The Democrats appeal to the pacifists, as their base.--punster
That is very true.
As a matter of fact, I just sent the following to Sarah, a (Jewish) pacifist friend who was initially a bit wary of my information. She responded to the Zucker ad and my analysis with the following:
"I'LL HAVE TO SIT DOWN WHEN I HAVE A COUPLE OF HOURS TO DIGEST (INGEST) ABSORB AND UNDERSTAND (NOT JUST READ) THIS E-MAIL...I JUST RETURNED FROM MY WEEKLY WEDNESDAY MUSEUM VOLUNTEER DAY (A TRIVAL BUT ENJOYABLE PURSUIT)...AS I MAY HAVE MENTIONED BEFORE, I GLEAN LITTLE FROM PARTISAN SOURCES AS THEY ARE MOST OFTEN ONE SIDED. I LIKE TO GET BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY AND TRY TO MAKE SENSE OF IT MYSELF. SO THANKS FOR SHARING. IT IRKS ME HOW EACH SIDE SPINS THE FACTS TO THEIR ADVANTAGE.
I'M A PACIFIST BY NATURE AND RIGHT NOW A LOT OF MY ENERGY IS DEVOTED TO BRINGING OUR SOLDIERS HOME FROM IRAQ."
(Anyone with a similarly misguided friend or colleague should feel free to use this letter.)
Dear Sarah,
I appreciate your open mind. (It's a rare commodity, especially these days.) I am actually not partisan in the usual sense. My goal is merely to inform the electorate. Indeed, I believe we must rise above our usual political agendas to choose the right people to prosecute the War on Terror because no less than civilization hangs in the balance.
I'm not a big fan of professional politicians of any stripe. But what the Left has done for the past several years is unconscionable. They have undermined the war effort, aided and abetted the enemy, endangered the troops and put all of us in greater peril. Just to get their power back. They have demonstrated that they are not fit to lead us in this very perilous time.
You might be interested to know that this campaign ad was made by a big Hollywood liberal, a former DEMOCRAT (and a former pacifist). (He changed his thinking on 9/11.)
Who, beside the terrorists, wants war? The sad fact is this: We will be at war irrespective of Iraq. The critical point to understand is that in asymmetric warfare (terrorist wars), you need ONLY ONE CONSENTING PLAYER. The islamofascist terrorists are at war with us. They want to destroy us. Nothing, nothing will change that short of defeating and destroying them.
That a terrorist war requires only one consenting player (i.e., the terrorist) is why 9/11 happened. Bin Laden bombed the WTC in 1993, declared war on America beginning in 1996, and bill clinton did nothing. He didn't understand that when terrorists declare war on you and commit acts of war against you, you are, perforce at war. You have only two options: Fight... or surrender. Clinton chose 'surrender.'
Terrorists wars are by their very nature not of place (terrorists are NON-STATE actors). If Iraq is not the war's central front, then it will be someplace else... If the battleground is not of our choosing, then it will be of the terrorists' choosing. It will most certainly be New York or Washington or San Francisco....
I love your posts.
CORRECTION:
The failure to understand, or refusal to acknowledge, that a terrorist war requires only one consenting player, (i.e., the terrorist), was the proximate cause of 9/11. Bin Laden bombed the WTC in 1993, declared war on America beginning in 1996, committed acts of war against America throughout the 90s, and bill clinton did nothing. Clinton didn't understand, or refused to acknowledge, that when terrorists declare war on you and commit acts of war against you, you are, perforce at war. You have only two options: Fight... or surrender. Bill clinton chose 'surrender.'
Wonderful, unassailable reponse to your pacifist friend. I'd be interested in her reply, for insight (and maybe a chuckle.) Why is it so hard for so many to see the obvious imperative that islamo-fascist terrorism imposes?