Posted on 05/16/2007 9:18:38 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Just as I thought. You’re anti American.
Tremendous post.
In effect, that we can’t is the exception that proves the rule, and makes a case for something much more singular with respect to the role Islam has played, not just recently, but going all the way back to 670 AD.
“carrying water for traitors”
Let me guess, “traitors” are those who disagrees with the conduct of the war? What do we have left if Americans can’t speak freely about what they believe? Would it be worth defending?
The problems we are having in Iraq have less to do with this man’s particular opinions than with the fact that our “leaders” in the opposition party (DemoncRats) have fought against this country (thereby providing aid and comfort to our enemies) and this war simply to assuage their hatred of the President. A country divided cannot stand, and we are almost there.
No traitors are, for one example, people who claim that we are at war only because the President "lied us into" it.
Bacevich's argument that Bush actually lied himself into war first, and then only accidentally lied the country into war believing the lies were true, is contemptible and separate from any criticism of the actual conduct of the war.
What do we have left if Americans cant speak freely about what they believe?
No one is suggested that Bacevich should be prevented from continuing to spew his garbage.
Correction: “has suggested”
***********************
Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left
(Hardcover)
by David Horowitz
********************************************************
And reviews:
****************************************
Editorial Reviews
Rich Lowry, Editor National Review
David Horowitz is synonymous with pyrotechnics. A historian and polemicist of the first order, he is paid the ultimate compliment --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
Davis Hanson, Author, Ripples of Battle
An original look at those who want us to fail in the Middle East, both at home and abroad. The --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
***********************************************************
See all Editorial Reviews
Fascinating Analysis of Leftist Goals, August 13, 2006
Reviewer: N. Sincerity - See all my reviews
A former 1960s radical, Horowitz is well-acquainted with the Leftist mindset. In this book, he strives to explain the modern alliance between left wing progressivists and radical Islamofascists. He argues that this alliance is based on a common desire to destroy Western capitalism. Leftist sympathy with Islamofascist ideas makes no sense from an intellectual point of view, given that countries ruled by radical Islamists are among the most racist, sexist, theocratic states in the world today. However, Leftists have recognized that they can benefit politically from destructive terrorist attacks on the Western world. A West under attack can be made to turn on its leaders in fear and desperation (as they did in Spain after the Madrid train bombings). Only once people reject current government structures can the Left execute its anti-capitalist revolution and build a new reality that mirrors the Leftist view of utopia.
The complete and utter idealogical hypocrisy of the Islamofascist-Leftist alliance is distressing, but as Horowitz reminds us,
***************************************
There is nothing wrong with questioning the conduct of the war, with an eye toward improving it, but doing it in public serves only to embolden the enemy.
FDR made serious mistakes in the conduct of WWII, but they were not brought up publicly, during the war.
Muslims are fundamentally incapable of living in a free society. Unlike ordinary, sane human beings they have no civic values, no empathy for people outside of their tribe. Their world view is and always has been “us against the world”. Their culture more closely resembles that of dog packs than it does modern western culture.
Their idea of perfect government is is to install their own tribal or religious leader as absolute dictator and then help him enforce his will on the rest of the country. If you don’t believe me, just look at the scum Iraqis voted for given the opportunity to democratically choose their own leaders. Islamic culture makes termite mounds seem enlightened by comparison.
Good Americans know when it is appropriate to "speak freely", and when to be more circumspect.
My own grandfather was monitored by the FBI, all through WWII. (Mostly done by neighbors on behalf of the FBI.) This was because he spoke freely (favorably) about Hitler, during the 1930s. He kept his stupid yap shut during the war, though.
One mistake FDR didn’t make was taking only a small fraction of the country to war. Had GWB done as FDR did, we might have a different homefront.
Was this before or after OBL & crew killed 3,000 people on American soil? I'd say they were pretty bold before we were feeding our armed forces into a meat grinder in Iraq.
Should all war critics lose a child? Would that please you?
No, but more than one poster has suggested that he deserved to lose his son because of his statements. I guess some of the Bush boosters around here won't be happy until every person who disagrees with the president has a child killed.
Had Congress declared war, things could have gone very differently, too. You don't seem to understand that our President has been hamstrung during this entire operation, and has not been able to conduct this war like we conducted WWII.
That is not a legitimate excuse for emboldening the enemy.
You don’t seem to understand that the President is the CinC. He decided when and how we went to war.
I do not believe that he deserved to lose his son, and I certainly don't think that his son deserved to die. However, he did contribute to the death of his son. Sedition matters, that's why it's illegal, and also why the laws against it used to be enforced.
If you don't understand anything about history, or the various legal and practical limitations of Presidential power, you shouldn't get involved in this kind of discussion.
If you name call and tell me what I can discuss, you lose.
Are you saying we could only go to war in 2003 with the military we had on 9-11? What is it about the Presidency you don’t understand? Who is responsible for the situation in Iraq? Rumsfeld? Cheney? The Joint Chiefs? The War Czar? You know the answer. The Commander is responsible for all of it.
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.