The Truth about the War

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 3 November 2006 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[Congressman Billybob]

I’m had as hell, and I want to state some truths about the war against Islamo-fascists.

The first truth about the war is that we ARE at war. Days after the attacks of 9/11 Congress folded a Joint Resolution into the Patriot Act. In that Resolution, and again a year later, Congress gave President Bush the authority to “use all necessary military force” against the “terrorists, and nations which harbor them.”

Those who’ve done their homework, know that Congress used almost identical language now, as Congress used in 1805 for President Jefferson to go after the Barbary Pirates. That was the one other time we declared war, per the Constitution, without naming a particular nation as the enemy.

So, for those who stupidly (or dishonestly if they know better), say we are NOT at war, I say LEARN TO READ. Until you learn how to read, SHUT UP because you spreading lies that will get Americans killed.

The second truth is this is a relatively bloodless war. There is a well-received movie now in theaters, called “The Flags of Our Fathers.” It’s about Iwo Jima, and centers on the six men who raised the flag there, which was a powerful symbol of American determination to win that war, and was transformed into the Marine Memorial outside Washington.

Twice as many Americans died in the first four days on Iwo Jima than have died in four years in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let me repeat that, because you have not seen that in the lamestream media. TWICE as many Americans died in FOUR DAYS on Iwo Jima than in FOUR YEARS in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And don’t give me that cr*p about “moral authority” to talk about war deaths. I know what it is like to lay a 21-year-old son in the ground. I guarantee the horror and the permanent pain is no less when he dies suddenly as a civilian, than in a war.

George Washington had no sons to lose in the Revolution. Does the “moral authority” crowd claim that he did not care for the lives of his soldiers, and seek to preserve their lives, within the greater concern of winning the war?

What do our current enemies intend to do, if they prevail? Like Hitler and Tojo and Lenin in WW II, like Pol Pot in Cambodia, this latest set of dictators make no secret of their intentions. Like the Inslamo-fascists, those prior dictators described the government they would establish if given the chance. All made it clear that those who opposed them were subhumans who would be sacrificed for the cause.

In short, most megalomaniacs predict their own behavior in advance, including the justification for mass murder. Then, when they gain power, they commit their murders. To anyone who doubts the intentions of the Islamo-fascists, I say again, LEARN TO READ. And until you do, STOP SPREADING LIES.

That brings us to the New York Times. They are running, as this election comes down to the wire, a series on military funerals of American dead from Iraq. Those who are experts in propaganda say, the most powerful lies are based in truth. These men, and some women ARE dying in Iraq and being buried. But where is the context?

I’ve read the microfilms of the Times from WW I and II, and the Civil War. All three contained battles like Iwo Jima, where Americans died by the thousands, or tens of thousands, in just days. Never did the Times run any features on those deaths, one by one.

So, what’s the difference between then and now? This time the Times is on the other side. Instead of supporting the war effort, it is cynically undermining American willingness to pursue the war to victory. The Times is not “honoring the dead.” Instead, the Times is engaging in COFFIN THUMPING to aid its political allies.

That brings us to the Democrat view that we can “negotiate” and reach “accommodation” with the Islamo-fascists. What will happen if the Democrats take charge of both Houses of Congress? (I’m already on record that I believe they will narrowly fail to take either House.)

Has the lamestream media ever heard of Neville Chamberlain and the Munich Pact? Chamberlain returned to England with a document signed by Adolf Hitler, Chamberlain assured the world that would produce “Peace for our times.” Well, the peace which it produced was called WW II. More than 50 million people died.

Chamberlain later apologized for being wrong. Will the Times apologize for millions of deaths when an American city is destroyed by a nuclear weapon? What is a proper apology for millions of deaths? Who will deliver the apology for the Times if one of the nuclear targets is New York, and the Times is vaporized?

Lastly, is there waste and abuse in wars? Has anyone heard of General Sherman? He said, “War is hell.” He was right. He’s still right. But war for the survival of America must be won. That is the only tolerable outcome.

And that’s the truth.

- 30 -

About the Author: John Armor is a lawyer specializing in constitutional law, who may again be a candidate for Congress in the 11th District of North Carolina. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu

- 30 -

[Congressman Billybob]

To regular readers of FreeRepublic, none of the points here is new. But to regular readers of the lamestream media, all these major points are new. That's why I wrote it, and put it out in print and on the net.

John / Billybob

[CWOJackson]

"I’m had as hell, and I want..."

Same thing happened to me once. I've not bought a Chevy since.

I like the rest of the post too.

[NicknamedBob]

Hear, here!

[Paloma_55]

Face it, president Bush totally miscalculated....

Yes, that is right, he miscalculated. He underestimated, he failed to understand the depth.

He just did not anticipate how low the Democrats would go to win power back.

He thought the Democrats would understand that a nation divided cannot stand.

He thought that the Democrats would put our national interests above their own petty political goals.

He had faith that the Democrats would be Americans first.

He just blew it.

He should be ashamed of how terribly he misjudged the patriotism of the Democrats.

[marktwain]

"So, what’s the difference between then and now? This time the Times is on the other side. Instead of supporting the war effort, it is cynically undermining American willingness to pursue the war to victory. The Times is not “honoring the dead.” Instead, the Times is engaging in COFFIN THUMPING to aid its political allies."

Nicely stated, John. Thanks for the post.

[Gvl_M3]

Great post. I'm going to send it to a few people I know.

[piytar]

"What is a proper apology for millions of deaths?"

Being arrested, tried, convicted, and imprisoned for life or put to death for treason would be a bare minimum...

[syriacus]

Yes. The Democratic party is our country's Achilles' heel. The Democratic party is our fatal weakness.

[Billthedrill]

It is not the case that the Democrats do not realize there's a war on. They do, they just think it's against Bush.

[pollyannaish]

Amen, Billybob, sir.

[Chieftain]

A classic, Congressman Billybob!

[patriciamary]

You are sooooo right,but my question is will the President and the Republicans ever learn!

[Chieftain]

Must read PING!

[itsahoot]

Who will deliver the apology for the Times

Heck John, they have never appologized for all that lies propaganda they printed, concerning that paradise in Russia, under Lenin/Stalin.

[Alia]

NC *Ping*

Please FRmail Constitution Day OR TaxRelief OR Alia if you want to be added to or removed from this North Carolina ping list.

[backtothestreets]

We are at war with but one enemy, Islam. Islam is not fascist, but totalitarian.

Domestic division burdens our war effort. Lacking is wisdom among our leaders to present how our enemy threatens our nation as a whole, and every individual be they conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican, whatever race, nationality, age, gender or religion. Islam has named all America as an enemy.

Neville Chamberlain represents the dangers of a nation divided. Chamberlain, a conservative, turned a deaf ear on the beleaguered Winston Churchill, another conservative. When called upon, Churchill did not use his position to rally conservative victories, but unite his entire nation in winning the war. He placed party second to the war effort, and by so doing his party realized a rise in political fortunes.

If President Bush is correct that only a segment of Islam is our enemy, then he might be correct for neglecting Congress put at his disposal all necessary military force to defeat our enemy. If our enemy is Islam, he has elected to abandoned all-out war the likes of General Sherman waged against the South, and waged by our military forces in every war before the Korean War.

If Islam is the enemy, President Bush has misrepresented our enemy as having peaceful intents, and thus adding to the divisions within our nation. And while his religion of peace rhetoric has slowly subsided, the actions undertaken by his administration to relocate Muslims from other nations into the USA speaks to his persistence in presenting Islam as a religion of peace and forcing it into American society. Actions do speak louder than words. I have no qualms in stating all Muslims in our nation should have been either returned to their nation of origin or interned following the attacks of 9-11.

Only when leaders speak to a higher calling and express by example how Islam would trample the rights and lives of liberals right along with conservatives will our nation begin to find the sort of unity our nation relied upon in WWII.

It should be noted that conservatives, mostly Republicans similar in nature to Britain’s Chamberlain, stood in opposition to FDR in the years before we entered WWII. It took much wisdom for FDR to appoint the conservative Republican Henry Stimson as Secretary of War to help unify our political parties as Americans first and foremost against our common enemy. Stimson was a conservative in the same mold as Britain’s Churchill.

As for the war in Iraq specifically, I detested Saddam Hussein, but what have we gained by toppling a secular government headed by a dictator and replacing it with an Islamic democracy? Lest anyone forget, both Mussolini and Hitler arose within democracies. Further, when fighting Germany, our objective was not to solely defeat Nazis which delivered barely more than 30% of the vote that raised up Hitler. Our objective was to defeat the whole of Germany that made it possible for the likes of Hitler to gain power.

And as Iran threatens with nuclear ambitions, remember all, it was not the UN, nor Israel, the USA, Russia, Britain, France or China that quelled the earlier Iranian ambitions. It was Iraq that bombed Iranian nuclear facilities in 1980, and nary a voice of protested.

Will we ever trust the new Islamic government in Iraq to do likewise? I think not because they are both Islamic first and foremost. This will join them together against us so one day we will have to send another generation of young American men and women to sacrifice their lives for our nation. This destiny is promised because we failed to deliver all-out war upon our enemy.

[concentric circles]

What terrible irony. I just read the following quote from Time Magazine following the invasion, in 1943, of the Gilbert Islands.

The assault on Betio Island at Tarawa atoll resulted in more than 1,000 dead and over 2,000 wounded. The press labored, in typical fashion, over the problems and miscalculations that resulted in heavy casualties.

The criticism in print was intense, no one yet realized the toll that would be exacted by island fighting against a fortified enemy who preferred death to surrender. Yet, Americans plumbed depths of gritty determination they were seldom called to demonstrate and continued to support the military effort.

Americans understood the stakes involved then and even a writer for Time Magazine perceived the significance of those events:

"Last week some 2,000 or 3,000 United States Marines, most of them now dead or wounded, gave the nation a name to stand beside those of Concord Bridge, the Bon Homme Richard, the Alamo, Little Big Horn, and Belleau Wood. The name was Tarawa..."

Where, merciful God, has the good judgment of our publishers and broadcasters fled?

[Mr Rogers]

Very good. However, I would point out an area where the Administration has let us down: duration.

Based on refusal to increase the size of the Army, one must conclude they either really believed this was a one-two year effort, or they found it politically unacceptable to tell folks this was going to take a long time.

We have 30K troops still in Korea after 53 years. To create a reasonable democracy in Iraq (which I still believe was the BEST reason to go to war - strategically, it was brilliant), a lengthy stay will be required. Insurgencies typically take 15-20 years. Training a competent military requires training good NCOs, which requires 10 years minimum.

I wish the Administration had always said we would need to be there in some form for 10 years, and built up the Army to do so. And this is coming from a second generation US Air Force guy!

[DonnerT]

Those who refuse to see the truth now will never see it.

They will curse God and kill us insead.

[freema]

I saw an article today, "Webb stumps with big names; Allen shakes hands at cigarette plant" by AP reporters Bob Lewis and Matthew Barakat.

"'Why is it the war on terrorism seems to be fought between September and November every even-numbered year?' Obama, the son of a Kenyan immigrant, said on the campus of the predominatly black college."
"'The American people are in a serious mood now,' Obama said."
-Obama Barak, Virginia Union University November 2, 2006

I will not forget this.

For, you see, Obama doesn't realize some Americans have been at war every day for quite some time...not only during September and November every even-numbered year. Birds of a feather:
Kerry, murtha, and "Obama".

[Congressman Billybob]

The reason I use the word "fascist" is that the Islamists insist on keeping control of the whole society, including the economy.

The principal difference between fascism and socialism (and communism) is that the former leaves the ownership of major parts of the economy in private hands -- though they are controlled, and often the preferred owners are the political allies of those who control the government.

John / Billybob

[george76]

bttt

[george76]

Muslims Rule Major Swedish City

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1637717/posts

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003131.php

[do the dhue]

I think it is treason how the media has made the American people consider the 'war' in Iraq as bad.

A road side bomb goes off and the media calls it a success by the enemy. Success is defeating the enemy, not to encourage them.

We lost 2,700 intrepid Troops in four years. In four years of WWII, we lost over 400,000 brave troops. I went to Gettysburg this summer. I stood on ground where 2,500 Yankee Calvary lost their life. I believe that to be in one day too. And we lost over 22,000 (10,000 Rebel and 12,000 Yankee) Troops in one day at Antietam.

It makes me very angry how our media has twisted it so that people think things are so bad in Iraq. Our Troops have done an outstanding job and I am proud of them.

We are in the heart of the Middle East. This is a place where they burn our flag and hate our guts. Our Troops are over there loving our enemy. Trying to build hope and a future. Something the terrorist can not offer.

We have not shot a tank, aircraft, uniformed Soldiers in four years. The war has been over. We are dealing with an insurgency. I believe it to be the same thing as what they dealt with during the Marshall plan of WWII (someone please correct me if I am wrong).

Yes, terrorist are doing bad things in Iraq. Terrorist do bad things in Israel every day and a Democracy exist.

I think the liberal media owes our military a sincere apology. The Commies traitors won't ever do it though.

And hey, if you don't like being called a traitor, don't give people a reason to do so.

We owe the families who have given the ultimate gift to freedom a huge thank you (and that includes Cindy too).

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty." The real JFK

Again, thank you for your sacrifice.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"He thought the Democrats would understand that a nation divided cannot stand."

The Democrats learned a lesson from the Clinton years...the only way they can stand is in a nation divided.

[swmobuffalo]

Bump

[Publius]

When I wrote my essay on profiling and a declaration of war some years ago, you took it apart and made the point you are making here. We are at war. A declaration of war and a declaration authorizing the use of force are different instruments of war, but they have the same constitutional weight.

However, they don’t have the same political weight.

Looking at the two world wars of the 20th Century, once war is declared Americans band together to fight the common enemy. Dissent is crushed or severely chastised. But declarations authorizing the use of force have had problematic histories from the invasions of Haiti and Nicaragua in the early 20th Century to Vietnam and the current imbroglio in the Middle East.

During World War II the enemy was an ideology so evil that few missed the point. Two years before America became involved in the war, the British and Canadians were already fighting, and many Americans took the train across the Canadian border to enlist in the Royal Canadian Air Force. (This is a far cry from those Americans who crossed to Canada during the Vietnam debacle.)

After Pearl Harbor, America launched its first full military mobilization since 1917. The draft had been reinstated a year earlier, and now American males received letters that began, “Greetings from the President.” Few thought of evading the draft, and huge crowds of angry American men mobbed recruiting centers. There were no voices calling the attack “a law enforcement problem”. There were no voices saying that America had brought the attack upon itself because of some flaw in its makeup or policies. There were few who said that such an attack was not sufficient reason to go to war. No anti-war demonstrators took to the streets, and if they had, an angry crowd would have lynched them before the police could have arrested them. With the 1941 declaration of war, we operated under what I call “World War II Rules”.

• American society and industry underwent full mobilization. Industrial plants manufacturing consumer goods were converted to war plants under full government industrial planning.
• Gasoline was rationed, and a 35 mph national speed limit was enforced. Billboards with the message, “Is this trip really necessary?” were ubiquitous. Posters reminded people that when they drove alone, they were “riding with Hitler.”
• Silk, nylon, rubber and copper were among many materials that were reserved for military use, and those who dabbled in the black market were imprisoned. Foodstuffs were rationed, people were warned not to hoard food and told to report those who did. Catholics had always had meatless Fridays, but now the entire nation had meatless Tuesdays.
• American women planted “victory gardens”, Boy Scouts scavenged metal and rubber “for the war plants,” and people were encouraged to buy war bonds because, “It's bonds or bondage!” (Just try using that slogan in San Francisco today.) On the radio, when American women heard, “Ladies, bring your fat cans down to the corner butcher,” they knew it referred to cans of rendered fat, not oversize buttocks.
• In wartime all news coverage is propaganda. No matter how bad the news from the front, the reassuring voices of Edward R. Murrow, Ed Herlihy and Lowell Thomas explained how this latest setback was merely a bump in the road on “our way to total victory!” All war news was censored. Reporters censored themselves, editors censored reporters, and publishers censored editors. If a publisher prepared to print something that undermined morale or the war effort, the government paid a visit.

If we were operating under World War II rules today, things would be different.

• Gasoline rationing would likely be in effect. Money paid to the Saudis for their oil has long trickled into al-Qaida’s coffers, and the US would become quite choosy as to the sources of its oil. Alaska would be drilled deeply and thoroughly. Posters would appear telling people that when they drove alone, they were “riding with Osama”. Money devoted to highways would be diverted to public transportation on a massive scale.
• War is based on credit, and rather than pass tax cuts the government would raise taxes through the roof to cover the cost of war. War bond campaigns would flood the media.
• Mainstream Media outlets issuing news coverage slanted against the war would receive a visit from the government.
• Those anti-war demonstrators in Oakland who blocked stevedores from loading a naval ammunition ship would be greeted by lead instead of rubber. The survivors would be arrested for treason.
• People who put "No Iraq War" signs in the windows of their homes would be severely ostracized by their neighbors, if not burned out. A similar fate would greet those advertising their beliefs via bumper stickers.
• Certain congressmen and senators would be expelled and then arrested for sedition.
• Most importantly there would be a total military mobilization, but this time conscription would function without deferments. It’s hard to have an anti-war movement when everyone is in uniform. America’s colleges would shut down because there would be no students. (This would have the positive effect of preventing the poisoning of the minds of American youth by the mavens of socialism and political correctness.)

While it may make no difference which instrument we use to go to war, we have to establish ground rules. Unfortunately, thanks to a failure of foresight we are operating under Vietnam Rules, and we’re going to lose unless we change this.

[Congressman Billybob]

You and I are in absolute agreement.

We have a constitutionally adequate declaration of war, now. However, I agree with your point that the current status does not have the "political weight" of a document that says in plain English, "Declaration of War."

In fact, the Joint Resolution first introduced right after 9/11 by some back-benchers DID use that exact phrase. It was a compromise between Hastert and Pelosi to "soften" the language and use the "suthorixation to use military force" language.

Hastert could have forced the use of the politically stronger language then, in the days following 9/11. In retrospect, this was yet another compromise with the San Francisco liberals that never should have been made.

John / Billybob

[jeltz25]

One of the best posts ever on FR

[sig226]

"What do our current enemies intend to do, if they prevail? Like Hitler and Tojo and Lenin in WW II, like Pol Pot in Cambodia, this latest set of dictators make no secret of their intentions. Like the Inslamo-fascists, those prior dictators described the government they would establish if given the chance. All made it clear that those who opposed them were subhumans who would be sacrificed for the cause."

See if you can get them to edit your post, bro. Lenin was long dead by the time of World War II, and the Soviets were our allies. Also, the Times is printed in New Jersey, so if Manhattan gets nuked, there will be plenty of Times staffers around to blame republicans for it. 8<)

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Well said! :)

[Vinnie]

Wonderful essays.

I'm too inept to add anything except to ping this.

Well,, maybe this..
The anti-war hippies of the Viet Nam era are now senior enough to be in charge of college departments, newspapers, senior journalists.
The democrats believe our enemies think as we do, have the same thought and reasoning process.
They believe they can reason and talk their way to a peaceful coexistence with Islamic Fascists.

They are mistaken.

[RetiredArmy]

Americans take the time to READ? Surely you jest???!!! Why, that would mean actually getting off their fat @$$e$ and not watching Opra, Dr. Phil, Survivor, American Idiot, and like so called reality shows! Reality my butt. It is simple, over 50% of Americans are lazy, overweight deadbeats, want it handed to them on a plastic KMart platter. They are too darned lazy to make a go of it. America is in deep trouble and they don't care. The ones who do care are having to carry the load for all. Example, the troops in Iraq and yet the press and socialists continue to rant and rave about loosing the war, mistreatment of murders. No, BB, I love your article, but my faith in the American people has dropped to an all time low. I see it every stinking day. I cannot walk into any store without hearing some fool whine. Some fat broad with six runny nose kids behind her, with the grocery cart full of chips, beer, cigarettes, candy, Little Debbie cakes, frozen pizza, and ice cream. Whining about how she cannot afford to feed her family. Right. Sure. Sorry for the sarcasm, but I am sick of it. Totally sick and tired of hearing it and seeing it in these life lazies @$$e$ who want tax dollars for their next fix of smokes, booze and drugs and pump out babies by the dozen. I am sick of it.

[ryan71]

Nice job.

Hang traitors.

[MarkL]

Chamberlain later apologized for being wrong. Will the Times apologize for millions of deaths when an American city is destroyed by a nuclear weapon? What is a proper apology for millions of deaths? Who will deliver the apology for the Times if one of the nuclear targets is New York, and the Times is vaporized?

Given the fact that the NYT still refuses to deal with the millions of people who died under Stallin, hidden by Durantee in the pages of the NYT, I wouldn't hold my breath...

Mark

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

May it reach as wide an audience as possible. We don't need no steenkin' "Peace in our Time."

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

The reason I use the word "fascist" is that the Islamists insist on keeping control of the whole society, including the economy.

I prefer "totalitarian," but whatever works...

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

In fact, the Joint Resolution first introduced right after 9/11 by some back-benchers DID use that exact phrase. It was a compromise between Hastert and Pelosi to "soften" the language and use the "suthorixation to use military force" language.

Hastert could have forced the use of the politically stronger language then, in the days following 9/11. In retrospect, this was yet another compromise with the San Francisco liberals that never should have been made.

[Hatteras]

After reading your posts I always feel confident and reassured because I know the right people are on our side. You don't shoot from the hip, you are studious and well reasoned, a man among boys, and that makes all the difference.

A bump to you, Mr. Armor.

[Congressman Billybob]

Thank you very much. Kinder words about my efforts on FR have never been posted by any other Freeper.

John / Billybob