Monday, January 01, 2007


Democrats Do Not Grasp Iran

As the end of the year always occasions retrospectives, prospectives and resolutions, it might be a worthwhile exercise to consider our experiences with Iraq as a guide to what might happen with Iran, especially since Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's saber rattling has reached a fever pitch.

While comparisons to Hitler (and the world's reaction to him) are painfully trite anymore, it's hard not to notice parallels between Hitler and his apologists and Ahmadinejad and the stubborn appeasers today.

We used to review the world's response to Hitler, uniformly condemn his Neville Chamberlain appeasers, and smugly assure ourselves that we would never again ignore such clear signs of malignant aggression.

"Never again" would we tolerate the type of infernal anti-Semitism that led to the Holocaust. But the Iranian president is a professed anti-Semite dedicated to exterminating Jews; he's a devout enemy of the West and freedom; and is quite unapologetically clear about his sinister aims concerning Israel and America, though he mostly pretends he is pursuing nuclear technology for legitimate reasons.

Yet liberals in the State Department and elsewhere — mostly in the Democratic Party — still don't seem to get it. They can't quite get their arms around the reality that unappeasable evil exists in the world.

They believe we can reason with despots, negotiate with terrorists, and tame tyrants through tepid sanctions.

Even when Ahmadinejad mocks the sanctions and defiantly pronounces he is proceeding on course, full speed ahead, the appeasers refuse to yield to their lying ears.

How can this nation possibly consider turning over the reins to politicians with such a recklessly misguided mindset? How can it consider giving the Democratic Party control over both the legislative and executive branches in 2008, notwithstanding the Republicans' regrettable performance on domestic spending and immigration?

If we're smart, we'll treat the Democrats' approach to Iraq as instructive on how they would approach Iran and other aspects of the war on terror and how they can't be trusted with national security.

Democrats would have us believe they are bullish on national security and as tough on terror as conservative hawks.

They tell us they are tough, but "smart," which is a clever rhetorical device to disguise their consistent softness on terror — opposing all the tools to prosecute the war and their absence of a plan on Iraq, other than empty criticism. But why not? Through the miracle of modern propaganda, they have avoided accountability both for opposing the war in Iraq and supporting it.

Who says they can't have it both ways?

Remember that Democrats were the last to believe (and probably never did believe) we should take action against Saddam Hussein. They opposed the war until the last minute, when they were coerced, through public opinion, to support the war resolution.

It's easy to dismiss their appeasement mindset now since we haven't confirmed Saddam had new stockpiles of WMD and because we've had so much difficulty in the post-regime-change phase of the war. But don't forget that Democrats were initially opposed to the war even when they were thoroughly convinced Saddam had WMD and was pursuing more.

But after supporting the war, they didn't have the character to stand by their decision once things started going badly, or at least when they realized they could make political hay by reneging on their decision to support the war.

That's when they began their lies about Bush's alleged WMD lies. They were duped, they say, into supporting the war. But forget the alleged lie issue for a moment. What their statements imply is that they would have happily supported the war had we been correct (and we still might have been) that Saddam had WMD. But haven't they also told us, in effect, that they wouldn't have supported the war no matter what we believed about WMD because their clairvoyance revealed to them we would be greeted not as liberators, but occupiers, and that the situation would deteriorate into civil war because of sectarian conflict?

Just going on the Democrats' words alone, then, we find they opposed the war when the evidence was clear Saddam was a WMD-wielding global menace, and they supported the war when the evidence was clear Saddam was a WMD-wielding global menace. They opposed the war believing we would be greeted as occupiers, not liberators, and they supported the war believing we would be greeted as occupiers, not liberators.

Through the Democrats' approach to Iraq and the war on terror generally, we know they are untrustworthy, unreliable and ill equipped to guide the ship of state through wartime waters. Even if they weren't duplicitous, they simply cannot grasp the evil nature of our enemy.
Among the many lessons we learn from Iraq, these should be at the top of the list.


Anonymous bobcat said...

Great article, Donal! David Limbaugh is a wonderful writer - and he's right about this.

12:15 PM  
Blogger VerityINK said...

Happy New Year, Bob!

12:39 PM  
Blogger JINGOIST said...

David is as good a writer as his brother is a talker! As usual he is dead on where the Dems and Iran are concerned. The Iranian regime is evil, and the Dems don't get it. There's something David didn't mention, although I'm sure he understands it.

The Democrats (more accurately leftists) do believe in good and evil. Their concept of good and evil is based ENTIRELY on politics though. Everything, and I mean everything that gets in the way of their utopian worldview is considered fascist and evil by the left.

Let's start with the most serious threats to their Marxist and utopian views and thereby illustrate leftist hysteria. NO ONE is despised by the left as much as Christian and Jewish conservatives! At some level the left understands that these two religions compete with the state "god", therefore their morals aren't maleable. This CAN'T be allowed in the Marxist paradise.

Unless the state can call good evil, and evil good, regular citizens will maintain a biblical understanding of these concepts. It's damn difficult to enslave people who believe in a limited government and G-d given rights. Lest we forget, slavery is the ultimate goal of the all-powerful state.

Their quest for the omnipotent nanny state is the main reason the political left views conservatives--specifically religious conservatives--as the world's most evil force. Remember, they view good and evil through a purely political lens. This is why they worry far less about Mahmoud Scratchmadinnernads than they do about George W. Bush. Mahmoud is not the immediate threat that conservatives are. This behavior is DUMBFOUNDING to those of us who understand true morality!

Approximately six months ago I posted an "Alternative State of the Union Address" on FPM. I did this in anticipation of a mediocre speech by President Bush. In my post I cut the budget and the size of the government DRASTICALLY! I eliminated entire departments and made the case for limited government.

Hank Snow responded as though I stuck him with a dull knife and twisted it! And he wasn't the only leftist who behaved in that manner. They repeatedly screeched that my budget cutting was immoral. That's right, immoral.

Once again for clarity. What's good for the all-powerful state is MORAL. Anything to the contrary is IMMORAL and must be destroyed! Whenever leftist nonsense throws you for a loop, please remember this last paragraph.

Thank you for your patience. :-)


2:21 PM  
Blogger VerityINK said...

He actually said budget cutting was IMMORAL???? Oh wow! (They bitch plenty about Prez Bush's spending, though.) That really DOES illustrate what you've said. Hank's sure got his mind messed up. Before I'd want to reappoint all those committees and study groups, departments and agencies that pour our tax dollars down a rathole, I want to see some concrete, verifiable GOOD that they've done...

I wonder if Hank, or anyone on the Left could describe a 'too big' government? I mean, do they even have a concept of it? Except for eliminating our military, I've never seen a Lefty want to DECREASE the size of it.

2:56 PM  
Blogger JINGOIST said...

Great point DONAL! The Dems do in fact make noise about out-of-control spending on Bush's watch. Their own spending bills were much bigger, but they never saw the light of day. So in effect they never happened.

So why do the Dems scream about bloated Republican spending habits? It's back to politics, not honesty. The Dem base will not punish the Dems for lying about their stated wishes for spending restraint. The Republican base WILL punish Republicans for out-of-control spending. So political advantage dictates that the Dems scream about overspending. Again, to the left morality is dictated by political reality.

Here's something the left will never admit to you. You and I both know that facism and communism are outright evil. THEY openly state that facism is evil and secretly feel that scientific communism is the ideal form of governance.
Why do they hate facism and not communism? Facism allows limited capitalism and free enterprise. Commies CAN'T have that!


PS. You're right Hank is a sick bast-rd!

3:16 PM  
Blogger VerityINK said...

Wow, Morgan, that was a brilliant analysis--you were right on!

6:24 PM  
Blogger VerityINK said...

Scratchmadinnernads? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

6:26 PM  
Blogger JINGOIST said...

Thanks. I got a bit of a running start when it comes to understanding leftist nut cases. Both of my parents were civil rights activists back in 1959-1965. My dad was fresh from Korea and a student at U of Minn., my mom was a student at St. Croix Falls. They were classic liberals who fell somewhere between JFK and Bill Buckley. Democrats of course. My sister was a young girl and I was a baby when they left the democrat party altogether because the damn communists were pouring into the party. To this day they both STILL hate communists. Even now my dad keeps in touch with some of his old friends, a few of whom DH has mentioned in one or two of his books.

DONAL one of the reasons I was drawn to David's site was his wonderful autobiography that you mentioned four or five days ago, 'Radical Son.'I grew up around some of those same utopians that he described so eloquently in his book. I KNOW THOSE GUYS! Horowitz is right, they are members of a 'religion' and as long as we understand that, they won't be able to surprise us.


7:48 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home