 |
| Lamont's a nobody that bought an election and the Globe calls Lieberman an affront to democracy? |
Posted on 08/11/2006 5:21:04 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
August 11, 2006 - 07:59
Those burly hawks of the Boston Globe are at it again. With a Landis-like testosterone rush, the Globe's editorial this morning, Tarring the majority, rips George H.W. Bush for failing to have taken out Saddam at the conclusion of Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Or as the Globe so sneeringly put it:
"The weakling-in-chief who failed to oust Saddam Hussein in 1991 was not a Democrat but the first President George Bush."
Yes, we all remember those rousing Globe editorials urging the first war against Iraq. And who can forget the glorious martial strains of its editorial opus "On to Baghdad!" at war's end? Or not.
The Globe's bout of Sudden-Onset Machismo Syndrome reflects its high dudgeon at VP Cheney's suggestion, reacting to Joe Lieberman's defeat, that "from the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the Al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people."
The Globe was likewise outraged by Tony Snow's comment that
``One of the approaches [of Lamont supporters ] is to ignore the difficulties and walk away," Snow said. ``Now, when the United States walked away in the opinion of Osama bin Laden in 1991, bin Laden drew from that the conclusion that American s were weak and wouldn't stay the course, and that led to Sept. 11 ."
The Globe somehow casts Lieberman's decision to run as an independent as an affront to democracy:
"Lieberman . . . is refusing to accept the verdict of the majority." "Statements that demean the choice of 52 percent of the Democratic electorate -- along with Lieberman's insistence on a do-over -- only serve to discourage voters, reducing turnout in elections and further polarizing results." And how's this for invidious comparison?: "Democracy is messy. But it's still the best system yet devised. If it is good enough for Iraq, it's good enough for Connecticut." Lieberman can be accused of a lack of party loyalty; perhaps even of confusing personal ambition with the national interest. But contrary to the Globe's fulminations, Lieberman's decision to run as an independent reflects no affront to democracy. If Lieberman wins in November - or loses for that matter - it will reflect the democratic will of the people in Connecticut, turning out in numbers that will dwarf the 15% of the total electorate that went to the polls this past Tuesday.
The boys of the Globe should breathe deeply into a paper bag: democracy is not about to fall in Connecticut. And for mercy sake's guys, lay off those 'special' sports drinks. They say it's bad for your complexion.
Hawkish sodomites...
Let me guess: it wasn't a problem for the globe when H Ross Perot ran as an independent in the 92 presidential election, the greatest factor that gave Clinton victory.
p.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1681380/posts
Jimmy Carter: The Untold Story
>>>>Jonah Goldberg, in his May, 2002 article in the National Review, notes that while the first President Bush was trying to orchestrate an international coalition to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, Carter wrote a letter to the U.N. Security Council - including Mitterrand’s France and Communist China - asking its members to stymie Bush's efforts.<<<<
Governs, I dont know how you do it. (Prolosec, I know.) My head would have exploded by now.
The Globe is owned, directed, and operated by The NEW YORK TIMES, whose leadership is guilty of massive treason.
'nuf said.
I wonder if the Boston Globe has reported the demise of the USSR. Or do the people in MA still think Communism is going strong, as a viable alternative to capitalism and freedom?
The big reason for all this weakling foreign policy can be summed up in 2 letters...........UN! Prior to 1945 nations kicked ass when needed, PERIOD. After 45 and the founding of the UN, can you say Korea, Nam, Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom, Afghanistan. Nuff Said
You are correct. Kerry and Kennedy voted against going after Saddam and liberating Kuwait. I bet the Globe did not castigate them for that vote.
A book could be written on how Clinton's turndown of Osama may have changed World History for us, our children and our children's children. And maybe way beyond that.
She went to the USSR, and said "Gee, I guess communism does work".
The USSR collapsed a month or so later.
During Operation Desert Storm many of Saddam's chemical weapon facilities were destroyed. However, in the years following, UN inspectors destroyed many times that amount. To quote UN reports in the 1990's:
“Nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents.”
Bush propaganda? Nope - that was the Sink Emperor in 1998.
So according to the Globe, we should have charged headlong into Baghdad while Saddam had these weapons but it was a huge mistake to overthrow him after they'd been eliminated. This is why "liberal thinking" is an oxymoron.
|
| Lamont's a nobody that bought an election and the Globe calls Lieberman an affront to democracy? |
I'm sure the globe pointed out that bush didn't take out saddam due in part to the incessant liberal whining of the globe editorials and fat teddy kennedy himself.
but fat boy teddy was just as wrong about iraq then as he is now.
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13510
Kennedy went beyond Vietnam in the debate before the first Gulf War. According to the senator, the casualties in Southeast Asia would seem slight when compared with Desert Storm. And the liars in the Bush administration knew it beforehand. “The 45,000 body bags the Pentagon has sent to the region are all the evidence we need of the high price in lives and blood we will have to pay,” said Kennedy. And when the war ended in a matter of days, as predicted, he never apologized to the President for his paranoid insinuations and over-the-top fear-mongering.
Mouth piece of the liberal mucks that make up the Sate of MA. Enough said.
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.