My last column contrasted Barrack Obama's bungling of the situation in Syria with President George W. Bush's decisive handling of Iraq back in 2003.
This prompted some to defend Obama's indecisiveness and to conclude he should not follow Bush.
They have a point. Sort of.
There was a time when liberals and democrats understood right from wrong. Instead of following Bush, Obama could follow Democrat presidents like Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy.
When faced with the threat posed by the rise of Nazism in Europe in 1939, F.D.R. was at first unable to gain approval from Congress for American involvement.
So he sent billions of dollars-worth of supplies to our allies in Britain and ensured it would not fall under Hitler's fascist-socialist grasp.
When Pearl Harbor was attacked in December 1941, Roosevelt brought America into the war directly, and put the entire American economy on a war footing for the next four years.
This is how you defeat evil: not with a pin prick, but with a highly disproportionate response; the biggest response you can muster.
So big was Roosevelt's response that General Motors, Ford and Chrysler quit making cars during the war so they could make tanks and airplanes instead.
Bush did not do anything like this when he invaded Iraq. But he could have secured peace much sooner, and with much less loss of life on both sides if he had applied Roosevelt's philosophy.
Harry S. Truman carried on Roosevelt's approach after his death.
When he was informed of the top-secret Manhattan Project, Truman decided to use the nuclear bomb to subdue Japan's Imperial forces, which showed no sign of surrendering.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were highly disproportionate responses from a clear-thinking president and forced an end to a four-year battle that had claimed millions of lives.
And this was brought about thanks to two Democrats - neither of whom worried about public opinion.
This was a time when Democrats knew good from evil and right from wrong. They were not afraid to use force to kill a hostile enemy, thereby enforcing peace upon the world.
As a result of Roosevelt's and Truman's decisive actions, Germany and Japan would become two of America's greatest allies.
And, yes, to ensure peace remained in both cases, American troops remain to this day on German and Japanese soil. Which should really force any thinking person to ask why Obama pulled out of Iraq.
But I digress.
Roosevelt's and Truman's philosophy of a decisive and disproportionate response to hostile threats was carried on by Democrat President John F. Kennedy when he escalated America's involvement in Vietnam from the mere advisory role established by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, to a much more direct role.
Kennedy landed 20,000 Marines in that nation to send a clear message to Communists in the North that America would stand beside the civilian-based, free-market economy that was taking hold in the South.
After his assassination, Lyndon Johnson would further escalate that war in defence of freedom.
There's only one way to beat the enemy. Bush had it partly right; Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy got it completely right. Obama meanwhile doesn't even understand what's going on in Syria.
In fact, he's backing the wrong side. And many thousands more will die as a result of his dithering.
Mischa Popoff is a freelance political writer with a degree in history.