A sample of Barry Farber's Genius!! (And a rant by me!)

There aren't too many pundits I read religiously, and even fewer that I agree with regularly. But on my scorecard, Barry Farber seldom fails to hit the nail on the head! Take for example his article yesterday on NewsMax.com. It's entitled, "Obama Suggests Reckless Talks" Here's the link to the article,

>http://www.blogger.com/ .

Like many reporters, Mr. Farber is commenting about the answer Barack Obama offered last week during the Democrat Debate. To refresh everyone's memory, Mr. Obama stated that if elected President, during his first year in office he'd "hold unconditional talks with the rulers of Cuba, North Korea, and Iran."

Here's an example of Farber's genius, and maybe the best single line from the article....."Why would America's first black president be in such a hurry to talk to slave masters?"

Dam! That one line sums up why I think Barry Farber is pretty much head-and-shoulders above 95% of the writers around today. What makes him pretty unique is that he paints beautiful word pictures to reinforce his comments. Here's another example - where Mr. Farber draws from the experiences of World War II to show the dunderheadedness of talking to tyrants. Here it is;

"But there's a much stronger argument against holding unconditional talks with undesirable regimes.

Go back with me to World War II. There were no "talks" among the warring parties from Sept. 1, 1939 when Germany started it by invading Poland until Aug. 15, 1945 when Japan surrendered.

There were no talks, and there was no talk of talks. We declared the doctrine of "unconditional surrender" and every freedom-seeking captive living under enemy control was heartened in the knowledge that he'd never have to see his oppressor shake hands and sit down with leaders of the great alliance he was counting on for liberation. "

God he's good! I just hope that someday, I can think as clearly and make a point as well as Barry Farber!

What's my point of view? (The rant begins!) Well, I've always felt that somewhere between 1945 and the 1960's, a segment of our population decided that in order for the United States to be "believable" and not perceived as "a big bully," we shouldn't use our military strength. (I have another reason I'll expound upon in a later piece). During those 15 or 20 years, while the hard fighting soldiers of WWII and Korea returned to the mills and worked to get us back on our industrial feet, the "pacifists" were screaming "no more war," the U.N. was opening diplomatic & social avenues for peaceful discussions. What became the "anti-war movements" of the 60's and today, are the results of that pacifism.

Then, as now - you might say Chamberlain to Kerry - talking to tyrants doesn't accomplish anything. If we've learned nothing during the last century, we should have learned that talking to dictators only gives them the time they need to inflict greater terror on you. Look at it this way... Chamberlain begat the blitz. His "peace in our time" only made the blitz more terrifying to all Brits who prayed he had accomplished something talking mit Herr Hitler! You might say Kerry begat the killing of 2.5 million Vietnamese civilians with his visit to the Paris negotiating table. What I consider the best of all examples, Secretary of State Cordell Hull was meeting with Japanese representatives as bombs began to fall on Pearl Harbor! Historians have proven that Japan sought to delay the meeting as part of their military strategy until 30 minutes before the attack! Think back to the incredible number of times Saddam Hussein stalled agreeing to allow NRC inspectors back into Iraq, or only at the last minute complying with a dozen U.N. resolutions. To all those who say there was never any Iraqi WMD's, what do you think he was doing all that time - building sand castles with Uday and Kusay?

I'm continuously amazed at the short sightedness of those in opposition to the war against terrorism. While I'm certain that most are well meaning and only seek to limit additional loss of American lives, I'm absolutely positive that there are many liberal Democrats who relish the thought of the United States being defeated in the war. Let me make sure that I've made myself clear....while I believe that some Democrats and Republicans just want the war to end; I believe there are a great many Liberal Democrats who have a vested interest in America being defeated in Iraq and in the Global War on Terror! These people actually hope that we loose and loose badly.

To make it plainer still...these people stand to gain power, prestige, and money if and when America is beaten.

For confirmation you have to look no further than Democrat Congressman Clyburn of South Carolina. Clyburn is the Majority Whip - the No. 3 man in the House - and he said that if Gen. Petraeus has a positive report in September that would be "a real big problem for us" (Democrats).

Imagine that! The #3 Democrat in Congress says that the United States being successful in Iraq - would be bad for the Democrats!!!

Do you want me to name some more names? OK. Here are some people I am certain want to see the United States defeated, and defeated badly........Ward Churchill, Susan Sarandon & Mr. Susan Sarandon, Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, the Gilbert Grape actor, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Sheehan, John's Murtha and Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Mr. & Mrs. John Kerry, Rosie O'Donnell, John Deane, Janeane Garofalo, Al Frankin, Chris Matthews, two of the three Baldwin brothers, most mainstream media anchors.

Right now I'm sort of drawing a blank except for these......feel free to add to the list.

Dum Spiro Spero!