Quote of the day

posted at 11:00 pm on September 16, 2007 by Allahpundit

“To leading Democrats such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Al Gore and John Edwards, America would be better off if she lost. And this has been true from the start.

To rephrase the question: Why did Harry Reid announce months ago that the war was lost when it wasn’t, and everyone knew it wasn’t? The wish is father to the deed. He was envisioning the world of his dreams.

The Democrats’ embrace of defeat is inspired by no base desire to see Americans killed or American resources wasted. But let’s be honest about it, and invite the Democrats to be honest too.

Appeasement, pacifism, globalism: Those are the Big Three principles of the Democratic left. Each one has been defended by serious people; all are philosophically plausible, or at least arguable. But they are unpopular (especially the first two) with the U.S. public, and so the Democrats rarely make their views plain. We must infer their ideas from their (usually) guarded public statements…

If you believe in appeasement, defeat in Iraq would show that we were wrong to stop talking and start fighting. If you believe in pacifism, defeat would demonstrate that war is futile even if your motives are good. If you believe in globalism, defeat would suggest that we should have acted strictly in concert with world opinion. In short, if you do believe in appeasement, pacifism, globalism (and many leading Democrats do), your wish for defeat is no evil or traitorous urge. It is merely logical.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Good column and opinion. Call me a naive optimist but appealing to the arguments regarding pacifism vs peace through strength has a better chance of causing those changes within the Democratic party.
The democrats are traitors mantra puts too many people on the defensive who otherwise may be swayed by logical counterarguments.
Getting someone to change party affiliation or support for straight tickets is akin to making someone change their religion (or convert to a religion ;) ).

Bradky on September 16, 2007 at 11:14 PM

Long story short… Dubya’s re-election was never ever going to go unpunished by the Defeatocrats no matter what Dubya’s hand touched. He just makes it so darn easy for them to punish him, it’s like he enjoys it.

SilverStar830 on September 16, 2007 at 11:15 PM

In short, if you do believe in appeasement, pacifism, globalism (and many leading Democrats do), your wish for defeat is no evil or traitorous urge. It is merely logical emotional.

Just a little editing and presto! – good article – and great minds think alike..

Mcguyver on September 16, 2007 at 11:18 PM

Why did Harry Reid announce months ago that the war was lost when it wasn’t, and everyone knew it wasn’t? The wish is father to the deed. He was envisioning the world of his narcissistic dreams to stay in power.

More free editing – I’m only to happy to help – your welcome.

Mcguyver on September 16, 2007 at 11:22 PM

In short, if you do believe in appeasement, pacifism, globalism (and many leading Democrats do), your wish for defeat is no evil or traitorous urge.

-
Yes it is.
-
By wishing for those things (including the defeat) they are wishing for, and aiding in, the destruction of our country. Along with our liberties (or what is left of them anyway).

Herikutsu on September 16, 2007 at 11:24 PM

To leading Democrats such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Al Gore and John Edwards, America would be better off if she lost they were president. And this has been true from the start.

You owe me nothing.

Mcguyver on September 16, 2007 at 11:25 PM

But let’s be honest about it, and invite the Democrats to be honest too.

I’ll stuff the envelopes, lick the stamps and send out the invitations if you write the script.

Mcguyver on September 16, 2007 at 11:31 PM

It really makes little difference to the Iraq “situation” what Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Al Gore and John Edwards or Winnie the Pooh for that matter say about it as long as a majority in congress continue to fund it as they have been doing and Bush is CIC. It is just fluff in the wind.

Of course if the Republican Presidential candidate advocates keeping to present Iraqi “strategy” the HildaBeast™, who would otherwise have little chance of being elected President, may ride an anti Iraq war wave on the part of the American people to the White House (see what happened in the congressional elections of 2006 for reference point) and that might or might not, as with her you just can’t tell, change.

MB4 on September 16, 2007 at 11:34 PM

Reminds me a bit of a piece Ace wrote on 9/11.

Good column and opinion. Call me a naive optimist but appealing to the arguments regarding pacifism vs peace through strength has a better chance of causing those changes within the Democratic party.
The democrats are traitors mantra puts too many people on the defensive who otherwise may be swayed by logical counterarguments.
Getting someone to change party affiliation or support for straight tickets is akin to making someone change their religion (or convert to a religion ;) ).

Bradky on September 16, 2007 at 11:14 PM

I kinda agree with this, but not quite. I don’t think that it’ll make any actual changes in the Dem. leadership in terms of what they actually think, but it might shame the little bastards out of pursuing their defeatist, and in the longrun, pacifist suicidal agenda.

And I agree, the traitor mantra is overplayed, among us common folk, its bad, and probably not true for many people, they’re just swayed by the left’s nutty message, and haven’t heard good counterargument from conservatives, or aren’t focused enough on what’s going on, and casually fall one way or the other.

Bad Candy on September 16, 2007 at 11:46 PM

Appeasement Ass kissing, pacifism pale faces, globalism goat herding: Those are the Big Three principles of the Democratic pin head left. Each one has been defended by serious snarly people; all are philosophically psychiatrically plausible, or at least arguable. But they are unpopular (especially the first two three) with the U.S. public, and so the Democrats rarely make their views plain tell the truth. We must infer their ideas from their (usually) guarded gorgeous public political statements statues…

Mcguyver on September 16, 2007 at 11:48 PM

Herikutsu on September 16, 2007 at 11:24 PM

Read the next line, he’s just saying that this crazy ideology that the left has is a natural conclusion of their beliefs.

Bad Candy on September 16, 2007 at 11:48 PM

Mcguyver,

In short, if you do believe in appeasement, pacifism, globalism (and many leading Democrats do), your wish for defeat is no evil or traitorous urge. It is merely logical emotional.”

I don’t agree with your edit here. I think Gelernter’s original articulation (“It is merely logical.”) is more accurate, and really quite brilliant. I too am furious at the Democrats for their defeatism. Given their incorrect initial assumptions or “axioms”, (ie. “appeasement, pacifism and globalism are always good”), wishing for America’s defeat is indeed “no evil or traitorous urge”, it is simply the logical ramification of the above incorrect axiom. The wording “it is merely logical” strikes me as exactly correct. The Democrats are indeed being entirely logical, given their initial (incorrect) beliefs.

To leading Democrats such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Al Gore and John Edwards, America would be better off if she lost they were president. And this has been true from the start.

I disagree with your edit here as well. While I have no doubt Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton et al dream of power day and night, it seems clear to me that they do believe America would be better off if she lost, for the above mentioned reasons. Frankly, every candidate, Democrat or Republican, thinks America would be better off if they were President. It is critical to specifically state here that Democrats feel America would be better off if she lost, for the logical reasons articulated above.

dave_lantos on September 16, 2007 at 11:55 PM

Pray to got they never get it. Indeed. This will come true if any one of the democrats now running get elected.

Kini on September 17, 2007 at 12:00 AM

got = god, cripes

Kini on September 17, 2007 at 12:02 AM

dave_lantos on September 16, 2007 at 11:55 PM

There problem is not – I promise you that they’re defeatists – It is, “If I was in power then I would get the credit for keeping America safe”.

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:02 AM

Excellent article. He nailed the great Democrat trifecta:
Appeasement, pacifism, globalism

I noticed you left out some of the paragraph you led off with:

The issue is deeper. It’s time for Americans to ask some big questions. Do leading Democrats want America to win this war? Have they ever? Of course not–and not because they are traitors. To leading Democrats such as…

I think the rest of the article makes a pretty good case for disagreeing with this part: and not because they are traitors.

INC on September 17, 2007 at 12:04 AM

I don’t know which is worser, wanting America to fail so Democrats can win elections, or wanting America to fail because the defeatist attitude “only makes sense” to most Democrats core beliefs (appeasement, pacifism, globalism)?

The answer is the latter, although I suspect both are true.

Ordinary1 on September 17, 2007 at 12:08 AM

Hi Mcguyver,
I don’t think the left-right struggle today is over power for power’s sake, regardless of how power hungry Hillary comes across as. I believe this is a very real ideological battle, as Gelernter states, between those who actually believe that “appeasement, pacifism and globalism are always good” on the one hand, and those who are first and foremost loyal to their own nation, “and seek harmony with its Founders and heroes and guiding principles” on the other.

dave_lantos on September 17, 2007 at 12:14 AM

This article is excellent. Gelernter has really hit the nail on the head here.

dave_lantos on September 17, 2007 at 12:20 AM

The Democrats’ embrace of defeat is inspired by no base desire to see Americans killed or American resources wasted. But let’s be honest about it, and invite the Democrats to be honest too.

Now for Code Pink, Moveon.org, and the like, that’s a different story.

- The Cat

MirCat on September 17, 2007 at 12:22 AM

dave_lantos,
Then why did the libs change tune from right after 9-11 to now?

They know that a voting majority want to be protected which is also the presidents sworn duty.

I believe they played party politics to get votes/support/brochure headlines and have now been caught red faced implying Petraues is a lier.

Their hatred for Bush “stealing the elections” is what kicked started this downward spiral.

And by the way, MB4 – the republicans didn’t lose ’06 because of the war – otherwise how come Liebermann won by a landslide as a independent – in the liberal kook state of Connecticut?

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:23 AM

And by the way, MB4 – the republicans didn’t lose ‘06 because of the war – otherwise how come Liebermann won by a landslide as a independent – in the liberal kook state of Connecticut?

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:23 AM

Liebermann was an outlier. Do the math.

“In statistics, an outlier is an observation that is numerically distant from the rest of the data. Statistics derived from data sets that include outliers [and certainly depend on them] will often be [very] misleading.”

MB4 on September 17, 2007 at 12:30 AM

Read the next line, he’s just saying that this crazy ideology that the left has is a natural conclusion of their beliefs.

-

Yeah, I almost included the “it is merely logical” part in my orignial quote, but I thought it distracted from my original point. The point I was after is that, even though they may be reaching a logical conclusion based on their wacky belief system, the fact that it is logical has no bearing on whether or not it turns out to be traitorous.
-
An act is traitorous because of its results (harm or betrayal), not because of the reasons or motives behind it.
-
The logic or illogic underlying the actions is not (imo) relevant to the question of whether or not the actions are traitorous.
-
I agree with some of the earlier points that calling someone a traitor does not help move the debate in a positive direction. But if that is what a person’s actions amount to, then that is what they are – even if we refrain from using the T word.

Herikutsu on September 17, 2007 at 12:30 AM

Wars are, of course, as a rule to be avoided; but they are far better than certain kinds of peace.
Theodore Roosevelt

“[E]very lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand—the ultimatum. And what then?” —Ronald Reagan

[I]f you yield to a threat, you do so in order to avoid war, and more often than not, you do not avoid war. For those before whom you have thus openly demeaned yourself by yielding, will not stop there, but will seek to extort further concessions, and the less they esteem you the more incensed will they become against you. On the other hand, you will find your supporters growing cooler towards you, since they will look upon you as weak or pusillanimous. But if, as soon as you become aware of your adversary’s intentions, you prepare to use force, even though your forces be inferior to his, he will begin to respect you, and, since those with which you were allied will now esteem you, they will be ready to help when you begin to arm, which they would never have done had you given up.
–Niccolo Machiavelli, Discourses Book II, Chapter 14.
Written in 1517.

Plato, “Only the dead know the end of war.”

Speakup on September 17, 2007 at 12:33 AM

MB4 on September 17, 2007 at 12:30 AM

Are you trying to debate with reasoned logic or just trying to appear superior?

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:36 AM

MB4,
When you come back with with reasonable debate logic instead of stats not related to why people voted for Liebermann – I’m in – otherwise start writing the invitation-to-honesty script for the liberals.

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:40 AM

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:36 AM

Have you stopped beating your wife?

MB4 on September 17, 2007 at 12:40 AM

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:40 AM

So why do you think that Democrats made such huge gains in both houses of congress in 2006 then?

Do you think that it was on account of their good looks?

There were some things other than stuck in Iraq going on that could account for lesser gains, but the huge gains that they made?

Come on.

MB4 on September 17, 2007 at 12:46 AM

Herikutsu,
I suppose it depends on how you define America’s purpose in the world. If America’s purpose in the world is to promote “appeasement, pacifism and globalism”, then Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton are not traitorous (and indeed, then perhaps General Petraeus is). On the other hand, if America’s purpose in the world is to stick to its Judeo-Christian roots and spread freedom (“Freedom is not America’s gift to the world, it is the Almighty G-d’s gift to every man and woman in this world.”… one of many quotes by the President that really rankled the left), then perhaps Harry Reid’s declaration of failure is traitorous.

dave_lantos on September 17, 2007 at 12:46 AM

MB4,
Were the liberals in the kook state of Connecticut voting for their fringe left – were they being honest to themselves?

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:47 AM

MB4,
Acording to your outlier stats – if any of the current republican candidates were to run as an outlier – they would win by a landslide….pick one… they are all pro-war as is Liebermann.

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:48 AM

So why do you think that Democrats made such huge puny gains in both houses of congress in 2006 then?

All elections have been very “tight” since Bush took office….

Come on… I know you can be intellectually honest…… or…. wait….you’re just trying to make sense?

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:51 AM

Do you think that it was on account of their good looks?

Most Zell Miller Dems are still voting for statues….and yours is not included.

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:52 AM

at 12:40 AM

Go to Eharmony.com to find a wife that you can beat up debate with.

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:55 AM

MB4,
I’m not convinced that Leiberman’s victory was simply an “outlier” either. 2006 may have been more of a statement of “we want change” (ie. not the Republicans) rather than an Iraq-related thing. On a separate note, it would be nice if you were a bit more polite to people on this board. We conservatives need to stick together.

Mcguyver,
I’m not sure why the liberals changed their tune from right after 9-11 to now. Gelernter mentions that liberals have been pushing this (rather unpopular) “appeasement, pacifism and globalism” agenda for quite some time now, dating to before the Vietnam war. I suspect that the liberal powers that be laid off the gas a bit just after 9/11, realizing that this already unpopular philosophy would be even more unpopular just after 9/11. As 9/11 receded in people’s minds over the years, perhaps Soros and other lefty powers that be calculated that they could slowly crank up the volume again.

dave_lantos on September 17, 2007 at 12:57 AM

As 9/11 receded in people’s minds over the years, perhaps Soros and other lefty powers that be calculated that they could slowly crank up the volume again.

dave_lantos on September 17, 2007 at 12:57 AM

You can write yourself into the history books, buddy.

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 1:03 AM

MB4,
Acording to your outlier stats – if any of the current republican candidates were to run as an outlier – they would win by a landslide….pick one… they are all pro-war as is Liebermann.

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:48 AM

What we got here is… failure to communicate.
- Captain, Road Prison 36

You appear to have missed my whole point. Outliers are the exception, not the rule.

MB4 on September 17, 2007 at 1:03 AM

Outliers are the exception, not the rule.

In this very intense debate of war or not war, Liebermann’s case was not an exception – it mattered too much to the voters……

I know your are trying to make sense….I’m still waiting.

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 1:11 AM

On a separate note, it would be nice if you were a bit more polite to people on this board. We conservatives need to stick together.

dave_lantos on September 17, 2007 at 12:57 AM

I endeavor to be at least as polite to other commenters as they are to me, usually much more so. Many have said I am not even a conservative, but a kos kidz or worse. Just today, for example, on another thread, “Apparently, MB4, you never studied history. Perhaps you should take a remedial course (hint: go to a PRIVATE school for best results).
When you are ready to graduate, try answering the following:”, translation: “You are very stupid MB4″.

I am very restrained.

MB4 on September 17, 2007 at 1:14 AM

I am very restrained.

MB4 on September 17, 2007 at 1:14 AM

———-> Here’s a kudo. That’s good. Seriously.

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 1:17 AM

dave_lantos on September 17, 2007 at 12:46 AM

-

What you say is true, although I was not thinking about Harry Reid or anybody else in particular.
-
So even though I agree that how one defines America’s purpose can lead to different viewpoints (the application of logic), I don’t think that all viewpoints are equally valid – even if they are completely logical.
-
Here I differentiate between logic (rigid rules of thinking such as if A = B and B=C then A=C) and reason, which includes a reality test (something that does not conform to reality may be logical, but it is not reasonable).

-

In my view America’s purpose in the world (the purpose for which it was founded) is to guarantee and protect the innate human rights of it’s citizens, against all enemies, where ever they are (“foreign or dommestic”). By doing so it serves as an inspiration and beacon of liberty to other nations less blessed.
-
So anything that works against that purpose is destructive to the nation. If Harry and friends want to define some other purpose that contradicts the Founding Principles, they are essentially converting America into something that it was never intended to be.
-
As far as federal elected officials go, they took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, so this puts certain contstraints on what they can say or do while in office.

Herikutsu on September 17, 2007 at 1:17 AM

Mcguyver said:

You can write yourself into the history books, buddy.

Huh? I don’t know what that means.

dave_lantos on September 17, 2007 at 1:20 AM

at 1:20 AM

It’s means, “you can write that in stone – it’s so dead on.”

meaning **this:

realizing that this already unpopular philosophy (appeasement) would be even more unpopular just after 9/11. As 9/11 receded in people’s minds over the years, perhaps Soros and other lefty powers that be calculated that they could slowly crank up the volume again.

…is a jewel in debate value.

Now do you understand?

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 1:25 AM

Mcguyver,
Yeah, now it’s clear. I thought “you can write yourself into the history books” meant you were ticked off at me for some reason. :D

dave_lantos on September 17, 2007 at 1:31 AM

I think that the Republicans lost in some close races because of the Mark Foley “October surprise” combined with the constant drumbeat of “corruption” from the Dumocrats, who were lying as they always do. Also some Republicans stayed at home because they didn’t like the way the war in Iraq was being run. They wanted a much harsher war or to install a “glass parking lot” there.

TruthToBeTold on September 17, 2007 at 1:31 AM

He’s right. It is logical.

“You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason—if you pick the proper postulates. We have ours and Cutie has his.”

“Then let’s get at those postulates in a hurry. The storm’s due tomorrow.”

Powell sighed wearily. “That’s where everything falls down. Postulates are based on assumptions and adhered to by faith. Nothing in the Universe can shake them…”

–Isaac Asimov, Reason (1941)

“Cutie” is the nickname for the supervisory robot QT-1. Prior to the above quote, QT-1 establishes a quasi-religion to justify his function and the robots under him chant, “There is no master but the Master and QT-1 is his prophet!” Asimov lampoons religion, specifically Islam.

The libs are following their iron logic without deviation. And they say conservatives are rigid.

I think libs’ flexibility is in their “facts”.

JimC on September 17, 2007 at 1:33 AM

at 1:31 AM

I’m never been accused of being oblique when I’m ticked off – and never will. ;)

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 1:35 AM

I don’t agree with your edit here. I think Gelernter’s original articulation (”It is merely logical.”) is more accurate, and really quite brilliant. I too am furious at the Democrats for their defeatism. Given their incorrect initial assumptions or “axioms”, (ie. “appeasement, pacifism and globalism are always good”), wishing for America’s defeat is indeed “no evil or traitorous urge”, it is simply the logical ramification of the above incorrect axiom. The wording “it is merely logical” strikes me as exactly correct. The Democrats are indeed being entirely logical, given their initial (incorrect) beliefs.

It can be logical and treasonous at the same time. And it is. It is ceratinly logical based on their prepsoterous belief structure. But Benedict Arnold was being logical, too. He was also being patriotic to his country-of-choice, Britain. Being patriotic to an abstract ideal (particularly, as implemented in other parts of the world) over your own country, IS treason. They/you may think it’s noble/rational/whatever; but people are using the T-word for a reason: Because it fits. Don’t like it? Tough s***. Truth hurts sometimes.

Oh, and DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!!

urbancenturion on September 17, 2007 at 1:40 AM

Liebermann’s case was not an exception – it mattered too much to the voters……

So Liebermann’s winning was the rule and the huge number of seats that the democrats won was the exception? New math? LOL!!!

I know your are trying to make sense….I’m still waiting.

I will continue to show restraint as I do not want a tounge lashing from dave_lantos for being impolite as I got a scolding even when being polite.

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 1:11 AM

MB4 on September 17, 2007 at 1:40 AM

I think that the Republicans lost in some close races because of the Mark Foley “October surprise” combined with the constant drumbeat of “corruption” from the Dumocrats,

Corrrrrect.

They wanted a much harsher war or to install a “glass parking lot” there.

Corrrrrrrrrect again.

Why else did Liebermann, a war hawk – win in a landslide as an independent in a very liberal state – after being thrown off the bus by the Dimmmis?

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 1:42 AM

I am very restrained.

MB4 on September 17, 2007 at 1:14 AM

———-> Here’s a kudo. That’s good. Seriously.

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 1:17 AM

I am very restrained, unless there is a full moon out of course, then all bets are off.

MB4 on September 17, 2007 at 1:44 AM

So **Liebermann’s winning was the rule and the huge number of seats that the democrats won by a puny majority vote. was the exception?

Yes Liebermann’s winning “war hawk” strategy in a very liberal state, ruled the day because people were voting their heart and their conscience.

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 1:47 AM

unless there is a full moon out.

We’re not going moon batty trust me.

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 1:50 AM

Bad Candy wrote: “the traitor mantra is overplayed”

I disagree.

In the strict sense of the word, the Democrats are being traitors. They are giving aid and comfort to our enemy by giving him what he cannot achieve by himself on the battlefield — victory.

The fact that their motivation is for political gain only makes it worse, because as far as I am concerned, treason for political advantage is the worst kind of treason possible. Selling out the country for money is bad enough. Betraying the country to obtain political power is much, much worse.

They are what they are, and I intend to continue calling them traitors.

georgej on September 17, 2007 at 3:39 AM

I still wish someone in the MSM, anyone, would have taken bin Laden’s latest message and compared it, with video clips, of Hillary, Murtha, Durbin, Obama and the rest of the surrender now crew. The message should be very clear that when you and our nations #1 enemy agree something is very screwed up and these people seem to agree with bin Laden much more than with President Bush.

Has anyone noticed that the left isn’t screaming about Haliburton now that Soros owns a huge chunk of it?

Buzzy on September 17, 2007 at 8:17 AM

Appeasement, pacifism, globalism:

UnAmericanism.
Here’s the poster boy for each:

Appeasement: Neville Chamberlain, history’s best example of peace through weakness.

Pacifism: I doubt they’re talking about passive resistance and more along the lines of being the world’s dormat.

Globalism: Better known as: Who can we deflect blame to when we screw up?

BKennedy on September 17, 2007 at 8:19 AM

Has anyone noticed that the left isn’t screaming about Haliburton now that Soros owns a huge chunk of it?

Buzzy on September 17, 2007 at 8:17 AM

Ha! Good one.

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 10:34 AM

Appeasement, pacifism, globalism: Those are the Big Three principles of the Democratic left Republicans.

PRCalDude on September 17, 2007 at 11:21 AM