We Have No Claim To Pearl Harbor Day

As Victor Davis Hanson writes:

On Dec. 7, 1941 — 65 years ago this week — pilots from a Japanese carrier force bombed Pearl Harbor. They killed 2,403 Americans, most of them service personnel, while destroying much of the American fleet and air forces stationed in Hawaii.

The next morning, an outraged United States declared war, which ended less than four years later with the destruction of most of the Japanese empire and its military.

What struck me most about his column was that there was no grand celebration of the waking of a sleeping giant that was America on December 6, 1941. Instead, he writes mostly of the nearly 3,000 innocent civilians we lost in an attack on New York City almost sixty years later and the trials and tribulations America's global war on terror has become.

I heard a sound clip of Al Gore, a would be Democrat leader and former Vice President on the news yesterday. He, in his particular stupor-ed way, pronounced the Iraq War the greatest strategic mistake in America's history, totally ignoring the tragically flawed policy of a President from his party that turned Iran over to a mullahcracy, thus paving the way for many of our greatest challenges in the world today. He was simply another mediocre politician serving himself and his personal and professional interests yet once more at America's great expense. Regardless of his political persuasion, that such a smallish man could occupy the second highest elected office in this land for eight years is what aggravated me the most.

And then you take this mostly useless useful idiot blogger, Atttyood, and read his screeching prose and quote of how the Right is only pointing out the obvious flaws of today's AP as a means of distracting from events in Iraq.

We noted that this was just part of a broader tactic, to denigrate all reporting about a war gone terribly wrong by nitpicking the photojournalism of the fighting in Iraq and elsewhere in the region.

It is important to get to the truth here. But the point is that the bloggers and the U.S. Army, who reflexively denied the initial account, did so not because they were concerned with accuracy. They picked on it because they saw a chance to use a potentially false story -- though it seems clear now that it might be true after all -- as a way of throwing into question all the reporting from Iraq and, more specifically, undermining the characterization of the situation in the country as abysmal.

And I am left scratching my head while wondering what happened to that great country which once had no trouble identifying and destroying its great enemies when attacked?

America was frightened of nothing when she began, not because she was brave, but because she was afraid of everything, being a mere niche on a coastline in a once distant and still foreboding land.

Yet, through strength, through sheer resolve she ploughed her way across a continent, accomplishing all and everything along the way, stopping only long enough to build this or that great monument to the judgment, character, sense of wonder and over-coming that characterized the strong hearts, minds and backs of her ancestors, the very men and women through whose travails she was so whole-heartedly raised.

Certainly she had her rifts, not the least of which was her own Civil War. But somehow through it all she retained a sense of oneness, a country ultimately indivisible with liberty and justice for all. And while the differences she endures today might not appear to be as profound - they've yet to flow down through her in endless rivers of blood, it is difficult to deny that America's parts have never seemed more distant and distraught.

It's that lack of a feeling of a common Americanism that confounds me most as regards the tough spot we find ourselves in today. Tough, yet many of our self-professed most needy ride in cars not dreamed of by our ancestors and live in dwellings such that even small apartments would seem like castles in a New Jerusalem carved out of so much wilderness back in America's most early and most desperate days.

America was attacked in 1941 and she came together with a resiliency and pride that carried her, not only to victory, but up to the pinnacle of civilization over the next long and often difficult fifty or so years. But the attack in 2001 seems to have torn her asunder and left her bitter, almost desperate and unduly confused.

So, no, I'm sorry. As she stands today she has no right to claim the great legacy initiated by the terrible events of December 7, 1941.

I'm not a complete pessimist. I always hope and often believe America will still prevail. But Americans today appear more hell bent on attacking one another as the enemy, than they do uniting for any necessary common good or goal.

And in her angst the sense grows that what we are all doing is waiting ... until the next December 7th, or September 11th, so that a once proudly united nation can hopefully look inside, take stock of herself and face an ever threatening world as, simply, one, again.

If a House divided cannot stand, then certainly a nation divided can not succeed. And the free world needs, more than anything, a strong united America to succeed. America has been the beacon of hope and freedom for far too many other nations to let them down. And currently, no others appear even close to rising up to take her fabled place - and, yes, I know, perhaps least of all, Iraq.

But it would be an unspeakable tragedy were America to not be able to fulfill that role now for a bare democracy born of little else but America's dream. And perhaps by finding the strength and quiet to fulfill that one do-able mission America won't actually need another disastrous attack to learn that, indeed, she does still have a wonderous and ultimately always united national soul.

Comments

[Steel]

Well stated, amigo.

The problem is that too many do not remember real war.

Pearl Harbor happened to people who were born before or during WWI.

WWI happened to people who had a direct connection to the Civi War.

Before that, Texas Independence, the Indian Wars, and 1812.

Each successive generation with a real war in recent memory.

But that's not the case now. Only a handful of Americans have any recall of war. Less than 5%.

Korea, Vietnam etc, didn't involve the entire Nation, no great scarifice was made at home. Only the soldiers paid.

So we have no reference point. For the great majority of us, war is something that is found in history textbooks.

It's not real.

Those people are in for a very rude awakening.

A whole new set of imprints are about to be made on our collective psyche.

They will be known as scars, in the future.

[Carol Herman]

It is December 7th. And, to match Pearl Harbor's beginning; we have the story of it's end, too. Heroshima and Nagisaki. And, the brilliance shown by the defeated People's of Japan. That when General Douglas MacArthur gave them a Constitution, they breathed life back into their own country. Becoming free for the first time in 700 years.

We're not there, yet, in Iraq. If anything? The "error" belongs to Bush. Who wanted the Saudis to pick up another country; where they would rule INSTEAD of Saddam. And, with their Iron Fist.

I think the saudi's are on the ropes, now. Which is why Bush #41 went into over-drive, and sent to his son all his own "old men." Bush #41 has been very resentful "that a draft dodger kicked him out of office." And, according to Prince Bandar (as reported by Bob Woodward), since 1997, Bush, Jr., was on the war path. To "revenge" his dad's humiliation.

You haven't got enough details, yet, about Iraq, to know WHY Bush didn't swing into Fallujah; when we had the strength to do so! But then? Fallujah is SUNNI terrorists. And, that was a White House "no, no."

Well? We've also had Jimmy Carter.

The Jerusalem Post, today, reports that Olmert disagrees with Baker. Saying James Baker is well known to the Israelis. And, Israel doesn't share "those" American opinions.

Not a hell of a lot of Americans share the Bush penchant for anti-Semitism, either. And, for the GOP? Dunno. But the party might need smaller tents?

What a knuckle-headed approach to "diplomacy."

While on the bright side? The saudis are on the ropes! When they finally fail, the tides will turn. And, sunnis will see what they bought with their terror machinery, set up on a global scale. Through mosques.

There are fools. And, then there are damned fools.

[Weezie]

What happened is that instead of rushing out to join the ranks of the military, we all cheered the war on while sitting on our fat asses watching it on Fox. We are a nation of lazy, pussified cowards who would rather argue with each other about who is more patriotic than actually sacrificing ourselves to the cause that we so voiciferously support.

My dad, god rest him, enlisted to fight in WWII because he felt it was the right thing to do. It was expected that if our country went to war, all able bodied males would sign up and get the job done. One could not call himself a man if he did not at least offer himself up to Uncle Sam. Imagine him saying "I think arguing with liberals is just as important as fighting the Germans and the Japanese".

Mom bought bonds, endured rations, and put make up on her legs in lieu of panty hose. Meanwhile, he Britsh ate Spam for breakfast lunch and dinner and hunkered down for the long haul.

The fact that there are people who say that their blogging activities are just as important in the war on terror as actually serving in the military tells me everything I need to know about how far we have devolved as a country (especially our pussified men). This war means nothing to anyone (except the people over there getting shot at). It has been empty words from beginning to end. Stirring, scary words from the president. Then more words from the opposition. Then more words from the administration. Not one of those words said: This is so important that you MUST sacrifice yourself, your sons, daughters, time, money ANYTHING! We were told to let the all volunteer military rotate in and out of Iraq for as long as it took. We were told that we did not need to worry about the cost. We did not have to worry about paying for the war. Dont even think about anything. Just go to the mall and prove to the enemy that they haven't taken away our freedoms.

Is it any wonder that this war went from 70-80% support to 30% support as people increasingly realized that the war might actually take a toll on someone. Sometimes I even suspect that people got bored with it. They turned back to Lost and forgot about WMD and dictators. Like, totally boring, ya know?

Sad.

[Devil's Advocate]

The Iranian revolution took place late 1979. This is 2006, 27 years later. In the interval, the GOP has controlled the White House (where foreign policy is made) for almost 18 years (8 years of Reagan, 4 years of Bush Sr., and 6 years of Bush Jr.) None of these Administrations was able/willing to come up with a working policy regarding Iran.

People in glass houses etc... You know the rest.

Right! I forgot. It's all the Democrats' fault! The Republicans are blameless little victims of a giant commie/pinko/liberal/Jewish/gay conspiracy. Always were, always will be...

[Moosie]

Weezie!

Amazing post.

http://www.globalschoolnet.org/about/images/applause.gif

My dad signed up too. When you joined the service in WWII, you signed up for the duration. You were in it until the end. Those were brave men and women.

Moosie

[Randy]

The problem in Iran began when the CIA squashed the first pro-western democracy in the middle east under the leadership of Mossadek. This was back in the 50s during the Eisenhower administration. For the sake of keeping the oil supply in the hands of US corporations, we installed an unpopular despot, The Shah. There's not one neocon Republican who's worth the sweat on Jimmy Carter's balls.

[Paul A'Barge]

she retained a sense of oneness

A couple of points ... 1) American really only acquired that unique sense of oneness through the civil war. Prior to that, we were more federation than united. And 2) as an anecdote, my father was a Marine aviator who fought in WWII and Korea, retiring with a spinal cord injury obtained in a military jet crash in Korea. Today, he's one of the most virulent, Bush-hating, hide-bound liberals you could possibly imagine.

How did he go from Marine aviator and patriot to ultra-liberal suffering from BDS? The answer to that question is the probably the same answer to the question of how did American go from Pearl Harbor to Iraq on the verge of 2007.

[Mike Rodgers]

The problem I see with this war in contrast with WW2, is that we no longer bomb targets, but are required to make surgical strikes, that lessen the ability for children and civilians to be killed. I am not against the war, but I thought about the differences between wars of 60 years, and the war of today. Public awareness and congressional oversight is what makes this war difficult to win.

If the war of today was fought 60 years ago, you know damn well that if a town was full of insurgents, we would drop bombs until no house was left standing. Ignoring civilians and children. That was the war fighting back in the day.

I blame the politicians and protesters from the Vietnam war who made it common policy to spare those who are victims and innocent of the war being fought.

We would have blown the hell out of insurgents if this war was fought with less oversight and rules of warfare. The internet makes it harder to not let the public see and scrutinize the reporting and events that go on over there.

[Ed Muntin]

"And I am left scratching my head while wondering what happened to that great country which once had no trouble identifying and destroying its great enemies when attacked?"

Uh, that may be your best line yet.

The great enemy that attacked on Sept 11 was a group of mostly Saudis, led by a Saudi, based in Afghanistan.
The Republican President who allowed this attack to happen, then mis-identified the "great enemy" and attcked Iraq.

What did happen to that great country?

[Paul A'Barge]

Sorry, that should read "America really only acquired that unique sense of oneness as a result of the civil war" ...

[Rick]

Hey, in response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, we attacked French North Africa.

Even Democrat Presidents can play a deep game, not just Dubya Bush.

Cordially...

P.S. Randy's quite right, except the oil concern were British, Mossadegh was *not* pro-Western, but nationalist, and undermining him was an Anglo-American project begun in the last year of the Truman admin. Thus proving that I AM, TOO worth the sweat off of Jimmuh Catuh's dessicated balls.

[Colin]

"Regardless of his political persuasion, that such a smallish man could occupy the second highest elected office in this land for eight years is what aggravated me the most."

Regardless of his political persuasion, that such a stupid man could occupy the HIGHEST elected office in this land for the last 6 years is what terrifies me the most.

Al Gore was right about Iraq War I. He was right about Iraq War II. And it seems he was right about global warming, too.

Bush was wrong about Iraq War II and we'll be cleaning up his mess for the rest of our lives. Instead of recognizing that fact, tho, you'd rather belittle Al Gore and reminisce fondly about the attack on Pearl Harbor and the "greatest generation".

Thank goodness the people had the sense to kick you fools out of Congress, and with any luck, the White House in 2008. The adults here have work to do.

[BT]

Mike, I understand your sentiments, and on the surface they seem logical enough, but if you think about it, bombing the insurgents back to the stone age, collateral damage be damned, is about the worse thing we could do right now. Not because it makes us "killer" or cold hearted or any of those things, but for the very important reason that killing civillians CREATES more terrorists. A man who simply hates America might not do anything, but blow up his house, kill his friends and family, and he goes from a hater to an insurgent. That is one of the (many) reasons the insurgency has had little problem finding recruits.

[larry]

did i really just see a pathetically stupid left-wing halfwit refer to himself and his ilk as "grown-ups"??

irony meter pegged off the scale....

[Fred Beloit]

Mr. Rick, "...This may be the beginning of a beautiful friendship." It is such a pleasure to read a comment from someone who knows what he is talking about, especially after reading the overheated rhetoric and litanany of false charges that is the language of Moonbatistan. May I suggest the following, as an addition to Mike's words: There are two kinds of civilians in a war. First, innocent civilians. Second, guilty civilians. Guilty? Guilty of what? "All civilians are innocent," some of the above commenters may say. But this is not a true statement. It is no more a true statement than "Al Gore was right about global warming." The truth is Senator Inhof is right about global warming. Another truth is we have never in our history been more careful about avoiding civilian casualties than now, never more careful to protect personal privacy than now, never more careful to avoid war crimes than now, never more careful to treat prisoners of war more carefully than now.

[Dan Riehl]

Al Gore hasn't been right about anything except maybe not taking Clinton up on an offer of a little head from his favorite intern. Tipper would probably leave him if she found out he had oral sex.

[Carol Herman]

December 1941. ONE CHRISTMAS IN WASHINGTON.

It's good to remember here, how FDR functioned as a War President. In December of 1941 it was in the President's hands to form the shape and concepts of how the Allies would fight, ahead. (Going into Europe, first. And, not towards Japan, in the Pacific, also needed to be solved.) We headed towards Africa, really. FIRST. (Eisenhower wasn't quite on board. But, yes, a strong relationship developed between FDR and Winson Churchill.)

BUT NOT ON EVERYTHING! Winston Churchill tried to lay claim to the "upper birth," so to speak. And, gather up the American Logistics and SOLDIERS "under" British command.

Again, ONE CHRISTMAS IN WASINGTON details this fascinating story. And, her outcome. Winston Churchill did everything he could to bring America back into the "Anglo-Saxon EMPIRE." FDR, instead, forced Winston to give up "colony building." And, FDR immediately referred to INDIA as a FREE STATE. Winston, didn't.

Even among allies there will always be differences.

But it was GENERAL GEORGE MARSHALL, who was put on top of the JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, who HELD FAST. As Churchill kept maneuvering to put himself, and LONDON, above the Joint Chiefs' "process."

It's good to remember this, NOW, because you see a "different George" than George Washington, in the White House. And, you see Tony Blair pulling America into the EUROPEAN QUAGMIRE!

For this alone, I have no respect for the Bush's. At all.

[Ed Muntin]

"Hey, in response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, we attacked French North Africa."

Yes and no.

December 7, 1941 - Japan attacks Pearl Harbour, Canada declares war on Japan
December 8 - US & Britain declare war on Japan
December 11 - Germany & Italy declare war on the USA
then the USA declares war Germany and Italy

The invasion in 1942 of North Africa was a direct result of the Germans declaring war.

[Randy]

Rick, you said "Mossadegh was *not* pro-Western, but nationalist, and undermining him was an Anglo-American project begun in the last year of the Truman admin."

Actually Mossadegh (thanks for the correct spelling) was western-educated and fervent admirer of Thomas Jefferson. He was democratically elected and was anxious to promote a further democratization of Iraqi institutions. To call him a nationalist is a little of base. When one thinks of nationalists, it's usually in reference to a beligerent Milosovik-type character. Mossadegh was a nationalist in more the American Revolutionary mold. He was against foreign interventionism in his country and saw no reason for BP to own the Iran's oil revenues. He was a socialist to the extent that he kicked the British out of his country and nationalized the petroleum industry. You are correct to say that plot to overthrow him was hatched between the CIA and the British, but Dean Acheson, Trumun's Secretary of State wanted no part of it. When Eisenhower was elected, his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles proved to be an avid supporter of the plan and it was rapily put into affect, cutting the British entirely out of the deal.

Again, I restate my thesis that there is no neo-con worth the sweat off Jimmy Carter's balls.

[Fred Beloit]

European quagmire? This is a charge against Blair and Bush I haven't heard before. And that is something rare. Could you explain, Carol, which particular quagmire you are referring to? There are so many about nowadays.

[Jim Harrison]

Reading right-wing sites, I'm struck with how often commenters talk about the world as if America were the only country that mattered. For example, in this piece, the author blames Jimmy Carter for losing Iran as if the Iranians didn't have something to do with what happened and a Republican president who huffed and puffed or perhaps bombed somebody would have easily propped up the Shah, just as, to listen to an older bunch of conservatives, Truman could have defeated Mao by some unspecified act of machismo. A very peculiar perspective on things. Why would anybody believe that?

Values are one thing, facts another. Even if you believe in an extreme version of American exceptionalism---i.e. even if you think we have the right to act like a bunch of John Waynes on steroids--it is not exactly obvious that we have the power to rule the world. Our military proponderence is very great, for example, but it is also rather shallow since, as the Iraq War is demonstrating, we have next to no reserves and little prospect of expanding our military because the ultra-high-tech American way of war makes every additional soldier tremendously expensive. Meanwhile, the economic strength that makes a blustering foreign policy possible is hardly limitless or permanent; and, perhaps more importantly, America no longer offers a very attractive model to other nation--the religion of free markets is an extraordinarily boring take on the human situation. It's hard to make people want to die for a motivational lunch talk at the Chamber of Commerce.

No doubt, America has a huge role to play in world affairs, but as Dirty Harry once remarked, "A man's gotta know his limitations."

[Mike]

This post is melodramatic nonsense. Instead of telling the rest of us why we are not worthy to honor Pearl Harbor Day, why don't you tell us what you've done to remedy the problem you see. Worse still is the comment by "Weezie." What have you done to carry on your father's work, Weezie, besides complain about us ignorant heathens? Get off your high horse.

[Phoenix]

This thread is the perfect microcosm of the theme of this excellent post:
“....what happened to that great country which once had no trouble identifying...” - ‘My sacred idea is the right one and you’re wrong.’

Then there’s this which is so ignorant that one wonders if the author is capable of original thought:

“It is important to get to the truth here. But the point is that the bloggers and the U.S. Army, who reflexively denied the initial account, did so not because they were concerned with accuracy. They picked on it because they saw a chance to use a potentially false story -- though it seems clear now that it might be true after all -- as a way of throwing into question all the reporting from Iraq and, more specifically, undermining the characterization of the situation in the country as abysmal.”

Key phrase: “--though is seems clear now that it might be true after all --”. Yeah? And your point....?
You are an imbecile.

There are too many emptied-out Winstons shuffling off to Room 101 despairing because this thing called ‘blame’ refuses to settle in a nation that has given itself over to political correctness to the point that any idea system is sacred,- whether it’s a religious belief system or a secular ideology, or a liberal rightness and conservative wrongness, or the other way around when the middle ground doesn’t hold steady for your fashionable declarations of personal truths. The minute you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible. The notion that it’s more important to settle blame than to think and to recognize the truth that our country is captive to political correctness and its resulting mindlessness, the sooner we give ourselves over to wishful thinking and join Winston.

We’ll get the jackboot. We deserve it for not reconciling ourselves as the proud nation we once were and for our refusal to take the wide view and acknowledge our place in the world.

[Fred Beloit]

Now here we go with the leftists' litany again, HT Mr. Harrison. I must say though that I'd rather die for a motivationsl lunch down at the old CC than die for a meeting of left-wing professors ennunciating eloquently and bravely on the almost endless list of sins the US has commited that are causing all of the world's troubles. Of course they would probably not reflect on the truth that their ability to do so was purchased with the lives, fortunes, and sacred honor of Americans of a kind they deplore. By the way, the computer you are using is a result of free markets.

[Dan Riehl]

Our military proponderence is very great, for example, but it is also rather shallow

Thanks to defense spending at about 4% GDP, which is up a tick over the Clinton years. I wonder, will the Demcorat legislature up it even more? And do so by cutting costs somewhere, as opposed to raising taxes? I didn't see anything of the sort in their 100 hour plan. During WWII military spending went up to 25% of GDP, Reagan had it at around 7, Clinton dropped into the 3's.

Cut out some of our entitlement programs and increase the military spend and we might still have something worth being entitled to in 20 years.

[M.A.]

The lesson of Pearl Harbor pretty much is that you should go to war only with countries that have a) Attacked you or b) Declared war on you. It is the best argument for why it was morally and strategically wrong to invade Iraq, and why Al Gore is serious about national security while Bush is not.

Also, am I the only one who's sick of Pearl Harbor nostalgia by people who like the idea of war but not the actual fighting thereof? most earlier Presidents didn't endlessly refer to Pearl Harbor, probably because sensible Presidents understood that Pearl Harbor day was a bad day for America.

[Fred Beloit]

Mr Harrison writes"...we have next to no reserves because...every soldier (is) tremendously expensive." This is in no way the reason we have fewer reserves than we need (though "next to no reserves" is just the usual overheated rhetoric used by our distinguished commentors on the left). The reasons we have fewer soldiers than we would like are more likely: One, the Left, from Viet Nam to now, has made soldiering a most unpopular activity. Note their actions today, as well as in the past, to prevent recruiting on campuses. "...Military Science a branch of knowledge, banished now from Harvard College..." (J.R. Mingey 1975) Two, we have no draft. Three, because we have no draft, we must rely on Rightists to supply recruits, for the most part. Kos is, one supposes, an exception to test the rule.

[Robert]

weezie,

Like your Dad and WWII, I'd enlist to fight our war in Iraq if I thought it was the right thing to do.

BTW, Not a f'n chance I'd enlist to fight in this Iraq War.

[Rick]

Randy,

Gracious, but not germane. He was a nationalist, and that's fine. That also rather cuts the legs out from under "pro-Western." At best, he favored autarchy. But with his growing coordination with the Iranian communist party, and given Stalin's track record, Mossadegh's track record (nationalizing others' property) was "viewed with alarm." So the Shah was put up to removing him from office, helped along by Kermit Roosevelt. (Amazingly, no Bush seems to have left fingerprints on that one.)

That's the cold war for you. But the ills of Iran today are due to Islam's Religious Right, not its thwarted Popular Front.

Cordially...

P.S. Though I state that I am indeed worth at least the sweat off of Peanut-Peddler Carter's pickled balls (currently being kept as some kind of pagan charm in Castro's hospital-gown pocket), not being Jewish, nor a former liberal, I can't pose as a neo-con. But I'd like to.

[Thad Anderson]

"So, no, I'm sorry. As she stands today she has no right to claim the great legacy initiated by the terrible events of December 7, 1941."

Well, don't blame the American people - blame the neocons. As Richard Clarke (who probably knows a bit more about fighting terrorists than most conservative bloggers) put it:

"Having been attacked by al Qaeda, for us now to go bombing Iraq in response would be like our invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor."

[Rick]

'"Hey, in response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, we attacked French North Africa."

Yes and no.

December 7, 1941 - Japan attacks Pearl Harbour, Canada declares war on Japan
December 8 - US & Britain declare war on Japan
December 11 - Germany & Italy declare war on the USA
then the USA declares war Germany and Italy

The invasion in 1942 of North Africa was a direct result of the Germans declaring war.'

Well duh. The point was we didn't go straight, or primarily, after the nation that did us the injury.

A further point--unstated, and always overlooked by the left--is that postFeb. 1991, we weren't at peace with Iraq. And armistice existed, which had been so repeatedly violated that even Clinton meted out some Tomahawk showers. (Empty buildings, to be sure, but grant WJC his baby-steps). So we settled Saddam's hash after 12 years (and five since declaring regime change to be a goal of U.S. policy. Even Al Gore was aboard, and thanks to M.A. authoritative comment, "we know" that he is serious about foreign policy.), the final 18 months of which was a "rush to war."

Cordially...

[cleek]

But Americans today appear more hell bent on attacking one another as the enemy, than they do uniting for any necessary common good or goal.

so says a guy who's front page is at least 50% devoted to attacking his political enemies.

[cleek]

s/whose/who's

[I Signed Up After 9/11 -- Did You?]

After Pearl Harbor, people were lining up outside of the recruiting offices.

After 9/11, everyone went shopping.

I enlisted. Speak for yourself, Riehl.

Semper Fi.

[Dan Riehl]

I enlisted. Speak for yourself, Riehl.

Sorry, "I signed up," I didn't know we deployed Girl Scouts to Iraq. But I'll take your word for it.

[brian]

But Americans today appear more hell bent on attacking one another as the enemy, than they do uniting for any necessary common good or goal.

Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.

[Dan Riehl]

Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.

BS. I am pointing out what I observe in America. Nowhere in the post did I claim to be somehow better than anyone else, or above it all as regards the politcal fighting.

But then if the Left weren't so anti-American and anti-American values, we wouldn't fight so much, now would we? See, I'm not perfect.... I'm just right! lol

[Rick]

Eh...but not as right as Jimmy Carter and Al Gore. Titans, they are; just ask some of your commentariat.

Cordially...

[gil]

Riehl would have us believe now that Carter "turned Iran to the Mullahacracy" therefore creating all the problems (including the mess in Iraq) we face today.

I recomend you get a History for Dummies book Mr. Riehl. Other than the usual suspects on the Right Wing circuit can you please tell us ignorant blogers were can we find a serious historian, or group of historians that will back your claim?

Absent that..... I would have to conclude, that like so many other statements in your blog, the one having to do with Gore/Carter is just another one that you pulled out of .... Well, let's just not go there.

[Jim Harrison]

My comment addressed facts, not attitudes, so it isn't really relevant whether or not I'm one of those famous Leftist professors beloved of your rhetoric. Anyhow, this business of overestimating America's strength and wealth isn't just the preserve of rightists. The liberal hawks who supported the Iraq War are every bit as complacent about our national grandeur as any Republican booster. I think Emmanual Todd's take on the situation is close to correct: we aren't nearly as powerful as we think we are. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing or just a thing is another question.

By the way, do you guys really believe that it is somehow unpatriotic to criticize your own country? Could it be that it is your loyalties that are a bit conditional and that's why you can't bear to hear anything negative about America? For myself, I expect to remain an American even if my country does some stupid tricks just as I'll remain a member of my family even though some of my relatives are a little dodgy. America doesn't have to be the greatest thing since sliced bread to retain my allegience because my connection to the country is more organic than that. And just because I think of myself as an American, I feel responsible for what my country does. When we act badly, I'm sure going to sound off about it. Meanwhile, it is a mere fact that America is easily the most dangerous nation on Earth, not because we are particularly evil but because the dangerousness of a nation is the product of its propensity to violence multiplied by its ability to do harm. Whatever you think of our political morality, you've got to admit we've got a tremendous ability to mess things up. We've got a tremendous responsibility.

[cleek]

>And I am left scratching my head while wondering what happened to that great country
>which once had no trouble identifying and destroying its great enemies when attacked?

first of all, your rhetoric exceeds reality: there is no "great enemy" today. there is a ragtag bunch of people who have absolutely zero chance of conquering America. they can hurt us, they can taunt us into hurting ourselves, but they can't conquer us. it's laughable to even think of al-Qeuda as the modern day equivalent of Japan or Germany of WWII. your Greatest Generation fantasies will have to wait. (and could you tone-down the Churchillian rhetoric? this isn't 1941, we're not in gloriously dire peril)

secondly, we did identify the enemy, it took a matter of hours. the fact that Bush ultimately chose to create new enemies before he'd finished the first doesn't mean we (the rest of the country) have forgotten who the first enemy was, or what they did.

[Mike Conwell, Austin TX]

>But the attack in 2001 seems to have torn her asunder and left her bitter, almost desperate and unduly confused.

That's absolutely not true. After the attack on America in September 2001, we were all united.

After the "Axis of Evil" speech we became a little confused.

After resources were diverted from the Afghanistan theater to the Iraq theater, and Osama bin Laden hadn't been captured yet, we began to voice our concerns, and were largely ignored.

After Karl Rove announced that the War on Iraq and the War on Terror could be used as a campaign issues the Bush Administration began tearing asunder the American people.

After the conquering of Baghdad, we were relieved, but glad the whole WMD issue would now be addressed completely.

After we found out there were no WMDs, nor signs of competent development of WMDs, we began to become bitter.

After we watched casualties mount, we began to grow desperate.

After we lost more Americans in Iraq then on September 11th, after more Iraqis died on our watch in three years, then under Husseins last ten years, we've become "duly" confused.

And there you have it. America is now torn asunder, bitter, desperate and confused. Dan, you've got it right, just the timing was wrong.

[Tom Tankreedo]

You're a brainless asshole, Riehl. Even for a Republican, you're a brainless asshole.

[The Liberal Avenger]

If Jimmy Carter is to blame for the Iranian Islamic Revolution because he was in office when it happened, then we can finally lay the blame for 9/11 squarely at George W. Bush's feet. Thank you for clarifying that for all of us, Riehl.

[I Signed Up After 9/11 -- Did You?]

"Sorry, 'I signed up,' I didn't know we deployed Girl Scouts to Iraq. But I'll take your word for it."

Cute. But this thread is idiotic. Lessee...a post lamenting that we don't have the right to celebrate Pearl Harbor day because we're a bunch of pussies these days? O.K.

For the record, I'm a Republican. Stupidly, I supported our invasion of Iraq, hoping and praying that our leaders knew what they were doing. In the days immediately after 9/11, our President, my Commander-in-Chief could have said, "Mothers of America, the coming struggle will demand the sacrifice of many of your sons and daughters." Our President, my Commander-in-Chief could have said, "The days of easy living and good times are over, at least for the moment. We need to embark on a mission to do whatever it takes to get off of foreign oil." But, in the end, after Bush's Bullhorn Moment, he refused to lead a nation that was open to being led by taking any constructive action and instead and squandered his capital by outsourcing "our" military victory to a rag-tag band of Islamist Afghanis who surprisingly let bin Laden escape. Then, he changed course and invading Iraq without narry a thought (apparently) as to what comes next. I remember in those glorious days immediately after Baghdad fell that there was some talk of moving on to Syria and Iran, as if Bush was a modern-day Napoleon ready to spread the ideals of the new democratic Enlightenment into other far-off lands with no tradition of democracy, and without having apparently reading Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" where he would have discovered that democracy does NOT necessarily lead to either greater liberty for the democratizing society, nor, indeed, with comity to the West.

Also, for the record, I don't believe you have to serve to be allowed to have an opinion on war or military matters. But if you're going to claim that we don't deserve to honor Pearl Harbor Day because we don't have the mettle and we don't have what it takes, it would help if that collective "we" you're referring to includes someone who has either served in the military or tried to do so since 9/11.

I hope and I pray that Iraq works out for the better. But your caterwauling is directed at easy targets-the low hanging fruit of political discourse. "We're worthless and weak and the Democrats are to blame." I believed that once upon a time. I believed it so deeply at one time that I even joined the Marines. But as things progress and people get more information, it is becoming increasingly clear that although America in the past has certainly given us Men for the Times-Washington, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, and Reagan come to mind, it has also given us the Johnsons, and the Carters, and the Bushes. Men not up to the task.

But I digress. Look, don't lament that we aren't what we used to be. With proper leadership, we might not be in the situation we're in right now. Our malaise isn't just some product of mystical unknowable forces-after 9/11, Bush's numbers were through the roof, and even Conyers was singing God Bless America. I enlisted. And Bush pissed it all away.

[Rick]

Man, too much "reality-based" commenting going on here.

Cordially...

[cleek]

>Man, too much "reality-based" commenting going on here.

oh no! opposing viewpoints! run away!

[Dan Riehl]

oh no! opposing viewpoints! run away!

I don't have a problem with opposing viewpoints. But it does get tiresome when they are always so lacking in moral clarity and often misguided, or perhaps just mis-informed

[Foreigner]

Oh, fuck off, Riehl.

[Dan Riehl]

Oh, xxxx, Riehl.

You know you're getting to them when they start to talk like their Mothers. Heh!