Why they fought

close

Video

Heroes of D-Day: Veterans remember storming the beaches of Normandy

Veterans share firsthand accounts of Operation Overlord and the acts of heroism that set the liberation of Europe in motion.

**Want FOX News Halftime Report in your inbox every day? Sign up here.**

On the roster: Why they fought - I’ll Tell You What: A chart topper - Is Texas in play? - Pelosi wants to lock him up - When a burrito just won’t cut it

WHY THEY FOUGHT 
Americans have a thing about imagining what would have happened if the Axis powers had won World War II. 

“The Man in the High Castle,” a popular television series about the German and Japanese occupation of the United States, based on the 1962 Philip K. Dick novel of the same name, is only the most recent installment of these alternate histories. In the 1990s, the novel “Fatherland” was a smash hit and writers ranging from Noël Coward to Gene Roddenberry have tried their hand at the genre.    

The “what if” is so hard for us to resist for a many reasons. First, there has seldom been a more clearly evil enterprise than the effort by fascist powers to dominate the world. Writing about genocidal Nazis makes easy work of defining good guys and bad guys. But there’s also the fact that imagining these dark alternatives reminds us of the enormity of America’s achievement in the Allied victory.

And nothing has come to symbolize that achievement as the successful landing on the coast of Normandy, France, 75 years ago today. The sacrifice, endurance and valor of those men that day are understood by every American as a full expression of the best our nation has to offer.

But why were they there that day?

In his still-unsurpassed speech commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Allied victory in June of 1984, then-President Ronald Reagan, speaking to the assembled veterans put it this way: “The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge – and pray God we have not lost it – that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.”

The fight there was not to protect America’s own shores but to free our fellow human beings from oppression. Yes, swiftly, thoroughly breaking the back of the Nazi Wehrmacht would help ensure America’s future security. And yes, we were obligated to fight for our allies. But by the fifth year of the European war, the kind of world imagined in “The Man in the High Castle” was already pure fiction.

The Nazis’ always-fantastical dream of “the Thousand Year Reich” with Berlin as the new Rome at the hub of a vast empire spanning the globe was effectively ended on Jan. 31, 1943 when Field Marshal Friedrich von Paulus surrendered to the Soviets at Stalingrad. The utter destruction of the German Sixth Army and the resulting rout of Nazi forces on the Eastern Front had already sealed the fate of the Nazi’s perverse fantasies of world conquest. By the time of the Battle of Kursk in July of 1943, it was clear that Germany could no longer contain the Soviet counteroffensive. The march to the Brandenburg Gate had begun.

Now, the Soviets would have had a harder time if the German high command didn’t have to maintain the Atlantic Wall against U.S. and British invasion. But by that point, the Allies had already defeated fascist Italy and liberated Rome from German occupation. 

The fall of the Nazi regime was already certain, but what we did not know was how or when.

Certainly the non-fanatics in the German high command were preparing for the moment, imagining an armistice something like the one that had ended the previous world war. How might they maintain some territorial autonomy? Could war crime charges be avoided? Could they find a way to surrender to the civilized forces of the West rather than the brutalizing Soviets?

Indeed, the discussion of Allied leaders had shifted away from winning the war to winning the peace by the time of the meeting of the Western powers at Casablanca in January of 1943. It would not be enough to defeat the Axis powers, but to establish a new order for Europe that would both prevent a third such conflict but also prevent the Soviets from replacing one occupation with another.

The alternate future we might consider if D-Day had never happened isn’t one of swastikas around the Washington Monument, but of Soviet oppression spanning three continents. 

The Army Rangers who scaled the cliffs at Pointe du Hoc under withering fire were there to liberate, yes. But also to conquer. Not in the traditional sense of occupation and subjugation, but in the sense of conquering the ancient notion that any man or nation has the right to rule another. 

They climbed carrying the American creed on their hearts: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” 

The victory they won that day and those in the weeks that followed in their race to Berlin carried that creed forward as their standard just as surely as Roman legions had held high the golden eagle of their empire in conquering the same lands two thousand years before. They had come to subjugate, we had come to defeat the very idea of subjugation.

The Soviets may have struck the most devastating blow in defeating the Nazi regime, but the forces of the Atlantic alliance won the peace in the months after D-Day. In liberated Europe, German prison camps would not be replaced with Soviet ones and one form of tyranny would not be exchanged for another. A new order, built on the American model, would end the centuries of war and strife on the western side of the continent. 

There have been manifold practical benefits for America from the sacrifices made on that day and in those months. We are no doubt richer, safer and freer than if we had not breached the Atlantic Wall. 

But those brave men also set a new moral standard for the world. Our victory in the Cold War and the 74 years of relative peace and expanding prosperity for the world can trace their roots to the men who knew “profound, moral difference” between the American way and the way the world had always been before.      

THE RULEBOOK: MULTI-FACTOR AUTHENTICATION 
“The people can never willfully betray their own interests; but they may possibly be betrayed by the representatives of the people; and the danger will be evidently greater where the whole legislative trust is lodged in the hands of one body of men, than where the concurrence of separate and dissimilar bodies is required in every public act.” – Alexander Hamilton or James Madison, Federalist No. 63

TIME OUT: PRE-STARRY NIGHT 
Time: “Science and art are often thought of as incompatible. … In 1610, Galileo published his seminal work, ‘Sidereus Nuncius’— often translated as ‘Starry Messenger’ — which contained numerous drawings he sketched over long nights in front of his telescope. They included the cragged terrain of the moon, stars invisible to the naked eye, and what would come to be known as the Galilean moons circling Jupiter. Galileo drew on art techniques like perspective and chiaroscuro — a manner of depicting light and shadows that was relatively new at the time — to show the lofty mountains and craters on the moon’s imperfect surface. Using geometry and his drawings as a measuring stick, he was even able to measure their heights with astonishing precision. Two years later, Lodovico Cardi, also known as Cigoli, a prominent Florentine painter, immortalized Galileo’s sketches of the moon in a fresco that still stands in the Santa Maria Maggiore, a Basilica in Rome.”

Flag on the play? - Email us at HALFTIMEREPORT@FOXNEWS.COM with your tips, comments or questions.

SCOREBOARD
Trump job performance 
Average approval: 41 percent
Average disapproval: 52.4 percent
Net Score: -11.4 points
Change from one week ago: up 0.2 points
[Average includes: CNN: 43% approve - 53% disapprove; CNBC: 40% approve - 50% disapprove; Gallup: 40% approve - 55% disapprove; CBS News: 41% approve - 52% disapprove; Monmouth University: 41% approve - 52% disapprove.]

WANT MORE HALFTIME REPORT? 
You can join Chris and Brianna every day on Fox Nation. Go behind-the-scenes of your favorite political note as they go through the must-read headlines of the day right from their office – with plenty of personality. Click here to sign up and watch!

I’LL TELL YOU WHAT: A CHART TOPPER
This week Dana Perino and Chris Stirewalt discuss possible repercussions of impeachment, the tiers of Democratic candidates in the 2020 Presidential race and Dana shares The Five's song ‘Shut up about Politics’ has gone global. Plus, Chris has mailbag questions for Dana, and answers trivia. LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE HERE

IS TEXAS IN PLAY?
Quinnipiac University: “President Donald Trump is locked in too-close-to-call races with any one of seven top Democratic challengers in the 2020 presidential race in Texas, where former Vice President Joseph Biden has 48 percent to President Trump with 44 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released [Wednesday]. Other matchups by the independent Quinnipiac University Poll show: President Trump at 46 percent to Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 45 percent; Trump at 47 percent to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders at 44 percent; Trump at 48 percent to former U.S. Rep. Beto O'Rourke with 45 percent; Trump with 46 percent to South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg's 44 percent; Trump at 47 percent to California Sen. Kamala Harris at 43 percent; Trump with 46 percent and former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro at 43 percent. In the Trump-Biden matchup, women back Biden 54 - 39 percent as men back Trump 50 - 42 percent. White voters back Trump 60 - 33 percent.”

Bern out? - Five Thirty Eight: “Bernie Sanders has been getting better news in the polls recently… It’s not a huge shift, and Sanders is off his March peak in the mid-20s. But he’s consolidated his hold on second place, while Biden’s numbers have declined slightly. A recent YouGov poll, which asked Democrats to list all the candidates they were considering rather than requiring them to pick just one, also seems to suggest that Sanders has a relatively high floor of support. Among Democrats who were considering only one candidate, 28 percent were considering only Sanders, and 27 percent were considering only Biden. Everyone else was in the single digits on this question. Here’s the catch, though: Only 28 percent of Democrats fell into the category of considering only one candidate. (By comparison, 67 percent are still considering multiple candidates, and 5 percent aren’t considering any current candidates.)”

It’s not just Biden with plagiarism issues - Politico: “Twenty-four hours after Joe Biden’s campaign was taken to task for lifting portions of a climate change plan without citation, it’s clear that the former vice president has plenty of company. … A POLITICO review found previously published material on the official campaign websites of Sens. Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders, as well as frequent use of facts and data without citation on a number of others. … The issue is especially sensitive for Biden, since it served as a reminder of a plagiarism scandal that derailed his 1988 presidential campaign. Then, it was revealed that Biden had recited lines of a speech from British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock, adopting some of the narrative as his own. But for other campaigns, the issue doesn’t carry nearly as much resonance — and it’s reflected in the lax attribution standards.”

DNC won’t dedicate a debate to climate change - Politico: “Washington Gov. Jay Inslee said Wednesday the Democratic National Committee informed him it will not dedicate one of its presidential primary debates to the issue of climate change. The decision comes despite a furious push from progressive and environmental advocates for a climate change debate, as well as strong support across the Democratic ideological spectrum. At least half a dozen Democratic candidates, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and former Obama cabinet official Julián Castro, have backed the idea. Inslee, who led the push among presidential candidates and has made climate change the centerpiece of his campaign, called the decision ‘deeply disappointing’ and out of step with Democratic primary voters. He also said the organization threatened not to invite him to future debates if he participated in any other climate change debate.”

Warren’s campaign becomes fourth to unionize - Politico: “Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s campaign workers have opted to join a union, according to an official involved in the effort. The campaign workers will be represented by the Manchester, N.H.-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2320. The Warren campaign didn’t object to the idea of a union when IBEW broached the subject this week, promptly providing a list of workers who it thought should be included in the bargaining unit. … Warren’s staff is the fourth presidential campaign to unionize, after those of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), former HUD Secretary Julián Castro, and Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.).”

Booker releases plan for housing affordability - Politico: “Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) says he wants to ease the cost of housing for millions of Americans who spend more than the recommended 30 percent of their income on rent. Booker's proposal would give renters a refundable tax credit to cover the shortfall between 30 percent of their income and rent, capped by the fair-market rent for their neighborhoods. It would also expand access to legal counsel for tenants facing eviction and includes provisions to fight homelessness and build new units for low-income renters. The refundable credit would go toward renters’ housing costs. There is no mention of an income cap for recipients, and the median participating family would receive a credit worth $4,800 a year, the campaign said.”

LIBERALS MOVE TO PURGE PRO-LIFE DEMS FROM PARTY
Fox News: “The left flank of the Democratic Party is ramping up efforts to target and isolate pro-life Democrats, as the party base mobilizes over restrictive new abortion laws being passed in states across the country. While the party once tolerated both pro-life and pro-choice Democrats inside the tent, those with pro-life views are being told they aren’t welcome anymore. The shift comes as the policy debate becomes increasingly polarized. Conservative Alabama passed a virtual ban on abortions last month -- and some Democratic presidential candidates have openly supported the right of a woman to terminate a late-term pregnancy. ‘As a party, we should be 100 percent pro-choice, and it should be non-negotiable,’ New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who is running for president in 2020, recently told The Washington Post. Some are actively going after current officeholders with anti-abortion views.”

Dem presidential contenders pile on pro-life House Democrat - National Review: “Several contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination have thrown their support behind the progressive candidate mounting a primary challenge to pro-life House Democrat Dan Lipinski of Illinois as the party debates whether it can still make room for pro-life politicians. Senators Bernie Sanders and Kirsten Gillibrand, as well as Washington governor Jay Inslee, have endorsed progressive activist Marie Newman in her second bid to oust Lipinski. … EMILY’s List, Democracy for America, MoveOn, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood, and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee endorsed Newman when she ran to unseat Lipinski in the 2018 Democratic primary, losing by a mere two points. In that race, the Democratic party refused to endorse Lipinski, who is co-chairman of the House pro-life caucus and has represented his Chicago-area district since 2005. The district leans socially conservative but has been represented by a Democrat in Congress since 1974. Sanders won the district in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary.”

PELOSI WANTS TO LOCK HIM UP
Politico: “Speaker Nancy Pelosi told senior Democrats that she’d like to see President Donald Trump ‘in prison’ as she clashed with House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler in a meeting on Tuesday night over whether to launch impeachment proceedings. Pelosi met with Nadler (D-N.Y.) and several other top Democrats who are aggressively pursuing investigations against the president, according to multiple sources. Nadler and other committee leaders have been embroiled in a behind-the-scenes turf battle for weeks over ownership of the Democrats’ sprawling investigation into Trump. … [Sources] said she was expressing solidarity with pro-impeachment Democrats who want to hold the president accountable while disputing the idea that it is now time to take that step. Pelosi has long argued that certain conditions must be met before Democrats begin impeachment — public support and strong bipartisan backing, neither of which have so far materialized.”

Warren suggests Trump should be in handcuffs - NBC News: “Sen. Elizabeth Warren said at an MSNBC town hall on Wednesday night … that President Donald Trump ‘would be carried out in handcuffs’ if he were anybody else. …Warren said she read the full 448-page report from former special counsel Robert Muller and concluded impeachment was necessary, putting her at odds with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other leaders in the House. ‘I get that this is politically tough,’ Warren said. ‘But some things are bigger than politics. This matters for our democracy — not just now, but under the next president, and the next president, and the next president.’ And pointing to instances of Trump's potential obstruction of justice detailed in the report, Warren said, ‘If he were any other person in the United States, based on what is documented in that report, he would be carried out in handcuffs.’”

The Judge’s Ruling: Mueller stirs the pot - This week Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano explains what could happen next with the impeachment process: “When Mueller gave his short farewell, he emphasized his view that this issue -- whether Trump's obstruction of justice warrants impeachment -- is squarely before the House. … Mueller said publicly, however, that the reason for his personal hesitation in charging the president is an October 2000 DOJ legal memorandum. It offered that charging a sitting president with a crime would impair his ability to perform his constitutional duties and thus ought not to be undertaken. … Stated differently -- and this is no doubt what drew Trump's ire -- Mueller revealed in his farewell that, but for the 2000 DOJ opinion, there is ample evidence to have indicted President Donald Trump for obstruction of justice.” More here.

PLAY-BY-PLAY
Looking back at the 1998 election in the shadow of impeachment - Sabato’s Crystal Ball

Republican businessman John James announces 2020 Michigan Senate run - MLive.com

AUDIBLE: ONE MAN TEAM 
“I think I would be performing better if I had a running partner, but I don’t really want a running partner.” – Sen. Chuck Grassley talking to Roll Call about his running routine. The senator runs three miles four times a week all before 6 a.m. 

Share your color commentary: Email us at HALFTIMEREPORT@FOXNEWS.COM and please make sure to include your name and hometown.

WHEN A BURRITO JUST WON’T CUT IT
N.Y. Daily News: “This customer was going through Taco Hell. A Taco Bell customer in Slidell, La., called the cops to complain about a taco shell shortage on Monday. The unsatisfied customer notified the Slidell Police Department that the restaurant was ‘out of both hard and soft taco shells.’ Police joked on Facebook that ‘it’s been a while, but another ‘we can’t make this stuff up’ story’ had happened. ‘While this is truly a travesty, the police can’t do anything about this,’ the Slidell Police Department wrote. We can only hope the shells were restocked in time for Taco Tuesday.”

AND NOW, A WORD FROM CHARLES…
“It’s rather pathetic to hear Trump apologists protesting that it’s no big deal because we Americans are always intervening in other people’s elections, and they in ours. You don’t have to go back to the ’40s and ’50s when the CIA intervened in France and Italy to keep the communists from coming to power.” – Charles Krauthammer (1950-2018) writing in the Washington Post on July 13, 2017.

Chris Stirewalt is the politics editor for Fox News. Brianna McClelland contributed to this report. Want FOX News Halftime Report in your inbox every day? Sign up here.