Hitchens bump
Yet the Far Left claim that the current President Bush had no right to avenge or prosecute those (hint: SADDAM) who tried to assassinate the previous President Bush?
It's ok for Islamic despots to "act firmly" against their enemies but it's not ok for America to "act firmly" against her enemies. We certainly know which side Mr. Clark is on (but most FReepers knew that before this anyway.)
interesting to VDH fans ping
Hitchens has a sizeable vocabulary, yet still doesn't adequately express my contempt for Ramsey Clark.
FYI, Hichens is goign to take apart Scott Ritter in a a debate on Dec. 20.
What will Sheehan and the other humanitarians say this time? Or are they simply pro-war and on the other side?
Doesn’t even need an answer, of course.
But the “they hate George Bush” excuse doesn’t even scratch the surface, when you consider that many of these leftists have been up to these shenanigans for fourty plus years.
The fact is that they hate the United States, and George Bush (to his credit) represents much of what they hate about it.
Common sense, logic, reasoning, lessons from history, are characteristics which cannot even begin to break into the mind of a radical leftist. The left's agenda is more important than the common good of the country and the people. They are hard-wired to reject any sensible viewpoints.
Saddam Hussein could've murdered Ramsey Clark's family, but Ramsey would've found a way to lay blame on his own family or somebody else.
...In the run-up to the war, almost whichever way the debate was going, one could count on the president’s opponents to stipulate that, yes, Saddam was certainly a dreadful and criminal figure. This position was hardly optional, given the Alps of evidence assembled over the years, much of it later excavated in mass graves and torture centers and in the ruin of two neighboring states.
Yet now, one of the best-known spokesmen for the antiwar cause [Ramsey Clark] appears across the world’s TV screens, openly saying the Hussein system was justified all along in its aggression abroad and fascism at home.
I was, and still am, one of those who advocated publicly for the overthrow of Saddam. In debates, I proposed that most participants could at least agree on something. Whatever one’s view of the propriety and competence of the intervention, it could surely be accepted that human rights groups in Iraq could use some help digging up the mass graves and identifying the fundamentalists on both sides of the argument; that the Kurdish people — the largest stateless minority in the region — were in need of solidarity; and that the ‘‘marsh’’ Arabs, victims of one of the worst ecocides ever inflicted, were calling for help.
For the most part, the antiwar faction has subordinated everything to its hatred of Bush, folded its hands and watched coldly as Iraqi democrats struggle in a sea of chaos. That sham neutrality is bad enough. But now, the antiwarriors do have a permanent representative in Baghdad, in the form of an apologist for the past crimes and aggressions of a man who makes his hero, Mussolini, seem like an amateur.
What will Sheehan and the other humanitarians say this time? Or are they simply pro-war and on the other side?
Nailed It!
Moral Clarity BUMP !
This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately on my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.