Iraq: a war 'to be proud of'
08.29.05 (1:33 pm) [edit]A very interesting article by Christopher Hitchens-- http://www.frontpagemag.com/A... . Excerpt:
[i]The subsequent liberation of Pakistan's theocratic colony in Afghanistan, and the so-far decisive eviction and defeat of its bin Ladenist guests, was only a reprisal. It took care of the last attack. But what about the next one? For anyone with eyes to see, there was only one other state that combined the latent and the blatant definitions of both "rogue" and "failed." This state--Saddam's ruined and tortured and collapsing Iraq--had also met all the conditions under which a country may be deemed to have sacrificed its own legal sovereignty. To recapitulate: It had invaded its neighbors, committed genocide on its own soil, harbored and nurtured international thugs and killers, and flouted every provision of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The United Nations, in this crisis, faced with regular insult to its own resolutions and its own character, had managed to set up a system of sanctions-based mutual corruption. In May 2003, had things gone on as they had been going, Saddam Hussein would have been due to fill Iraq's slot as chair of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament. Meanwhile, every species of gangster from the hero of the Achille Lauro hijacking to Abu Musab al Zarqawi was finding hospitality under Saddam's crumbling roof.
One might have thought, therefore, that Bush and Blair's decision to put an end at last to this intolerable state of affairs would be hailed, not just as a belated vindication of long-ignored U.N. resolutions but as some corrective to the decade of shame and inaction that had just passed in Bosnia and Rwanda. But such is not the case. An apparent consensus exists, among millions of people in Europe and America, that the whole operation for the demilitarization of Iraq, and the salvage of its traumatized society, was at best a false pretense and at worst an unprovoked aggression. How can this possibly be?[/i]
Read on for more...
Bin Laden doesn't take 5 week vacations...
08.29.05 (1:10 pm) [edit]Read a cartoon today that depicted a terrorist standing outside a cave that said "Al Qaeda Headquarters". The terrorist said "He doesn't take five week vacations", an obvious referral to Osama bin Laden and George Bush. The implication is that Osama bin Laden is still free because George Bush isn't concerned with the business of catching him. That Bush would rather be on vacation.
Well.
Everyone knows what presidential "vacations" are. They are working times away from the White House, basically. These are very different from the vacations that most people take. Everyone knows this.
Everyone knows that one president cannot really do anything toward the capture of an individual. He is not going to jump out of a plane in the mountains and find this individual. He puts a policy in place and others carry that out. It's called delegation. We've had a presence in Afghanistan looking for OBL since October 2001, and we've had several secretive missions into Pakistan. The main reason we cannot find OBL is because, contrary to left-wing sniveling, we have Pakistan in our way. Pakistan is not harboring OBL: they are trying to access the same lawless, very dangerous area that we are. But they know, as few left-wingers here do, that if the US enters Pakistani territory, it could incite the terrorists already in their country. Pakistan asked to be our partner in helping to find OBL. We've respected that. Hussein had an option to change his ways, too. Everyone knows this.
So why am I pissed? Because this was printed all over the United States. Because it is such a simple-minded childlike statement that tries to get away with a disregard for history and context. Because it is sneaky. Because it is unfair. Because, basically, it is the way a liberal argues.
I could make the case that George Bush has done more to find OBL "on vacation" than Bubba Clinton ever did getting his dick sucked at the White House, but everyone knows that.
And deep down, liberals know it too.
Cindy Sheehan calls terrorists in Iraq "freedom fighters"
08.23.05 (11:04 am) [edit]From Sweetness and Light- http://www.sweetness-light.co... :
"Cindy is being interviewed by CBS News’ Mark Knoller, upon her arrival in Crawford on August 6, 2005:
[i][b]Mark Knoller[/b]: You know that the President says Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism, don’t you believe that?
[b]Cindy Sheehan[/b]: No, because it’s not true. Iraq was no threat to the United States of America until we invaded. Iraq was not involved in 9/11. Iraq was not a terrorist state.
But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open. [b]Freedom Fighters from other countries are going in.[/b] And they have created more terrorism by going into an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country.
Terrorism is growing. And people who never thought of being car bombers, suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their country."[/b]
Logic check: They are freedom fighters from other countries who have come to Iraq because they want the US out of their country?
And excuse me, but wasn’t Saddam Hussein a major sponsor of terrorists? Didn’t he give large rewards to families of suicide bombers?
**Also, are we creating freedom fighters, as Sheehan says, or more terrorists, as Sheehan says? This woman is a perfect example of the zealous, illogical, far-left. Her son is no doubt cringing from beyond the grave.**
Bochco’s Botched and Biased 'Over There'
08.12.05 (11:04 am) [edit]A good article about the new, inaccuarate and liberally biased FX show about the Iraq war "Over There"-- http://www.townhall.com/colum...