Newt G. on H & C.....made a good point

what I've been sayin' all along

Published on December 17, 2005 By Rightwinger In Politics

Did anyone see Newt Gingrich on Hannity and Colmes a few nights ago? On a discussion about the liberal Left's Peace-at-any-Price position on the War on Terror, he said the following:

"The liberalism of Franklin Roosevelt allowed him to stand against the three threats of Nazism, Fascism and Imperial Japan. The liberalism of Truman allowed him to stand against the Russians in West Berlin (with the Airlift) in 1948 and the North Koreans and Chinese in the Korean War. The liberalism of Kennedy allowed him to stand against the Russians in Berlin in 1961, and at Cuba in 1962, and to move against the North Vietnamese; the same with Johnson. Something went horribly wrong on the Left in the late 1960s; wrong lessons were learned....." (paraphrased)

I couldn't have said it better myself, though I have tried. I almost cheered as I heard him say it.

What did go wrong? Why did they learn the wrong lessons from Vietnam?
Why are they so willing to lay down and surrender like blind, deaf, paraplegic Frenchmen?

Comments

stevendedalus

on Dec 18, 2005

"The liberalism of Franklin Roosevelt allowed him to stand against the three threats of Nazism, Fascism and Imperial Japan. The liberalism of Truman allowed him to stand against the Russians in West Berlin (with the Airlift) in 1948 and the North Koreans and Chinese in the Korean War. The liberalism of Kennedy allowed him to stand against the Russians in Berlin in 1961, and at Cuba in 1962, and to move against the North Vietnamese; the same with Johnson. Something went horribly wrong on the Left in the late 1960s; wrong lessons were learned....." (paraphrased)
In spite of sundry flaws in the above scenario, the left wing supported these global objectives because it was the best approach at the time. The war on terror, granted is global but Iraq is a foolhardy attemptto stage the war on terror as though confined to a single country. Winning in Iraq at most might send a message, but what kind?

ParaTed2k

on Dec 18, 2005

WWII had its protesters and conspiracy theorists too. The were treated as the fringes though and not accepted. Popular culture moved from support to making it "cool" to protest anything and everything the government does. To me, that is the difference.

Steven:

The war on terror, granted is global but Iraq is a foolhardy attemptto stage the war on terror as though confined to a single country. Winning in Iraq at most might send a message, but what kind?

The bacteria could have chosen anywhere as center stage for their Jihad (and our War on Terror). Afghanistan would have been the militarily logical battlefield since that is where the leadership was (and much of the support). However, that wouldn't have floated well on the propaganda front. My latest article spells it out (and satires it at the same time). Link

Gene Nash

on Dec 18, 2005

Popular culture moved from support to making it "cool" to protest anything and everything the government does.

Bingo.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!