Calling it as he saw it
The anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall was two days ago, granted, but I keep rereading Reagan speechwriter Anthony Dolan’s Sunday op-ed in the Wall Street Journal for its relevance to the political correctness exhibited this week toward enemies of the state. Dolan recounts the fierce battle among the State Department, National Security Council (in the form of then-deputy adviser Colin Powell), and others to get the offending sentence “Tear down this wall” stripped from the president’s Berlin speech of June 1987.
The advisers little understood that the line was Reagan’s own, and came not simply from a provocative whim but from Reagan’s “caring about larger ideas” and a recognition that communist regimes weren’t simply “other”; they were also criminal.
Reagan had the carefully arrived at view that criminal regimes were different, that their whole way of looking at the world was inverted, that they saw acts of conciliation as weakness, and that rather than making nice in return they felt an inner compulsion to exploit this perceived weakness by engaging in more acts of aggression. All this confirmed the criminal mind’s abiding conviction in its own omniscience and sovereignty, and its right to rule and victimize others.
The players have changed, but the morality play at work in the run against Islamic regimes and their terrorist offspring is very similar.














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top27 Comments to “Calling it as he saw it”
Anthony Dolan is correct about Reagan but wrong about Obama.
From the speech at Ft. Hood:
These are trying times for our country. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America, our allies, and innocent Afghans and Pakistanis. In Iraq, we are working to bring a war to a successful end, as there are still those who would deny the Iraqi people the future that Americans and Iraqis have sacrificed so much for.
As we face these challenges, the stories of those at Fort Hood reaffirm the core values that we are fighting for, and the strength that we must draw upon. Theirs are tales of American men and women answering an extraordinary call – the call to serve their comrades, their communities, and their country. In an age of selfishness, they embody responsibility. In an era of division, they call upon us to come together. In a time of cynicism, they remind us of who we are as Americans.
We are a nation that endures because of the courage of those who defend it. We saw that valor in those who braved bullets here at Fort Hood, just as surely as we see it in those who signed up knowing that they would serve in harm’s way.
We are a nation of laws whose commitment to justice is so enduring that we would treat a gunman and give him due process, just as surely as we will see that he pays for his crimes.
We are a nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as one chooses. And instead of claiming God for our side, we remember Lincoln’s words, and always pray to be on the side of God.
We are a nation that is dedicated to the proposition that all men and women are created equal. We live that truth within our military, and see it in the varied backgrounds of those we lay to rest today. We defend that truth at home and abroad, and we know that Americans will always be found on the side of liberty and equality. That is who we are as a people.
Tomorrow is Veterans Day. It is a chance to pause, and to pay tribute – for students to learn of the struggles that preceded them; for families to honor the service of parents and grandparents; for citizens to reflect upon the sacrifices that have been made in pursuit of a more perfect union.
For history is filled with heroes. You may remember the stories of a grandfather who marched across Europe; an uncle who fought in Vietnam; a sister who served in the Gulf. But as we honor the many generations who have served, I think all of us – every single American – must acknowledge that this generation has more than proved itself the equal of those who have come before.
We need not look to the past for greatness, because it is before our very eyes.
This generation of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen have volunteered in a time of certain danger. They are part of the finest fighting force that the world has ever known. They have served tour after tour of duty in distant, different and difficult places. They have stood watch in blinding deserts and on snowy mountains. They have extended the opportunity of self-government to peoples that have suffered tyranny and war. They are man and woman; white, black, and brown; of all faiths and stations – all Americans, serving together to protect our people, while giving others half a world away the chance to lead a better life.
In today’s wars, there is not always a simple ceremony that signals our troops’ success – no surrender papers to be signed, or capital to be claimed. But the measure of their impact is no less great – in a world of threats that know no borders, it will be marked in the safety of our cities and towns, and the security and opportunity that is extended abroad. And it will serve as testimony to the character of those who serve, and the example that you set for America and for the world.
Here, at Fort Hood, we pay tribute to thirteen men and women who were not able to escape the horror of war, even in the comfort of home. Later today, at Fort Lewis, one community will gather to remember so many in one Stryker Brigade who have fallen in Afghanistan.
Long after they are laid to rest – when the fighting has finished, and our nation has endured; when today’s servicemen and women are veterans, and their children have grown – it will be said of this generation that they believed under the most trying of tests; that they persevered not just when it was easy, but when it was hard; and that they paid the price and bore the burden to secure this nation, and stood up for the values that live in the hearts of all free peoples.
So we say goodbye to those who now belong to eternity. We press ahead in pursuit of the peace that guided their service. May God bless the memory of those we lost. And may God bless the United States of America.
Report comment to moderator
This comment seems to lump together all “communist regimes” as “criminal” and then expands the category to “Islamic regimes”.
But of course, this is not what Mindy wanted to do, is it?
Perhaps she can hypothesize a non-criminal Islamic regime. Perhaps she can’t.
Perhaps she can visualize a Christian regime where the criminal mind’s abiding conviction in its own omniscience and sovereignty, and its right to rule and victimize others comes into play. Perhaps she can’t.
In any event, as written, it’s a nasty piece of work. Maybe the Church of Ronnie the Redeemer is forming before our very eyes.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, Mindy’s line here is the tell: …I keep rereading Reagan speechwriter Anthony Dolan’s Sunday op-ed in the Wall Street Journal for its relevance to the political correctness exhibited this week toward enemies of the state.
Translated, this means that when a Muslim person snaps and opens fire, killing people, it should be politicized to show how ALL Muslims are enemies of the state. Any sense that we show with regard to getting facts about the killing is “political correctness”. The only thought that is required is that Muslim = terrorist, so that they can be demonized out of society, which should be Christian anyhow, and man was it stupid of us to let those Jews in.
It’s a very common “thought process” among a certian set.
Report comment to moderator
YouTube had “tribute” videos Monday with text (now gone) saying that the wall was an “emblem” of the cold was and its tearing down was a “powerful symbol of free political expression.”
This is one of the best examples of postmodernism I’ve seen. Contrary to YouTube’s spotlight summary, the wall wasn’t merely an “emblem” of the Cold War. It was a physical barrier and the location where many died trying to get to freedom. And its tearing down wasn’t merely a “powerful symbol of free political expression…”, it was the opening of a very literal door to freedom.
The political rhetoric of 2009 should not diminish the significance of this event. It changed the world for millions of people.
Report comment to moderator
cold war, sorry
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 – “The only thought that is required is that Muslim = terrorist, so that they can be demonized out of society, which should be Christian anyhow, and man was it stupid of us to let those Jews in.”
Why so much hate towards the Christian today?
Report comment to moderator
#3 : “Translated, this means that when a Muslim person snaps and opens fire, killing people, it should be politicized to show how ALL Muslims are enemies of the state. Any sense that we show with regard to getting facts about the killing is “political correctness”. The only thought that is required is that Muslim = terrorist, so that they can be demonized out of society, which should be Christian anyhow, and man was it stupid of us to let those Jews in.
It’s a very common “thought process” among a certian set.”
WOW Emily is that what you really meant.
What “certain set” do you think this person is talking about?
Report comment to moderator
#1 and #3 – Thomas….nowhere in the Dolan article does he mention Obama, so how exactly are you disagreeing with Dolan’s position with Obama? I think sometimes you just scan stuff and if you see anything that may even remotely criticize Obama, you reach and try to accuse everybody of saying something against him even if his name isn’t in either the article (Dolan’s) or the thread (Belz).
So my question to you is: what is it you are against? Thanks for reposting the speech but if I really wanted to see or hear it again I would go to msnbc.com or watch NBC for their constant re-broadcast of another unemotional speech with no passion whatsoever and no heart felt emotion for the men and women who selflessly serve our great country.
Aracadia – I never expect anything better of you so I will excuse your post as it is just more of your constant anti-Christian rhetoric and hate baiting.
Thomas – I do expect better of you because many times you actually post much better but you are way overboard on loving everything Obama.
Report comment to moderator
IAF, look carefully in the linked article by Anthony Dolan for a reference to “the current administration”. It’s there. Who do you suppose he means?
Look at what Mr. Dolan says about “the current administration”. Compare it with the speech by “the current administration” in comment 1.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t you think the current administration includes EVERY person in the administration……two words in the last paragraph do not seem to be deserving of criticism and more shouting about how everybody is anti-Obama?
I read that sentence as speaking of everybody surrounding Obama just as Dolan speaks of the staff not wanting that one sentence in a speech that Reagan put his personal stamp on.
I am merely pointing out that you are making something be about Obama which probably isn’t. It is about his staff, and especially his speech writers in particular. That is a subject that I think Dolan can point out having served in that capacity himself. By now we all are beginning to get the sense that very few of Obama’s speeches are his own, they are very much written by a team of highly skilled speech writers (who generally do a great job of word smithing) who are guided by an increasing number of advisors who surround this president. The only thing that Obama does with his speeches lately is put his enuciation on them and even that is beginning to fall flat and more and more robotic and unemotional.
Report comment to moderator
IAF, most presidents have speechwriters. Bush could barely read his, and Clinton sounded like he was selling used cars.
There is no ambiguity. Dolan was speaking of Obama’s visit to Iran & Burma.
Report comment to moderator
See, you just had to get your Bush dig in for the day. Clinton was and still is selling used cars, that is why he visited the Senate yesterday to try and sell them on a used car with over 200,000 miles on it that will break down as soon as you get it off the lot.
So, do you think that speaking with criminal regimes is a good thing? That is what the generals in Burma are, unless of course you are then going to turn around and say that he should talk to the generals who took over in a bloody coup but he won’t recognize the government in Honduras who took over when they followed all the rules of their constitution. How exactly does that make sense?
Report comment to moderator
So, do you think that speaking with criminal regimes is a good thing?
I certainly do. It’s a really good idea to keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. If someone wants to blow you up, isn’t it a good idea to find out why?
Likewise, if an enemy government is committing atrocities and human rights violations, isn’t it a good idea to engage them so you at least get the opportunity to show them a better way?
Isn’t that… what Christ did?
Report comment to moderator
“Isn’t that… what Christ did?”
Oh, brother. (Rolling eyes.)
If you were a conservative, you’d be getting called a “theocrat” right about now by lefties.
Report comment to moderator
Engage – yes. Recognize as legitimate and democratic – never. That is what this administration is doing when they send the President to speak with regimes in Iran and Burma. NO WAY! That only encourages despots to be more despotic. You send a low level staffer out to them to discuss what the administration wants and the boss stays away until they show some type of change in their despotic rule. By saying you will speak with them one on one you legitimize what they are doing.
Your thoughts on the non-recognition of a government in Honduras who acted in accordance with their constitution while recognizing a government that came into power with blood shed?
Nice try with the Christ thing though. I don’t think you could say that He had any enemies, except Satan maybe.
Report comment to moderator
IAF – I disagree with your approach, but ok.
As for recognizing a government that comes into power with bloodshed, our own comes to mind. Lots and lots of blood was shed – British and Colonials. Your point?
Christ had lots of enemies… Pharisees, Romans, the guys who killed Him or arranged to have it done, Judas. I suppose they all played their role in the final act, but they weren’t meeting Jesus on the back 9 for a quick round of the links.
There were also people who didn’t get His message or were doing things He thought was wrong.
Remember how He handled them?
Report comment to moderator
THOMAS !: I don’t recall anywhere in scripture that Jesus engaged the Roman tyrants in dialogue, can you help me out by pointing me to Chapter and vs.
I recall that He did call one of them a “fox”
Thanks
Report comment to moderator
Yes, He told the woman at the well who was living in sexual sin to “go and sin no more.”
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 #16: “There were also people who didn’t get His message or were doing things He thought was wrong.
Remember how He handled them?”
My answer to the above: Yes, He told the woman at the well who was living in sexual sin to “go and sin no more.”
Report comment to moderator
Jesus never labeled them enemies, they were against him not vice versa.
My point on Burma was that in 1962 the military took over and has ruthlessly killed many people during a reign where anybody not for him was against him. This hasn’t changed and no president until your precious Obama has ever felt the need to recognize a ruling junta that to this day has no problem imprisoning anybody against them.
And please Thomas give me some scriptural references to how Jesus “handled” people who didn’t get his message. I would like to know because very often I don’t get his message and I do things that he doesn’t THINK are wrong but are flat out wrong – it’s called SIN.
If I remember the Bible correctly I believe Jesus handled “them” the same way he handles us. He says to repent (repent means to turn from the sin and to not do it anymore) and to follow Him.
So, are you telling me that President Obama is going to go to Burma and Iran and he is going to say, “now look boys. I run things now and so if you will just throw away your nuclear weapons (Iran) or at least not point them at Israel while I am president and you Burma guys, if you will stop imprisoning innocent people, well then I will recognize you as legitimate governments and tell all my followers to recognize you also. I will forgive you all those thousands of innocent people who never took up arms against you and you are going to be one of my many followers”?
That is awesome that Obama has that much power…..to compare Obama to Jesus Christ is starting to make me just a little bit sick.
And to compare a government that kills people who never took up arms against them to the Revolutionary War (a declared war with both sides taking up arms) is also sickening to me.
Report comment to moderator
People have delicate constitutions around here!
Hint: saying “Oooh my disagreement with you is making my Strawberry Shortcake Surprise go all whoopsie in my tummy-tum-tum!” never advanced an argument.
Just sayin’.
Report comment to moderator
roger patno 11.11.09 AT 5:02 PM
THOMAS !: I don’t recall anywhere in scripture that Jesus engaged the Roman tyrants in dialogue, can you help me out by pointing me to Chapter and vs.
–
Jesus only engaged them when they came to Him. he did not seek them out like He did with the woman at the well.
Report comment to moderator
#21: “Hint: saying “Oooh my disagreement with you is making my Strawberry Shortcake Surprise go all whoopsie in my tummy-tum-tum!” never advanced an argument.”
Where do you come up with such clever statements?
Report comment to moderator
I could use stronger language Thomas but that might get me banned. Basically what is happening in our country is a love affair with a president who is undeserving of such love because in his whole life he has done nothing but campaign AGAINST everything that is great about this country. And now he has legions of people who blindly follow him simply because he is not George W Bush and because he makes pretty speeches that are not his own.
Report comment to moderator
Well, that’s one way to look at it, I guess.
A hyperbolic expression of a viewpoint, to be sure, but I truly understand you.
Bush wasn’t up for re-election, by the way. So it’s a little silly to suggest the choice in 2008 was between Bush and Obama.
Report comment to moderator
If political correctness contributed to the Ft. Hood massacre, we must consider the inhibition against challenging any inappropriate religious delusion.
Imagine a right-wing Christian psychiatrist in the military — someone like James Dobson. Our officer corps is crawling with Evangelicals. One of them tells a mentally ill soldier that “Jesus can save your soul.” That would be a bad doctor who should be retrained or disciplined for malpractice. However, versions of the salvation myth infest the military. Doctors would be afraid to challenge. Maj. Hasan told a patient that Islam could save his soul. He got away with it because of the Christians who say something similar.
Report comment to moderator
“Reagan had the carefully arrived at view that criminal regimes were different, that their whole way of looking at the world was inverted, that they saw acts of conciliation as weakness, and that rather than making nice in return they felt an inner compulsion to exploit this perceived weakness by engaging in more acts of aggression.”
Sounds like the Bush-Cheney administration!
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!