1 of 2
1

Success in War on Terror = Bad News For Bush-Haters
Posted: 28 May 2008 07:33 PM

This post's average rating is:

  • 3 stars out of 5 in 2 vote(s)
  [ Ignore ]  
W. Churchill
Total Posts:  4239
Joined  2006-11-13

For those who’ve never heard of him, historian Victor Davis Hanson is a lifelong Democrat (who admits voting for Bush in 2000 and 2004), California university professor, and has farmed family land in that state that has been in his family for decades, growing grapes for raisins. He’s been a visiting professor at the US Naval Academy, among other places. He’s also a military scholar who’s just as comfortable talking about war hundreds of years ago as he is analyzing current military events.

He doesn’t come right out and say it, but Harry Truman, who is now regularly ranked as one of America’s Top 10 Presidents, shares a trait with the current President-he was widely ridiculed by the Left for, as Hanson puts it, “creating a climate of paranoia at home and abroad”

Here’s his latest:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjI3MDlmZDMxN2M1NDU0YzM4OTAxNWU2MGI0YjY1Mjc=

Recent studies showing a decline in global incidents of Islamic terror have been interpreted as solely a Middle-East intramural affair. Sometimes the good news is said to be a naturally occurring phenomenon. We are supposed to believe that American policies of counter-terrorism at home have been of little value, if not McCarthyesque. Beefed-up security, the fight against the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the cultural creation of a repugnance — and penalty — for jihadism (as in contrast to the 1990s), have likewise supposedly played no role.

But surely the catalyst for the decline in terrorist incidents worldwide was the radically different response of the U.S. to terrorism and 9/11 that finally brought jihadism into an open-shooting war against the West (e.g., cf. the Left’s “creating terrorists”), in which the terrorists are losing the battle-space, along with the hearts and minds of those in the Middle East — as their own websites and cries of anguish attest.

The successful toppling of Saddam was followed in short order by the shutdown of Dr. Khan’s atomic shop, the surrender of WMDs by the Libyans, and the supposed sidetracking of the Iranian nuclear bomb program (at least according to the National Intelligence Estimate) — and yet no one thought the timing of all these events was odd (even when Ghaddafi himself reportedly connected his decision to abandon a weapons of mass destruction program to Saddam’s fate).

By the same token, the rise of governments that are sympathetic to the U.S. in France, Germany, and elsewhere in Europe is never associated with a shared and growing worry over Islamic radicalism — or a grudging, often private acknowledgment of the U.S. role abroad in beating back jihadism. How surreal to see a constitutional government in Iraq, with broad popular support, fighting and defeating terrorists and insurgents of both the Wahhabi and Iranian brand — at a time when the consensus is that Iraq only made terrorism much worse. As we’ve seen from recent events, there are many governments abroad that deserve criticism, whether in China, the Sudan, or Burma, but Iraq is not one of them.

So these are upside-down times when facts and events on the ground simply do not support the general pessimism of the Western media, the serial publication of gloomy he-did-it,-not-me memoirs about the post-9/11 supposed failures, and the shrill rhetoric of the Democratic primaries.

In general, the hard efforts of the last six years against radical Islam — that bore fruit by the radically changed atmosphere in Iraq, the decline in terrorism worldwide, the lack of a follow-up to 9/11, and polls that showed a marked fall in approval for al-Qaeda, Bin Laden, and the tactic of suicide bombing — are explained away in various ways. The common theme, however, is that one never mentions the efforts of the bogeyman George Bush.

The orphaned presidency of Harry Truman during the 1952 election year was likewise damned for stirring up Soviet and Chinese communism — tarred by the isolationist Right for getting us bogged down in hopeless quagmires, and by the Left for creating a climate of paranoia at home and abroad — until decades later appreciated for establishing the general framework and mind-set of an eventually successful containment.

We have not won the war on terror, but we are starting to see how the combination of domestic security, international cooperation, military action, cultural ostracism of those who condone terrorism, and promotion of constitutional government in the Middle East can, and will, marginalize and eventually defeat the jihadists. We know this not just by the anguished complaints of the Islamists themselves, and real progress on the ground — but also by the mantra of increasingly ossified critics who still insist that things are either worse, or were never that bad, or abruptly got better on their own.

 
 
Posted: 28 May 2008 07:57 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 1 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 5 stars out of 5 in 2 vote(s)
 
M. Thatcher
Total Posts:  8898
Joined  2007-03-24

This explains vladtard’s “patriotism”!

Thanks Del!

 Signature 


Haneek rabbak - - Nanat sag suk mizaneh! - - Islam: Religion of Evil!

“To ERR is human, to FORGIVE divine. HOWEVER, neither is Marine Corps Policy.”

:coolgrin:

 
 
Posted: 29 May 2008 09:39 AM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 2 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 5 stars out of 5 in 2 vote(s)
 
D. Miller
Total Posts:  1238
Joined  2007-04-28

We know that what Hansen says is true, we’ve said it ourselves; terrorism worldwide is in sharp decline, many thousands of al Qaeda have been killed or captured, particularly in Iraq, two evil regimes have been eliminated, Iraq is stabilizing and we are winning there, and we are safer.

Since Liberals, generally, are not stupid, it’s safe to assume (generally) that they know what we know.  However, since this progress post 9/11 is associated with the “Evil Genius” (or “Village Idiot”...which is it?), admission of success is not possible for them (generally).  They will always remain in denial.

We trot out the facts, Liberals answer with rhetoric (feelings) based on agenda, an agenda frought with anti-war, anti-military, anti-America, anti-George, pro-conspiracy notions.  Opinion fast becomes fact for the Left.  Examples abound on PLF.

Revisionist history is being written today by the Left in hopes that it will become real history, taught in books, tomorrow.  As for true, objective history, Hansen may be on target, but history as recorded may not be so kind to Mr. Bush.

 Signature 

I’m just an American who loves America, warts and all, and will never diminish her character nor endure those who do.

 
 
Posted: 29 May 2008 12:19 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 3 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 5 stars out of 5 in 2 vote(s)
 
W. Churchill
Total Posts:  4239
Joined  2006-11-13
whiterabbits - 29 May 2008 09:39 AM

Revisionist history is being written today by the Left in hopes that it will become real history, taught in books, tomorrow.  As for true, objective history, Hansen may be on target, but history as recorded may not be so kind to Mr. Bush.

As I have frequently noted here, Bush will not get a fair shake from this generation of “historians”. But that is true of any President. We still haven’t started to get an unbiased history of Presidents who were in office 40 years ago. The histories of John F. Kennedy, for instance, have been for the most part only been written by “historians” who served in his Administration, people like the late Arthur Schlesinger.  Let’s not forget that Artie, as a JFK aide, was too afraid to tell him that going into the Bay of Pigs would be a disaster. Many years later, Artie compared Bush’s Iraq incursion to the Japanese Imperial Navy’s attack on Pearl Harbor.

Likewise, the curators of the Lyndon Johnson Library admitted a couple of years ago that their historical treatment of LBJ was skewed and biased, due to their being too close to their subject to be objective.

The definitive history of the Bush years will be written by a generation of historians who have not even been born yet. That’s why Hanson is so good at what he does-he is knowledgeable about wars that were fought centuries before he was even born.

My guess is that this future generation of historians will treat Bush more kindly than he’s being treated now. But we will never know, because most of us won’t be around to read their words.

 
 
Posted: 29 May 2008 12:38 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 4 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 5 stars out of 5 in 2 vote(s)
 
The Gipper
Total Posts:  12518
Joined  2007-01-08

Yet Another ...

Spot-On articulate observation and assessment from VDH.


During the 1990s, while BillyJeff was travelling the globe with 400 of his best friends and family on the taxpayer’s dime, he was happier ‘n a pig in shít to take credit for an economy (that had spilled over into much of the globe) even though he had nothing to do with it - besides raising taxes.  Further, he had annoying habit and propensity to bend over and spread ‘em for the United Nations - always with a <wink> and a <nod> of course as ONE MILLION hacked-up bodies resulted in Rwanda.

Appeasement by way of [non] “law enforcement”.

I mean REALLY, how many countries in the ME would allow the FBI to conduct any kind of “investigation” in THEIR Sharia bailiwick?

cohen_clinton_albright_berger_see_n.png

Ya, I don’t know either.

I make this comparison NOT because Clinton is an easy target, but because BillyJeff and HIS Cabinet were portrayed by the MSM as “the best and the brightest” even though though they disdained & disabled the military, sold State secrets to unfriendly foreign powers, and turned a blind eye toward a massive gathering storm.  Yet continually all we heard from the MSM was what a master at politics was Bill Clinton.  It WAS and is STILL all about form over substance for Democrats and their media enablers.

The difficult issues that confront America today will NOT be resolved by a smooth-talking, inexperienced, elítist whose questionable judgment has yet to be fully explored by those entities driven to see him elected.

Taking the fight to the enemy requires a grave resolve to accomplish the mission while repeatedly hammering home the whys and wherefores.

Eventually, as it appears is now beginning to happen, the suicidal bad guys will begin to wonder just what they can accomplish.  As most of them MUST know by now, the prospect of all those virgins is highly overrated.

DON’T Drink the Kool-Aid!

1978jonestown1.jpg

“Jonestown", Guyana

.

 Signature 

~(Ã)~ 1st Bn 87th Infantry

Nov. 4, 2008: The Day The Music Died.

“Bye-bye, miss American pie.”

Oh, and as I watched him on the stage
My hands were clenched in fists of rage.
No angel born in Hell
Could break that Satan’s spell.
And as the flames climbed high into the night
To light the sacrificial rite,
I saw Satan laughing with delight
The day the music died.

 
 
Posted: 29 May 2008 01:31 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 5 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 5 stars out of 5 in 1 vote(s)
 
B. Goldwater
Total Posts:  2360
Joined  2006-11-07

When you get the chance, attend one of the lectures of VDH. He is a wealth of information. I don’t know about his being a lifelong Democrat, as I see him as a conservative. He was featured in Hillsdale College’ speech digest Imprimis, and from all indications will be featured again, and again.

August 20 to September 23
Victor Davis Hanson is teaching a class on “The War on Terror-Origins, Conduct, and Future,” and advising students and giving public lectures on classical and military history at Hillsdale College, Michigan as the Wayne & Marcia Buske Distinguished Fellow in History, Hillsdale College.

We’re blessed that he resides in our neck of the woods.

 Signature 

God and the Soldier, we adore,
In time of danger, not before.
The danger passed and all things righted,
God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted.

~Rudyard Kipling

 
 
Posted: 29 May 2008 03:43 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 6 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 5 stars out of 5 in 2 vote(s)
 
A. Lincoln
Total Posts:  9356
Joined  2006-11-16

Actually it is more likely to be correct to say no news

news.JPG

cable+news.JPG

 Signature 

I will offer fair debate to those who wish that, but I will try to not school those who will not learn and I will try not to feed the trolls.

 
 
Posted: 29 May 2008 03:49 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 7 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 5 stars out of 5 in 2 vote(s)
 
A. Lincoln
Total Posts:  9356
Joined  2006-11-16

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/greenwald/8571

In an interview yesterday with the San Francisco Chronicle, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi claimed the U.S. troop surge failed to accomplish its goal. She then partially credited the success of the troop surge to “the goodwill of the Iranians,” claiming that they were responsible for ending violence in the southern city of Basra.

 Signature 

I will offer fair debate to those who wish that, but I will try to not school those who will not learn and I will try not to feed the trolls.

 
 
Posted: 29 May 2008 06:10 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 8 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 5 stars out of 5 in 1 vote(s)
 
W. Churchill
Total Posts:  3561
Joined  2007-01-09

the anti victory crowd has a huge problem here. Earlier this week I exchanged comments with “madcoverboy” who used a tortured “logic” to create what amounted to intellectual denial of the facts on the ground.

the strategy was simple: the boy insisted that the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq had to be included in any assessment of the status of terror in the world.

I disagreed and based that disagreement on two factors: A. terror is aimed at civilians. Killing soldiers isn’t terror, its war. B. Our objective in the war was to shift the attention of the terrorists from killing our civilians to fighting our soldiers and that approach clearly worked.

this boy reminded me of that horrible “jukeboxgrad” and I simply refused to read any more of his pompous insults.

but the lesson is clear, the anti victory crowd will do everything they can to deny a victory to America in Iraq. They cannot possibly be wrong, at least in their own minds and they are too small and mean to accept responsibility for the own erroneous thinking.

Remember how everyone demanded that Bush admit that he made mistakes? When will Harry Reid admit that he made a mistake when he claimed that the war was lost?

 Signature 

Mr Obama: Heed the words of Edmund Burke:

“...[A]sk yourselves this question: Will they be content in such a state of slavery?Reflect how you are to govern a people who think they ought to be free, and think they are not. Your scheme yields no revenue; it yields nothing by discontent, disorder, disobedience: and such is the state of America, that, after wading up to your eyes in blood, you could only end up just where you begun...”

 
 
Posted: 29 May 2008 08:38 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 9 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 5 stars out of 5 in 1 vote(s)
 
W. Churchill
Total Posts:  4239
Joined  2006-11-13
nanosecondinvestments - 29 May 2008 03:49 PM

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/greenwald/8571

In an interview yesterday with the San Francisco Chronicle, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi claimed the U.S. troop surge failed to accomplish its goal. She then partially credited the success of the troop surge to “the goodwill of the Iranians,” claiming that they were responsible for ending violence in the southern city of Basra.

Nancy supports the troops. The Iranian troops.

Her brain has fallen, and it can’t get up.

 
 
Posted: 29 May 2008 08:41 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 10 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 5 stars out of 5 in 1 vote(s)
 
W. Churchill
Total Posts:  4239
Joined  2006-11-13
skipsailing - 29 May 2008 06:10 PM

Earlier this week I exchanged comments with “madcoverboy” who used a tortured “logic” to create what amounted to intellectual denial of the facts on the ground.

madcoverboy = Alfred E. Neuman

Anyone ever seen madcoverboy and oldjim in the same place at the same time?

 
 
Posted: 30 May 2008 12:36 AM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 11 ]  
M. Thatcher
Total Posts:  8898
Joined  2007-03-24
Del Dolemonte - 29 May 2008 08:41 PM

skipsailing - 29 May 2008 06:10 PM
Earlier this week I exchanged comments with “madcoverboy” who used a tortured “logic” to create what amounted to intellectual denial of the facts on the ground.

madcoverboy = Alfred E. Neuman

Anyone ever seen madcoverboy and oldjim in the same place at the same time?

Reminds me of a gnatla, mealymouth deviant of troll. I do recall mealy and jerkoffgrad being exceptionally “close” on these threads in their defense of terror attacks upon Americans.

Exposing obamatards like this for what they are matters more than you know. These are liberal “attention whores” who swarm forums like Power Line attempting to “push your buttons”. The goal? It could be to discourage you, to cause you to post something they will use elsewhere (daily kos) as “proof” of their screed, to rebel against the “adult authority” they fear so much, or simply to get the attention.

Remember, children don’t know good attention from bad attention.

If you have them “spewed up”, you’re doing something right.

 Signature 


Haneek rabbak - - Nanat sag suk mizaneh! - - Islam: Religion of Evil!

“To ERR is human, to FORGIVE divine. HOWEVER, neither is Marine Corps Policy.”

:coolgrin:

 
 
Posted: 30 May 2008 09:06 AM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 12 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 5 stars out of 5 in 1 vote(s)
 
D. Miller
Total Posts:  1367
Joined  2006-11-08
nanosecondinvestments - 29 May 2008 03:49 PM

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/greenwald/8571

In an interview yesterday with the San Francisco Chronicle, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi claimed the U.S. troop surge failed to accomplish its goal. She then partially credited the success of the troop surge to “the goodwill of the Iranians,” claiming that they were responsible for ending violence in the southern city of Basra.

Why would Pelosi compliment Iran when the CIA believes Iran is targeting our soldiers in Iraq?  CIA Director Hayden said:

“It is the policy of the Iranian government, approved at the highest levels of that government, to facilitate the killing of American and other coalition forces in Iraq. Period.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7427176.stm

 
 
Posted: 30 May 2008 10:11 AM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 13 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 5 stars out of 5 in 1 vote(s)
 
D. Miller
Total Posts:  1238
Joined  2007-04-28
skipsailing - 29 May 2008 06:10 PM

the anti victory crowd has a huge problem here. Earlier this week I exchanged comments with “madcoverboy” who used a tortured “logic” to create what amounted to intellectual denial of the facts on the ground.

the strategy was simple: the boy insisted that the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq had to be included in any assessment of the status of terror in the world.

I disagreed and based that disagreement on two factors: A. terror is aimed at civilians. Killing soldiers isn’t terror, its war. B. Our objective in the war was to shift the attention of the terrorists from killing our civilians to fighting our soldiers and that approach clearly worked.

this boy reminded me of that horrible “jukeboxgrad” and I simply refused to read any more of his pompous insults.

but the lesson is clear, the anti victory crowd will do everything they can to deny a victory to America in Iraq. They cannot possibly be wrong, at least in their own minds and they are too small and mean to accept responsibility for the own erroneous thinking.

Remember how everyone demanded that Bush admit that he made mistakes? When will Harry Reid admit that he made a mistake when he claimed that the war was lost?

No, no, no.  Leftists are not anti-victory.  As one prominent troll put it, “Victory first has to be possible before anyone can be labeled ‘anti-victory’.  Since Victory in Iraq was never possible, I’m anti-war, not anti-victory.”.  Gotta love that “programmed” logic.  The Left opines and, presto! Fact is born.

 Signature 

I’m just an American who loves America, warts and all, and will never diminish her character nor endure those who do.

 
 
Posted: 30 May 2008 12:24 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 14 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 5 stars out of 5 in 1 vote(s)
 
D. Miller
Total Posts:  1367
Joined  2006-11-08
whiterabbits - 30 May 2008 10:11 AM

skipsailing - 29 May 2008 06:10 PM
the anti victory crowd has a huge problem here. Earlier this week I exchanged comments with “madcoverboy” who used a tortured “logic” to create what amounted to intellectual denial of the facts on the ground.

the strategy was simple: the boy insisted that the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq had to be included in any assessment of the status of terror in the world.

I disagreed and based that disagreement on two factors: A. terror is aimed at civilians. Killing soldiers isn’t terror, its war. B. Our objective in the war was to shift the attention of the terrorists from killing our civilians to fighting our soldiers and that approach clearly worked.

this boy reminded me of that horrible “jukeboxgrad” and I simply refused to read any more of his pompous insults.

but the lesson is clear, the anti victory crowd will do everything they can to deny a victory to America in Iraq. They cannot possibly be wrong, at least in their own minds and they are too small and mean to accept responsibility for the own erroneous thinking.

Remember how everyone demanded that Bush admit that he made mistakes? When will Harry Reid admit that he made a mistake when he claimed that the war was lost?

No, no, no.  Leftists are not anti-victory.  As one prominent troll put it, “Victory first has to be possible before anyone can be labeled ‘anti-victory’.  Since Victory in Iraq was never possible, I’m anti-war, not anti-victory.”.  Gotta love that “programmed” logic.  The Left opines and, presto! Fact is born.

Which means they can never support the outcome of a war they don’t believe in, even if the outcome is victory.  And if victory is eliminated as a possible outcome, are they even capable of accurately assessing the war?

A bigger question for the American public is whether a politician who opposes a war can ever be trusted to pursue victory.

 
 
Posted: 30 May 2008 12:58 PM   [ Ignore ]  [ # 15 ]

This post's average rating is:

  • 5 stars out of 5 in 1 vote(s)
 
M. Thatcher
Total Posts:  8898
Joined  2007-03-24
Andrea in NY - 30 May 2008 12:24 PM


A bigger question for the American public is whether a politician who opposes a war can ever be trusted to pursue victory.

Where is the Republican outrage and calls for censure? Comments like this need to be disected by FNC.

 Signature 


Haneek rabbak - - Nanat sag suk mizaneh! - - Islam: Religion of Evil!

“To ERR is human, to FORGIVE divine. HOWEVER, neither is Marine Corps Policy.”

:coolgrin:

 
 
1 of 2
1

You need to be logged in to reply. Please Login or Register