Feedburner
Clifford May On Tough Talk We Should Hear
Reading the editorial page in the Star Tribune is hit or miss; Jekyll or Hyde; Night or day. A couple of days ago it was Syl Jones moonbatting about the war in Iraq and the Bush Administration. That's the night, the Mr. Hyde, the miss. Today it is a piece by Clifford D. May on what we need to hear in a presidential campaign to have someone who will truly standout from the pack: a Churchillian viewpoint. It's the day, the Doctor Jekyll, the hit (home run in this case). Not surprisingly, I am an agreement with what may writes. I've read his work before and it is clear he gets it, and, unlike Syl Jones, uses facts not myths to make his arguments. and, as usual, I am surprised that the Strib is carrying his piece.
From the Star Tribune:
I suspect few readers will disagree when I say that not one of the presidential candidates, Republican or Democratic, has yet articulated a compelling campaign theme. All favor security. Not one opposes prosperity. Each promises to protect Social Security and improve health care. Voters can be forgiven if they are not overwhelmed.
Ain't that the truth! There are several candidates I like, but I can't say I am overly excited by any of them, except for the ones I am positively against, like Hillary, Obama, Kucinich, and Ron Paul. I am definitely overwhelmingly opposed to those particular candidates.
Let me offer a different approach on the off-chance that some candidate might find it useful: Tell voters the hard truth -- and challenge them.
I think this is similar to what Gingrich was talking about a few days back. Tell us what needs to be done, not what would be nice to do. And then be prepared to do it.
May elaborates on his point:
In particular, tell them we are at a critical moment in our nation's history: A dangerous enemy is waging an unconventional war against us. Remind them that this enemy has been underestimated by presidents and lawmakers of both parties many times, over many years.Tell them, too, that fighting this enemy is a burden that history is asking the current generation of Americans to bear. We must do this for future generations -- as past generations fought for us.
Say frankly that if we don't have the stomach for a long and difficult war, we will be defeated by movements that are more determined than we are -- and more ruthless than we can ever imagine becoming.
He then goes on to use the Winston Churchill example: blood, toil, tears, sweat.
War is never popular, especially to those asked to fight it. Sometimes wars must be fought, as Churchill recognized in 1940 at the onset of World War 2. and that is the difference between the hard-core leftists in this country who foolish claim that "War has never solved anything" and the vast majority of our armed forces who recognize the necessity of fighting the terrorists and death squad fanatics. No sane person wants war, but only fools believe in peace at any price.
The Churchill approach would certainly wake up America's voters, shock them into action, one way or the other. The question is, are there any candidates out there today who are willing to walk that path? And make good on it? It would certainly be a breath of fresh air if one could come on strong like Churchill did in 1940.
MoveOn.org and its various allies and their puppets in Congress won't like it. I doubt they would even know how to counter it, except taking the Chamberlain approach of surrendering Iraq to Iran. We would probably see more full page propaganda condemning such candidates as being "traitors" as MoveOn did with General Petreus last week.
may also touches on the Petreus testimony and hits it on the head that it should be up to Genreal Petreus and his eventual successor to decide when and where (and how) to turn Iraq's security matters over to Iraqi troops. Some areas already are under full Iraqi control, an achievement that the left either ignores or denigrates. These matters should not be decided by a bunch of armchair generals relaxing in their air-conditioned offices swilling good booze like a Ted Kennedy on a Chappaquiddick bender.
The New York Times, whose editorial page views are hardly distinguishable from those of MoveOn.org, was closer to identifying the news in Petraeus' report. Its top story: "Petraeus Warns Against Quick Pullback in Iraq." It should not require a Churchill to see that if American forces leave Iraq precipitously, America's enemies will fill the vacuum. And Iraqis who have been fighting with us will be slaughtered. People around the world will get the joke: To be America's friend is more perilous than to be America's enemy.The real news in Petraeus' testimony: Americans troops have been beating Al-Qaida in Iraq and, as that job gets done, it is Iranian-backed militias that are becoming the main problem that needs to be eliminated. The regime in Tehran wants Iraq as its colony. It doesn't want Iraq to be an American ally in the war with militant Islamism.
Like Vietnam and Cambodia, this is a very real potential that the left refuses to acknowledge. Either they don't care about the people of Iraq who want Liberty and Western democracy, or they are still blinded by their own delusions that the majority of Iraqis want to live free and in peace (not pieces).
Iran has been backing Muqtada al Sadr and his death squads for years, as well as funneling arms, munitions, cash and manpower to al-Qaeda in Iraq. There can be only one reason for Iran to do this: it wants to prevent Iraq from becoming a stable ally of the United States so it can eventually turn it into another Islamofacist Theocratic Tyranny.
Yes, it would be nice to hear a candidate come out and tell it like it is. Doing so will not only change the dialog, but may also push the American electorate toward a candidate who is willing to do what is necessary to secure Iraq's liberty rather than surrender to terrorists and dictators. I'm ready for such a candidate and I bet I am not alone.
Tags: