Q: Are Republicans war mongers?
A: Columnist, Donna Brazile, says they are.
In her DDD column for 3-14-12, Donna Brazile, is in her usual form of dehumanizing Republicans, and praising the water-walking qualities of President Obama.
This time she is accusing the Republicans of "sword-rattling" over the Iranian nuclear build-up. She says that Republicans love war. She quotes New York Times columnist, David Brooks, saying "They (Republicans) don't want to be involved in it, but, boy, they love war."
This is an utterly ridiculous statement!!!! The history of the United States proves that no particular party has an exceptional proclivity for making war.
When hot-headed southern Democrats fired on Fort Sumter it forced Republican, Lincoln, to issue a call-to-arms; and the Civil War was started.
Republican, William McKinley, was president during the Spanish/American War. He sent our troops into Cuba after it was believed the U.S. Battleship Maine was sabotaged by the Spanish in Havana Harbor. It may have been a trumped-up war, but it was a very popular one.
Democrat president, Woodrow Wilson, was reluctant to enter World War I, but after German submarines kept sinking our ships, he committed a large U.S. expeditionary force into Europe, thus helping end the war. Once committed, the war had the complete support of the American people.
Democrats, Roosevelt & Truman, were presidents during WWII - Roosevelt for the long haul, and Truman ending it with atomic bombs on Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Americans rallied around the flag in this war in a spirit of dedication.
Democrat President, Truman, was still at the helm when he sent our troops into Korea in what he called a "police action." This "police action" involved many big battles, and put thousands of Americans under the ground. This was not a popular war. It ended during the administration of Republican President Eisenhower.
After the militant, but feeble, Bay of Pigs fiasco, Democratic President, John Kennedy sent the first U.S. advisers into the morass or Vietnam.
Then Democratic President, Lydon Johnson, escalated the war in Vietnam to high level infantry attacks and repeated aerial bombings. Vietnam so frustrated Johnson he refused to run for a second term.
Republican President, Richard Nixon, then took over in Vietnam, and continued aggressive warfare, including the bombing of Cambodia. He did, however, secure a Vietnam cease-fire in January of 1973. Vietnam was the most unpopular war the U.S. has ever been involved in.
Republican President, George Herbert Walker Bush, under the approval of NATO, launched Operation Desert Storm to squelch the "Madman of the middle-east," dictator, Saddam Hussein. The "Madman" had invaded Kuwait, taking over their oil fields. Our one month's destruction of Saddam's army made it a very popular war, and gave Bush at that time one of the largest approval ratings ever.
We must not forget the pacifists, Carter and Clinton. It is to their credit that nothing much happened during their administrations. Clinton did go along with
NATO in aerial bombings to induce Serbia to withdraw from the Kosovo region. He also orchestrated a couple of fizzled air attacks that hit the wrong targets. Carter's one strident move was an aborted helicopter rescue mission to release the Iranian hostages. His intentions were good.
Then came a Democratic bonanza: The perfect valentine card for the cupidity of war: The Second Bush.
It has been conveniently forgotten that before Bush attacked Iraq he had a great part of the world's approval, which included many Democrats of the U.S. Senate, and was approved by no less than the popular Democratic senator from New York, Hillary Clinton. Something had to be done about the "Madman."
It became a "bad war" when no weapons of mass destruction were found, and a gorilla type warfare continued. Memories forgotten, the politicize machine revved up to destroy Bush over the stupidity of this war. Tongue clucking pacifists abounded like green flies over a dead possum.
What it appears to be in U.S. warfare is that we are sometimes forced into it. (Pearl Harbor.) Or our leaders at the time THINK it is the right thing to do for our country. Sometimes we are highly successful, and sometimes mistakes are made. We don't take losing our soldiers lightly, and NEVER without good cause.
We have to wonder, however, if the "Madman" had continued in power, would we still be saying something has to be done about him?
There is one slack that Georg Bush has never been given: Why, like Wilson in WW1, Truman, in Korea, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, in Vietnam, has Bush never been given credit for at least "THINKING he was doing the right thing? Isn't there just a remote possibility?
Donna Brazile will tell you there is not a chance. Republicans love war, she says. This shows either a dismal lack of knowledge about history; or a sucker-in move assuming we are too stupid not to believe her.
President Obama seems to be making a credible effort to avoid war with economic sanctions against Iran, and attempting to negotiate a settlement. In the meantime, however, circumstances can prevail. Obama has been severely criticized for using drone warfare in Afghanistan that results in residual damage, and a high civilian death toll.
His presidential approval got Bin Laden, and he should be praised for it. But he has also used presidential-edict for terrorist assassinations that have included American citizens. Obama credits this to the expedient circumstances of war.
Haven't we heard this before somewhere?