Commander-In-Chief Test

[bobbcat]

This from Rush's show the other day:

"The Commander-in-Chief Test lets you be the history maker," Limbaugh began.
"First question: You're George Washington in 1776. You've lost every battle. The Revolution seems a bust. Your spies tell you that the British officers are wintering in Trenton. You think that means that the Germans are going to get falling-down drunk on Christmas Eve and sleep it off the next morning. However, they are the world's best soldiers and they'll beat you if they're awake, sober or not. Also, the Delaware River is full of ice and your guys have no food or shoes. Many New Jerseyites are Tories who might rat you out. Do you roll the dice to change the course of the war, figuring the Germans don't like fighting on Christmas, or do you wait for springtime rather than risk what little is left of the Continental Army?

"I just want to stress," the top talker interjected, "the answer to none of these [questions] is 'Call the United Nations.'

"Second Question: If you're Abe Lincoln in 1863, General Lee has crossed into the North, but no one knows where he's going. The Union Army has been beaten in most every battle so far, and if you lose on your own ground, the Union is likely lost to the South. Do you keep the Army away from Lee until he gets tired and heads back South, or do you send General Meade out looking for Lee even if they find that rascal in some crossroads town in Pennsylvania called Gettysburg?

"What do you do? What would Senator Kerry have done? "Third Question: You are the duty officer in Honolulu, December 7, 1941. Two soldiers manning the newly invented radar call to report a lot of blips on the screen. Headquarters had already advised you to expect a flight of American bombers from California that morning. So, do you sound the alarm to the fleet? Do you scramble the fighter planes and hope Rear Admiral Kimmel and General Short don't yell at you if you're wrong, or [do you] tell the radar guys their shift is ending anyway and not to worry about it?

"If you're John Kerry manning the radar, what do you do?

"Fourth Question: You are Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1939. You've received a letter from the famous quirky physicist Albert Einstein recommending building an atomic bomb in order to beat the Nazis to the punch. Not really knowing what an atomic bomb is and not yet at war, do you ask Congress to study the matter and ask your intelligence operation to confirm if the Nazis are building one of these weapons themselves, or do you order secret development with money skimmed from other projects and hidden through phony congressional appropriations? Do you do the Manhattan Project?

"What do you do if you are John Kerry? Remember now, you can't call the U.N. At this point, it's the defunct League of Nations anyway.

"Fifth Question: You are Admiral Nimitz in 1942. Navy intelligence intercepted coded messages they reveal shows Japanese plans to steal the American island of Midway, but they also tell you Japanese could be planning attacks elsewhere. You know that banking on Midway would leave the door open elsewhere. Do you risk your aircraft carriers that escaped the Pearl Harbor attack, perhaps leaving no U.S. Fleet in the Pacific, or do you try catching the Imperial Fleet with the kimono open and reverse the course of the war at Midway?

"What do you do if you're John Kerry? Remember now, you can't call the United Nations. You can't call the French.

"Sixth Question: You are Dwight Eisenhower in June of 1944. Your weatherman tells you he sees a break in the bad weather and a narrow window for your landing forces to get on the beaches of Normandy. You hope, but you can't confirm, that allied disinformation has convinced Hitler the real invasion will be north. Do you risk a quarter million troops and the possibility of a stalemate in Europe, or do you say, 'Let's go,' rather than wait another month or two for D Day? (Remember, you can't call the United Nations.)

"What do you do if you're John Kerry? Remember, there's no turning back.

"Seventh Question: You're also Eisenhower in December 1944. Intelligence says the Germans are on the run. They're low on gasoline and ammo. The men deserve a break, and many officers want to leave for Christmas in Paris. How can the Germans possibly break through that dense forest? and knowing what we know from test question one, the Germans don't like to fight on Christmas. Do you ignore the intelligence and figure that Hitler will try to catch you with your pants down and inflict on the American Army its worst-ever disaster?

"What do you do faced with the Battle of the Bulge if you are John Kerry? "Eighth Question: You are Harry Truman in August of 1945. FDR's atomic bomb recommended by Einstein is tested successfully, and you have two more of bombs ready to use. The scientists who build the bomb are opposing its use. Intelligence reports suggest the Japanese are starving and on their last legs ready to talk turkey. American bombers are already turning many Japanese cities into cinders. Do you secretly advise the Japanese they can surrender now before you drop the bomb, or do you drop the bomb and ask questions later?

"What do you do if you're John Kerry?"

Limbaugh cited several other examples where presidents took critical risks that saved both America and the world, before delivering the coup de grace:

"You are President Bush in early 2003, just months after September 11 and anthrax. The Clinton administration had indicted Osama bin Laden, citing ties to Saddam Hussein, and had bombed a suspected bioweapons plant in Sudan with ties to Iraq. ...

"Intelligence suggests that terrorists met with others in Prague. U.N. weapons inspectors are being frustrated in Iraq. British intelligence says Saddam was trying to buy uranium in Africa. Saddam invaded Kuwait a decade before. He had used chemical weapons on his own people. One of the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing had taken refuge in Baghdad. Families of Palestinian suicide bombers were paid by Iraq. The CIA director – originally appointed by Clinton – tells you it's a "slam dunk" that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.

"The French are opposed to war with Iraq, saying their intelligence service believes Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction. Russian President Putin, [also] opposed to war with Iraq, tells you Russian intelligence believes Iraq has plans for terror assaults in the U.S. Most of the CIA contacts in Iraq are murdered.

"Do you wait to get more spies in the country to confirm the other intelligence, or do you go to Congress for a resolution supporting the use of force and then use the force?

"What would you do if you are John Kerry?"

The great things that were accomplished by past presidents were rooted in a proactive approach. Bush's approach to the war on terror has been proactive as well. I can't help but wonder if so many people would be this critical of Bush if it were not for all the controversy that surrounded his election in 2000.

[CagedTroll]

The not-so-great things involved a proactive approach as well. Viet Nam, for example. Japanese internment is another. WW2 wasn't "proactive", so we suffered a tragedy at Pearl Harbor that might have been avoided, but what we did afterwards, while not "proactive" is what made us "great."

Limbaugh's argument is a logical fallacy..., as usual.

[luvmetender]

Rush Limbaugh is a pompous druggie *SS

[bobbcat]

Regardless of what one may think about Limbaugh, points are well made in that commentary which are self evident.

[tlspiegel -Closed]

Thank you for posting that bobbcat!

[twonky]

Originally Posted by CagedTroll

The not-so-great things involved a proactive approach as well. Viet Nam, for example. Japanese internment is another. WW2 wasn't "proactive", so we suffered a tragedy at Pearl Harbor that might have been avoided, but what we did afterwards, while not "proactive" is what made us "great."

Limbaugh's argument is a logical fallacy..., as usual.

If you're basing that on what you just wrote, it fails to prove your point.

Of course there are instances where being proactive could have been a mistake, what reasonable person wouldn't conclude that?

Would you have been supportive of being pro-active if you had known about Pearl Harbor in advance?

Of course you would. We may never know if this pro-active war on terror prevented anything, but I'm glad we took that risk.

[twonky]

Originally Posted by luvmetender

Rush Limbaugh is a pompous druggie *SS

Must have been a good point if your only response is childlike name calling.

[chippers21]

No attack on the message, just a slam on the messanger???

[CagedTroll]

Originally Posted by twonky

We may never know if this pro-active war on terror prevented anything, but I'm glad we took that risk.

Pro-active war on Iraq. The War on Terror is reactive.

I'm looking at Limbaugh's "Fourth Question"... [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] WW2 had already started before Roosevelt took action on the A-Bomb, and he'd already sort of gotten us involved with the Lend-Lease Act. And Einstein, "quirky" as he was, wasn't exactly thought of as "quirky" back then. Serious people knew that he knew what he was talking about.

And today, serious people are trying to talk to President Bush about stem cell research...

[luvmetender]

Originally Posted by chippers21

No attack on the message, just a slam on the messanger???

Yes, chippers

I don't believe anything that comes out of that man's mouth. He's a liar and a drone.

[chippers21]

Ah! Just the way I felt about MR.CLINTON. LOL

[bobbcat]

He's a liar and a drone.

Oh, come on now, luv. There is nothing wrong with resenting the guy, not liking him, not wanting to listen to him, etc., but making up things about the guy just shows your inability to be objective. In what way is he a drone? He works for his money, and works hard, BTW. If his job was so darned easy, there would be oodles of people out there doing it as well. And lies? One could hardly be successful in the field in which Rush works if all one did was lie. The guy lives in a fishbowl. Okay, so he lied to Marta about his latest bout of prescription pain killer abuse. Who has not lied to their intimate partner about one thing or another?

Didn't mean to write a book, but that's a pet peeve (making up stuff about people you don't like). Knock him all you want, but do it with the truth.