49% of Democrats either want us to lose in Iraq or “don’t know” if they want us to succeed.
The history of the Democrat Party is littered with appeasement and defeatism. During the American Civil War, Democrats were willing — as stated in their 1864 party platform — to accept peace even if it meant the continuance of slavery or a permanent division of the Union. During the 1930s, Democrats ignored the emerging threat of fascism in Europe — U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. was a prime example of this:
On June 13, 1938, Kennedy met with Herbert von Dirksen, the German ambassador in London, who reported to Berlin that Kennedy had told him that “it was not so much the fact that we want to get rid of the Jews that was so harmful to us, but rather the loud clamor with which we accompanied this purpose. [Kennedy] himself fully understood our Jewish policy.”[8] Kennedy’s main concern with such violent acts against German Jews as Kristallnacht was that they generated bad publicity in the West for the Nazi regime, a concern he communicated in a letter to Charles Lindbergh.[9]
WHAT?!?!?! Concerned about bad publicity for the Nazis? You can’t make stuff like that up! That is simply grotesque.
Then you have FDR’s giving away half of Europe to Josef Stalin at the Yalta Conference so the Soviets could enslave these people for half a century. Nice going there, Franky…
The list goes on and on. McGovern. Carter. Clinton. Always ready to throw in the towel for America somewhere in the world.
So, when we learn that half of all Democrats don’t want us to succeed in Iraq or don’t know if they want us to succeed, that is just plain sad, but sadly, not surprising.
Filed under: History, World War III
Kennedy’s support for Germany is well known, and well aired — don’t forget Charles Lindbergh agreed, as did about 45% of all Americans. Roosevelt’s policy of supporting England was not wholly popular here. You need to spend some time studying history and especially America’s views on Europe prior to World War II.
You forget that it was Democrats who led the war effort to defeat Germany in World War I. How convenient for you. You forget that it was the Democrats who led the fight against the Axis Powers in World War II. Geeze. How could you forget both world wars in the 20th century? You forget that it was Truman’s staunch anti-communism that got us into trouble in Southeast Asia, that stood firm in Korea. You forget that these foreign policies were bi-partisan efforts.
McGovern, Carter — both service veterans, McGovern a war hero. is there no war hero Republicans will not denigrate in their effort to slander for cheap political gain? Clinton, of course, was the guy who put the backbone in the NATA effort to stop genocide in Bosnia. Oops. You forgot about that. And, there was the Clinton order to kill Osama bin Laden. George Bush called it silly during the 2000 campaign, pledged to end it, and on January 22, 2001, stopped the effort to stop Al Quaeda.
Santayana warned that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it, but you’ve taken forgetting history to new heights.
Everybody hopes for peace in Iraq, and stable government with an end to hostilities. We hope. Many Democrats are justifiably fearful that Bush’s plan is not only not conducive to an end to hostilities, justice and peace, but may indeed be predicated on just keeping the hostilities going to get to the next election. On the basis of past success of Bush plans in Iraq, the question perhaps should be why so many Republicans support the slaughter of more Iraqis, and the increased slaughter of Americans (which is what Bush said will happen). Why isn’t that your headline?
Sadly, it’s not surprising that people stuck on policies fatal to the U.S. would not be proud about headlining them that way.
This is a serious policy debate. There is a lot more to consider than you present. Please go back and present a fair analysis.
Ed, FDR in WWII and Truman as well as JFK are exceptions to the general rule that Democrats are nothing more than surrender monkeys — always have been and always will be. And FDR had to be dragged into WWII. Not to mention that Wilson sat on the sidelines in WWI until the very end. The only reason why Dems led in those two wars was because they held the presidency.
And just because someone served honorably in the military like McGovern and Carter, that doesn’t mean their political policies didn’t amount to appeasement or surrender.
To amount to appeasement, of course, there ought to be some appeasement offered. Neither McGovern nor Carter offered that. In McGovern’s case, he proposed not to support non-democratic tyrants. I suppose you support tyrants? Broad brush foreign policy done solely on the policy of “they ain’t on my side” is just dumb.
Of course, one of the reasons Democrats have been in office thorugh most of the wars of the 20th century is because the Democrats were generally savvier at foreign relations, and the country turned to them, properly, in times of crisis. “Surrender monkeys?” It was the Republicans who presided over the only two “surrenders” in the 20th century wars — Korea and Vietnam — and then by popular demand. There are many who think the world would be much better off if Lyndon Johnson had entertained thoughts of anything close to surrender, instead of constant escalation.
For a completely-devoid-of-facts rant, though, you’ve got a good one. Good for what, I can’t figure. As I noted before, these are serious policy issues. Peace doesn’t happen haphazardly, nor is war ever a good answer. As Winston Churchill noted, to jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war. You’d call Churchill a surrender monkey, of course. And if he were in the same room with you, he’d whip your butt — probably with wit, but in way that would leave no one else wondering whose butt got whipped, nor whether it wasn’t deserved.
It’s one thing to think a policy will fail. It’s quite another to HOPE it fails. Do half the democrats actually think our country would be better served with failure in Iraq?
One has to be specific as to what one means by “policy” when asking whether it will fail — a key problem with the survey, really.
Is President Bush’s policy to win in Iraq? Not according to most Democrats. So, hoping his ‘policy to lose’ will fail would be the patriotic, troop-supporting thing to hope for.
One can quibble about whether throwing more troops at an already-lost military situation is even a policy I suppose; but one should never mistake Bush’s policy for ‘wanting to win.’ Desire and policy are separate things, often expressed in different ways. Most Democrats are still angry about Bush’s sending troops to Iraq without adequate armor, and over Bush’s threat to veto all attempts to get personal body armor to the troops. Would you call “sending troops on suicide missions” a policy to win? I wouldn’t. Should we support a policy that treats Americans as easily expendible? I don’t.
Do you support Bush’s policy to lose? Why?
>During the 1930s, Democrats ignored the emerging threat of fascism in Europe
Sorry, all of my message didn’t post: to continue…
During the 1930’s, the Republicans were mosty isolationists.
So they weren’t out fraternizing with the Nazis like Joe Kennedy then, right?
Tell me about your service to our country, or are you just another Republican coward like Bush II, Gramm, Rove, Cheney, the list is nearly infinite of Republicans doing everything possible to avoid military service.
[...] And this doesn’t even touch on FDR’s failed foreign policies. Back in January, I wrote Then you have FDR’s giving away half of Europe to Josef Stalin at the Yalta Conference so the [...]