The Party of Retreat and Defeat

FrontPageMagazine ^ | June 19, 2006 | By Peter Collier and David Horowitz

[Phil Harmonic]

For the first time in American history, a major political party wants America to run from a war we are winning

I don't technically agree with this statement. We were winning in Nam at one point but the anti-American protesters i.e. Fonda, Kerry and company made sure we lost our honor and will to succeed.

I, too, was given a moment of pause by this statement but, upon reflection and IMHO, the anti-Vietnam war sentiment of the 60's and 70's wasn't nearly as blatantly partisan as is the anti-Iraq war sentiment of today. I think that's the "major political party" point the authors were attempting to highlight.

[Phil Harmonic]

Now, I am ready for US to declare victory and get the hell out of there, but we should do it when the Iraqi government is standing on its own. We will probably have to keep a good number of US troops on bases in the desert to provide a rapid response in case things get out of hand. But more importantly, we need to get a few more of the cockroaches over there squashed.

Paloma_55, I think I'll start following you around...well said.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

That George Bush believes America can act unapologetically, without the quaking guilt his critics are convinced stains its history, is why the Democrats hate Bush.

The precise shorthand for the Democrats’ decline into retreat can be found in the descent to Teddy Kennedy from his brother John. No president during the generation long Cold War sounded the call to arms more eloquently than he did, warning the enemies of freedom that America would “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty.” But that was before the anti-war movement launched by Amerian radicals had gotten under way, before Teddy and his colleagues had buffoonishly capitulated to its moral authority and acted out its agendas by terminating America’s aid to the anti-communist regimes in Cambodia and Vietnam.

[dalight]

This isn't true. During the election of 1864 when the Union was clearly winning, the Democrats nominated George McClellan on a platform of seeking a negotiated peace. This was a pro-slavery ticket, and the aim was to essentially end the war by accepting defeat.

Copperheads then and Copperheads now. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[TAdams8591]

I didn't wirite the comment to which you responded which was italicized in my post. rj45mis did. You might want to respond to that poster.