For that matter, a global history lesson would be in order too. But it would be utterly sacrosanct for the media pawns of the left to peer through the historical retrospectoscope when reporting the events of our day. You see, they've forgotten that a complete accounting of contemporary issues should always include the who, what, when, where and why not only of the index players, but also of their historical analogues. Especially leaders and talking heads on the Left and the increasing number of Americans who defer critical and contextual thought to these thespians, I am increasingly concerned that their ability to properly criticize the Bush Administration's policies is akin to launching a smart bomb but stripping it of its laser. The 'laser' that we desparately need to return to public discourse is an appreciation of national and global history.
To wit, much has been said since the run up to Iraq and rekindled before every democratic hurdle there about the WMD rationale. In the latest Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, 46% of respondents thought Bush gave us the best available intelligence, while a statistically equivalent 44% thought he lied. So the fray over "Did he" or "Didn't he" will go on, distracting us from the really important question so brilliantly illustrated by Jonah Goldberg recently. The question? So what if he did cherry pick the intel to make a case? The important point here is that leaders in business, government, or families (c'mon parents, fess up) have always embellished facts to acheive consensus and garner support for unpopular but ultimately visionary causes.
Take FDR, for instance. Historians Richard Hofstadter and Charles Beard, both of whom hook to the left on the political golf course, are joined by scores of other historians who concede that FDR brought the nation to war through skillful manipulation of the facts at best, and devious deception at worst. Either way as Goldberg quotes historian Thomas Bailey, " He (FDR) was faced with a terrible dilemma. If he let the people slumber in a fog of isolationism, they might fall prey to Hitler. If he cmae out unequivocally for intervention, he would be defeated" in 1940. It's curious that Arthur Schlesinger Jr., now himself a member of the cast for the "Bush Lied" surreal drama, approved of Bailey's book containing this position in 1949. Funny how even historians have selective memory, isn't it?
There are even credible accounts about FDR's pre-war plans for the invasion of Germany, and the tempting of a trigger-happy Japan before Pearl Harbor. So it is disturbing that so many who link the deceit surrounding elements of the Viet Nam war and our ultimate defeat there would gloss over the resounding victory in World War II, despite deception by leadership, complicity and restraint on the part of the media, and yes, propaganda generated by the government towards our enemies and to prop up domestic support. Yes, even Americans had to endure the brutality of pro-war B-roll and other Uncle Sam commercials before watching Bogie and Bacall.
So, within reasonable and generally agreed upon boundaries, can't the naysayers call a truce in behalf of America, present a united U.S. to the world and move on (NOT .org)? President Bush's vision was clear at the outset: Establishing security by means of preemption, democratic institutions and recognizing the importance of morality and decency in governance. Despite adversarial 'powerticians" on the left deftly manipulating a complicit media mouthpiece, the resultant blurred vision has partially succeeded. By eliminating an internal despot who history proves terrorized his own people, sponsored terror against other nations and who unabashedly was on an early course to reak the same against America, Bush has already accomplished a major part of that vision. If his 'sell' to the public was nuanced, so be it. FDR justified a war for ultimately honorable and similar (if on a larger scale) ends. Not to mention his ability to fight the war without the political distraction Bush faces.
History, as the Left so brazenly ignores, also teaches that desperate, evil folks become crazier as defeat nears. So it is that the foreign and homegrown terror brigades in Iraq increase their pace as every democratic hurdle approaches. Is this any surprise?
In the end the Bush Doctrine is either valid or not; democratic ideals will spell the defeat of any meaningful Islamo-fascist threat or, as Dean, Kerry and Murtha would have it, Iraq will be a terrorist breeder reactor and we are doomed. Hey, you pessimists, there were defeats along the way in every conflict from the Revolution through WW II, to Iraq and certainly forward as we continue the Islamo-fascist War. Why then did Americans say: "We will fight on until victorious"? Why now do you deny history's truths and run tail pinched between your legs? Let me help. Here's my Christmas present to all of you who doubt our Commander in Chief and wish for America's defeat just to bring him down--a spanking new, crystal clear retrospectoscope.
Got history?
