« Where's Karen? Plus: Thoughts on Screenwriting | Main | The Gathering Storm »
November 14, 2006
The Smugness of the War's Opponents
In this week's New York Times Book Review, a historian reviewing a major new work of 20th-century history, Oxford and Harvard Professor Niall Ferguson's "The War of the World," notes that "Ferguson argues that the Western powers should have gone to war in 1938, which would most likely have avoided much of the horror of World War II . . . . "
Imagine that. The New York Times publishes a favorable book review of a book arguing that a pre-emptive war in 1938 would have saved tens of millions of lives aside from preventing the Holocaust, "without parallel . . . the most wicked act in all history."
You have to wonder if the Times' editors and all their allies on the Left, who have spent the last four years mocking the very notion of pre-emptive war, read this review.
To read the rest of Dennis Prager's fine article, please click here.
Posted by Robert J. Avrech at November 14, 2006 07:45 AM
Comments
Seraphic Secret is private property, that's right, it's an extension of our home, and as such, Karen and I have instituted two Seraphic Rules and we ask commentors to act respectfully.
1. No profanity.2. No Israel bashing. We debate, we discuss, we are respectful. You know what Israel bashing is. The world is full of it. Seraphic Secret is one of the few places in the world that will not tolerate this form of anti-Semitism. That's it. Break either of these rules and you will be banned.
I too would caution any of the war critics who think this election empowers them. I belive in the validity of simple polls... you know, the ones that ask "who are you voting for?" or "what TV show did you watch last night?"
But exit polls that focus on issues and "feelings" are very unreliable by their nature.
This is my way of saying I don't buy the idea that people voted for the Dems because of Iraq. In fact, I think most people just wanted change overall and voted the old bums out in favor of some new bums. Happens every once in a very long while.
If the Dems do something about health insurance, and help reduce middle class financial risk in some way, that'll be more than enough for 2008.
If they try to "fix Iraq" it not only won't work, but I don't think it's what the voters want.
Posted by: Jake at November 15, 2006 07:10 AM
Jake:
A fine analysis. Let me take it one step further. In fact, a few steps further. I'm afraid that Pelosi elevating the cut-and-run John Murtha does not bode well. In fact, all the sounds emanating from the Democratic leadership point towards the old helicopter-on-the-roof-in-Saigon as foreign policy.
I thought the Democrats said we needed more troops in Iraq. I thought the Democrats insisted on getting rid of Rumsfeld because "transformation" did not work in Iraq.
Well, of course, I'm not being serious here. Never for a moment did I believe that the Democrats would increase our troops in Iraq. They are incapable of fighting. They are incapable of carrying a muscular foreign policy. They are, at core, appeasers. The Democrats do not take national security seriously. They do take minimum wage seriously.
INTERPOLATION:
I attended a Townhall meetng the other night with my Congressman, Henry Waxman. He's a big supporter of Israel, no question. But during the whole evening, he never talked about national security. He talked about "oversight." He talked about, natch, "Abu Gahraib" and "prisoner abuse." He said that Ambassador Bolton was "not the only man for the job even though he is doing a great job."
I'll blog about the evening in more detail, but in terms of Iraq, in terms of National Security, if Waxman represents typical Dem thinking, and I'm pretty sure he does, well, the jihadists have nothing to fear.
END INTERPOLATION:
To continue my analysis:
The Democrats will insist on sitting down and "negotiating" with Iran and Syria. (See today's NY Times lead editorial.) These talks will play right into the hands of the tyrants by giving them legitimacy, and by giving them what is most precious: time--lots of time.
For Iran: time to build up their nuclear program. For Syria, time to continue their arms build-up of Hizbulla in Lebanon. Thus when Israel does strike Iran's nuclear sites, she will look more than ever, like an international pariah.
Posted by: Robert J. Avrech ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.seraphicpress.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 15, 2006 09:55 AM