Should it be saved? I certainly believe that there are at least 70 million Americans who deserve to live in the America they were born into, the America of individual freedom, unlimited opportunity, and just laws; the America in which our history is respected, our values are cherished, our independence is guarded against all comers.
Do people who hate or are indifferent to these things have a right to prevent us from living in the America we love? Even if the America-haters were in the majority (and I do not believe they are), would they have the right to compel us to live in their America, the one built on depravity, racism, socialism and mass neurosis?
I say no. Under no circumstances. Not under the spurious application of "majority rule", nor under the "authority" of idiotic new laws passed by temporary majorities in Congress or the irresponsible and cowardly misinterpretation of old ones by a craven Supreme Court. If elections are not proof against the insane tyranny of the Left and a revolution or a war for independence becomes necessary to preserve traditional, normal America, then so be it.
Save America, save the world.
ReplyDeleteDeath of Rumsfeld is a good time to declare the global progressive salvation show over. Post WW2 optimism - UN, WHO etc have all failed their original purpose. Enough with the busybody do-gooders, punishers and straighteners. Instead, as the song says, Let it Be. We're going to have to deal with whatever plays out anyway. Better without a bunch of whining nannies back-seat driving as we deal with inevitable reality.
ReplyDeleteBruce,
ReplyDeleteThe stories that have stuck in my mind about Rumsfeld don't flatter the man. He refused to supply Tommy Franks with the men and equipment Franks thought he needed for the Iraq invasion. Also, Rumsfeld didn't want local people hired as interpreters, and this created more trouble for US troops.
As for the UN and its assorted alphabet offsprin - either move the whole show to Mogadishu or some similar third world sheetwhole, or withhold funds until it starves to death.
Yes, I remember (vaguely) reading that Rumsfeld was a fan of a (comparatively) low cost, technology-based form of warfare - the kind of thing that frequently doesn't work because it doesn't enable you to hold territory and control events on the ground, outside of a very limited area. I also remember Bush being practically paralyzed into inaction after the initial victory in Iraq; or perhaps it would be more accurate to say paralyzed by decision inertia: things had to get very bad indeed before we finally began to change tactics. I don't know to what extent Rumsfeld may have been part of that problem.
ReplyDeleteSee, I think Iraq went pretty much to plan. Not perfectly, they had to tweak tactics and troop strength, but that's what happens in war.
ReplyDeleteRemember Bush saying, "Bring it on." to jihadis?
They wanted to fight jihadis in Iraq instead of Afghanistan, they'd be hard to get to sometimes, Israel or America.
Saying that, Rumsfeld was brought in to mess with the Pentagon bureaucracy. Then 9/11 came along.
I knew a couple civilian bureaucrats and they hated him. In the summer of 2001, that was the theme.
I liked him, his press conferences were awesome. I'd go home for lunch just to watch them.
Rumsfeld preferred “efficiency”. That’s a question begging word in any bureaucracy, but, yeah, he favored a technological approach. Not the best in a combat zone, ok for the Pentagon. But I did appreciate his approach to “fixing” the agency I retired from. The bureaucrats didn’t.
ReplyDeleteBack to the America-Haters .......
Then so be it.
I do recollect that Rumsfeld's press conferences were classic. I don't remember any specific responses to questions, but I know that his approach to the press was terse, no nonsense and frequently witty. He'd eat today's press corps alive.
ReplyDeleteHe used to take off his glasses and squint at particularly stupid reporters. It was very funny.
ReplyDeleteThe generals with him were good too.
My favorite was when the general said the operation was a success.
"What was its purpose?"
"To kill al Quaeda"
"How do you know it was a success? What did you see on the ground?"
"Dead al Quaeda"
I like how Rumsfeld dealt with the Puerto Rica regarding Vieques, the island the Navy used for bombing practice. The protestors, including the Mayor, wanted the bombing stopped. Rumsfeld said okay, and it will mean closing the base. The Mayor couldn't backtrack fast enough after realizing their economy depends on the base.
ReplyDelete