THE LEFT'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans2
WHY THE LEFT IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA
- by Mia T, 8.24.05, 6.01.04
- by Mia T, 8.24.05, 6.01.04
-
-
-
Four-star General Vo Nguyen Giap led Vietnam's armies from their inception, in the 1940s, up to the moment of their triumphant entrance into Saigon in 1975.
Possessing one of the finest military minds of this century, his strategy for vanquishing superior opponents was not to simply outmaneuver them in the field but to undermine their resolve by inflicting demoralizing political defeats with his bold tactics.
This was evidenced as early as 1944, when Giap sent his minuscule force against French outpost in Indochina. The moment he chose to attack was Christmas Eve. More devastatingly, in 1944 at a place called Dien Bien Phu, Giap lured the overconfident French into a turning point battle and won a stunning victory with brilliant deployments. Always he showed a great talent for approaching his enemy's strengths as if they were exploitable weaknesses.
Nearly a quarter of a century later, in 1968 the General launched a major surprize offensive against American and South Vietnamese forces on the eve of the lunar New Year celebrations. Province capitals throughout the country were seized, garrisons simultaneously attacked and, perhaps most shockingly, in Saigon the U.S. Embassy was invaded. The cost in North Vietnamese casualties was tremendous but the gambit produced a pivotal media disaster for the White House and the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. Giap's strategy toppled the American commander in chief. It turned the tide of the war and sealed the General's fame as the dominant military genius of the 20th Century's second half.John Colvin, Giap Volcano Under Snow
Our boys... went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war.... [O]ur boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled....
I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim....
I say to [the American people] that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration....
We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says....Osama bin Laden, May 1998
"The Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden].
At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."
"The Bush Administration is so entralled by the idea of preemption and American military might. This is the consequence of the policy that regards legitimacy as largely a product of force and victory as primarily a triump of arms...
We truly should go to war as the last resort."- I think [the Bush] administration has the right strategic vision and has taken many of the steps needed to get that long-term strategy rolling. Where I give them the failing grade is in explaining that vision to the American public and the world. Key example: this White House enshrines preemptive war in the latest National Security Strategy and that scares the hell out of a lot of Americans, not to mention our allies. Why? This administration fails to distinguish sufficiently under what conditions that strategy makes reasonable sense. My point is this: when you are explicit about the world being divided into globalization's Core and Gap, you can distinguish between the different security rule sets at work in each. Nothing has changed about strategic deterrence or the concept of mutual-assured destruction (or MAD) within the Core, so fears about preemptive wars triggering World War III are misplaced. When this administration talks about preemption, they're talking strictly about the Gap - not the Core. The strategic stability that defines the Core is not altered one whit by this new strategy, because preemption is all about striking first against actors or states you believe - quite reasonably - are undeterrable in the normal sense.
Thomas P.M. Barnett
The Pentagon's New Map
NB: Dr. Barnett is a lifelong DEMOCRAT
- I think [the Bush] administration has the right strategic vision and has taken many of the steps needed to get that long-term strategy rolling. Where I give them the failing grade is in explaining that vision to the American public and the world. Key example: this White House enshrines preemptive war in the latest National Security Strategy and that scares the hell out of a lot of Americans, not to mention our allies. Why? This administration fails to distinguish sufficiently under what conditions that strategy makes reasonable sense. My point is this: when you are explicit about the world being divided into globalization's Core and Gap, you can distinguish between the different security rule sets at work in each. Nothing has changed about strategic deterrence or the concept of mutual-assured destruction (or MAD) within the Core, so fears about preemptive wars triggering World War III are misplaced. When this administration talks about preemption, they're talking strictly about the Gap - not the Core. The strategic stability that defines the Core is not altered one whit by this new strategy, because preemption is all about striking first against actors or states you believe - quite reasonably - are undeterrable in the normal sense.
-
eneral Vo Nguyen Giap's Tet-Offensive gambit is the terrorist's favorite how-to. It is the definitive primer on asymmetric warfare, the use of unconventional tactics to counter the overwhelming conventional military superiority of an adversary.Not surprisingly, the terrorist's favorite how-to is also the American Left's.
As is the terrorist's favorite target....
The Left's Tet-Offensive gambit today is nothing more than a reprise of its cheap Vietnam parlor trick of decades past: demoralize, undermine, ultimately turn public support against the war, systematically and seditiously seize America's defeat from the jaws of victory.
The Tet-Offensive gambit is the Left's last hope of overcoming both a president who has the courage to confront terrorism and their own lethally dangerous record of unwavering deficiency and failure to do so.
A CONSPIRACY OF USEFUL IDIOTS
The Left's Tet-Offensive gambit is a conspiracy of what Lenin called "useful idiots." It is today a Leftist band of blind apologists for the islamofascist-terrorist enemies of America. But I suspect even Lenin would be surprised by the pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic-ness of it all.
These useful idiots, a self-anointed "intelligentsia"--now there's an oxymoron for you-- are the familiar motley collection of constituencies from the media, academe, Hollywood and, of course, the trusty left wing of our own federal government.
As you must have noticed by now, "incompetent" is their buzzword; it is uttered with dripping contempt and is separated by no more than one word from "George Bush," which is spit, not spoken.
The Kennedy-Pelosi-Gore-clinton (either--"one for the price of two," I say)-Sulzberger-Soros-Moore construct is its grotesque manifestation. Some would call it a clever contrivance, engineered to render, by contrast, its virtually mute member, hillary clinton, marginally sane, and if not attractive, certainly acceptably plain.
Missus clinton--both clintons, actually--are virtually mute for reasons that extend beyond her (presumptive) candidacy. Abusers of power in their own right, they lack the moral authority to demagogue Iraqi-prisoner "abuse" or the Nick Berg decapitation by al Qaeda.
Regarding the latter, because "liberal " is itself sufficient cause to produce this muting effect, we have the bizarre result of the Left oozing, as Zell MIller put it, "more indignation over a photo of a prisoner with underwear on his head than over the video of a young American with no head at all."
- ASIDE: A SANDY-BERGER silly-gism:
- Saddam shredded people to torture and terrorize.
Therefore, if we torture and terrorize Berger, we will find out what he shredded.
Would this fly with the Gitmo-obsessed crowd, I wonder....
- Saddam shredded people to torture and terrorize.
But with all the posturing and pointing and against-isms, the Left eventually has to say something, so after intermittent periods of virtual muteness, it resorts to the old standby, some nonsense or other about process, always making certain to stay clear of substance, faux or real.
The grotesque Kennedy-Pelosi-Gore-clinton (either--"one for the price of two," I say)-Sulzberger-Soros-Moore construct, having successfully transmogrified nominal "George Bush" into vile invective, is now busy pumping out anti-Bush venom via its Viacom/Simon & Schuster/60-minutes vertical operation, a coordinated if overblown Hollywood script hatched solely for the purpose of undermining and defeating America so that the Left can finally win... or so it thinks.
POSTMODERN POSE, STAGE LEFT
Bill clinton was the first postmodern president. When he encountered problems, he simply defined them away.
Thus:
- "is" was not "is,"
- "sex" was not "sex"
- "rape" was not "rape"
- "genocide" was not "genocide,"
- the terrorist-declared war on America was not war,
- the terrorists' acts of war against America (beginning with the bombing of the same building by the same people in 1993) were not acts of war. (They were "crimes,")
Terrorism grew and metastasized under bill clinton because bill clinton had a capacity to construct and compartmentalize alternative "truths," alternative selves, alternative moralities; bill clinton is the political manifestation of an "intelligentsia" and its "enlightened" worldview that reject all absolutes.
The net result of clinton's convenient postmodern pose was his opportunistic, Kerry-esque flip-flopping (positively spun as "triangulation" by clinton's political guru, Dick Morris )... or, alternatively, his complete and utter paralysis. The paralysis--and indeed, the postmodern pose itself, was partly a result of his well-documented cognitive inability to analyze, synthesize and prioritize; clinton cowardice and clinton corruption and clinton self-aggrandizement were also essential first causes.
THE LEFT'S POSTMODERN INCAPACITY
If this postmodern poppycock sounds familiar, that's because it is. The American Left today exhibits -- and is crippled by -- the very same political and cognitive postmodern incapacity and dysfunction.
Listen to the Left. Listen to Kerry and Gore and Pelosi and Kennedy and clinton and Soros and Moore and their complicit friends in the media. (How DARE The New York Times bury on page 16 the photos of the seven terrorists believed to be in the U.S., plotting an even more horrific 9/11? How DARE they?) You will hear the same alternative "truths," the same alternative selves, the same alternative moralities.
- They still refuse to accept the War on Terror as war, not crime.
- They still refuse to accept the War on Terror as a global, irreducible war, not a collection of discrete civil conflicts.
- They still refuse to understand that the war in Iraq is not an "optional" war apart from the War on Terror, but is, in fact, the War on Terror's lynchpin.
- They refuse to understand (or refuse to admit) that "support for the troops" cannot be independent of support for the war effort and support for the commander in chief.
They refuse to accept the fact that their jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding and abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans.
THE LEFT'S 24-HOUR-NEWS CYCLE ATTENTION SPAN
The Left's calculations are clintonian; that is to say, they are tactical, opportunistic, egocentric, small in both scope and depth. They are limited by a 24-hour-news-cycle attention span and a 2-year election cycle. The net result is vulgar play-by-play "commentary" when it should be objective, long-range analysis.
The clintons and their Leftist goons -- (reflexive abusers of power need goons.) -- fail to understand that:
- a terrorist war requires only one consenting player
- the War on Terror is global and irreducible, the Left's postmodern posture notwithstanding.
- defining bin Laden's acts of war as "crimes'' is a dangerous, anachronistic, postmodern conceit (It doesn't depend on what the meaning of the word "war" is) and amounts to surrender
- preemptive action, and even more so, preventative action, serve a necessary, critically protective, as well as offensive function in any war on terror.
Missus clinton and the Left will, by definition, reprise the failed, lethally dangerous clinton policy of denial and surrender.
I, therefore, urge anyone planning ever to vote for hillary clinton or someone like her to rethink, to reconsider. Your children's lives, if not civilization, itself, just may depend on it.
I'm a single issue voter, as I guess must have become apparent.
I'm not a Republican. I'm not a conservative. I'm not a very great admirer of the president in many ways, but I think that my condition is... that this is an administration that wakes up every morning wondering how to make life hard for the forces of Jihad and how to make as hard as possible an unapologetic defense of civilization against this kind of barbarism... and though the Bush administration has been rife with disappointment on this and incompetent, I nonetheless feel that they have some sense of that spirit.
I don't get that... I don't get that feeling from anyone who even sought the Democratic nomination.
I would [therefore] have to vote for the reelection of President Bush.Christopher Hitchens
Washington Journal, 6.01.04
C-SPAN
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
neocommunist political movement, a tipsy-topsy, infantile perversion of the Marxist-Leninist model, global in scope, beginning in the post-cold-war, unipolar 1990s, led by the '60s neoliberal baby-boomer "intelligentsia," that seeks power without responsibility, i.e., that seeks to dilute American power by concentrating power in said '60s neoliberals while yielding America's sovereignty to the United Nations, i.e., while surrendering to the terrorists, as it continues the traditional '60s neoliberal feint, namely: (1) concern for social justice, (2) distain for bureaucracy, and (3) the championing of entrepreneurship for the great unwashed.-
Mia T, 2.24.04
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004
WHY THE LEFT IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA
- by Mia T, 6.04.04
-
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)The Bush Doctine is built on two pillars, one -- that the United States must maintain its absolute military superiority in every part of the world, and second -- that the United States has the right for preemptive action.
Now, both these propositions, taken on their own, are quite valid propositions, but if you put them together, they establish two kinds of sovereignty in the world, the sovereignty of the United States, which is inviolate, not subject to any international constraints, and the rest of the world, which is subject to the Bush Doctrine.
To me, it is reminiscent to [sic] George Orwell's "Animal Farm," that "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
-
eorge Soros could not have more clearly enunciated the lethal danger that he and John Kerry and the clintons and the rest of his leftist cabal pose for America.
Yesterday, at the "progressive," i.e., ultra-extremist left-wing liberal, "Take Back America" confab, Mr. Soros confirmed the obvious: 9/11 was dispositive for the Dems; that is, 9/11 accelerated what eight years of the clintons had set into motion, namely, the demise of a Democratic party that is increasingly irrelevant, unflinchingly corrupt, unwaveringly self-serving, chronically moribund and above all, lethally, seditiously dangerous.
"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Apparently missing the irony, George Soros chastised America with these words even as he was trying his $25,000,000, 527-end-run damnedest to render himself "more equal than others" in order to foist his radical, paranoic, deadly dementia on an entire nation.
"Animal Farm" is George Orwell's satirical allegory of the Russian Revolution; but it could just as easily be the story of the Democratic Party of today, with the
its porcine manifestation.
SOROS TSURIS
George Soros' little speech reveals everything we need to know about the Left, to wit:
- its naivete about the War on Terror,
- its preference for demagoguery over rational argument, and ideology and reacquisition of power over national security,
- its mindset, which is inextricably bound to its failed, tortuous, reckless schemes, relics of a different time, a different war and a different enemy.
Soros is correct when he states that each of the two pillars of the Bush Doctine--the United States maintenance of absolute military superiority and the United States right of preemptive action--are "valid propositions" [in a post-9/11 world].
But when he proceeds from there to argue that the validity of each of these two [essential] pillars is somehow nullified by the resultant unequalled power that these two pillars, when taken together, vest in the United States, rational thought and national-security primacy give way to dogmatic Leftist neo-neoliberal ideology.
What is, in fact, "inviolate" here is the neo-neoliberal doctrine of U.S. sovereignty, which states simply that there must be none, that we must yield our sovereignty to the United Nations. Because this Leftist tenet is inviolate, and because it is the antithesis of the concept of U.S. sovereignty enunciated by the Bush Doctrine and the concept of U.S. sovereignty required by the War on Terror, rabid Leftists like Soros conclude that we must trash the latter two inconvenient concepts--even if critical to the survival of our country.
It is precisely here where Soros and the Left fail utterly to understand the War on Terror. They cannot see beyond their own ideology and lust for power. They have become a danger to this country no less lethal than the terrorists they aid and abet.
I think this administration has the right strategic vision and has taken many of the steps needed to get that long-term strategy rolling.
Where I give them the failing grade is in explaining that vision to the American public and the world. Key example: this White House enshrines preemptive war in the latest National Security Strategy and that scares the hell out of a lot of Americans, not to mention our allies. Why? This administration fails to distinguish sufficiently under what conditions that strategy makes reasonable sense.
My point is this: when you are explicit about the world being divided into globalization's Core and Gap, you can distinguish between the different security rule sets at work in each.
Nothing has changed about strategic deterrence or the concept of mutual-assured destruction (or MAD) within the Core, so fears about preemptive wars triggering World War III are misplaced.
When this administration talks about preemption, they're talking strictly about the Gap - not the Core. The strategic stability that defines the Core is not altered one whit by this new strategy, because preemption is all about striking first against actors or states you believe - quite reasonably - are undeterrable in the normal sense.
Thomas P.M. Barnett
The Pentagon's New Map
NB: Dr. Barnett is a lifelong DEMOCRATI'm a single-issue voter, as I guess must have become apparent.
I'm not a Republican. I'm not a conservative. I'm not a very great admirer of the president in many ways, but I think that my condition is... that this is an administration that wakes up every morning wondering how to make life hard for the forces of Jihad and how to make as hard as possible an unapologetic defense of civilization against this kind of barbarism... and though the Bush administration has been rife with disappointment on this and incompetent, I nonetheless feel that they have some sense of that spirit.
I don't get that... I don't get that feeling from anyone who even sought the Democratic nomination.
I would [therefore] have to vote for the reelection of President Bush.
Christopher Hitchens
Washington Journal, 6.01.04
C-SPAN
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004
eave it to the French to make pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic all the rage.
