Posted on 10/20/2004 7:01:14 AM PDT by HenryLeeII
The 1940s found a world at war. Hostilities had commenced with Japan's invasion of China several years before; Europe's bloodletting began when Nazi Germany and Communist Russia invaded Poland in 1939. Germany subsequently occupied Denmark, invaded Norway, and blitzed through the Low Countries and France.
Although ostrich-like Americans thought the U.S. could stand apart, wiser heads knew the U.S. could not ignore evil's threat not only to American security but to civilization and to decency.
In 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt named Henry Stimson Secretary of War and Frank Knox Secretary of the Navy (prior to the establishment of the Defense Department, the Navy Secretary held full Cabinet rank). A longtime GOP insider, Stimson had served as Secretary of State during the Hoover administration. Knox had run for Vice President on the GOP's 1936 ticket.
Roosevelt defeated Wendell Willkie to win a third term. After the 1940 election FDR made Willkie his personal ambassador. Willkie represented the President - and the United States - in talks with other nations.
The GOP's enlightened leadership, perhaps best exemplified by Senator Arthur Vandenberg, strove to transcend the party's isolationism. The GOP continued to criticize Roosevelt's domestic policies, but loyally saluted him as Commander-in-Chief. The hard left, aligned as it was with the commissars, resisted American rearmament until Hitler invaded the USSR. No one outside the fringe uttered such nonsense as "I support the troops, but . . . "
Today's leaders and parties have much to learn from their more illustrious - dare one say, patriotic? - predecessors.
Only three Democrat senators have refrained from stabbing the president in the back since the vote on the Congressional war resolution vote: Joseph Lieberman, Evan Bayh, and Zell Miller. Sen. Lieberman was a candidate for the Democratic nomination, so would not be a logical choice to serve in any capacity, Sen. Miller is retiring and would not be a logical choice to serve other than with the blistering condemnations he has served up against his party, and Evan Bayh simply does not have a talent uniquely lacking in the current staff serving the president.
As soon as Iraq became a focus, Democrats such as Rep. James McDermott started baseless attacks against President Bush, and those who voted in favor of the war have since betrayed him (except for those noted above) with attacks that are logically inconsistent and are only designed to serve their political ambitions as opposed to the good of the country, by refusing to participate in honest discourse, attempting to destroy the will of the American public to continue our endeavors in Iraq, and attempting to persuade other countries not to trust or cooperate with our president.
Richmond Times-Dispatch op-ed ping
Disloyal opposition ping...
I wish the president would point out some of the analogies between then and now. They are powerful and to the point.
Might I add that Bush has endured a good deal of criticism (from FR amothers) for supporting clinton on Kosovo and the cruise missile bombing of Iraq.
Even after the dems have called him a liar on Iraq, Bush has resisted asking the obvious question about what clinton was bombing in Iraq.
Memo to PJB and the paleo-cons.
"Although ostrich-like Americans thought the U.S. could stand apart, wiser heads knew the U.S. could not ignore evil's threat not only to American security but to civilization and to decency."
In tuth the sniping started before Iraq.
When the Pres. first started to gear-up for Afghanastan the Dems. were screaming;
You can't defeat Afghanastan.
The British couldn't.
The USSR couldn't.
It'll be a quagmire.
Besides,what about Iraq?
Once Afghanastan was on its way to defeat and we were gettng ready for Iraq, we started hearing a new mantra;
What about N. Korea?
What about Iran?
The fact is that ever since the Pesident's speech on 9/20/01, the Dems. have been the "Dis-Loyal" opposition.
There will probably be a cabinet re-shuffle after Bush gets re-elected. My guess is that Powell retires immediately. Condi Rice may seek elective office in California (if she has any future designs on the White House, she should make a play for statewide office now). I think that Tom Ridge is gone, he's already said as much.
I could see Joe Lieberman as Secretary of Homeland Security. Zell Miller at State? Maybe, but I doubt it.
The one Democrat who is already in the Cabinet, Norm Mineta, should be sent packing. He sees everything through the prism of the Japanese-American experience during WW2. We can't afford his sensitivities when it comes to practical airport security measures.
It'll be interesting.
The Dems and their NY media started their anti-american campaign weeks after 9/11 when the network newsmen took off their flag pins.
Remember when Afganastan was consistantly touted as a quagmire?
The elites in NY, Hollywood, and academia set the mood, the policies, election results, and "teach" history to the public.
God help us.
We can probably consider the starting point of the Dems' endless, hysterical, dishonest, shrill rhetoric about George W. Bush to have begun with Ann Richards' bile while running against him for governor in Texas back in the 1990s. They weren't too kind to him during the 2000 campaign, and even accused him of "talking down the economy" when he pointed out that it wasn't doing as splendidly as Clinton and the media claimed.
Although everything you say is true, I thought this thread was about "loyalty" in time of war.
I think Bush is capable of rebuking clinton, but will not do so on matters of war and national security. Otherwise, Kerry would have been incinerated by now.
It is, but when you pointed out how the Dems attacked the president as we were preparing to invade Afghanistan, I simply pointed out that their hatred of him and lying about him is pathological and dates back to his first gubernatorial campaign in Texas, which is part of my point about there being basically no Democrats that he could trust with a war-related position in his cabinet.
In other words, in addition to the Dems being disloyal, which many of them have been since the days of FDR and before, many of them are also pathological in their treatment of George Bush.
Yes. The political left in this country has waged an assault on the very republican institutions and processes of our country. This assault started decades ago, and is plain to see during this election campaign with their rampant voter fraud, the flagrantly-dishonest media treatment of Bush v. Kerry, etc.
Certainly in times past, we have seen losers be granted an office or special assignment by the winner of a contest. WWII & WBTS were divisive conflicts. I don't have an explanation why today's politicians are so polarized, when our predecessors overcame their differences despite the same or greater threats to our republic. Perhaps the true statesman is no longer.
It's hard to think of any Democrats who would be suitable...any of the right temperament and ability are either too old or not prominent enough (there are still a few unsung Zell Millers around).
This morning on Fox & Friends there was talk about how President Bush resembles Harry Truman in 1948. The problem with the analogy is that Kerry doesn't resemble Thomas Dewey, who might have been a pretty good President. A closer comparison would be between Kerry and Henry Wallace, the "Progressive" candidate in 1948.
Osama?
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.