What would the world be like today if the modern Democratic Party and network news were around on December 8^th, 1941? A valid question and one whose answer makes me extremely grateful that they weren’t.

The first thing that they would have done would be to vote overwhelmingly for a declaration of war on Japan, The reason for this would be popular sentiment and anger amongst Americans in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor. This would then be followed by surprise when Roosevelt actually acted on their declaration and sent soldiers into battle. They would claim that they only voted yes because they believed that the president would never really act on it, and that the declaration itself would be enough to show the Japanese that we mean business. In anger at Roosevelt’s nerve, they would have subsequently voted against funding U.S. soldiers in the Pacific, and yet claim that they were patriotic for doing so. They would also insist that Roosevelt had no right to also declare war on Germany and Italy, since they didn’t attack us on December 7. The entire European theatre would be declared a distraction and the media would do their best to insist that there was no link between Hitler, Mussolini, and Japan. Liberals would claim that resources and soldiers were being squandered against non-existent threats, and that our only focus should be on arresting the general who masterminded the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Meanwhile, the media would be overemphasizing military disasters and American casualties and ignoring any successes. The war would be rapidly classified as unwinnable, a quagmire, and a series of retired and disgruntled ex-generals would be given airtime to call the president a failure and a liar. They would claim that his speech following the attack, in which Roosevelt ensured America that they would be victorious, was misleading and painted too rosy a picture. Calls for impeachment would be made, along with calls for immediate withdrawal.

At the same time, modern Democrats would have demanded investigations into what Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor and when he knew it. He would be vilified for failure to protect America from the attack and at the same time denigrated for his military response. Polls would claim that 1/3 of America believes that Roosevelt himself was responsible for the attack on December 7 in order to fight an illegal war. Focus groups would be formed in order to discover why Japan hates us. College professors would claim that we deserved the attack and world hatred because of our imperialistic policies, condemnation of the Holocaust, and support for a future Jewish homeland (for liberals, everything can be blamed on American support for the Jews). Roosevelt would be castigated for going it alone and called a “cowboy” for declaring war without the approval of the League of Nations or a sizable international coalition, which would have to include France, even though they were already defeated in Europe by this time.

The Media would try to claim that we shouldn’t see the Japanese as our enemy. Claims would be made that the Japanese are a people of peace, and any admission that American soldiers were fighting the Japanese military would be covered up. There would be many television specials focusing on the peacefulness of the Japanese people and urging Americans not to profile the enemy. The ACLU and Democratic politicians would insist that Japanese prisoners of war be tried and released before the war was over, and while they were in custody, that they should be put up in Hiltons given room service. Reporters would regularly interview top Japanese generals, allowing them to blame the war on Roosevelt. These generals would be praised as enlightened, intelligent, and asked their opinion on American social policies and given never-ending opportunities to spew pure propaganda. Reporters would also have rushed into recently bombed Japanese cities such as Tokyo and condemned the American military for atrocities, civilian casualties, and call for charges against Roosevelt for war crimes.

And most disturbing of all, they would claim that their actions were patriotic and in the best interests of the United States and the world at large. They would ensure America that they had a (secret) plan for victory that they would only reveal when Roosevelt was removed from office and replaced by one of their own.

Thank God the Democratic party of the 1940’s was so dissimilar to that of today and had the guts to defend America. If only today’s Democratic Party could find similar resolve. If only.

     After watching CBS Evening News this week I have a suggestion for them.  They should stop kidding themselves and everyone else and change their lettering to DNC.  At least that would be honest, which is clearly not a strong suit of the drive-by media.  The only people that I can think of that would even believe the partisan drivel that is passed off as objective news must be a part of the 33% that beleives 9/11 was an inside job.  Let me give you just a few examples.

The first night on the air, Katie Couric was determined to undermine George Bush's attempt to stick up for his record on the war on terror in a speech earlier that day.  It didn't even cross her mind to simply show some clips from the speech and let the public make up their mind.  Such a novel idea would have meant passing up an opportunity to propagandize.  So what does she do?  She parades out Thomas Friedman and asks him what he thinks of the President's speech, and we all know that the New York Times, with which Friedman is a columnist, is politically neutral.  Basically Couric handed Friedman an opportunity to show his true genius.  He says that the public won't listen to Bush's rhetoric about how long and hard a struggle the war on terror will be, because it's too pessimistic.  He claims that the American people want hope and not negativity, as if the Democratic party and the media has had one positive thing to say about this country in the last five years.  Since when have terms such as failure, quagmire, another Vietnam, misled, and the daily barage of pessimism from Democratic leaders and the media been about hope.  The only thing they hope for is that this country will abandon Iraq, guaranteeing the deaths of over 2,500 hundred American soldiers will be for nothing, and that President Bush will be impeached for--you got it--trying to protect America.  I guess that when compared to perjury and obstruction of justice, protecting the nation is pretty heinous.

So lets get this straight.  When Bush prepares Americans for the long road ahead, they should reject his message as pessimism.  Wait a second, the Left also condemns the President when he is too positive.  How many times have they accused him of lying to the nation and painting too rosy a picture?  How many times have they demeaned the banner that prematurely read "Mission Accomplished"?  So which is it, Mr. Fiedman?  Could it just be that no matter what the president says, you will find something to complain about, and thanks to your position in the Media your opinion will be treated as sacrosanct by the likes of Katie Couric?

And tonight we have a repeat performance, although a much more obvious hatchet job.  The liberal media just can't beleive the president won't stop talking and crawl into a corner as they would like.  What nerve, for Bush to speak publically in defence of his policies.  Shouldn't the likes of Couric be able to monopolize any dialogue about the success or failure of the administrations policies?  Katie sure thinks so, and so do the leading Democratic politicians outraged that Bush dares go on the offensive.  CBS's attempt to counter Bush's message today was to claim that the release of an Al Qaida tape over five years old was a political slapdown to the administration.  Couric's point was basically, "See, Bush says were safe, but look--a pre 9/11 video tape!"  As she struggled not to hide behind her newsdesk in abject fear, we are led to believe that Al Qaida's ability to put a tape on Al Jazeera showing long-dead highjackers negates the fact that we havn't been attacked on U.S. soil since they met their deaths five years ago.  Katie follows this gem of logic by parading various Democratic politicians on who claim that we aren't safe from videotapes and that Bush's incessant speeches should be called a "Fear and Smear Campaign."  And then she allowed a conservative politician to show the other side.  Opps, sorry.  There is no side but the Left when it comes to network news.  Couric then goes on to say how unpoular the war is in America.  You can see the fear in her eyes, that some people might actually rally behind the president as a result of his speeches and are in immediate need of deprogramming.  Katie quotes a recent New York Times poll (hmm, do you see a pattern?) that shows that Bush's approval ratings are falling, in spite of his recent speechifying.  Simply ignore that many other recent polls show the exact opposite, believe the New York Times.  She then puts on a retired Marine officer that was dug up God knows where (perhaps off a moveon.org website?) and gives him airtime to lecture the president on the "failure" of Iraq.  What gives this guy's opinion any weight over anyone else's opinion in America?  Because he's portrayed by Couric as a straghtshooting, patriotic, voice of the people.  I wonder how many voices they had to ignore before they found a puppet with military credentials. 

Basically, half of the CBS Evening News tonight might as well have been a Democratic election commercial.  It hit all the Left's talking points and was clearly nothing but a pathetic attempt to rebut Bush's latest round of speeches.  And they wonder why people turn to alternative forms of media.