Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 78

Thread: Demoncrats lefties and progressives

  1. #1

    Default Demoncrats lefties and progressives

    Stab in the Back
    By David Horowitz
    FrontPageMagazine.com | February 12, 2004


    The fact that the President is now on the defensive over the war in Iraq is both puzzling and ominous. The Democratic attack on the credibility of the Commander-in-Chief has gone on relentlessly for more than ten months, ever since the liberation of Baghdad in April of last year. This ferocious attack would be understandable if the war had gone badly or been unjust; if Saddam Hussein had unleashed chemical weapons on the coalition armies, or had ignited an environmental disaster, or if the war had resulted in tens of thousands of coalition casualties, or become an endless quagmire, or instigated a wave of terror across the Muslim world – as its opponents predicted before it began.

    But it did not. This was a good war and relatively costless as modern conflicts go. Its result was the liberation of 25 million Iraqis from a monster regime. Its cost was a third of the economic losses resulting from the 9/11 attack. Its relatively painless victory was a tremendous setback for the forces of chaos. The war destroyed a principal base of regional aggression and terror. It induced a terrorist and nuclear power, Libya, to give up its weapons of mass destruction. It induced Iran to allow inspections of its nuclear sites; it caused North Korea to consider negotiation and restraint. It induced Pakistan to give up its nuclear secrets dealer. It made the terrorist regime in Syria more reasonable and pliant. It sent a message across a dangerous world that defiance of UN resolutions and international law, when backed by the word of the United States, can mean certain destruction for outlaw regimes. In all these ways, whatever else one may say about it, George Bush’s war has struck a mighty blow for global peace.

    The Democrats’ attack on the President’s war, then, is an effort – whether Democrats intend it so or not – to reverse these gains. If the President is defeated in the coming election on the issue of war and peace, as Democrats intend, his defeat will send exactly the reverse message to the world of nations. It will tell them that a new American government is prepared to go back to the delusions of pre-9/11, that it will end the war on terror and return to treating terrorists as criminals instead of enemy soldiers. Candidate John Kerry has said this in so many words. It will tell them that the United States will no longer hold governments responsible for the actions of terrorists who operate from their soil, as did Ansar al-Islam, Abu Nidal, and Abu Abbas from their bases in Iraq. Or for supporting terror, as Saddam Hussein did when he financed suicide bombers in Israel. It will send a signal that tyrants like Saddam Hussein who defy UN ultimatums are likely to be appeased – the way they were under the Clinton Administration which had the vision to stop Saddam and the Taliban but not the will to stop them with force. It will announce to the world that the American government is now reluctant to risk even a few American lives to defend international law or stand up for the freedom of those who are oppressed like the people of Iraq.

    The Democrats’ personal attack on the President over the war is not only imprudent; it is also unprecedented. Never in our history has a commander-in-chief been attacked on a partisan basis for a war that went well, let alone so well. Never in human history has a leader been attacked on a partisan basis for liberating a people or inducing tyrants to give up their weapons of mass destruction. The Democrats’ attack on the President is an unprecedented partisan campaign over national security in a time of war. It is a campaign that apparently knows no limits, adopting tactics that are as unscrupulous as they are reckless. The commander-in-chief has been called a “deceiver,” a “deserter,” a “breaker of promises,” a “fraud” who “concocted” the war for personal material gain, a leader who risked innocent American lives for a “lie.” And all these accusations are made while the war continues! All these charges are made while terrorists plot to kill thousands of Americans with biological and chemical and possibly nuclear weapons! The Democrats’ campaign is a stab in the back not only of the President but of the nation he serves and which he is sworn to protect.

    No one knows what the future will bring. But no one can fail to have noticed that while the commander-in-chief has carried on an aggressive war against terror in Afghanistan and Iraq, there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil. For two-and- a-half years while the commander-in-chief has waged this war that the Democrats have chosen to attack, the American people have been safe.

    If the American people were now to elect a candidate who has conducted his campaign as an attack on the very war the President has fought to defend us, no one can doubt that our enemies will be encouraged and our lives will be in greater danger than before. Perhaps there have been elections with higher stakes than the one we are facing this year. But this observer can’t remember one.
    Walter V. Kopitov

  2. #2
    Ben Bartlett Guest

    Default

    Look, you want to know what my problem with the war in Iraq is? The problem is this: the administration fed us a bunch of BS about "mushroom clouds over America", and then we get in there, and there are no WMDs. None. So yeah, I'm a wee bit angry at the administration about this. If Bush wanted to off Saddam because he was a bad guy (and if that's the case, there are a lot of other bad guys that could use offing), then I wouldn't be particularly annoyed. I might think we were digging ourselves into a whole lot of trouble, and that maybe we should spend our money elsewhere first, particularly given that Saddam did most of the evil stuff during the late 80's (when we supported him) and early 90's, and had by this time turned into a relatively harmless crackpot intent on writing his newest novel, but nevertheless, I wouldn't be particularly annoyed. But I'm sorry, if you feed me a lot of horsesh*t, and then go into war based on that horsesh*t, don't expect a whole lot of sympathy from me when the Democrats call you a liar.

    And there is still no, and I repeat, no evidence Saddam was tied into Al Qaeda or any other international terrorist organization. The Israelis have a right to be pissed at him for paying off the families of suicide bombers (and if they had gone and taken him out, I would've understood completely), but honestly, get off of it. We can all agree he was a bad guy and shouldn't have been running a country, but let's not heap more lies upon the already steaming dungpile we have right now.

    I'll agree this election has high stakes, alright. We have in office a President who seems to have an addiction for lying, who's administrative is the most secretive I've ever seen, who's managed to lower the world's opinion of us to the lowest it's been in my lifetime, under whom jobs are expanding slower than the working population is... I could go on, but I'd just be ranting. And I fully admit, I have a visceral reaction to W., the likes of which I have not had to any other President (or to most people that I know, for that matter). I wish the Republicans had nominated McCain instead, or that Dole had won in '96, because I wouldn't have minded 4 or 8 years under either of them.

    P.S. I love Horowitz' specious reasoning. "Look, for the last 2 years no one has attacked us! Bush must be great!" By that logic, Clinton must've been even better, because there were no attacks by foreign terrorists from 1994-2000! Look at the job he did!
    Last edited by Ben Bartlett; 26th February 2004 at 01:51.

  3. #3

    Default

    The world knew that he had WMD because he used them on his own people and the Iranians. He never tried to prove that he got rid of them properly. If he had cooperated with the UN then the USA would not have gone in to Iraq. So the question is what happened to the WMD? Did he ship them to Syria? Or did he pass them to terrorist groups?
    Walter V. Kopitov

  4. #4

    Default

    There have been many reports of links to al Qaeda though some refuse to accept it. Here is a link to the newest.



    Saddam's Ambassador to al Qaeda
    Walter V. Kopitov

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Seattle, WA USA
    Posts
    3,784
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Hey Ben, you're in Canada - you mean to tell us that the Canadian government had diddly to do with the US taking care of a despot that murdered huge numbers of his own citizens and exported war to his neighbors?

    Canada, the country that doesn't even really have a military.

    Harvey Moul

    Fish and visitors stink after three days - Ben Franklin

  6. #6
    Ben Bartlett Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
    Hey Ben, you're in Canada - you mean to tell us that the Canadian government had diddly to do with the US taking care of a despot that murdered huge numbers of his own citizens and exported war to his neighbors?

    Canada, the country that doesn't even really have a military.

    I'm currently attending school in Canada. I was born, raised, and fully intend to return to the States, thanks.

    As for Saddam killing his own citizens and exporting war to his neighbors... yes, he did those things. He did most of them while we were supporting him (Rumsfeld gave Saddam golden spurs at the time, for cryin' out loud). I would've loved it if we had gone and dealt with him then. I'm not too sorry about it now, but frankly, it was too little, too late, and there are more important things we could've spent our money (and military power) on. That said, I am not for pulling out now that we are there. Now that we've gotten into this mess, we better darn well stay there until we make sure Iraq really does have a stable, democratic government.

    Walt, that link you sent is broken, but if it's about Ansar Al-Islam, they existed in Kurdish territory, not Saddam's; they wanted to get rid of Saddam; and Al-Qaeda recently rebuffed their plea for help. If it's not about Ansar Al-Islam, I'll take a look, but as of yet, I've not seen any credible evidence that Saddam was connected to Al-Qaeda (and even the administration has backed off on this one).

  7. #7
    Gene Williams Guest

    Default

    Well, I guess you are coming back with a head full of Socialist mush. If you can't do any better than that, stay up there.

  8. #8
    Ben Bartlett Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Gene Williams
    Well, I guess you are coming back with a head full of Socialist mush. If you can't do any better than that, stay up there.
    Given that nothing I stated above was in the least bit Socialist (in fact, none of it had to do with economic theory at all), I'm not certain where you came up with that. You're free to disagree with me, as no doubt Walt and Harvey do, but really, pathetic attempts at insulting me will get you nowhere.

  9. #9
    Gene Williams Guest

    Default

    It doesn't have to do with anything you said, it is the environment you have chosen. If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas

  10. #10
    Ben Bartlett Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Gene Williams
    It doesn't have to do with anything you said, it is the environment you have chosen. If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas
    Well, that's why I avoid Georgia!

    Actually, I like Georgia, but I couldn't resist that.

    That said, it's safe to say my political thoughts are already well-formed, and are not likely to change during my brief stay in Canada.

  11. #11
    Ben Bartlett Guest

    Default

    Oh right, and while I'm at it, no, I'm not a Socialist.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    876
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Ben Bartlett
    I'm currently attending school in Canada. I was born, raised, and fully intend to return to the States, thanks.

    Where are you going? UofT? If so, you have my deepest sympathies... CHUMP!

    York Rules!

    A11 Y0uR b@s3 arE B3l()nG tO u5!

    If you are not at the UofT, please omit the previous statement....


    I've given up on the whole thing. I can think of a lot of places a lot worse off than Iraq was, and where billions upon billions of dollars could have helped a lot more people who would have been a lot more grateful. Although the oil is nice, the US has plenty in S. America that it can get its hands on. I honestly have no Idea what the administration was thinking. My only remaining assumption is that they are either fantastically paranoid or fantastically stupid.

    Saddam was Sunni. Al Quaeda are shia. Any cooperation would have been on the same level as American complicity in Iran and Nicaragua. It was politically convenient. Saddam hated Shiites, give him a reason not to help them and he'll stop. Hell, he'll gas villages full of them if you'd like. Unless you plan on apologising to Iran and Nicaragua and paying reparations to both countries, you're holding up an unequal standard of justice. The only real justification is you did it because you could and nobody really cared enough to stop you. It's good enough for me, providing you turn over all the wealth and infrastructure back over to the Iraqis when you leave. I don't miss Saddam, but the whole thing seems like a bad idea to me.

    Did you ever see that Tom Hanks movie 'The Money Pit'?
    Iain Richardson, compulsive post-having cake eater-wanter.

    "He shoots first who laughs last."
    - Alexsandr Lebed,

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Stuart, Florida
    Posts
    2,154
    Likes (received)
    2

    Default

    Come on guys, what it all comes down to is, it's okay to hound a Democratic president, but Repbulican presidents are off limits. Now knock it off.

    (I did a search on Clinton bashing. I found some pretty virulent stuff. I'm not saying it was wrong, but I couldn't find anyone crybaby defense either, denial yes, ignore the charges yes. But "you big meany, you started it, wah, wah, wah,that seems to be a Republican thing.)
    joe yang, the three edged sword of truth

    "Not going to be fooled by you again Joe Yang's right you are evil and self-serving." Haiyomi

    "Give my regards to joe yang. very intelligent man." Sojobow

  14. #14
    Ben Bartlett Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Iain
    Where are you going? UofT? If so, you have my deepest sympathies... CHUMP!

    York Rules!

    A11 Y0uR b@s3 arE B3l()nG tO u5!

    If you are not at the UofT, please omit the previous statement....
    Yep, UofT. Don't know much about York, but I doubt its CS department is as good as UofT's, and even if it is, they ain't paying me to be there.

    I've given up on the whole thing. I can think of a lot of places a lot worse off than Iraq was, and where billions upon billions of dollars could have helped a lot more people who would have been a lot more grateful. Although the oil is nice, the US has plenty in S. America that it can get its hands on. I honestly have no Idea what the administration was thinking. My only remaining assumption is that they are either fantastically paranoid or fantastically stupid.

    Saddam was Sunni. Al Quaeda are shia. Any cooperation would have been on the same level as American complicity in Iran and Nicaragua. It was politically convenient. Saddam hated Shiites, give him a reason not to help them and he'll stop. Hell, he'll gas villages full of them if you'd like. Unless you plan on apologising to Iran and Nicaragua and paying reparations to both countries, you're holding up an unequal standard of justice. The only real justification is you did it because you could and nobody really cared enough to stop you. It's good enough for me, providing you turn over all the wealth and infrastructure back over to the Iraqis when you leave. I don't miss Saddam, but the whole thing seems like a bad idea to me.

    Did you ever see that Tom Hanks movie 'The Money Pit'?
    While it is true that Al Qaeda was not likely to hook up with Saddam for many reasons (the main one being that Saddam was a very, very secular dictator, who gave power to women and Christians), Al Qaeda is, in fact, Sunni. And yes, the U.S. is going to lose a lot of money in Iraq, although if by some miracle we do actually manage to pull off a free, democratic Iraq in the bargain, I'll admit that it will have been worth the cost. I'm afraid, though, that the administration won't want to stick around in Iraq, because it's becoming politically inconvenient for them to do so.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Stuart, Florida
    Posts
    2,154
    Likes (received)
    2

    Default

    Our liberation of Irag will fail. Unfortuantely, and history will probably bear this out, the only political system proven capable of uprooting a congenitally oppressive culture is communisim. The US should just run around and steamroller the despots of the world, then franchise out reconstruction to the Vietnamese, they have "re-education down to a science.
    joe yang, the three edged sword of truth

    "Not going to be fooled by you again Joe Yang's right you are evil and self-serving." Haiyomi

    "Give my regards to joe yang. very intelligent man." Sojobow

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •