Being anti-war means never having to say you're sorry

New Ross Standard (Ireland) ^ | April 17, 2003 | Anne Marie O'Connor

[MadIvan]

For your discussion.

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

Bump!

[Lazamataz]

The fellow who described the torture was lucky to make it out alive at all.

Most didn't.

And the left still cannot admit they were wrong.

[wi jd]

Great read.

Bump!

[Happygal]

Ping! :-)

[Dutchy]

A Rule Brittania bump!! from our friend MadIvan...

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Great article, as usual. The hard-core left will never get it. I've heard socialism described as a mental illness or a religion.

[Mr. Mulliner]

Only a few of these lefties will ever get it. The rest of them will stay blissfully ignorant in their cocoons of unreality.

Meanwhile, this news comes from Mugabe's Zimbabwe. Apparently these guys know more than the leftist anti-Bush types.

"Mr Bush, when are you coming to liberate us?" has become a catchphrase among unemployed youths.

[aculeus]

Absolutely brilliant!!!!

[Democratshavenobrains]

They are trying to say that a 3 week war is far worse than 30 years of dictatorship.

This is an excellant summary of the anti-American worldview.

[El Sordo]

Bump for a well written article.

[Welsh Rabbit]

I've heard socialism described as a mental illness or a religion.

A religion for the mentally ill....

[FBD]

Thanks for the ping, bump.

[AquariusStar22]

The Anti-war crowd has always had as their basis their utter contempt and personal dislike of George Bush.

This fact alone should disqualify them from any legitimate debate of the war. Remember when much was made of the Clinton "haters" which automatically exempted you from any serious discussion of what went on in his administration?

Well, let's apply that stringent standard to the Bush "bashers". It should immediately identify you as a person without serious qualifications to criticise the administration.

Of course we know that THAT was then and this is now.

Letting these people continue on the warpath against Bush is another example of the bias the press has when the Left is clearly out-of-control.

If Clinton haters were routinely dismissed as irrelevant then the same standard could be applied to the Bush bashers.

The Anti-Bush people should have thoroughly discredited themselves so why are we still hearing about them? And, unlike the Clinton haters who proved to be right on his moral and ethical unfitness to be president, the Bush haters have been proven wrong on every aspect of both how this war would go and Bush's leadership of it.

[Mister Baredog]

To put it simply, the anti-war left is gripped by hysteria. This hysteria is based on a hatred of George W. Bush

BUSH cares the least about what they think, he knows what he wants do do and he does it, period.

They felt the same way about Reagan. Since they are being ignored, who cares if they acknowledge anything. Even when they brought 1 million to the streets they didn't matter. They still don't. This is what upsets them the most.

[lilylangtree]

". . . the anti-war left is gripped by hysteria. This hysteria is based on a hatred of George W. Bush. . . ."

This lines produces the foundation of the belief of the left, which begs the question: who or what force is really behind these people? Masses are moved by forces. Clintoon bombed a country a year during his tenure in office, simultaneously with an outbreak of a sex scandal. Where were these people when anyone with half a brain could see what clintoon was doing was diversionary? For instance, NATO rewrote its own charter with the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. By bombing Yugoslavia, the action violated the UN Charter, the 1980 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the Helsinki Accords Final Act of 1975. Where were these anti-war protestors? Did anyone see any of them on the streets? NO-nada. These anti-war people only come out of wallboards like cockroaches when a Republican president takes charge. This is so artificial that the question "who or what force is behind these anti-war protestors" must be asked repeatedly because the answer is not yet defined.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Saddam's dictatorship was a mix of cruelty, bad taste and kleptomania. Anyone who is free at present should be delighted that it is gone. Those who opposed the war should have to do a re-think. But apparently being an anti-war protestor means never having to say you're sorry, or even acknowledge facts.

That's exactly right. Let the lies abound while oppressing the truth. It's easy to lie and never be able to prove it, and when they are caught and the truth is exposed they don't care. It was never about peace anyway, it was about supporting one of their own.

[Dutchgirl]

Michael D. Higgins made some very sweeping statements about the war, including this statement in the Dail on March 12:

“By the time this House returns on March 25 it is possible that up to one million mothers may be affected by the war, there may be 100,000 direct casualties and 400,000 secondary ones. Ten to 15 million people on food dependency may also be affected.”

I think this may qualify for one of the "Garafolo Awards. I will nominate it here:NOMINATION THREAD FOR THE FREE REPUBLIC GAROFALO AWARDS

[MadIvan]

Michael D. Higgins is an absolute nutcase - I've been following the argument over the use of Shannon Airport by American troops, and the arguments he has deployed against this usage are nonsensical and outrageous.

He is also Foreign Affairs Spokesman for the Labour Party of Ireland. Go figure. ;)

Regards, Ivan

[VOA]

Being anti-war means never having to say you're sorry

It's been "All Quiet On The Anti-War Front" here in the USA...except for a member
of "The Greatest Generation".

At least crusty Andy Rooney of the CBS "Sixty Minutes" had to good grace to say
he was wrong in gauging how easily Saddam would be displaced.
(and I give Rooney latitude to be critical in war-time...he did serve in the
sh-t during WWII).

As for the rest...SILENCE...
But I also give actor Sean Penn a pass...he's too busy looking for that gas-guzzling
V-8 powered old GM car he lost a week or two ago...along with the
Glock pistol and .38 revolver he had in the car (due to his rarer-than-hen's-teeth
California concealed carry permit).
Looks like even when Penn finds "weapons of mass destruction", he can't hold onto them.