"0ne of those pathetic bloggers who tries to make a living out of attacking other bloggers and media folk in an effort to illicit a reaction and draw traffic to his site." -- Owen Robinson of Boots and Sabers
From a Tuesday post about how a ground based missile interceptor system has been activated in the past few weeks and might be called upon to shoot down a North Korean missile:
Were it up to the Democrats, there would be no defense available against ICBM launches aimed at the US. It remains the position of the Left that, in effect, we should "lay back and enjoy it," exactly parallel to their position on concealed weapons for personal defense.
Wait, after two decades of money going down a black hole we have a functioning defense against ICBM missiles? When we don't know when they're coming? Or going from where? Or packing the odd GPS device for tracking?
The Brawler is aware dad29 was troubled by names hurled in his direction in a previous post. That's somewhat perplexing, given Dad29's admiration of the dissembling and slandering Ann Coulter and Joe McCarthy.
Yes, that Joe McCarthy. The one, who as the Onion once pointed out, was going to find a list of Communists at the bottom of a bottle.
The Brawler was going to write a lengthy explanation of why Dad29's admiration is misplaced when he says things like this:
Joe McCarthy is a hero. Yeah, he drank. Yeah, he used nasty words to describe Dean Acheson, and Felix Frankfurter, and other jackasses of their ilk.
He's still a hero.
But it's late and, man, where do you start. WIth how he tried to free SS troops who executed American soldiers? See? Where do you start?
In my view, people should be forbidden to praise or excuse Joe McCarthy on pain of heavy fines until they have submitted a signed and notarized declaration that they have (a) reflected upon the careers of Dean Acheson and George Marshall, (b) acknowledged that the World Communist Conspiracy had no greater or more effective foes in the aftermath of World War II than Dean Acheson, George Marshall, and their boss Harry Truman, and (c) read Joe McCarthy's Senate speech of June 14, 1951:
Here's the start of that speech:
How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that men high in this Government are concerting to deliver us to disaster? This must be the product of a great conspiracy, a conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. A conspiracy of infamy so black that, when it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men.
Who constitutes the highest circles of this conspiracy? About that we cannot be sure. We are convinced that Dean Acheson, who steadfastly serves the interests of nations other than his own, the friend of Alger Hiss, who supported him in his hour of retribution, who contributed to his defense fund, must be high on the roster. The President? He is their captive. I have wondered, as have you, why he did not dispense with so great a liability as Acheson to his own and his party's interests. It is now clear to me. In the relationship of master and man, did you ever hear of man firing master? Truman is a satisfactory front. He is only dimly aware of what is going on.
I do not believe that Mr. Truman is a conscious party to the great conspiracy, although it is being conducted in his name. I believe that if Mr. Truman bad the ability to associate good Americans around him, be would have behaved as a good American in this most dire of all our crises.
It is when we return to an examination of General Marshall's record since the spring of 1942 that we approach an explanation of the carefully planned retreat from victory, Let us again review the Marshall record, as I have disclosed it from all the sources available and all of them friendly. This grim and solitary man it was who, early in World War II, determined to put his impress upon our global strategy, political and military.
No doubt dad29 will point out how Joe's been misunderstood, that for decades his greatness has been covered up by the liberal media. (Like Barone, for instance). But when he points to "history" produced by the likes of the factually challenged Coulter, I'm not swayed that we've been bamboozled on this point.
And no doubt he will say how FDR and HST abandoned East Europe and China to the Commies. (Though don't know if he would add that Churchill had essentially ceded a chunk of Eastern Europe to Stalin in '44). The great Yalta betrayal. Yadayadayada. To which I would say if he thinks the U.S. public would have tolerated going to war against the Soviet Union after World War II to rescue Eastern Europe -- or force a case that depended on a credible threat of force of arms -- I think he's mistaken. Ditto the notion that the US public would have accepted an invasion of China to support Chiang Kai-Shek.
The US public was up in arms about how slowly soldiers were being demobbed after the War.
I don't think there was any namecalling here, was there? Also, dad, if you're reading: no one's blocking you from making a comment.