posted May 29, 2008 12:34 AM            

"There he goes again," sighed Ronald Reagan in a TV debate with Jimmy Carter, just before the American people decided they had enough of Jimmy. Well, here we are again, thirty years later, and here Calamity Jimmy goes again, and again, and again. Ronald Reagan might just give that little grin and duck of the head, and remind us that we've seen this Daffy Duck cartoon before.

There they go again. The big debate now is whether Obama would be a foreign policy appeaser. It's the wrong question. All modern liberals must be appeasers --- because that's their ideology. They constantly proclaim to the world that peace-at-any-price is their single, greatest, overarching goal. The older generation of American liberals would never say that --- it would sound obviously stupid to them --- but they are now gone.

Conservatives have a more tragic view of life; we tend to think that in a world filled with aggressors, civilized nations must be willing to go to war. That means war in all its messy reality --- not just Clinton's Kosovo War where you never see the blood. Conservatives want to live in peace like any sensible human being. We just know there is not a single shred of evidence that we can have peace without armed vigilance. Efforts to do it, like the racist and anti-democratic UN, always turn into some morally grotesque reality show.

Like Great Britain a century ago, the United States is now the world cop, along with a few reliable allies. Without us, there would be no stable peace in the world. History has put us in that path; we can refuse it, but we would have to live with the consequences. Who else would you like to be in charge? Russia? China? Europe, which could not even get 30 transport helicopters together recently, just to rescue refugees in war-ravaged Chad? Europe loves to scream at us, but it will never step up to the responsibility we bear. Morally speaking, Europe is a hostile welfare addict. They love us only when they need us.

Liberals demand metaphysical certainty on such questions as going to war against Saddam. But that's just another pipe dream. There are no life decisions where knowledge is perfect, certainly not when it comes to a criminal tyranny like Saddam's. Western intelligence agencies have no history of that kind of performance. Even the much-admired British agencies were themselves deeply penetrated by Nazi and Soviet intelligence. The CIA has been wildly wrong in its predictions about every single nuclear program abroad, starting with the Soviet A-bomb in 1949. They have a one-hundred percent failure rate.

Based on that sad record, it's a reasonable guess that jihadis have penetrated Western intelligence. We're just a big Swiss cheese.

And yet --- preemptive strikes based on less-than-perfect intelligence may now be the only way to block nuclear weapons from reaching terror regimes. That is why Israel took the fearful risk of flattening a secret nuclear plant in Syria last September. The Israeli raid could have triggered massive retaliation from the large Syrian missile arsenal, possibly joined by Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. Yet Israelis, whose necks are on the line, felt that preemption was the only rational choice left. So they did it.

Back in the US, the Left has now set the bar for the use of force so high that no Republican president can ever meet it. In their eyes only Democrats can wage war. Sadly, Democrats are also uniquely incompetent to make such serious decisions. The last effort along those lines was Carter's mad rescue plan for the US hostages in 1979, which left two burning Marine helicopters in the desert sand; and Clinton's bombing of Kosovo from 17,000 feet in the Nineties, urged on us by our brave and loyal European friends. Ever since the passing of Cold War liberals, the Dems haven't taken a sane stand on the most serious questions a president must decide. Senator Joe Lieberman, who should know, has said as much. John McCain said the other day that a Senate GI benefits bill was "an issue he (Obama) has less than zero understanding of." Is anybody surprised?

So the Democrats are running the least qualified, least experienced candidate ever. We can see Senator Obama stumbling repeatedly on life-or-death matters in this campaign. If he becomes president, start digging your surival shelter. Candidates can twist the language all they want, but presidents can't.

If you tell Ahmadi-Nejad that, as a true Leftist, peace is your overarching goal, he instantly knows you've lost. Remember, this is the culture of the shrewd Persian rug merchant. They know how to read the cards. Fanatics like A'jad are driving for victory, not peace. They are willing to sacrifice much, much more than any Western nation. Iran lost perhaps half a million people in the Iran-Iraq war, but even then Ayatollah Khomeini was still not willing to make peace. The United States, with four times Iran's population, has lost less than .01 percent of that number of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. You and I don't want to look at the headlines in the morning for fear that more US soldiers have died. But jihadis constantly proclaim, "We value death; you value life." They are not irrational, just willing to die in this world for eternal rewards in the next.

Since 9/11 liberals have made it clear in a thousand little ways that they are just not willing to resist a suicide-bombing enemy. They don't have the moral fiber, and they always misunderstand reality. Starting from false premises, the Left always ends up with false conclusions. It is stunning to behold, but just look at Carter, Clinton and Obama. Self-righteous, blind-as-a-bat, and adored by the bubbleheads.

A few months ago 91 Iraqi civilians were blown up by two mental patients suffering from Down Syndrome, their bomb probably triggered by remote control. None of the American media made a fuss about the atrocity. They're never going to blame the actual criminals. How many bombings have we seen aiming specifically to murder innocent civilians, women, children, shoppers in a market? There have been thousands in Iraq alone. In jihadi eyes it is glorious to kill innocent people as deliberate policy. After all, Allah will know his own in Paradise.

But have liberals paid any attention at all to Al Qaida's war on civilians --- even after the three thousand innocent victims on 9/11? I have never seen any sign of it. That all-encompassing love of humanity suddenly screeches to a halt when it comes to the victims of terrorism.

The Left is grossly out of touch with the fundamental reality of this war. Terrorism means killing innocents for solely to spread fear and intimidation. Fail to understand that, and you can't understand anything else. For the enemy, killing civilians is a matter of policy. Liberals keep missing that point, desperately looking for "root causes." For fanatics the root cause is always ideology.

Bin Laden's recent audio messages openly celebrate 9/11 as a great victory. But the American Left just avoids thinking about it. They are convinced the United States is the enemy of civilization. They adore Europe, instead, without understanding that we, the United States, have been keeping the peace for Europe for sixty years. The Europeans do the very minimum possible to keep themselves safe; and with welfare chewing up their money, their military budgets are constantly shrinking, along with their courage and common sense. Without us there would be no peaceful Europe and no peaceful Middle East.

Bizarrely, Barack Obama now blames America for not "talking to Iran." That puts the blame on the US, exculpating the mullahs. It's pure, unadulterated fiction again. As president, Jimmy Carter talked and talked to the mullahs. He kept on trying to find out who was really behind the hostage taking, and the Khomeini crowd just gave him the runaround. Carter was desperate to appease them and save his presidency. It was "How high should I jump?" But Ayatollah Khomeini didn't let him off the hook: He was interested in humiliating the President of the United States in front of the world. Khomeini won that confrontation against weak-willed Jimmy, who then went on to lose to Ronald Reagan as a result. Typically, he still blames Reagan, not Khomeini.

Reagan also tried to negotiate with the mullahs --- remember Col. Ollie North and the chocolate cake? The Democrats tried to impeach Reagan over that.

So it's just an election-year lie that the US never tried to talk to the mullahs. The United States has tried for decades. They have never given an inch.

The truth is that we are constantly talking with all our enemies through back channels. So this election-year banana oil that "we haven't talked to our enemies" is just shameful. It is unworthy of a national party; it shows yet again how utterly empty-headed and morally shallow today's Democrats are. It's a terrible shame, because we need two parties with their heads screwed on straight. We should have intelligent debates about the war on terror; but you can't do that with one side living in denial that there is a war at all.

Appeasement is the liberal default position on war and peace.

Just look at their history.

Exhibit A: Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter is the very prototype of modern appeasement. Three decades after the fact, he is still in denial about his history-making blunder in bringing down the Shah and letting Ayatollah Khomeini take over. The Shah was hustled out of power because Carter felt guilty about the overthrow of Prime Minister Mossadegh 25 years before, in 1953! (That was the Stalin era, Jimmy. Look it up.) But Jimmy was trying to make up for past sins, and simply took his eyes off clear and present dangers. That is simply unforgivable incompetence. If we had a sensible media, Carter would be a discredited old man that nobody would listen to --- simply as a result of his never-ending, self-glorifying incompetence. As a result of Carter's historic failures we traded a pretty reasonable Iran for an Adolf Hitler regime. That's what we are living with now. Thank you, Mr. Carter.

A'jad just called Israel "a stinking corpse." That's Hitler-Stalin talk, folks, intended to bully the world. A'jad also makes constant threats against his Arab neighbors in the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia. And of course he hates infidel America with an inconceivable obsession.

The Left now seems to be playing with the idea of tossing Israel to the wolves. One of Obama's advisors believes that Israel should surrender its nukes in exchange for a piece of paper signed by A'jad. (However, the Israelis are not likely to go along with a suicide pact.) The Left simply believes in surrender and appeasement. They're always trying to figure out better methods of appeasement.

If we'd never had smilin' Jimmy in the White House, a pro-Western Shah would now be making Iran prosperous and largely peaceful, something like India and China. Iran would help stabilize the Middle East, as it did under Shah Reza Pahlavi. The price of oil would be lower than it is today, because tanker traffic through the Gulf would not be at risk as it is now. The murderous Iran-Iraq war could have been avoided entirely, because Saddam Hussein would not have attacked a powerful American ally. More than a million lives would have been saved if Jimmy Carter had just told the Shah of Iran to hang on.

That was the real price of Jimmy's appeasement.

Liberals constantly accuse conservatives of evil motives. But a world without Jimmy Carter would have been spared a vast amount of suffering. What's more evil?

Exhibit B. Bill Clinton

Clinton's eight years of sloppiness and indecision on national defense created disasters just waiting to happen. The President of the United States would simply wander away from the nuclear "football" officer in the White House, who is strictly mandated by law to be with him wherever he goes. Clinton abandoned that solemn responsibility when he felt like it. That single fact shows what we were dealing with.

What about Clinton and 9/11? The 9/11 assault was telegraphed eight years ahead of the event by the first WTC bombing. 9/11 should in fact be known as The Second Al Qaida attack on the United States. The Clinton Administration had two whole terms in office to forestall a second attack, but it tied itself up in lawyerly knots and failed to head off far greater carnage. That is why we still see a huge gap today in the skyline of Lower Manhattan. The 9/11 assault should be placed squarely on the shoulders of President William J. Clinton.

Exhibit C. Barack Obama

If Barack Obama took over as president of the United States, all the thwarted tyrants in the world would see their big chance. They would quickly test American resolve, just as JFK was tested by the Soviets. The Chinese might seriously threaten Taiwan, which they think is theirs by right. Russia might move on Georgia and the Ukraine. Hugo Chavez might invade Columbia, just to try out his shiny new Russian jets and tanks. Under Obama, the United States might not be serious about international power, but all the hungry little tyrannies will be very serious indeed. It's their big opportunity.

In Pakistan, President Musharraf has escaped four assassination attempts. What would Obama do if the next one succeeds --- and radicals take control of Paki nukes? Could we talk them into giving up their keys to Allah's final victory over the infidels? Obama seriously overstates his magic if he really believes that.

If Obama gets in, what will he do about Iranian nukes, now predicted for 2009? Would Obama back a civilized democracy or appease the fascists? Prediction: He would opt for appeasement. That is entirely consistent with his expressed beliefs. Liberals live in a world without hard choices. They just spin whatever happens, and the media let them get away with it.

The Left cannot escape responsibility for 9/11, for the mullah tyranny in Iran, and for undermining American security in a thousand other ways. These folks are dangerous, not because they are stupid or evil, but just because they just can't handle reality. It's like a truck driver who can't see the oncoming traffic. The driver doesn't get credit for good intentions. The Left always forgives itself these little gaffes, but reality is unforgiving.

Barack Obama is even less prepared than Clinton and Carter were. You can tell from his constant bloopers, and by the people he's picked for his foreign policy team. They live in never-never-land, exactly what you would not want in a sane and sober US Administration. It's a chilling sight.

The Obama camp is now boasting that their guy can magically crack the toughest nuts in the world. How is he going to do that? Oba-magic will make it happen, baby. It's gonna be love and peace from here on out.

The Left falls for that kind of imbecility. They're convinced their guy can somehow voodoo away the most dangerous fanatics in the world --- a miracle without precedent in history. But history isn't their strong suit, nor geography, nor straight thinking. Wishful thinking and moral posturing are. I'm sorry, but it's true.

John McCain is a tough old warrior, went through carrier pilot school, had a strong military career, and somehow survived five years in the Hanoi Hilton with his dignity intact. There's no doubt that he can stand up to pressure --- even if he is stubborn and sometimes closed-minded. But in national security it only makes sense to go for the proven warrior, not for the slick newbie who gives such lovely speeches.

If Barack Obama wins, we will see yet another Buster Keaton foreign policy, full of pratfalls, stumbling along in the footsteps of Carter and Clinton. Hold on tight; if Obama wins, America is in for a very rough ride.

That is why our sworn enemies are hoping and praying that Obama wins.

Can you blame them?

posted May 29, 2008 06:21 PM            

"How did the Democratic Party get here?" – Joseph Lieberman

It's an interesting question. Unfortunately, Sen. Lieberman doesn't answer it in his otherwise excellent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. Lieberman's complaint is that in the last few generations the Democrat and Republican parties have undergone a brain swap on the foreign policy operating table.

He's not far off. What struck me was that the senator answered his own question – but failed to see it. The fate of the Democratic Party since the 1960s is the impending fate of America and the free world, written in miniature, but there for all to see.

Since the 1960s, the Democratic Party has embraced appeasement and its kissing cousin non-judgmentalism as the highest form of political expression. These are colossal errors that no educated person would ever make. (Why do you think the term "judgment" has so often been preceded by "good" or "bad" since at least the mid-11th century?)

But all of this leads us further along the trail that brought the Democrats – and all the rest of us – to this point. Both appeasement and non-judgmentalism are clever ruses used by aggressors to get what they want. All aggressors – from the schoolyard bully to the likes of Stalin and Hitler (who murdered millions of their own people), make use of appeasement by their enemies. This way they maximize their gains before the war begins. "OK, you can have Czechoslovakia and Poland, but that's it!" Thus did the appeasers roll out the read carpet for World War II, the enslavement of Eastern Europe and the Cold War.

The appeasement within the Democratic Party began long before the appeasement now on display, as personified by the likes of Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid. It began at the height of the Vietnam War, when college students marched on the administration buildings and occupied them to protest the war.

The correct response – slapping them senseless and then putting them in stocks on the administrative steps for three days without food or water, followed by expulsion and a trip back home to mom and dad – was ignored. Instead, college administrators "negotiated" their demands. The result? Today, the inmates are running the asylum. A liberal education is no longer possible, because an education forces us to make judgments about our life and times.

Today, all that is on offer at our institutions of "higher learning" is a liberal indoctrination and a technical certificate for the job market. Since the 1960s, aggressors never learned – how could they teach?

To retain its cohesion, the Democratic Party began to appease every special-interest group that walked in through the door to its increasingly big tent. Funny that the very predictable culmination of this policy should happen on the watch of the same foot soldiers who instituted it in the first place, don't you think? Having deprived themselves and everyone else of a classical liberal education that would have permitted them to rise to such a challenge, they are left with the same tired, empty slogans they chanted in anger and frustration those many years ago on the administration steps: "Hell, no! We won't go!"