Please correct me if I’m wrong, but no American flagged ships were attacked nor were American citizens taken hostage on W’s watch. That’s an extremely recent change in the script. W got mau maued by the MSM for agressively fighting back against America’s enemies in the ME and SW Asia. Can you imagine what they’d have done to him for putting our sons and daughters in harms way in defending the interests of western nations other than our own?

There are eerie echoes here, which I expect others have mentioned: When the radicalized Islamic “students” climbed the fence of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took all the staff hostage, then-president James Earl Carter had a short critical period during which he could have responded vigorously without a heavy price. The new government forming under the gaze of the Ayutollah Ruholla Khomeini was just beginning to coalesce. They were uncertain for their own part whether to denounce the violation of the embassy, or applaud. After all, the inviolable sovereignty of Embassies had been one of the foundations of international diplomacy for many centuries, even between Islamic countries and their enemies.

The pathetic wavering and hand-wringing of Mr. Carter was at least consistent with his earlier foreign policies. (Remember Carter’s ringing metaphors – “a candle in the window” and “moral equivalent of war” – response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?) When Carter did nothing but whinge and sputter, the mullahs of the fledgling Islamic Republic of Iran saw that the seizure of the U.S. Embassy was an accomplished fact and proceeded to assist the “students” in their looting and bullying, while professing publicly that they exercised no control. In the fullness of time Carter began to realize that his failure to respond had opened a vast rent in the fabric of modern diplomacy and international relations.

Going back a few more decades, the leaders of Western Europe quaked and quavered, fearful to risk any response that might precipitate hostilities when Hitler’s troops marched into Czechoslovakia in 1938. This provocation was a clear violation of the treaty restrictions to which Germany had acquiesced in order to end World War I. Hitler’s own general staff had agreed among themselves to stage a coup against Hitler in the event there were any armed resistance by England or France. When those countries showed they were unwilling to risk so much as a platoon, Hitler’s officers resigned themselves to his leadership and plans. We all know where that path led.

A readiness to bully domestic critics and opponents does not equate to the resolute grit to resist a street thug, much less international chaos and tyranny.

Why is it a sad day ?

you’we nevew happy ! eithew you’d like to call us “suwwendew monkeys, eithew, collabowatows !

make up youw mind, we are minding ouw businesses !

sowwy fow the typos

Thanks for the reminder. The Germans were already infected with the Master Race delusion before WWI. Read Headquarters Nights for some first-hand reporting on how it pervaded Germany’s intellectual elites.

He destroyed European nationalism as a morally acceptable political undertaking.

I think it was actually Kaiser Wilhelm II who did that. WW I mostly destroyed European self confidence and physical courage. Hitler was just the most obnoxious jackal to step in and take advantage of it (or perhaps second-most obnoxious, considering Stalin). Britain and France did terrible jobs running the carved up Ottoman Empire and the (meager) overseas German possessions. A post-reconquista Spain or a Victorian Great Britain would have done far more to clean up the Mid East in the 1920′s than the emasculated (literally – their manhood lay dead on the battlefields) nations that emerged from the carnage.

No one would consciously choose that of course but feminism’s refusal to see the value of strong men which, necessitates at least some deferral from women, inevitably results in their choosing the only avenue open to the helpless… surrender.

Which marks feminism as a truely leftist phenomemon. All Leftist ideology, no matter how diverse or seemingly incompatible (e.g. gay rights activists and Islamist apologists) shares one thing: a narcissistic belief that everyone else is obligated to give “me” what “I” want.

In a reasonably civlized society, a woman who wants the benefits of having a man around would understand she needs to do something to make it worthwhile for him (and he the same). Their life together is ideally a partnership with each partner figuring out what he or she can contribute to make it worthwhile for the other party. A mutual, consentual agreement between equals. Just like a market economy – if I want something from you, I need to offer you something worthwhile in return.

But Leftists hate that. They think they’re owed whatever it is they want from me. I have no right to ask for something in return. Whether it’s feminists who want to be protected and provided for, but without having to admit it and without having their protectors and providers disagree with any of their decisions, or whether it’s under-ambitious layabouts who want a roof over their head but not the responsibility of making either rent or mortgage payments. It’s all the same – give me what I want but don’t ask anything in return.

They really are barbarians in the worst sense. Not even barbarians. Savages. They are, despite the clothes or degrees or social affectation, they are completely uncivilized. They have the same basic world view of primitive hunter-gatherer tribes from pre-history. They lay claim to whatever they can take, swindle or steal, and only back off when physically threatened. They are brutish, clannish, and have no true moral framework. Leftists are the ultimate reactionaries – they are as we all were before the dawn of civlization.

I won’t be at a Tea Party in the U.S. because I’m already out of the country escaping the Jug-Eared One’s punitive taxation. If I WAS in the U.S., however, I’d definitely be at a Tea Party, packing both a sign and some legal CCW heat.

http://exurbanleague.com/2009/04/09/obama-issues-statement-on-the-pirate-attack.aspx