bixby | 12/07/2004 03:29:00 PM
<< Home