DEMS' MORAL COLLAPSE

NY Post ^ | 10-01-03 | RALPH PETERS

[jmstein7]

WOULD any sane American have claimed, in the autumn of 1945, that the United States had been wrong to depose Hitler? Even in the autumn of 2003, would any Democratic presidential aspirant suggest that our war against Hitler was a mistake?

Of course not. Hitler launched bloody wars of aggression, committed genocide, created a savage police state, and tortured and killed his own countrymen. He was responsible for the deaths of millions.

Sounds like Saddam to me.

Yet the Democratic Party's uncrowned kings, from Howard the Unready to Wes the Unsteady, insist that Operation Iraqi Freedom was unjustified, whining that Saddam never attacked the United States directly and showed no inclination to do so. According to the Dems, the Bush administration had no moral or legal right to go to war against the Saddam regime, no matter its crimes.

Tell it to FDR.

[dirtboy]

Those who argue that deposing Saddam was wrong are the equivalent of apologists for Hitler. One has increasing difficulty telling the difference between Gov. Dean and Prime Minister Chamberlain, between Gen. Clark and his role model, Marshal Petain.

Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark...

[goldstategop]

Ouuuuuuuch indeed! I love Ralph Peters slap at the Democrats with those clever mocking appelations. I can't wait to see the Left go postal big time!

[OESY]

This is Peters' best essay to date and is worth reading in its entirety.

[wayoverontheright]

If the Democrats are unaware of their inconsistencies on such issues, then they are dangerously naive and irresponsible. If they're simply ignoring the truth for political ends, then they are immoral. In neither case should they be entrusted with America's foreign policy.

I don't think they're naive at all, and for me, ignoring the truth for political ends involving national security is treason.

[jamaksin]

An interesting posting. Thank you.

Your ending paragraph - "Tell it to FDR." - is that an allusion to the Pearl Harbor attack of December 7, 1941?

If so, than recognize that the full truth about Pearl Harbor remains to be told. Why? Because of the myriad of documents related to Pearl Harbor - even now after sixty-plus years - which remain classified.

So, I'd ask, what are we to tell FDR?

[On the Road to Serfdom]

From Article: Yes, there's a difference between deposing Hitler and getting rid of Saddam: The people of Iraq welcomed liberation, while the Germans resented it.

[mountaineer]

Sepaking of a moral vacuum, Dems go to Hollywood for $$.

[TUX]

Howard the Unready to Wes the Unsteady

Luv this line..clever. Any other one liners on the remaining dwarfs?

[wouldilie]

Excellent article!!

[ssdb]

DEMS' MORAL COLLAPSE

Isn't this title a bit of an OXYMORON?

[Only1choice____Freedom]

DEMS' MORAL COLLAPSE

You have to have morals in order for them to collapse.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Hitler was a genocidal maniac. But as the writer correctly notes, Hitler reluctantly declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor. Even though FDR had been helping Britain even as a pre-Pearl Harbor "neutral." He does not however note that Hitler's reluctance was based on the obvious fact that the alliance of the US to the Soviet Union (and, incidentally, Britain) changed the correlation of forces and put Germany on the defensive (not counting the "secret," but of course only to the public, toll of 400 US merchantmen by unmolested U-boats in the first six months).

The reason for Hitler's action was not the Axis Pact (which didn't require Hitler to join Japan's war of aggression even on paper) but the publication just prior to Pearl Harbor of a "pentagon" (actual building built later) plan to raise huge forces to fight Germany and Japan.

That leak had the effects of bushwhacking the outraged protesting isolationists (a mere 80% of the public) and of saving the Soviet Union by getting the public behind a war against Hitler (in addition to, incidentally, our war with Japan). It was done after FDR, but not the public, had been informed that the Japanese Embassy in Washington had been ordered to destroy their codes and break off negotiations at a certain time on 7 December 1941. And none of the suspects was ever punished, even by a static career.

Apparently FDR wished he had thought to do that leak on purpose. </sarcasm>

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Wall Street Journal Editorial concludes (in reference to a Lieberman's bruiting about a renewal of the Independent Counsel Statute)

If Mr. Lieberman is serious about this, we can only infer that he's taken a close look at the polls and concluded that he has no reason to fear becoming President any time soon.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

an OXYMORON?

More like ancient history . . .

[usapatriot28]

Your ending paragraph - "Tell it to FDR." - is that an allusion to the Pearl Harbor attack of December 7, 1941? ...

So, I'd ask, what are we to tell FDR?

Did you bother to read the whole article, or just the excerpt? If you actually read the editorial your questions would be answered.

[cousair]

There certainly is rot in the Demorat Party...clear through to the core, but if we don't stop the verbage of hate at President BUsh, he will lost this next election. The American people have been hearing hate from the news sources for almost a year now. I honestly believe that they say it over and over and over so if said long enough, everyone will believe it...we must be aware of this.

[jordan8]

Saddam isn't Hitler, and Baathist Iraq wasn't Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany was a world power in 1938. You can support the war in Iraq and hate Democrats, but articles like this are an intellectual disgrace.

Was intervention in the Balkans necessary because the victims were white?
Ah yes, the anti-white race card, first refuge of cheap demagogues everywhere.

Or is freedom only for white folks, privileged blacks and soccer moms?
Ditto.

Those who argue that deposing Saddam was wrong are the equivalent of apologists for Hitler.
Surely the North Korean regime is as bad, and so, in their own way, are some of the governments and rebel groups in Africa. Do you support military action against these groups? Aren't we morally obliged under the Ralph-Peters-Anti-Hitler-Lover doctrine to intervene?

Jon Stewart: What should the media's role be in covering the war?

Stephen Colbert ("Senior Media Analyst"): Very simply, the media's role should be the accurate and objective description of the hellacious ass-whomping we're handing the Iraqis.

Stewart: Hellacious ass-whomping? Now to me, that sounds pretty subjective.

Colbert: Are you saying it's not an ass-whomping, Jon? I suppose you could call it an ass-kicking or an ass-handing-to. Unless, of course, you love Hitler.

Stewart [stammering]: I don't love Hitler.

Colbert: Spoken like a true Hitler-lover.

Stewart: Look, even some American generals have said that the Iraqis have put up more resistance than they were expected to.

Colbert: First rule of journalism, Jon, is to know your sources. Sounds like these "generals" of yours may be a little light in the combat boots, if you know what I'm saying.

Stewart: I don't think I know what you're saying.

Colbert: I'm saying they're queers, Jon. They're Hitler-loving queers. . . Jon, hear me out, it was Thomas Jefferson who said, "Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach."

Stewart: Stephen, Stalin said that. That was Stalin. Jefferson said he'd rather have a free press and no government than a government and no free press.

Colbert: Well, what do you expect from a slave-banging, Hitler-loving queer?

[jamaksin]

Or, as mentioned, the help in arming the British and convoying those shipments were acts of war.

Why? Because the United States was a neutral country at the time. And while several US vessels (e.g., REUBEN JAMES, ... ) were engaged and sunk by the Germans in the Atlantic - resulting in the loss of American lives - war was not declared against Germany. Very curious, if the intent to force Germany.

But, then, the United States, via FDR, had been committed to armed support of the British and Dutch, should the Japanese move beyond the Isthmus of Kra ... while happened on Decemeber 4, 1941. So, technically, the US was at war then - without any US terrority being attacked. Oh, yes, this was news to the United States Congress.

So, again - what are we to tell FDR - I am puzzled?