Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Debunking the Leftie Iraq Mantra…Part 1

Major Mike

Bush went to war for political advantage.

Fallacy of the left. I got caught up in a comment exchange at If I Ran the Zoo about several facets of the war in Iraq. After arguing through several threads on a piece entitled “Brezeniski, Iran, and the Wingnuts” (archive April 26, 2006), one of the hosts, Tom Hilton, came back with an implication that I assumed…

“…1) that military action by this administration would be driven by the demands of national security rather than political expediency,…”

That’s when it hit me…ALL of the Left’s arguments are based on a litany of false premises. Premises, that no one validates, and indeed are truly false. Let’s examine this one, for example.

Which President actually gained a political ADVANTAGE in going to war? Name one that did not suffer politically for their decision. Name me the last President who “chose” to go to war, that was rewarded politically for doing so.

Lincoln(R)? Reviled in many circles for going to war, and he “rewarded” with massive draft riots in NYC in July 1863. It garnered him an 1864 opponent who had been a former General in the Army of the Potomac, and he was “swept” into office with a margin of victory of 55-45%. Obviously, going to war solidified his “political” career.

Lincoln was reviled by both sides for many years for his insistence on going to war, for his execution of the war, and for probably the most striking civil rights decree in our history, the Emancipation Proclamation.

In the end, serious scholars of American history recognize that Lincoln is one of our greatest Presidents…likely our greatest. He went to war reluctantly, but for the just reason of holding our nation together. He freed the slaves, and in doing so did more for civil rights than the Democrats…who eventually controlled congress for dozens of years, ever did. His reward? Assassination, and scorn. Until serious students of history, democracy, and civil rights, calmly assessed his legacy and gave him the ultimate credit he was due.

His immediate political reward…an assassin’s bullet.

Woodrow Wilson (D)? After an extremely brief and highly successful US foray into the Great War, he was “rewarded” politically with the complete rejection of his “Fourteen Points,” a Treaty of Versailles that sowed the seeds for WWII, and a complete rejection of American participation in the League of Nations…his vision for peace in the world.

His political reward? “…he left office broken and defeated,…” His last seventeen months in office spent as an invalid. Nice reward.

FDR (D), perhaps the greatest Dem pol of all time, recognized the implications of going to war, and entered the US into WWII prior to any declaration of war by Congress by approving the Lend/Lease program of giving destroyers to the Brits early in 1941.

At this point in the war, FDR had moved the U.S. to helping the war effort with all means except sending armed forces.”

FDR recognized, that until attacked, entering a war, even a dire, World War, was politically risky, and he made every effort to support England and the Russians without actively entering the fray, up until the point we were attacked at Pearl Harbor ( OBTW, America attacked…casualties acknowledged to be 2471). Then he guided our “legitimate” entry into WWII.

FDR was legitimately rewarded for his war time leadership in staying the course, even though Hitler owned most of Europe and the Japanese dominated the Pacific. He endured a full year of bad news waiting for US forces to gain traction, and to begin the long road to victory. He recognized that we were engaged in an extended struggle against two dangerous enemies and stayed the course after witnessing Dunkirk, and having American forces swallowed up at Wake Island, Midway Island, Corrigedor. He recognized the righteousness of the struggle, and had the will to guide the nation through tough defeats.

His political reward…he was the last President elected to a third term. His ultimate reward…he died in office, before the war was successfully concluded. What was the ultimate “value” of his “political” reward? Immortality? What?

Truman (D) got Korea and had to deal with the sticky issue of MacAruthur’s insubordination.

Kennedy(D)…Bay of Pigs, and added 2000% to troop strengths in Vietnam.

Johnson(D)…rewarded with a single elected term, and a divided country after he increased the military presence in Vietnam by 3000%+.

Nixon(R)…aggressively pursued the war until Congress cut off funding…rewarded with…a still divided country, and a list of enemies that made Jimmy Hoffa's short by comparison.


Ford(R)…Mayaguez. No re-election.

Carter(D). Desert One. No re-election.

Reagan (R). Beirut.

Bush 41 (R). Desert Storm…perhaps the most successful liberation campaign in history, not re-elected.

Clinton (D). Somalia. Ineffective counter-terror ops and “Wag the Dog.”

Bush 43 (R). Some of the foulest slanders ever bestowed upon a sitting President, and extremely low poll ratings. Seems with the plethora of examples listed above, engaging our military would not be the first choice of any President for political gain.


Now…we either elected the stupidest Presidents possible, Dem and GOP, or those that we do elect attempt to use the military for our good, or the good of the world…for clearly, there is no political gain to be had by using our military. In fact on could argue, that only Dem pols have really been “rewarded” by using our military.

Engaging the best that this nation has to offer is a heavy burden for those that ask for the sacrifice, and it is fraught with peril, and clearly is not worth the political risk.

Debunked.

8 comments:

Boghie said...

Only one word needed:

Concur...

FDR also had a lot of posturing morons wailing for isolationism even after we were directly attacked.

In the end, I am not really worried about the polls in March. Folks don't start comparing imperfect candidates till May/June. Look at Santorum's numbers now. Look at the President's numbers now. Oh, that's right - they aren't being advertised as much by the MediaCrats...

Check out www.PoliPundit.com

LateR

Major Mike said...

Thanks Wingman. MM

Boghie said...

Major Mike,

I have a wayback post that I consider a 'Public Service Announcement'.

From the Archives: The Public Destruction of Moonbats...

Your post reminded me of 'When Liberals Attack' in the daylight.

There are links to the brilliant debates between:

Richard Pearle and Howard Dean (transcript)

Christopher Hitchens and Gorgeous George Galloway (streaming - DO NOT MISS)

and, uuuummmmm, I can't figure out which Moonbat thought this would be a 'debate', but...

Victor Davis Hanson and Ariana Huffington...

How does this fit your post...
These are more examples of Leftie Mantras getting absolutely decimated (actually more than decimated).

Ralph said...

Major Mike,
Thanks for that but what difference will debunking these false premises make when so few are capable of logical thinking?

Major Mike said...

raplh, I guess in the end, our My Sandmen outreach program may only convince the mildly insane, but I feel soooo much better knowing that I have skunked their feeble attempts at framing the issues. Regards. MM

Anonymous said...

Ditto

Oak Leaf

Anonymous said...

FDR also had a lot of posturing morons wailing for isolationism even after we were directly attacked.
My grandmother was a "Taft" republican. The romantic notion that everyone supported WWII on the homefront is erroneous. (She could have been a liberal dem now.)
Where would we be if the US hadn't spent the 10 years occupying and rebuilding Germany?

JannyMae said...

I've always wondered at the, "Bush lied," crowd. Why would the President enter a war, based on WMD that he KNEW would never be found, and risk committing political SUICIDE in the process?

Never had any logic to it, to me, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by anything the libs would do, when they simultaneously characterize Bush as a total moron and an evil genius.