Posted on 02/12/2004 1:45:43 AM PST by FairOpinion
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.
Perhaps there have been elections with higher stakes than the one we are facing this year. But this observer can’t remember one. "
And their way simply means they want to be in power, to push their agenda on the rest of us.
Opinion are like...well you know, everyone has one, but that doesn't make it right to aggravate the war and motivate the enemy. I've been wondering for a long time what happen to America? It's the liberals, plain and simple.
***If you were active in the so-called "peace" movement or in the radical wing of the civil rights causes, why would you tell the truth? Why would you tell people that no, you weren't really a "peace activist," except in the sense that you were against America's war. Why would you draw attention to the fact that while you called yourselves "peace activists," you didn't oppose the Communists' war, and were gratified when America's enemies won?
What you were really against was not war at all, but American "imperialism" and American capitalism. What you truly hated was America's democracy, which you knew to be a "sham" because it was controlled by money in the end. That's why you wanted to "Bring the Troops Home," as your slogan said. Because if America's troops came home, America would lose and the Communists would win. And the progressive future would be one step closer.
But you never had the honesty-then or now-to admit that. You told the lie then to maintain your influence and increase your power to do good (as only the Chosen can). And you keep on telling the lie for the same reason.
Why would you admit that, despite your tactical support for civil rights, you weren't really committed to civil rights as Americans understand rights? What you really wanted was to overthrow the very Constitution that guaranteed those rights, based as it is on private property and the individual-both of which you despise.
It is because America is a democracy and the people endorse it, that the left's anti-American, but "progressive" agendas can only be achieved by deceiving the people. This is the cross the left has to bear: The better world is only achievable by lying to the very people they propose to redeem. ***Source
The "left" bears no "cross", and the "left" is not in the business of "redeeming".
The "left", quite simply, are Marxist Socialists. They seek to destroy capitalism, our way of life, and use the same age old montra of "power to the people" to convince the "poor downtrodden workers" they are being screwed by the rich.
Evidently the American society is evenly split, with half wanting cradle to grave government assistance, [the right to live off of others labors] ....
and half wishing for less government intrusion in their lives, [wishing to work, earn their station in life, and be free from governmental excesses]
Put on your seat belt, pay that tax, you must have a permit to do that, fenced in "federal land", and the beat goes on.
We are loosing that fight. Isn't propaganda a wonderful thing?
Who's they?
[Chart Image Only; NO link here; Go To Thread]
The IBEW (Union Electricians) has this color chart showing the Federal Budget and Unemployment. There are five text boxes that 'explain' how Democrat Presidents are better. Well, happily, there was some good FR response. - Check it out!-
Union Economic Chart: Fed Budget & Unemployment Rate =(Dem Pres. are better) NEED FR Response!
Some GOP WHINERS too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.