Daily Archives: March 28, 2011
Not that such an attempt should come as a huge surprise to anyone, but TP is attempting a common thing by the left – to paint the suppression of voters as a strictly Republican thing by misusing the word “conservative” and mischaracterizing history.
– JIM CROW SOUTH: In the Jim Crow South, historian Leon Litwack writes, “respectable” Southern whites justified their support for measures to disenfranchise African-Americans “as a way to reform and purify the electoral process, to root out fraud and bribery.” In North Carolina for example, conservatives insisted that literacy tests and poll taxes — which disenfranchised tens of thousands of African-Americans — were necessary to prevent “voter fraud.”
Left out is the identification of the “respectable” Southern whites, here provided context by Wikipedia:
Jim Crow laws were a product of the solidly Democratic South. Conservative white Southern Democrats, exploiting racial fear and attacking the corruption (real or perceived) of Reconstruction Republican governments, took over state governments in the South in the 1870s and dominated them for nearly 100 years, chiefly as a result of disenfranchisement of most blacks through statute and constitutions. In 1956, southern resistance to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education resulted in a resolution called the Southern Manifesto. It was read into the Congressional Record and supported by 96 southern congressmen and senators, all but two of them southern Democrats.
The above is inarguable history. Facts. That’s what happened. What the left has tried and failed to do for years is claim that “conservative Democrat” is the same as “Republican”. It is the only way they can whitewash (no pun intended) this period of history. But look at the cite from Wikipedia – what was it that these “conservative white Southern Democrats” displaced? Reconstruction Republican governments. Note the number of Southern Democrats who opposed any and all of the legislation of the Civil Rights era. All but a handful remained Democrats till they day they died. What the rewriters of history on the left want to do and try to convince you they were all really secret Republicans.
But who was it that opposed the integration of Little Rock’s Central High School and caused Republican President Eisenhower to send in federal troops to see it was done? A life long Democrat. Who was the Senator that was against all manner of integration and equality for blacks and was also a mentor to former President Bill Clinton? A life long Democrat. Who was it who participated in the Senate filibuster of civil rights legislation and was a former member of the KKK? A life long Democrat.
Jim Crow was a result of Democratic politics not Republican politics. Republicans were not welcome in the South during that era. The use of the word “conservative” as a means of deception is apparent and transparent. The fact that the South was solidly Democratic during the civil rights era with only 2 Republicans tells the real story. How the Democrats ever managed the slight of hand that has them become the heroes of the civil rights era is a lesson in and of itself of the power of propaganda.
In the case of Think Progress, the entire point of the post is to use misleading and anecdotal evidence in an attempt to claim that “conservatives”, i.e. Republicans, have engaged in the suppression of minority voters for years, when, in fact, it has been the Democrats. And it is to confuse attempts at guarding the integrity of the voting system (such as requiring a photo ID to vote) with such repression.
It’s a hack job and a pretty shoddy one too boot. But then, we’re talking Think Progress here … no surprises encountered.
You can this coming from a mile off:
As rebel forces backed by allied warplanes pushed toward one of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s most crucial bastions of support, the American military warned on Monday that the insurgents’ rapid advances could quickly be reversed without continued coalition air support.
“The regime still vastly overmatches opposition forces militarily,” Gen. Carter F. Ham, the ranking American in the coalition operation, warned in an email message on Monday. “The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened.”
Uh, okay, I accept the fact that without the coalition attacking Gadhafi ground units, the “rebels” wouldn’t be able to “advance” or enjoy any gains whatsoever.
But wasn’t the ostensible reason for establishing the no-fly zone and the reason for the UN mission to protect civilians from being killed by their government? Hasn’t that been accomplished?
So why do we care if “rebel advances” might be “quickly…reversed”?
Unless, of course, the real purpose of the mission, under the flag of “protecting civilians” is to run Gadhafi out of power? And, one then assumes, install a different government (the “rebels” one supposes, of whom we know very little except they come from an area that was one of the major provider of jihadists to Iraq and Afghanistan and one of their leaders admits to having served there in that capacity).
Then and only then does a concern for the state of the “rebel” advance make any sense or have any meaning at all.
General Ham’s warning, however, offered a somber counterpoint and underscored the essential role of Western airstrikes, now focused mainly on Colonel Qaddafi’s ground troops, in reversing the rebels’ fortunes. It also framed anew the question of how the poorly equipped and disorganized rebel forces might fare against Colonel Qaddafi’s garrison in Surt, where air cover may be less useful.
Wait, wait … again, if the mission is the protection of civilians who cares how the “poorly equipped and disorganized rebel forces” might fare anywhere?
That only matters if there’s a mission in addition to the stated one, i.e. protecting civilians.
Oh, and what happens if the “rebels”, in their push into territory mostly deemed to be that of Gadhafi supporters, begin killing civilians? Do we hit the “rebels” then? Or are civilians only a concern when Gadhafi’s military kills them?
Some will argue that the UN resolution authorized “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya. I assume the follow on argument is that the best way to “protect civilians” is to take sides and topple Gadhafi?
That’s certainly not how this war was described in the beginning – you know a “limited time, limited scope military action”? We were assured that it wouldn’t take long and it would only seek to keep the Libyan government from killing civilians.
Now we seem to be hinting around about the need for our airpower to support the cause of a rebellion that has the possibility – because they are so poorly equipped, untrained and disorganized – of lasting for months, if not years.
As you can tell, there are far more questions than apparent answers. I’m looking forward to Obama’s speech tonight. It should be an interesting affair. He’s got to communicate why he went to war, why UN sanctioning was sufficient for committing us to war, why he didn’t consult or seek Congressional approval, what the mission in Libya is and what the end state of that mission should be as well as an exit strategy.
Anyone want to bet how many of those questions will still remain unanswered after the speech?
I talked about it yesterday, but to reiterate, this is an action blessed by the UN and Arab League – and no one else. But there are those among our leadership who see it as a precedent to pretty much do whatever we want under the principle espoused by the UN – “Right to Protect” or R2P. This new “principle”, according to Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General of the UN, gives the UN the “right” to go after governments that are killing their own citizens. And not just with aircraft (something Sec. of State Clinton used to differentiate what was happening in Libya and Syria as an excuse not to move on Syria).
To illustrate my point, one only has to go to the Sunday shows for an example:
Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, said the events transpiring in Libya should send a strong message to the Syrian dictator.
“If he turns his weapons on his own people, he runs the risk,” Mr. Lieberman said on “Fox News Sunday.”
“There is a precedent now. … We’re not going to allow Assad to slaughter his own people.”
Of course my first question is “who is ‘we’, Mr. Lieberman?”
In the case of Libya, certainly not the American people. They were never consulted (though their representatives). If ever there was a unilateral decision to go to war, this provides the example.
Secondly, this is precisely what the Neo-cons were accused of championing – and it now seems it has evolved as a policy of the Obama administration. The irony is incredible. Especially after we saw the same administration pretend like the slaughter of protesters in Iran by the government was something to essentially ignore.
And I can’t help but observe that this smacks of more than anything is international bullying. Pick on a weak country that displeases others for whatever reason, come up with a high sounding reason to intervene and go to war. Who you are backing and what they are or stand for isn’t as much of a priority as establishing the precedent of the “right” to act internationally without worrying about those pesky legal impediments such as Constitutions and such. But if the country is strong militarily or has supporters in the region (Syria and the Arab League), make excuses for not applying the same standard to them. That’s precisely what we’re seeing with Syria.
One of the laugh out loud reasons for not applying the same standard to Syria was Clinton’s contention that the Syrian dictator Assad is a “reformer”.
That had the Syrian protesters shaking their head in wonder.
Ammar Abdulhamid, who has emerged as an unofficial spokesman in the West for the activists organizing the Syrian protests, said, however, that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was wrong to refer to Syrian President Bashar Assad as a reformer on CBS News on Sunday.
“It was ridiculous to call Bashar Assad a reformer. She should not have done that,” he said.
I’m reminded of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recent speech at West Point where he said that any president who committed us to another war in the Middle East should have his head examined.
Frankly, I agree. The unfortunate thing is this “precedent” as Joe Lieberman correctly identifies it, sets us up to commit to an unlimited number of wars in the Middle East and elsewhere – just so we manage to get a sanction of some sort of NGO or another in the process. We’re officially in the “others volunteering our military” business, the “world policeman’s league” with this action – and as I understood it that was something Democrats and left objected too strenuously.
What happened to that?