Posted on 09/05/2006 10:59:56 AM PDT by section9
Condi used the Civil War as an example to support the effort in Iraq. Money quotes from her interview in Essence Magazine.
Secretary of State Rice compared the Iraq war with the American Civil War, telling a magazine that slavery might have lasted longer in this country if the North had decided to end the fight early."I'm sure there are people who thought it was a mistake to fight the Civil War to its end and to insist that the emancipation of slaves would hold," Rice said in the new issue of Essence magazine.
"I know there were people who said, 'Why don't we get out of this now, take a peace with the South, but leave the South with slaves?'" Rice said.
Later in the interview, she defended President Bush's reaction to Katrina.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
She's talking to the readership of Essence magazine.
As late as 1864, 45% of Northerners voted for McClellan over Lincoln.
Of course, they were looking at 200,000+ dead and wounded at that point, not 3,000 - so the candyassitude of modern-day Americans is even more severe.
There was considerable feeling for ending the Civil War early in the North. This is why the election of 1864 was such a difficult one.
Not being familiar with the publication, I don't know what the significance of that is.
Ah. Did a bit of research. Understand now.
Right you are! The American revolution was, arguably, the most unpopular war in the nation's history.
As for the Civil War, the Democrats were thinking they would win the WH in 1864...until Sherman took Atlanta and marched through northeastern Georgia. The Union soldiers in the field voted overwhelmingly for Lincoln. Sound familiar?
Liberals claim that Condi is a slave to the "white" Republican Party.
McClellan questioned the timing.
Good. Its about time the Administration started getting aggressive against the anti-war crowd. I've been calling them "Copperheads" for awhile now, and I think it should be the name we all use to identify them.
She's talking to the readership of Essence magazine.
I wonder about that. Condi is smart enough to know that most black voters motivated enough to vote in midterms will be liberals angry with Bush. I suspect that the Black Leadership will come out and criticise Rice for this statement; they are partisan Democrats. I expect them to go all Spike Lee on her. The Mainstream Media follows what Rice says closely. Something like this follows on what Rummy said to the Legion several days ago. This will just anger liberals. Most black voters remain liberals. But this interview will filter out to the larger media, as I suspect was the intent.
I think that this statement was actually targeted at Republicans. Condi knows that black midterm voters probably won't be going Pub, but she's probably signalling the base that there's no squishiness on the war.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
As to Condi's comments:
On the contary: Iraq, no matter what happens, will never equal the scale of importance or sacrifice as the Civil War.
On the positive: All wars are won not on the battlefield, but at home in sustaining enough public backing for the goals of the war. Wars, all wars only end when one party concedes, militarily, or when one side just losses the war on the home front.
In that regard, Condi is spot on, because the Democrats lack of a backbone is the only thing that can produce a "loss" in Iraq, not the performance of our military.
The Dims mistake the fact that a few thousand jihadists, out of millions of Iraqi's, still want to kill means we have lost. When, the truth is, that the jihadists are only still killing because they have not been able to win anything and we refuse to simply flatten the cities they hide in.
The jihadists can continue their low-intensity warfare for some time, even as the Iraqi government continues to build and get stronger. The jihadists can only "win" if the Democrats are able to force us to cut and run from a long-term battle we are slowly winning.
The vileness of the present leaders of the Democrats is that nothing in this world would give them greater joy than to see the quick exit of the last American soldier from Iraq followed immediately by the total fracture of Iraq into dozens of little jihadist fiefdoms. American politicians that view such prospects with glee are acting as appeasers of ALL enemies of the U.S.
Many blacks ARE starting to realize how damaging their decades of blind devotion to the democrats has been. Not many want to be called "Uncle Tom" or "house negro" so they're generally keeping quiet. I think it's an attempt to break through that barrier and seed a dialogue in a publication about black empowerment.
In those days before opinion polls, Lincoln fully expected to lose in 1864, but still did the right thing.
The Revolution was a dark day for the readers of Essence, since slavery in the US was essentially passed over to get the Declaration adopted. The civil war is much more resonant and personal.
Besides, in the revolution, the colonists weren't liberated by a superpower. They liberated themselves with some help from the French, who simply wanted to weaken England.
Maybe you can help me on this history. Wasn't the General in charge of the Northern Virginia Union Armies and the Battles at Antietam named McClellan or was that McCleland?
A recent History channel special about Antietam stated most of the soldiers and officers of the Union armies were of poor spirits and lacked training prior to Antietam. The North was about to give up the war having suffered several defeats to the CSA, but Lincoln appointed McClellan to lead. Lincoln and McClellan were political adversaries but he saw the value of appointing McClellan to inspire the troops.
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.