Will Obama Paint Mitt as Warmonger?
Usually, not always, the peace party wins.
Gen. Sherman's burning of Atlanta and March to the Sea ensured Abraham Lincoln's re-election in 1864.
William McKinley, with his triumph over Spain and determination to pacify and hold the Philippines, easily held off William Jennings Bryan in 1900.
Yet Woodrow Wilson won in 1916 on the slogan, "He Kept Us Out of War!" And Dwight Eisenhower won a landslide with his declaration about the stalemate in Harry Truman's war: "I shall go to Korea."
Richard Nixon pledged in 1968 that "new leadership will end the war and win the peace." Vice President Hubert Humphrey, behind by double digits on Oct. 1, promised to halt the bombing of North Vietnam. He united his party and closed the gap to less than a point by Election Day.
George McGovern ran as an antiwar candidate in 1972. By November, almost all U.S. troops were home from Vietnam, however, and in late October Henry Kissinger had announced, "Peace is at hand." Nixon had expropriated the peace issue. Result: 49 states.
Today, after the longest wars in our history in Afghanistan and Iraq, Americans are sick over the 6,500 dead and 40,000 wounded, fed up with the $2 trillion in costs, and disillusioned with the results that a decade of sacrifice has produced in Baghdad and Kabul.
Aware of this war weariness, especially among women, President Obama and Vice President Biden seem intent on appearing before the nation on Election Day as the sole peace party. This fact leaps out of a close read of Biden's debate transcript.
Lost in his manic grinning and mocking laughter at Paul Ryan's points and rude interruptions was a recurring theme: President Obama ended the war in Iraq and is dialing back the war in Afghanistan, but Ryan and Romney seem to be looking to new military interventions in Syria and Iran.
Consider but a few Biden comments nestled in the transcript of his half of that 90-minute debate.
"The last thing we need now is another war."
"Are you (Ryan) ... going to go to war?"
"We will not let them (the Iranians) acquire a nuclear weapon, period, unless he's (Ryan) talking about going to war."
"War should always be the absolute last resort."
"He (Ryan) voted to put two wars on a credit card."
"We've been in this war (Afghanistan) for over a decade. ... We are leaving in 2014, period."
About intervention in Syria, Biden said: "The last thing America needs is to get into another ground war in the Middle East, requiring tens of thousands if not well over a hundred thousand American forces."
This drumbeat, implying Romney and Ryan are champing at the bit to get into the war in Syria or into a new war with Iran, was deliberate.
Biden's words almost surely reflect what Democratic focus groups, pollsters, political analysts and pundits are advising the party to say and do: Play the peace card Monday night in Boca Raton, Fla., and tag Romney-Ryan as a trigger-happy ticket of the war party.
The charges Romney is likely to hear from the president and the questions he is likely to face from the moderator, pushing him toward bellicosity, are not that difficult to discern.
"Governor, President Obama has said Iran will not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. You have said Iran will not be allowed to have a 'nuclear weapons capability.' What is the difference? Doesn't Iran already have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon? What will you do about it?"
"Governor, Paul Ryan said in his debate Iran 'is racing toward a nuclear weapon." But 16 U.S. intelligence agencies said in 2007 and reaffirmed in 2011 that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. What is your evidence that Iran is 'racing toward a nuclear weapon?'"
"Governor, you have said of America and Israel, 'The world must never see daylight between our two nations.' Does that mean if Israel attacks Iran, you would take us to war on Israel's side?"
"Governor, at VMI you said, 'In Syria, I will work ... to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad's tanks, helicopters and fighter jets.' Would you give surface-to-air missiles to the Syrian rebels?"
"Governor, Japan and China are at sword's point over the Senkaku Islands. If war breaks out, are we obligated by our alliance with Japan to come to her defense?"
The Republican peril in Boca Raton is that headlines the next day will have Romney, consciously or inadvertently, laying down some marker for a new war.
"Peace through strength," the Eisenhower-Reagan slogan, is the GOP slogan that still resonates with American voters.
Even in 1940, FDR, though plotting war, ran as a peace candidate:
"I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."
Hopefully, Gov. Romney will say something like this, and mean it.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
Entries(RSS)
Pat Buchanan: "Hopefully, Gov. Romney will say something like this, and mean it."
I would not be surprised either way. Romney likes to say everything and then sort it out later.
I will not allow Iran a weapon!!
I will not go to war with Iran to prevent them from acquiring a weapon.
I will leave all options on the table.
I will be more diplomatic than Obama and more forceful than Netanyahu with regards to Iran!!.
I will both cut the defense budget but also attempt to strengthen it by two trillion dollars!!
There will be no daylight between the foreign policy of the US and Israel but I plan on working it up mostly after dark.
You could not ask for a more silly and hillarious debate between two candidates(Larry and Mo perhaps) except that it isn't really funny it has come to this..
The only real difference between the Marx Bros. Duck Soup and current media driven politics is that Duck Soup is in black and white and has more musical numbers.
Prosecutor: Something must be done! War would mean a prohibitive increase in our taxes.
Chico: Hey, I got an uncle lives in Taxes.
Prosecutor: No, I'm talking about taxes - money, dollars!
Chico: Dollars! There's-a where my uncle lives! Dollars, Taxes!
Where Is Call For Jihad Against Chris Matthews Sharia Slander?
Our President, Barack Hussein Obama, spoke out vigorously against any "slander" of the man Mr Obama invariably refers to as "The Prophet" Mohammed.
We have been lectured by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that any speech offensive to Muslims will not be tolerated and that First Amendment notions must give way to the sensitivities and political correctness of multiculturalism.
Where are the cries from the White House against the "Islamophobia" of Chris Matthews?
Where is Congressman Keith Ellison? Congressman Ellison refused to swear his oath of office on a Bible and did so on a Koran. Is Mr Ellison outraged by the offensive manner in which liberals refer to the law of his Koran?
In nationally broadcast remarks Democratic commentator Matthews disparaged the Romney/Ryan position (and that of the Roman Catholic Church/Evangelical Christians) as "sharia.
This was intended as an insult.
The Left is denigrating Islam and Islamic law- are they not?
The Left argues that being Pro Life is absurd and "intolerant" and in that context refersto those who oppose abortion and Planned Parenthood as engaging in "Sharia"
This is not a rare instance. Michael Brown reports
"In comments made before the presidential debate this past Tuesday, Chris Matthews claimed that Gov. Romney’s position on abortion was “almost like Sharia,” stating, “You’re saying to the country, we’re going to operate under a religious theory, under a religious belief.” In doing so, Matthews repeated the common leftwing libel that conservative moral principles with a basis in religious beliefs are equivalent to radical Islam.
In May, Rev. Billy Graham took out full page ads in North Carolina newspapers stating in part, “The Bible is clear — God’s definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. I want to urge my fellow North Carolinians to vote FOR the marriage amendment.”
Gay activist Wayne Besen responded by asking, “Do we now make our civil laws based upon Christian Sharia?”
So anyone who fails to heartily endorse the radical homosexuals is a Taliban?
".. if you argue that a baby in the womb, upon conception, is entitled to personhood status, you are espousing a position “almost like Sharia,” which Matthews sums up by exclaiming, “This is extremism!” Indeed, for Matthews, in the early stages of pregnancy, we are certainly not dealing with a baby in the womb, let alone “a fetus,” but “rather an egg that had just been fertilized, right after sex, if you will.”
So, the high regard for life and the protection of the innocent that fuels the Republican platform on abortion is nothing more than Sharia-like extremism.."
Please note Chris Matthews and the homosexuals use "sharia" as indicia of something palpably awful.
Where are the cries of outrage from Obama?
http://elvisnixon.com/2012/10/19/where-is-call-for-jihad-against-chris-matthews-sharia-slander.aspx
What if Romney really does prove to be a warmonger?
Dr. Wilson, I was thinking quite the same thing!
Mr. Elvisnixon--What has this diatribe to do with the subject of Mr. Buchanan's column? Please make only relevant comments to this conversation. I'd also prefer that you use your real name, as the overwhelming number of contributors here do. My apologies if Elvisnixon is your real name, in which case, please also give your Christian name.
Dr. Wilson,
My sense is that he will not be a warmonger but this is only an intution based on the clear assumption Mr. Romeny can not be taken at his word. He of course talks like and embraces with enthusiasm all the issues and nuances of a warmonger, but he has also proven by his actions to be a man who only says what is convenient for the moment and the forum and only rarely believes what he says with any honesty.
President Obama on the other hand, is perhaps more alarming because he seems to be sincere in what he says and willing to carry out his idealogical rhetoric regardless of consequences. I am afraid folks who read and support Chronicles are in for a long winter in the years ahead, regardless of who wins the next silly election. Like the Cyclops and his decendants, the duopoly is a tribe that respects neither God nor man but only their self and their self's desires. A quick glance at the folks paying for and "bundling" for Romney's campaign is telling in itself -- not that graduating from college means anything these days but when men two drop outs like Rove and Addelson are the genuises combating the Chicago in-crowd, the very audacity they exercise on proper morals and prudence, makes me year for the devil dressed in his traditional wolf' skin than the devil dressed in the more fashionable Shepherd's skin.
Heck, where are the radicals when you need them ? Reading Chronicles and minding their own business is my guess.
makes me "yearn" for the devil dressed in his traditional wolf' skin than the devil dressed in the more fashionable Shepherd's skin.
My sense is that he will not be a warmonger but this is only an intution based on the clear assumption Mr. Romeny can not be taken at his word.
The problem is that we may be dealing with one of a category of people who are not true mythomaniacs, but rather are so adept at weaving fact in with fiction that it is impossible to intuit with any accuracy whether anything they say is true. Bill and Hillary Clinton fit well into this category.
Dr Wilson:
Given the alternative the fundamental question must be "warmonger on behalf of whom?"
Mr Obama and his Arab Spring/Libyan adventurism has installed islamists on our dime.
The same folks that butchered our Ambassador were put in power and supplied via our current foreign policy
My sense is that Obama is a politician and a poseur and will be cautious at any action that might cause him difficulty. Romney, on the other hand, is a CEO whose thinking tends to limited to the next quarter rather than the long view, and, of course, he seems pretty well controlled by the Schachmanites.
Dr. Wilson,
Would it be better in the long term for Obama or Romney to win in November, IYO? You once mentioned that one more term from the GOP should just about finish us, but I was wondering if Obama might not also help accelerate the collapse in his own way. Tonight they are staging their final act of the three act comedy, the closing scene is called, "Foreign Policy." As a serious man and historian who seems to care nothing for such events, do you consider it more prudent to act as though one cares, ( even though they really don't) or simply tell the truth and say it was over a long time ago forget about it and go play scabble at the old folks home, look for a Christmas present for the grandkid or cook some popcorn and watch an old Smiley Burnett and Gene Autry movie ?
Far be it from me to tell anyone what to do in an impossible situation. For myself, I decided quite awhile ago to abjure the regime and not participate in its debased rituals. I gather that a lot of people are voting for Romney on the single hope that he will block Obamacare. Romney block Obamacare when he invented it? I doubt we even have a country any more---just a dangerous federal apparatus.
Thank you, Dr. Wilson. "Far be it from me to tell anyone what to do in an impossible situation." I admire your type of honesty far more than most others. I had a note from an old friend who said he believed that a University really was a place where "young men see visions and old men dream dreams." He went on to say that visions signify youth and directed towards another. I wrote him back to ask, then what do the dreams signify? He replied, " I don't know exactly but hope to find out. Some say they are doors to the spiritual realm." Whatever they are for good professors and lovers, I wish them for you. Thanks for your reply.
I admit to a slender hope that an Obama victory will do enough damage to the Republican leadership to make room for a genuine Middle American party. But it is probably too late---the Silent Majority is now a silenced minority.
Well, that means that in the next war, instead of having God on our side, we'll just have to make do with the angel Moroni .... who sounds like he'll fit right in, given the level of intelligence in our foreign policy.
Well I am going to vote and like 4 years ago I probably will cast my vote for the last elected politician worth a damn,Davy Crockett.
Dr Wilson:
The great Silent Majority has been replaced via open borders.
California,the state that gave us a President who dared utter the words "Silent Majority," now gives us Harvey Milk Day
How did that radical change occur?
By flooding California and the American Southwest with illiterate illegal aliens with absolutely no interest in assimilation or civil society. Replacement of the old California with a people who view schools as simply "daycare" for their anchor babies and emergency rooms as free clinics. The Hollywood "gay" community uses these folks to ensure a permanent political elite that conforms to their vision- no mas John Schmitz or William Dannemeyer but lots of Tony Villaraigosa and Jerry Brown redux.
They did it in the home state of Reagan and Nixon and they are doing it to the entire country now.
* Yes I know Reagan and Nixon are hardly paragons of republican virtue but they are far preferable to what we have now.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
Plato
Robert Reavis writes
"I am afraid folks who read and support Chronicles are in for a long winter in the years ahead, regardless of who wins the next silly election. Like the Cyclops and his decendants, the duopoly is a tribe that respects neither God nor man but only their self and their self's desires."
After suffering through the pathetic and boring final act of the comedy, I concur with the above.
Mr Olson:
It is apparent that you are unfamiliar with the plight of those seeking to earn a living in academia who are not tenured nor independently wealthy ( I assume by your tone that you are a retiree or a soon to be retired Baby Boomer).
A nom de guerre is necessary unless you wish to be sent to "diversity training" or simple want to be unemployed
As to the "relevance" of the "diatribe" your remarks bring to mind John Derbyshire's observation about the use of the term "screed" by those who disagree with conservative positions ( such as Rich Lowry) and dont want to be bothered with any facts in dispute
The subject is debates/islam/war/middle east conflict and the potential for media bias- My observations of media bias in favor of islamists and against Christian morality is apt