Will the Real Giant Please Stand Up

Beldar responds to the argument now making the rounds via some dem political operatives - that our initiative in Iraq is cause not cure for a potential growth in terrorism.

Radical Islamic extremists are not like poison ivy — "don't scratch it, it'll only get worse!" The necessary premise of this argument is, "If we'd only — (choose one or more) — (a) let them alone, (b) treat them with due respect, (c) allow them to drive Israel into the sea, then they wouldn't keep flying airplanes into our buildings, blowing up school busses, kidnapping and beheading civilians, etc."

This is being talked about now for two reasons: 1) the left sees it as a way to help Kerry by trying to convince people "It's all "Bush's" fault; and 2 - it fits right into the left's way of thinking.

Many in my age bracket might remember the pride they felt upon seeing the release of a now old movie on Pearl Harbor - Tora! Tora! Tora! An early scene involving Japanese Commanders immediately after the carnage of the attack was, obviously, meant to buck up audience spirits as well as foreshadow the story.

Isoroku Yamamoto is credited with saying, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." The earliest citation for that theatrical comment, however, is the (reasonably accurate) movie, Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970). That quotation was accepted and repeated verbatim in the movie Pearl Harbor (2001). However, no one has been able to verify that Yamamoto ever actually said (or wrote) those words.

Whether Admiral Yamamoto actually said it or not is irrelevant. The fact is it was true and both the Germans and Japanese were given the message in an indisputable manner - they were killed in vast numbers. Today's left is uncomfortable seeing us as "giants." For some sad reason it seems to leave them wrapped in blankets trembling with goosebumbs at the thought of some great boogeyman right at the foot of their bed. Perhaps it is some form of utopianism or altruism that causes them to always want to "talk it out" when their house is being vandalized - I'm sure thugs of all sorts enjoy this type of "soft" response born of a naive moral equivalence. For me, I suffer no such mroal eqivalence.

Instead of being the awakened Giant, the left views terrorism as the giant and would have us practice compromise or appeasement to make a peace. But the fact is terrorists were not sleeping prior to 9-11, consequently there is absolutely no footing for the left's position.

It's been said that from time to time in our history our nation has confronted great challenges and the GWOT is simply our generation's challenge. I believe that. And to put that challenge in simple terms I'd posit that the real question is - Are we still "giant" in our principles and ideals, or are we not? And if we are, will we fight and sacrifice to defend our great principles, or will we not? Then, even having concluded that we are indeed a giant on the world stage, assuming you do, we must answer the next question - are we now a lackadaisical giant interested in swatting a fly or two before dozing back off - or have we truly awakened to the threat of Islamofascism? And does this giant possess the resolve to genuinely combat it to a reasonably decisive vistory?

I sometimes fear that we are, as it stands now possibly the last generation capable of stepping up to a great challenge like this and taking it on. I say that because I fear we, our generation, may be the last products of an educational system that celebrated America's short but gigantic history and took pride in its very nature. Much of today's liberalist driven education attempts to minimize America's roots, as well as it's heart and soul. Did we displace Indians and conquer lands and peoples to establish a "giant" nation? You're damned right we did and I have never understood the reasoning behind now being ashamed of it given what the world was at the time.

From the Pilgrims through to Washington, Jackson, Monroe, Lincoln, two Roosevelts, Truman, Reagan and now Bush, and many others, our heart and soul has always been about giants. We know that because we were taught that and we had examples to look to. The left would rob us of those examples through revisionist or a multi-culturualist history that attempts to undermine the very fabric of what has always made our nation a great melting pot, combining the best parts of the many to reveal a single, strong united whole.

While text books matter, what matters more today is what we do and what example we set for future generations. Will we be a nation acknowledging and deserving of our strong and rich heritage for that which is "giant," or will we become a nation of "small," even if good men like a Jimmy Carter and an eqivocating Kerry? There is only one "giant" running for President on November 2nd. I hope this nation has the good sense to elect him and once again establish a bond with the great legacy of our past. To do anything else would be to abandon our great heritage and continue to set the stage for a great unraveling of what was once "A Shining City."

We must stand tall on November 2nd. And while that simple act of many individuals will make no individual man or woman a "giant," in the common sense; together it will once again establish for the world that the United States of America, as it has been for two-hundred years, is still the giant on the world stage. I believe the world must be told that we are not only fully awakened but also determined to meet any and all current challenges. If future generations of Americans are to be weaned on a true American heritage, as opposed to some weak and watered down variety, we must be examples of that heritage. Yes, there is much to be done to address our current system of education - that's another battle for another day.

But as regards our future history, the history that will be taught tomorrow - it is being formed today. Each of us has a chance to be a part of that on Nov 2nd. Ask yourself what message you'd leave for future generations when you cast your vote on Nov 2. Would you prefer your great grand children think of America and Americans as a soft people, questionable at best when asked to answer to some great call - or would you like to hold out hope that one day years from now our hiers can look back to our generation for their moorings and conclude that America is still a land of giants, the vast majority of whom will always choose to not sleep whenever the clarion calls, no matter how dark or threatening and confusing be the night.

Comments

[Terry Gain]

Your reference to Beldar's blog is timely given bin Laden's appeal to America: "leave us alone and we'll leave you alone". Although only a fool would believe this promise there is a chance that America will elect just such a fool next Tuesday.

Although Kerry would not dare to make this argument until after he is elected his supporters will argue that a deal is possible . He and his supporters have after all argued, without fear of contradiction in the MSM, that the war in Iraq has created more terrorists-as if freeing 25 million Muslims creates terrorists.

(They argue that the war in Iraq was a diversion from the war on terrorism and yet the war on terrorism has intensified in Iraq and the kill ratio is decidedly in our favor, for example 30 terrorists for every American in the battle for Najaf. The kill ratio on 9/11 was about 150:1 in their favor. Kerry and company do not understand that if the terrorists were not in Iraq they would be someplace else planning other attacks.)

It is hard to understand how we can win the war on terror without winning the war in Iraq. It is hard to understand how any serious minded person can say that the war in Iraq is not essential to the war on terror -certainly the terrorists regard it a a crucial front.

Kerry claims, as he did again yesterday, that he will hunt down bin Laden (and the terrorists). I've never understood why removing a brutal regime and helping the Iraqis to establish a civilized society breeds more terrorists but hunting down terrorists or even threatening to hunt down terrorists has no similar effect. This is one of the myths advanced by the Kerry campaign and their supporters in the intelligence community.

In the off chance there is an undecided voter in Florida or Ohio reading this blog I would like to address another myth of the Kerry campaign and point out yet another Kerry flip flop.

The myth relates to kerry's claim that he will continue the war on terror. Kerry says he will hunt down terrorists but he doen't say how. No one in MSM has bothered to ask him whether, if bin Laden is in Pakistan, won't he have to outsource the job to the Pakistanis, or does he really think U. S. troops will be welcome on Pakistani soil. I guess we would see a flp flop on outsourcing.

What if bin Laden is in Iran and the mullahs refuse to hand him over? If he didn't think we should have gone into Iraq will he nevertheless advocate going into Iran. If he wasn't prepared to go into the country led by the world biggest mass murderer and biggest sponsor of terrorism, a man in breach of numerous U. N. resolutions, would he go into Iran or Syria. And would he go in alone or does he honestly contend that his friends at the U. N. would approve of force when surely some other method such as talking might work.

The Kerry flip flop relates to his claim that Bush let bin Laden escape from Tora Bora by outsoucing the job.(It's hard to believe that this kind of high schoolish allegation makes it into the campaign without someone from MSM pointing out that it was not Bush's decision to use Afghans and in any event Tommy Franks has denied Kerry's allegations.)

Here's the flip coutesy of David Brooks of NYT.

'But politics has shaped Kerry's approach to this whole issue. Back in December 2001, when bin Laden was apparently hiding in Tora Bora, Kerry supported the strategy of using Afghans to hunt him down. He told Larry King that our strategy "is having its impact, and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively, and we should continue to do it that way."

Dealing with the generational challenge. It is apparent that the generation represented by those in their 20's and 30's has risen to the occasion. They have courageously placed their lives on the line in Iraq. The issue in this election is whether their parents' generation and their grandparents generation, the dopey ME generation, the generation of John Kerry, will get over Vietnam and allow this courageous generation do a job they are choosing not to shirk. Leave them alone to win this war, for themseves and for future generations and even for us.

[Merlin]

Anyone remember this >>http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1