From: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: There he goes again..
Summary: The record speaks for itself...
Keywords: Astute Geopolitical Grasp!  Yow!
Date: 4 Sep 92 23:51:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <78367@ut-emx.uucp>, swb@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Steve Buffum) writes:
> (apologies for trimming the article excessively, but I am keeping the original
>  in case anyone claims my quoting is "out of context")
> 
> In article <1992Aug23.173136.484@cbnewse.cb.att.com> harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm) writes:
> >In article <Phil_Warburton.0ank@grace.UUCP>, Phil_Warburton@grace.UUCP (Phil Warburton) writes:
> >> (axed)
> >
> >YOU Clinton PEOPLE  be reminded of something....and I should let the Republican
> >National Committee know of this...every time a Democratic *administration*
> >has been *re-elected* or elected to serve more than one full term in 
> >this century, the country has been embroiled in a multi-year or massive
> >casualty WAR.  Starting with the inept Woodrow Wilson, before even the
> >first twenty years had passed.  As Winston Churchill noted, involve-
> >ment by the U.S. in that conflict was a prime catalyst for all the 
> >others that have followed.  How illustrative of what Democrats do 
> >best (and do worst for the country) in the long run.  That is the
> >Despicable Heritage of the Democratic Party. 
> 
> 	Are you SERIOUSLY IMPLYING that World War I was Wilson's fault?
> That Roosevelt caused WWII?  That Harry Truman begat the Korean Police
> Action?  The last of these may actually have some degree of merit.  I am
> no expert in geopolitics myself.  But to say that electing Democrats to the
> Presidency is DIRECTLY RELATED to the World Wars is patently absurd.  Ol'
> Winston may have correctly noted the catalyst, but to blame WOODROW WILSON
> for WORLD WAR II is an inferential error of the highest order.
> 
> 	I suppose I should trot out sentiments like, "Oh, so Taft/T. Roosevelt
> would have retained an isolationist stance and America would have been much
> better off (despite Roosevelt's penchant for militarism, but I digress)" or
> "Geez, I never thought of that!  Of course it was the evil Democrat Wilson
> who drafted the original Treaty of Versailles and used the League of Nations
> as a smokescreen for his true intentions of causing the rise of fascism in
> Europe," or even "If we had just nuked China like MacArthur said, we
> wouldn't have had any problems with Korea OR Vietnam."  However, this
> statement seems too much like bait even for alt.rush-limbaugh.
> 
Take a history lesson---read the doggone record:
1. Woodrow Wilson, elected 1912, reelected 1916. With Congress, leads
   the U.S. into a war within two years, one which did not involve 
   strategic interests of the U.S. at the time, combined with the
   fact that all sides were approaching the point of exhaustion
   of their war efforts, anyway.  Had the U.S. not gone in, the
   conflict would have blown itself out.  The result *was* the 
   Versailles Treaty which paved the groundwork under which the
   dictatorship which came to power in the 1930s in Germany was
   able to build its springboard of strength. Prolonged trench-style
   nature of first major U.S. overseas conflict accumulates the
   most massive American casualties since the U.S. Civil War. 
2. Franklin Roosevelt, elected 1932, 1936, 1940.  Placed the core
   of U.S. naval power in 1941 at one site remote from the U.S.
   mainland while awaiting further developments (?) vis a vis the
   geopolitical/military situations in Europe and the Pacific. 
   Subordinate military and civilian officials clearly ignored 
   blatant indications of Japanese intent and actions in months,
   weeks, days, and even hours prior to commencement of hostile
   force military action taken against U.S. forces situated in
   Hawaiian Island chain.  Used the setup of surprise attack to
   conveniently involve U.S. in global conflict.  Refused to 
   prosecute action in an expedient manner on European front,
   unnecessarily delaying invasion of continent by one year;
   made collaboration with dissident German senior military
   officials impossible by insisting on inflexible policy of
   uncondtional surrender; demonstrated ineptness in overall
   strategy by engaging in Arnhem campaign-disaster and in 
   underestimating German capabilities as demonstrated by near-
   catastrophe in the Ardennes Forest, December, 1944. 
3. Harry Truman, sworn in April, 1945, elected, 1948.  Dispatched
   U.S. military forces in "police action" in the Korea Peninsula,
   under auspices of UN authority.  Once on the verge of defeating
   North Koreans, UN forces suddenly counterattacked by assembled
   mainland Chinese army, operating from defacto sanctuary within  
   own territory.  Refused to heed pleadings of U.S. commanding
   general to be allowed the full weight of conventional military
   power to protect subordinate forces, leading to prolongation
   of the conflict and tens of thousands of additional casualties.
   Removed general from command because of perceived "insubordination",
   completely ignoring general's military command leadership in two
   wars.  General returns a hero.  Democrats lose 1952 presidential
   election; Republican victor, another general, secures armistice
   by making clear to the opposing forces' leadership that he would
   not continue on path of "fighting" with one hand behind back,
   calling the bluff on the underlying false fear of risking atomic
   war with a Soviet Union that was in no condition to fight such
   a war, much less initiate one. 
4. Lyndon Johnson, sworn in November, 1963, elected, 1964.  Used
   spectre of war to gain election.  Initiated combat involvement
   by U.S. in Indochina peninsula summer of 1964, aerial retaliation
   for perceived attack on U.S. naval units.  Administration commenced
   build-up of U.S. ground and aerial forces on Indochina Peninsula
   from spring 1965 thru summer 1968, with upwards of half-million
   plus U.S. service personnel engaged at one point, but without
   any favorable military outcome, due largely to lack of commitment
   to formulate any credible strategy to meet the conditions of the
   conflict. Following administration left holding bag on politically
   difficult extraction of U.S. from conflict, unable to take decisive
   action due in large part to power gained within U.S. by so-called
   "peace" movement and its influence on media, government, and U.S.
   society as a whole; also due to potential face-off with growing   
   nuclear/conventional potential of a hostile Soviet Union and a
   radicalized China, both heavy supporters of N. Vietnamese forces
   engaged against the U.S. 

THAT *is* the *record* of what has happened when Democratic Administra-
tions have engaged us in overseas conflicts in this century.  And it
demonstrates why Democrats have *no* credibility when *they* criticize
Mr. Bush for "not going all the way to Bagdahd".  Democrats don't
have any idea to *begin* with what it means to go "all the way" in fighting
conflicts of the type we have been engaged in during this century. 
They cannot do it in any sort of expeditious manner themselves.  All
the reason why they *have no choice* but to back off Mr. Bush on 
being a capable Commander-In-Chief.  Because they have *never* 
themselves set any such example in the four wars over which they
either got us involved in unnecessarily, or refused to prosecute
properly once we *were* in. 
                                        H.R. Holm

  *standard disclaimers, comment my own*
  *pls to reply to the group only*     
                                           **********************************
                                           Bill 'n Al too, have what it takes
                                           to take us into a quagmire.......
                                           sometime....somehow...SOMEWHERE
                                           **********************************
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh