Posted on 12/17/2003 8:04:12 PM PST by Commie Basher
Sunday's capture of Saddam Hussein made it a great day — a great day for empty rhetoric and meaningless posturing by politicians and journalists.
Somehow it was assumed by politicians and the press, without explanation, that Hussein's capture has vindicated the Bush administration's attack on Iraq. But from September 2002 to March 2003, George Bush said nothing about capturing Saddam Hussein. Instead, Bush talked incessantly about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's ability to attack the U.S. with them — as well as Al Qaeda camps in the Iraqi desert. How does finding Saddam Hussein make Bush's claims any more true than they were last week?
We're told that that the Iraqis can see now that Saddam Hussein isn't coming back to power — as though they couldn't figure that out for themselves with 130,000 foreign troops occupying their country.
But in the wonderland occupied by politicians and journalists, the capture of Hussein must mean that all the resisters — also known as "loyalists of the old regime" — would have no more reason to resist.
Some politicians said that if anti-war protesters had their gotten way, Hussein would be in his palace today, instead of in jail. Yes, and if the anti-war protesters had gotten their way, several hundred Americans and thousands of Iraqis would be alive today, instead of dead.
The press played its part in the celebration. Wolf Blitzer of CNN said that Hussein's capture proves to the world that "the President of the United States means business" — whatever that means.
In fact, we've known all along that George Bush means business — the business of getting reelected.
There were plenty of TV pictures of Iraqis firing AK-47s into the air. But no inquiring minds bothered to ask how everyday Iraqis could be carrying AK-47s out in the open, when the American occupiers have imposed strict gun-control edicts and are at war with resisters.
What if Saddam Hussein says that all the dreaded Weapons of Mass Destruction were destroyed years ago? Well, we know that George Bush believes in preemptive strikes, and he's already made one on this front. On Monday, he said of Hussein:
He’s a liar. He’s a torturer. He’s a murderer. . . . He’s a — he’s just — he is what he is: He’s a person that was willing to destroy his country and to kill a lot of his fellow citizens. He’s a person who used weapons of mass destruction against citizens in his own country. And so it’s — he is the kind of person that is untrustworthy and I’d be very cautious about relying upon his word in any way, shape or form.
In other words, "Believe him only if he confirms what I've been telling you for the past year."
Liberation
Donald Rumsfeld said that Hussein's capture means that the Iraqis can now be free in spirit, as well as in fact.
Ah yes, liberated Iraq. It is now a free country. George Bush has liberated it.
How has Iraq been liberated? Let me count the ways . . .
1. The country is occupied by a foreign power.
2. Its officials are appointed by that foreign power.
3. Its citizens must carry ID cards.
4. They must submit to searches of their persons and cars at checkpoints and roadblocks.
5. They must be in their homes by curfew time.
6. Many towns are ringed with barbed wire.
7. The occupiers have imposed strict gun-control laws, preventing ordinary citizens from defending themselves — making robberies, rapes, and assaults quite common.
8. Trade with some countries is banned by the occupying authorities.
9. The occupiers have decreed that certain electoral outcomes won't be permitted.
10. Families are held hostage until they reveal the whereabouts of wanted resisters — much like the Nazis held innocent French people hostage during World War II.
11. Protests are outlawed.
12. Private homes are raided or demolished — with no due process of law.
13. The occupiers have created a fiat currency and imposed it on the populace.
14. Newspapers, radio stations, and TV are all supervised by the occupiers.
This is liberation in the NewSpeak language of politics.
Words like freedom just don't seem to mean what they used to, do they?
Maybe Harry Browne thinks that once the statue fell in Baghdad, all of Saddam's thugs, (who were handsomely rewarded for their loyalty), would just lay down their arms and join in the celebration? I wonder if this mental midget H. Browne understands what it takes to remove a Dictator? Does he think the liberating force would not round up all king pins of the Regime and round up all the supporters of the Regime? Does he think that our forces would not have to round up Saddam's henchmen?
Message to Harry Browne:
The people of Iraq have been liberated from a Tyrant and when the security threat is gone and the Iraqi people are capable of governing themselves, we will leave if asked, and stay if they need us to provide security while they get back on their feet. Do you not listen to what this administration has been saying?
Harry Browne, your irrelevance gets clearer every time you put your thoughts into words. You can ignore the threat these terrorist present if you want! I thank God that we have a leader who can see past the front row, something you are not capable of doing.... You see! It's a vision thing!!!
You only have to say, gee you have a point there. But as a person who often cites the government and societal "responsibility" to protect people from sin and violating the commandments, I can understand how you'd make such an obvious mistake.
Just what in the heck does he think regime change means?!!
Time after time in the period from September '02 to March '03 the President made reference to "disarming Saddam." Does Brown think that meant amputating his appendages? Sheesh!
No, their position is that laws are instituted to protect individuals from other individuals, not from being dumb. You want a nannystate, go find one, there's no where else for people interested in liberty to go...
I agree that the GOP's domestic agenda is nearly the same as the RATs, but voting for the Losertarians aren't going to get you anywhere except get more RATs elected.
If there is no difference, what difference does it make?
A bunch of fringe fanatic losers. They'll never get more than .0000000000000000000000000000000001 of the vote.
I have to ask: If they never get more than .0000000000000000000000000000000001% of the vote, how did they give Jim Doyle the governorship of Wisconsin on a silver platter? If you're going to bash the LP, you can at least avoid contradicting yourself. Either A) they always garner a laughably small portion of the vote, or B) they sometimes soak up a portion just large enough to "give" elections to the Democrats. Pick one and stick with it.
As for myself, which to fully support, if either, is the perfect quandary, and I've bounced back and forth countless times. For all their rhetoric, the GOP by and large does squat to advance liberty and restore the Constitution, and often retards both, but the LP never gets the oppurtunity. What's a conscientious socialist-hating, liberty-loving Constitutionalist to do?
I have yet to decide.
By golly, you're right! Both parties are opposed to the burning down of public schools. Both parties are opposed to open immigration. Both parties are opposed to bazooka-toting crank-heads walking downtown with impunity.
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.