Skip to comments.Anti-War? Hardly!
Posted on 08/23/2006 10:10:17 PM PDT by DakotaRed
We have become accustomed to referring to those bashing President Bush and the current battles in Iraq as the anti-war left. We saw them back in the 1960s and 1970s as they openly opposed the efforts we made to preserve the freedoms the struggling country of South Viet Nam were striving towards. We saw them as President Reagan sent troops into Granada, to rescues American Medical Students stuck there. We saw them during the first Gulf War and see them mostly today as they openly oppose the ongoing War in Iraq, while also claiming to support the War on Terror.
There is the claim that Iraq is separate from the War on Terror, but that isnt so. It is but a battle in the overall war and an important one. Let Iraq falter and fail and watch as the radical Islamofascists flood in, enslaving the Iraqi people much worse than did Saddam and his followers. Watch as the killing fields of Cambodia and slaughter of innocent South Vietnamese are paled in comparison to the slaughter of Iraqis that support freedom or the US led effort to free them.
For a group claiming to be anti-war their support for warring parties amongst our enemies is mind-boggling. Cindy Sheehan calls those that actually ambushed and killed her son, Casey, Freedom Fighters, as she calls President Bush a murderer. Jeeni Criscenzo, Democratic Party nominee for the U.S. House of Representatives 49th California District, has posted on her blog support for the insurgents in Iraq.
Senator John McCain, former POW from Viet Nam and supporter of the Iraqi excursion has come out claiming President Bush is misleading the public making Iraq seem like a walk on the beach. Where he came up with that one I dont have a clue. President Bush has repeatedly said both the battles in Iraq and the overall War on Terror will be a hard long fight.
The Democrats holding seats in our government seem to be falling over themselves to bash Bush and the Iraqi War, yet still claim to support the ongoing war in Afghanistan. Kerry, Boxer, Pelosi, Murtha, Kennedy, Reid, you name them and they have all demanded either an immediate withdrawal or phased withdrawal of our troops. Yet, when faced with charges that they too voted for this war, they whine that Bush misled them, even though some were making claims of dealing with Saddam and his WMD program at least 3 years prior to Bush winning the election.
Going back to the Clinton administration, we see that then President Clinton deployed troops all over. The humanitarian effort in Somalia was turned into a military operation under control of the United Nations, until we lost some good men and their bodies were drug through the streets. We sent troops to Haiti and bombed Kosovo, killing many civilians on the ground. We flew sorties against the Iraq regime throughout the 1990s, firing on anti-aircraft batteries, sending cruise and tomahawk missiles into a government building in the dead of night, killing some janitors. We bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan, without any approval from the UN and no outcry from those calling themselves anti-war that I can recall.
As long as it was a darling Democrat initiating hostilities, warranted or not, they supported the actions. But, after we lost nearly 3,000 citizens in the most heinous terrorist act to ever befall us, these cretins come out of hiding to interfere, oppose and undermine our brave Military again.
They may call themselves anti-war, but to me, they are nothing more than the same old Communists that have been trying to destroy our way of life since before World War Two (which was another war they supported, but only after Hitler turned on the Soviet Union). Any embarrassment they can cause the US, they will do. Any denigration of our Military or current administration, again, they will do.
They cling to the writings of Marx and strive to make America more like the failed Soviet Union, crying about Defense Budgets and demanding cradle to grave care for themselves and those foolish enough to follow them.
Dont be fooled by their claims of anti-war, that only grants them a standing of moral authority they do not deserve. Their goal is to institute a Marxist, Socialistic Communist state in America by any means possible.
Anti-war is a name they may claim, but as can be seen by their selectivity of opposing war, they are hardly anti-war. Anti-Iraqi War? Anti-American? Anti-Republican? Anti-Bush? Communist? Yes, all those and more, but not anti-war. Applying that name to them is hypocritical.
The underlying problem is Communism, and the Islamist fanatics are the "useful idiots" that will help them get what they want: Communist world domination.
That is why they are so loved and protected by the left in Europe and America.
We were lulled into a false sense of security when the "Evil Empire", the USSR collapsed, the splintering of the Reds helped them simce they were many smaller groups and could fly under the radar, especially if the radar was being focused on another enemy: the Islamist loons.
Look to the left and see the real enemy.
The Origins of Political Correctness
An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind
let me know what you think...
I stand corrected. I will NEVER call them anti-war again. They are America-hating, freedom-hating, cowardly human beings that don't deserve to live in this great country.
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.