Sunday - November 26, 2006

Weekend Editorial

I‘ve just finished reading Mark Steyn’s new book “America Alone: The End Of The World As We Know It” (I’ll have a full book review later this week). One of the things that stood out for me in the book was Steyn’s assertion that, when it comes to warfare, there are only two kinds of “exit strategy”: victory or defeat.

When people are trying to kill you, take away your way of life or destroy your home and family there is no third place and no Miss Congeniality award. You either win or you lose. Period. President Bush understands this. He may be the only one who does at this point.

Another point that needs to be made is that as far as Iraq is concerned, if we pull off a “Vietnam-style cut-and-run” strategy then we are doomed as a country and the sun begins to set on the American hegemony. We will have lost all credibility as well as our national dignity ... and, most importantly, the Pax Americana that has kept the world more or less quiet for the last fifty years will have come to an end - with the barbarians at the gates.

I would rather not see that happen. The last time we tucked our tail between our legs and walked away from a fight, the Communists overran Southeast Asia and millions died. In addition, our military was almost destroyed by the backlash and budget cuts of the Democratic-controlled Congress.

That was in the late 1970’s and the Islamofascists were beginning to take advantage of our perceived weakness by grabbing Iran, holding American citizens hostage, jacking up the price of oil to fund their war against the West and beginning to immigrate heavily into Europe as the first stage of conquest.

Then along came Ronald Reagan and all their plans had to be put on hold as America dusted off it’s pride, rebuilt the military and got back on track. Now, twenty years later, we’re back in the same position we were in 1973. We’re about to lose another war and this time we don’t have a Ronald Reagan waiting in the wings to pull us together again.

George Bush is not Ronald Reagan. He’s a good man and he understands the stakes but he just doesn’t have the charisma and communication skills of Reagan. The main problem though is that the Tip O’Neill Democrats have returned to Washington and are about to do the same thing they did in the mid-1970’s.

The difference this time is that we are facing an enemy that has already killed thousands of American civilians in an attack inside our country and whose final goal is world domination. Plus they have plenty of money and are breeding more and more suicidal fanatics every day like rabbits.

Whether you call Iraq a “quagmire” or a “muddle” as Michael Reagan does below, all Americans need to be aware that we are fast approaching a turning point in history and the next five years will decide what direction the world goes in the rest of the century. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Democrat or Republican, the American peoples’ will to fight is being tested for what may be the last time.

The millions of Americans who died in the last 250 years to preserve our freedoms and keep America strong are eyeballing us and they are waiting to see whether we have any backbone left. Are you willing to look them in the eye and say, “We’re sorry but we are weak”? If so, then you need to understand that Bush is not the problem ... you are the problem and you deserve to lose everything ...

_{Mike Lester - The Rome News-Tribune (GA)}

---

It’s Not a Quagmire, It’s a Muddle
-- by Michael Reagan

This is a time for giving thanks, and among the many things for which I am thankful is the fact that I am not George W. Bush. Think about it—in the sixth year of his presidency he is besieged on all sides, not only by his foes, but by his friends and supporters as well.

On the one side are those demanding that the president adopt some kind of face-saving solution that will allow him to withdraw from Iraq without admitting the United States has lost yet another war—the solution once recommended by former Vermont Sen. George Aiken, who advised that we declare victory in Vietnam and get out.

Among those advocating this kind of sleight of hand are members of George Herbert Walker Bush’s administration, perhaps even former Secretary of State James Baker. Baker co-chairs the widely touted Iraq Study Group, which has leaked its recommendations for coping with the war by calling for negotiations with Syria and Iran.

On the other side are the hawks who want not only to remain in Iraq, but have advanced the rather peculiar idea that the ultimate aim in any conflict is to win it. They insist that anything less than total victory over the insurgency would result in unthinkable consequences for the United States, the Middle East and the West.

In the middle are the great masses of American people who told exit pollsters they weren’t against the war, only against how it was being conducted. Then there is the Congress of the United States, fated to fall into the hands of the liberal-controlled Democratic Party whose leadership is deeply enamored of the idea of cutting and running – a concept they disguise by calling the pullout of the U.S. from Iraq “redeployment.”

To complicate matters, however, powerful Democrats such as Hillary Clinton more or less support the idea of remaining in Iraq until the Iraqi forces can handle the insurgency on their own.

The president’s dilemma arises from his conviction that a pullout before Iraq has been enabled to fight their war on the insurgency would lead to a conflagration that would engulf the entire Middle East, disrupt the supply of the oil that keeps our economic engine running, create a national base for the Jihad that would enable the radical Islamic movement (probably armed with nukes to bring the Jihad to our shores), and eventually drive the West out of the entire area.

Yet the pressure on the president to find a solution that will allow us to leave Iraq, even if it’s with our tail between our legs, is growing more and more intense. Added to the dilemma is the president’s knowledge that negotiations with Syria and Iraq can have only one result – withdrawal disguised as recognition that Iraq is a regional problem meant to be solved by regional interests – in this case, Iran.

The president knows full well that the only negotiating point is surrender to Iran, whose 1979 constitution declares the aim of the Jihad is world conquest by the Islamic revolution which it leads. To Iran, Iraq is the high ground they seek to take in their war against the West.

Should the president continue to stress his role as Commander in Chief, he will find himself facing an obstructive Congress that will use every device available to them, perhaps even to the extent of withdrawing funding for the military.

Given the facts of the matter, should the president cave in to the peace-at-any-price crowd the deaths of almost 3,000 American fighting men and women—and the billions of dollars it has cost—will have been shamefully wasted.

On the other hand, should he stick to his guns, he will find himself the most embattled President since Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln couldn’t find generals who could go out and win the War between the States, had to deal with an obstructive Congress and its Committee on the Conduct of the War, and even fought dissent by members of his own cabinet, one of whom referred to Lincoln as “the original ape.”

That’s why I’m thankful that I’m not George W. Bush.

---

_{Mike Reagan, the eldest son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network. Look for Mike’s new book, “Twice Adopted.” Order autographed books at http://www.reagan.com. E-mail comments to mereagan@hotmail.com. ©2006 Mike Reagan.}

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/26/2006 at 01:30 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Iraq •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner