Posted on 05/07/2004 3:30:52 PM PDT by swilhelm73
After one of the bloodiest months of fighting in Europe, House Republican leaders called for all United States forces to be withdrawn from Europe. "This is a quagmire," said one house member. "There is no evidence whatsoever that Nazi Germany had any connection to the attacks of 12/07 and fighting with Germany is a distraction from our war on Japan. We need to finish the job in the Pacific before getting involved in Europe’s problem and besides, it’s not as if Nazi Germany is an imminent threat to America. They haven’t even been able to conquer Britain. Besides, isn’t this a matter for the League of Nations?"
Asked about reports that there were some concentration camps in Europe, another House member replied, "He [FDR] has never said that this was about liberating the concentration camps in his 12/08 speech. In fact, how could he [FDR] say a word about this when we ally ourselves with dictators such as Josef Stalin and Chang-Kai-Shek?"
One Republican Senator opined that, "FDR has squandered all the good will we built up from WW1 in a few short years and for what? So we can conquer Japan and Germany to acquire cheap radios and German automobiles. It’s about enriching FDR’s Wall-Street buddies".
On the other hand, some Republican leaders say that this was an attempt by President Roosevelt to distract Americans from the depression. "He [FDR] has had no success with his domestic agenda, his New Deal isn’t working, and he is trying to deflect attention away from his failure to stack the Supreme Court. So rather than deal with the issues people are really care about right now like the environment and subsidies for the dying buggy whip industry, Roosevelt took what should have been a law enforcement matter to be settled between the State Department and Japan and turned it into another War of 1812!"
Among some of the criticism of FDR’s European policy is the way the Administration is allying itself with resistance leaders. "I don’t trust either one of them [Charles De Gaulle and Tito]."They have been feeding the so-called allies phony information. If we had a Republican President, we’d have better allies who could shoulder more of the burden instead of this fraudulent coalition that FDR has put together."
There were reports that Nazi Germany had chemical weapons, but house members scoff at those. "If Nazi Germany had poison gas, do you think they would have already used it? Roosevelt lied and people died!"
Others criticized the President for the way the operation to Europe came about. Former WW1 military commanders criticized the Invasion of Normandy as "Reckless". "It’s obvious that we barely had enough troops to prepare ourselves for the German counter offensive" one critic said. "Our jeeps were inadequately designed to handle the new German’s panzerfaust anti-tank weapon and we are stretching our troops too thin in both Germany and Japan. I don’t even know what we’re trying to do and I doubt Roosevelt does either. If only we had a plan, we wouldn’t be taking so many casualties."
A GOP congressman summed it all up by saying "It was arrogant and reckless for Roosevelt to use Pearl Harbor as an excuse to drag us into a world war and I only hope we can get him out of office so we won’t have to waste anymore of our young men’s lives on this mess he got us into."
Thanks to RWN reader Perry Bullock for coming up with the concept and writing a significant chunk of this
We need an exit strategy from Iraq. We have already won the war there. We have nothing to prove, and we are losing our focus in the War on Terror, by pursuing an academic pipe dream. (See Iraq--Tactical Folly, Strategic Madness.)
The stated mission--if one may judge by the President's State of the Union and other utterances--is the imposition of Democracy in an artificial land, created by Western map drawers. That is the same mission that the outrageous Dean Rusk State Department used to victimize various third world nations in the 1960s. In my opinion, it is a contemptible mission for reasons I have previously developed. (See Democracy In The Third World.)
If the Administration would change the mission, my attitude might change. But Iraq would be better left to the European sphere of influence. There is little benefit to a protracted American presence, in any event.
Not really. When the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor, the axis declared war on us, and we declared war on all of them right back.
When al Qaeda hit the Towers, it was militant Islam declaring war on the United States. IMHO, we should have taken Ann Coulter's advice, starting with Saudi Arabia.
Also because "democracy" doesn't work.
Constitutional republics and parliamentary monarchies are the only ways to go.
Personally, I think neither party is well-equipped to handle this task. The Democrats would like to cuddle up in the arms of the U.N. and pretend like everything will be okay. The Republicans want to impose a free society on a culture that would have nothing of it. A war on "terrorism" is not going to cut it. We need something... more specific and more clearly defined, albeit more dramatic and lengthy.
On the other hand, you have a point: as long as we're fighting the war--even if we're doing it incorrectly--it is practically trecherous for the opposition to be playing Hanoi with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.