Imagine the Year, 1943

EIB ^ | 12/2/03 | Rush

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP - Most intelligent dangerous woman in America.

[onyx]

You're going to relish this one from Rush. Guaranteed.

[cynicom]

North Africa was very significant...Rommel was knocking on the door of the Suez Canal. Those that were there in 1943 would not agree with you.

[Fellow Traveler]

There was a post on Freerepublic not too long ago that talked about George Marshall peronally interviening with Dewey about some intel information. The gist of it was that Dewey played along for the sake of the war effort. He did not jepordize our intelligence success for his political gain.

[PGalt]

Thanks for posting this. I caught the last part listening to the program today during lunch break. Outstanding work Rush.

[jocon307]

Thanks for the info.

I didn't know Lindburgh came around so completely, but I guess there's a lot about him I didn't know, but have recently found out!

But seriously, I'm glad to see the nation pulled together better in the 40's, but in all honesty I think I was hoping to hear it was all a mess, like it is now.

I thought after 9/11 that we were united, now I see that the Democratic party has become so corrupted by the leftists, and the Clintons, that they are willing to risk western civilization's destruction at the hands of the Islamofacists rather than stand together with the Republicans.

But, I actually think it goes beyond this. I think the Islamofacists, either through design or dumb luck, are exploiting the existing fronts in the culture wars.

Sometimes I wish I could just shut off my brain.

[Lauren BaRecall]

How dare she tell the troops that the country is divided, and there are many questions!?!

The only thing that consoles me is that our millitary is too smart for that "bull-manoor." LOL!

The Hill is as believable as Baghdad Bob, and that goes for Bill "the fool on The Hill," as well. (I'm thinking of the famous "dancing on the beach in the bathing suits" picture....)

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.."IS it SAFE?" = HILLARY on Senate Armed Services Committee..

http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=629

[HitmanLV]

Trust me, I was born and raised in NYC, and in fact, I left in late 2001. Hillary is Senator of NY as long as she wants.

NYers were not entirely starstruck. They agree with her, I can tell you that after living there for 33+ years.

They are not growing disenchanted with Hilly. Won't happen. NY has way too many know-it-alls, soccer moms, bright career people to make a clear, reasoned decision. ;-)

[colorado tanker]

No, after Pearl Harbor there wasn't much opposition to WWII, certainly nothing like what we're seeing today. There were some hard core isolationists and Nazi sympathizers who opposed the war, but there numbers were releatively small. There were also some Republican country club business types who looked down there noses at Roosevelt Democrats and thought the war was bad for business, but again fairly small numbers.

What we're seeing today is more of the legacy of the anti-Vietnam boomers.

[colorado tanker]

Actually, I disagree. I do not and did not slight the courage and heroism of the troops in North Africa. And I agree the loss of Cairo would have been very bad for the Allies. But North Africa was a sideshow the Germans should never have gotten into because it was irrelevent to their main objectives of defeating the Sov's and Brits before the U.S. could bring major forces to bear.

After North Africa, we still weren't much closer to getting at Germany, which we knew we would have to invade to make our unconditional surrender demand stick. So, if you wanted to be a quagmire type pessimist in 1943 you could make a case that we'd done an awful lot of fighting for not much strategic gain against the Germans and Japanese.

You and I know, however, that the fighting in North Africa and the South Pacific in 1943 set the stage for the big gains made in 1944. So, the lesson for me is the pro-quagmire folks over Iraq may find the fighting to date has set the stage for the apprehension of Saddam and the roll up of the Baathist dead-enders, at least that's my hope. Yesterday's events gave me a lot of encouragement.

[jocon307]

Thanks for those details.

Well, this is bad then, because it demonstrates that for some percentage of our population, not only did 9/11 not change EVERYTHING, the response to it has only fueled their anti-Americanism.

This, in addition to the self-hatred apparant in so much "political correctness" means that in order to save our civilization the left will have to be completely crushed.

You see, this is what I was thinking about today, how the war on "terrorism" is likely to merge with the ongoing culture "wars".

I am very curious to see how Bush does next year. Barring some bizarre event, I think it will tell the tale. I live in the NY Metro area, folks are SO liberal here I often think I have a distorted view. But, then again, I lost $25 bucks to my kid betting that Hillary! would not win, and I was psychotic (as psychotic as any dem) over the Florida fiasco. Well, that was only the first day or two. After that it was kind of fun & certainly historical and interesting. And hey, my guy won, so I got over it. But I guess I can sympathize with the dems frustration over it. But you know the motto: MOVE ON!

If, after 9/11, the country is still actually split 50/50, we are in deep trouble.

[mc5cents]

NYers were not entirely starstruck. They agree with her, I can tell you that after living there for 33+ years.

They are not growing disenchanted with Hilly. Won't happen. NY has way too many know-it-alls, soccer moms, bright career people to make a clear, reasoned decision. ;-)

I agree. I have lived in Buffalo for 30+ years and I couldn't agree more.

In the last Senate election there was one district in Buffalo that went about 10,000 to, oh, about 750 for ole Hillary. That is what we are up against in this state.

Now I admit that was in a black district here and those poor people have been brainwashed with the liberal mantra for years, but that is just an example of what it will take to break the liberal stranglehold on this part of the world. It's tough.

But! I will will keep the faith, until at least I retire and move the hell out of here!! LOL

[colorado tanker]

You see, this is what I was thinking about today, how the war on "terrorism" is likely to merge with the ongoing culture "wars".

Unfortunately, I think that is exactly what is going on. The Dim's world view was formed by their opposition to Vietnam, which split the party in 1968 and sent most of the pro-defense Dems over to our side. They have transferred their adolescent hatred of Nixon and Vietnam to Bush and Iraq, even though there are major differences between Vietnam and Iraq. None of them can articulate a better policy than Bush's other than the vague call for U.N. involvement, which is a tip off that the cause of their hatred is not policy differences, but differences of culture and self-image.

That said, I believe only 20-30% of the electorate is part of that lefty Bush-hating base. The reason for the 50-50 split in 2000 was that Bush was up against in essence an incumbent administration at a time of unprecedented prosperity and peace. The last election like that was 1988 when Bush 41 won in a landslide. It is a testament to Clinton's unpopularity and the minority status of the core left that Gore could not win despite a stiff wind at his back.

I could be wrong, it's happened before, but I think 2004 will be a re-run of 1972, an election when we were at war and an anti-war Dim took on a Republican war President.

[jocon307]

"The last election like that was 1988 when Bush 41 won in a landslide."

I admit, I had to google it, but then I realized it was the Dukakis in the Tank photo. And of course, that was one picture = many words, all stating the Dems can't do national security.

And it is never denied (I've never heard it denied) that this is the public's perception. Sort of unfair to Truman and FDR, but certainly true of the dems since vietman, as you correctly point out. Heck, Nixon even lost that war, the problem is the Dems seem happy to lose.

And look at what they are doing now! Everything to shore up their image as national security losers (at best, if not underminers), and nothing to counter it. Wesley Clark's candidacy hasn't helped at all, it's actually makes it worse since he's been such a prop the whole time. He's like the 5 people you put on stage to play "the crowd".

Well, I remain apprehensive, but, as my tagline says, I think the American people DO get it.

I don't think the Dems could get a clue if they hit clue lotto tomorrow.

[colorado tanker]

Yep, the Dims took exactly the wrong lesson from 2002. They really think they lost because they were supporting Bush's foreign policy, as in the Iraq resolution. They don't get that they lost because they weren't supportive enough, i.e. their refusal to support the homeland security bill for so long. Max Cleland was the poster boy for 2002 - wounded veteran, supportive on Iraq, but opposed homeland security. He got the boot.

So, the Dims think a McGovern type like Dean is the answer. I don't think this is a head fake just to win the primaries. They really are nuts.