The Quisling Effect
The Quisling Effect
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 23, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Hal Lindsey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
In April, 1940, Norwegian politician Vidkun J. Quisling became the first politician in history to use the radio airwaves to announce a coup d'etat, declaring the formation of an ad-hoc government during the confusion brought on by the Nazi invasion of Norway.
Quisling hoped his action would result in Nazi recognition of Quisling as head of state. Instead, his treasonous action earned him a different kind of recognition.
Today, the name "Quisling" stands beside that of Benedict Arnold as a synonym for "traitor." Quisling's treacherous efforts to use his country's peril to advance his own personal political fortunes also earned him the place of honor before a firing squad in 1945.
Yesterday, the U.S. Senate rehabilitated Vikdun Quisling's historical legacy somewhat, with at least a third of the Senate suggesting by their own vote that Quisling was really a patriot.
After all, all he did was betray the best interests of his nation, his military and his countrymen to further his own personal political ambitions.
I believe this is what 39 senators did when they voted in favor of the Feingold-Levy amendment demanding a withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Iraqi battlefield.
There is not a single member of the Senate who is incapable of grasping what such a vote means to the enemy. Here is how it translates to our enemies: "We are only 12 Senate votes away from winning the war with the Great Satan."
It is more than disingenuous; it is deliberately dishonest to say that such an action does not give aid and comfort to the enemy. Indeed, the practice of granting aid and comfort to the enemy in order to disgrace the sitting administration is so prevalent that it even has an acronym – ACE.
The politicians who voted to advance their party's interests not only knew they were voting against the bests interests of America's war effort, they also knew they were increasing the risks our soldiers in the field face. Why? Because their vote encourages the enemy to fight harder since they believe victory is in sight.
They have to know. They don't live in a bubble. They have access to history books. They have access to intelligence reports. They have access to the news broadcasts. And they are also surrounded by advisers who have equal access to the same material. Even if they didn't, they aren't stupid.
And even if they are stupid, they still can't argue they don't know they are encouraging the enemy by expressing a no-win policy.
The only logical explanation is this: Having weighed the damage their vote against the Iraq war would caused the nation versus the damage their vote would cause their own political careers, they chose what was best for their political careers.
This was the same kind of reasoning Vidkun Quisling used 66 years before them.
No such choice is offered the tens of thousands of U.S. military forces. When given the same choice, they chose what was best for the country over what was best for them personally, irrespective of their politics.
Politics is supposed to end at the water's edge, not insinuate itself into managing foreign battlefields according to political expediency. Once politicians decide to send our military personnel into war, they deserve the best leadership our military leaders can provide. They do not deserve to have their risks increased by politicians seeking to better their careers.
As the Senate was voting whether or not to rescind America's promise to the Iraqi people, the U.S. government was trying to convince North Korea's resident Head Maniac not to test fire a new missile capable of hitting the United States. The U.S. is promising to "take grave action" and "stay the course" and all the other stuff that the Senate was currently voting to undercut in Iraq.
In between Iraq and North Korea are the Iranians, whom the United States is trying to get to abandon its nuclear ambitions or "face the consequences." Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is reading the threat of "consequences" the same way Kim Jong-Il and Osama bin Laden do. Or the way an al-Qaida fighter feels when he is about to launch an ambush on a U.S. patrol.
Our terrorist enemies know that victory depends on attacking until the U.S. Congress votes to cut and run. They know they can grab headlines in the mainstream media to further their cause. They know the more barbaric atrocities committed against our soldiers, the more their cause is furthered. They know that the politicians who value their careers above country will do the rest. Then the "Quisling Effect" will win them the victory they couldn't win on the battlefield.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 23, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Hal Lindsey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
In April, 1940, Norwegian politician Vidkun J. Quisling became the first politician in history to use the radio airwaves to announce a coup d'etat, declaring the formation of an ad-hoc government during the confusion brought on by the Nazi invasion of Norway.
Quisling hoped his action would result in Nazi recognition of Quisling as head of state. Instead, his treasonous action earned him a different kind of recognition.
Today, the name "Quisling" stands beside that of Benedict Arnold as a synonym for "traitor." Quisling's treacherous efforts to use his country's peril to advance his own personal political fortunes also earned him the place of honor before a firing squad in 1945.
Yesterday, the U.S. Senate rehabilitated Vikdun Quisling's historical legacy somewhat, with at least a third of the Senate suggesting by their own vote that Quisling was really a patriot.
After all, all he did was betray the best interests of his nation, his military and his countrymen to further his own personal political ambitions.
I believe this is what 39 senators did when they voted in favor of the Feingold-Levy amendment demanding a withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Iraqi battlefield.
There is not a single member of the Senate who is incapable of grasping what such a vote means to the enemy. Here is how it translates to our enemies: "We are only 12 Senate votes away from winning the war with the Great Satan."
It is more than disingenuous; it is deliberately dishonest to say that such an action does not give aid and comfort to the enemy. Indeed, the practice of granting aid and comfort to the enemy in order to disgrace the sitting administration is so prevalent that it even has an acronym – ACE.
The politicians who voted to advance their party's interests not only knew they were voting against the bests interests of America's war effort, they also knew they were increasing the risks our soldiers in the field face. Why? Because their vote encourages the enemy to fight harder since they believe victory is in sight.
They have to know. They don't live in a bubble. They have access to history books. They have access to intelligence reports. They have access to the news broadcasts. And they are also surrounded by advisers who have equal access to the same material. Even if they didn't, they aren't stupid.
And even if they are stupid, they still can't argue they don't know they are encouraging the enemy by expressing a no-win policy.
The only logical explanation is this: Having weighed the damage their vote against the Iraq war would caused the nation versus the damage their vote would cause their own political careers, they chose what was best for their political careers.
This was the same kind of reasoning Vidkun Quisling used 66 years before them.
No such choice is offered the tens of thousands of U.S. military forces. When given the same choice, they chose what was best for the country over what was best for them personally, irrespective of their politics.
Politics is supposed to end at the water's edge, not insinuate itself into managing foreign battlefields according to political expediency. Once politicians decide to send our military personnel into war, they deserve the best leadership our military leaders can provide. They do not deserve to have their risks increased by politicians seeking to better their careers.
As the Senate was voting whether or not to rescind America's promise to the Iraqi people, the U.S. government was trying to convince North Korea's resident Head Maniac not to test fire a new missile capable of hitting the United States. The U.S. is promising to "take grave action" and "stay the course" and all the other stuff that the Senate was currently voting to undercut in Iraq.
In between Iraq and North Korea are the Iranians, whom the United States is trying to get to abandon its nuclear ambitions or "face the consequences." Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is reading the threat of "consequences" the same way Kim Jong-Il and Osama bin Laden do. Or the way an al-Qaida fighter feels when he is about to launch an ambush on a U.S. patrol.
Our terrorist enemies know that victory depends on attacking until the U.S. Congress votes to cut and run. They know they can grab headlines in the mainstream media to further their cause. They know the more barbaric atrocities committed against our soldiers, the more their cause is furthered. They know that the politicians who value their careers above country will do the rest. Then the "Quisling Effect" will win them the victory they couldn't win on the battlefield.
posted by shummer60 at Friday, June 23, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home