Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush's Courage
Jewish World Review ^ | May 12, 2004 | Jack Kelly

Posted on 05/12/2004 1:37:12 PM PDT by DrDeb

Public opinion in America on the war in Iraq seems to be divided chiefly between those who think the cause is hopeless, and those who wonder why Iraq isn't Switzerland yet.

Those in the first group are further divided between those who think our cause is hopeless because we are undeserving (most prominent Democrats) and those who think it is hopeless because the Iraqis are undeserving (George Will, Richard Pipes).

Those in the second group tend to think that if we encounter any difficulties in Iraq, it has to be because some American (probably President Bush) was negligent.

Relatively few in our elites are those who recognize that what we are attempting in Iraq -- to build the first true democracy in the Arab world -- is both immensely difficult and immensely important. And -- given the difficulty of the task we face -- we're making respectable progress.

(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush2004; civilwar; election; iraq; jackkelly; lincoln; presidentbush
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last
In addition to addressing Iraq, Kelly details the similarities between this year's presidential election and the presidential election of 1864.

NOTE: Many have asked me to identify the presidential election(s) that provides the best historical context for this year's election -- I agree with Kelly's assessment!

I also agree with the sentiment expressed in Kelly's concluding paragraph:

"Abraham Lincoln made mistakes during the Civil War. But the cause was just, and he had the courage and steadfastness to see it through. Our cause in Iraq is just, and vitally important. President Bush has the courage to see it through. Do we?"

1 posted on 05/12/2004 1:37:13 PM PDT by DrDeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DrDeb
Kelly cites 400,000 dead on the Union side in the Civil War. Previously, I had thought that number was the total of both Union and Confederate. I wonder how many the Conferedates lost in his opinion. Wow.

We have lost less than 700 in the current war. I hope the numbers don't go too much higher, but these low numbers reflect an outstanding success.

2 posted on 05/12/2004 1:44:37 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrDeb
Excellent read.

I will send pat buchanan an e-mail through his website recommending it. He might find it refreshing to read something intelligent for a change.

3 posted on 05/12/2004 1:47:54 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrDeb
Thank you for this post. Some of us DO, but we must continually educate the rest and defend our President against the barrage of attacks from the left.
4 posted on 05/12/2004 1:51:40 PM PDT by DLfromthedesert (I was elected in AZ as an alt delegate to the Convention. I'M GOING TO NY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: what's up
The figures in the 2004 World Almanac for the Union side are 140,415 battle deaths and 224,097 other deaths, for a total of 364,512. Their source is the Department of Defense.
5 posted on 05/12/2004 1:51:48 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DrDeb
excellent clarity, he really puts things in perspective. I think the image that the "copperhead" media is holding up will become to heavy to keep up in our faces, and the truth behind them will be more visible.
6 posted on 05/12/2004 1:53:53 PM PDT by fontoon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
Yes, that was more along the lines of what I had thought. Wonder where Kelly got his info?
7 posted on 05/12/2004 1:54:48 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DrDeb
Excellent read! Thanks and bump!
8 posted on 05/12/2004 2:05:30 PM PDT by Vets_Husband_and_Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP; jmstein7; kattracks; rintense; Diogenesis; hellinahandcart; ChadGore; TexasCowboy; ...
Pinging a few people to this article.

It is a SLEEPER article that the left sure doesn't want people to see. TRUST ME!

Click on the link to read the whole thing. You won't be sorry.

I don't usually ping a lot of people to stuff, but I don't think you'll want to miss out on this one. It's that good. There were only 8 responses to it, so I know it was being missed. When you read it, you'll see why it is important people see it. Hope you don't mind the ping.

FRegards

9 posted on 05/12/2004 2:22:57 PM PDT by Vets_Husband_and_Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DrDeb
I have been saying along that this election is akin to Lincoln's 1864 election for a long time. It is really funny how history repeats itself. McClellan, the Democrat candidate, like Kerry, a failed war leader, a glory boy at best and the "Copperhead" Democrats were beating on Lincoln day in and day out! The President wrote privately that he would not be re-elected in the fall! Had McClellan won, he would have ended the war by basically recognizing the the Confederate States of America as an independent, stand alone country.

But history, intervened and Grant, Sherman, Sheriden, Thomas, etc. gave Lincoln the battlefield victories he needed to go on. But, in the end, it was Lincoln's vision of union that carried the day. The good, optimistic, common sense of the American people, even with their boys suffering and dying in Confederate prisons and unheard of casualties of death and injury in the war, went to the polls to support old Abe! Our world would be much different today if Lincoln had lost.

This year we are again at a major crossroad in American history. The choice, however is much more important and is critical path to the future. Will the United States remain free, or will we become the lap dog of a corrupt United Nations that will open the USA up to our enemies. The choice for the American people is indeed every bit as weighty as was the Lincoln 1864 election. We shall soon know.
10 posted on 05/12/2004 2:25:43 PM PDT by JLAGRAYFOX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dix; humblegunner; Allegra; antivenom; bobbyd; eastforker; Flyer; Humidston; olliemb; PetroniDE; ...
Pinging a few people to this article.

It is a SLEEPER article that the left sure doesn't want people to see.

TRUST ME!

11 posted on 05/12/2004 2:31:50 PM PDT by Eaker (That the bright star of Texas shall never be dim while her soil boasts a son to raise rifle or limb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vets_Husband_and_Wife; DrDeb
Great article. Thanks for the link.
12 posted on 05/12/2004 2:32:19 PM PDT by MEG33 (John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DrDeb
Thanks. Good article.

I have been watching Band of Brothers on the History channel. The D-Day episode just blew me away.

I commented to my husband that I didn't think a battle like that could ever happen today. 2500+ soldiers dying in a single battle would not be tolerated by anyone.
13 posted on 05/12/2004 2:33:53 PM PDT by Republican Red ("I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrDeb
Good article, DrDeb. I know we want to help out JWR by only excerpting their articles, but this one is pretty important. I'd recommend posting the entire piece on this thread.
14 posted on 05/12/2004 2:41:27 PM PDT by Wolfstar (I'm sorry the public shrugged when Clinton said truth depended on what the meaning of IS, is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican Red
Yeah, thanks for posting the article. But with articles like this being published in the "Jewish World Review", how can the Dem-o-rats still have such a hold on the Jewish vote in America? Can someone inform the boy on this?
15 posted on 05/12/2004 2:43:00 PM PDT by no dems (Does the Bush/Cheney camp monitor the Freep website?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Eaker
Thanks Tom
16 posted on 05/12/2004 2:45:37 PM PDT by HoustonCurmudgeon (RIP U. S. Army Specialist Pat Tillman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: fontoon
The Copperhead is a venomous snake. Seems a perfect analogy for most Leftist/Dems these days:


17 posted on 05/12/2004 2:46:24 PM PDT by Wolfstar (I'm sorry the public shrugged when Clinton said truth depended on what the meaning of IS, is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Republican Red
I commented to my husband that I didn't think a battle like that could ever happen today. 2500+ soldiers dying in a single battle would not be tolerated by anyone.

The United States Army lost 700 men in one day TRAINING for the Normandy landings when the weather turned on them and sank their landing craft!

18 posted on 05/12/2004 2:47:44 PM PDT by HoustonCurmudgeon (RIP U. S. Army Specialist Pat Tillman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: what's up

The Price in Blood!
Casualties in the Civil War

        At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam.
        The Union armies had from 2,500,000 to 2,750,000 men. Their losses, by the best estimates:

Battle deaths: 110,070
Disease, etc.: 250,152
Total 360,222

        The Confederate strength, known less accurately because of missing records, was from 750,000 to 1,250,000. Its estimated losses:

Battle deaths: 94,000
Disease, etc.: 164,000
Total 258,000

        The leading authority on casualties of the war, Thomas L. Livermore, admitting the handicap of poor records in some cases, studied 48 of the war's battles and concluded:
        Of every 1,000 Federals in battle, 112 were wounded.
        Of every 1,000 Confederates, 150 were hit.
        Mortality was greater among Confederate wounded, because of inferior medical service. The great battles, in terms of their toll in dead, wounded, and missing is listed on this site:   

The Ten Costliest Battles of the Civil War.

        Some of the great blood baths of the war came as Grant drove on Richmond in the spring of 1864- Confederate casualties are missing for this campaign, but were enormous. The Federal toll:

The Wilderness, May 5-7: 17,666
Spotsylvania, May 10 and 12: 10,920
Drewry's Bluff, May 12-16 4,160
Cold Harbor, June 1-3: 12,000
Petersburg, June 15-30 16,569

Source: http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

---------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Kelly as well that this election is shaping up to be most like the 1864 election. Like Lincoln, Bush is facing his toughest moments in the Spring before the election. And like the Democrats of today, the Democrats of 1864 hated Lincoln with a passion and used every "bad news" story from the front to rip both him and the war effort down. Many democrats -- The Copperheads -- totally opposed the war, sided with the enemy and provided either moral or in some cases tangable support for the Confederates. And like McClellan, the eventual Democrat candidate in 1864, Kerry is out of step with the vast majority of his own party in that he does not openly oppose the war effort (at least not to date) but instead snipes at how the administration is conducting it.

The biggest difference today is that it would appear that Bush is in a much stronger position than Lincoln was at this point in the 1864 election cycle. In May of 1864, few thought Lincoln had any chance of being reelected. He didn't think he had a chance and was doing all that he could to conclude the war and save the Union before he left office which in those days with the long transition period would not have been until March of 1865. Lincoln's fortunes did not brighten until Sherman took Atlanta in September, a stunning victory that all but broke the Confederacy and swung popular opinion back to Lincoln's side just in time for the election. Before Atlanta, he was not a popular president by any measure. Afterward, people began to consider him a great president and began to appreciate the moral dimension of the war.

19 posted on 05/12/2004 3:13:49 PM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DrDeb; Eaker; JLAGRAYFOX; Vets_Husband_and_Wife
Sorry, I can't join the bandwagon of accolades for this article.

I see no analogy between the sacrifice of the soldiers of the Confederacy and the terrorists of Al-Queda, and I don't consider Abraham Lincoln to have been a great President.
The Civil War was fought between Americans about their perception of rights, a far cry from the kind of war we're fighting today.

I go along with and applaud Kelly's castigation of the liberal Democrats, but I'll leave the Civil War out of my comparisons.

20 posted on 05/12/2004 3:14:57 PM PDT by TexasCowboy (COB1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson