Posted on 03/31/2007 9:37:56 AM PDT by bnelson44
Funny. God bless this guy, and good luck to him in trying to persuade his liberal friends. I can't help but suspect that a few years from now, he won't be a liberal Democrat anymore.
No, you missed the part where "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." That political calculus coupled with an overdose of Bush Derangement Syndrome is allowing the Left to view Al Qaeda as their "little brown brothers" in the struggle for liberation, just as they have viewed the Viet Cong, Che Guevara, the Weathermen, the Black Panthers, Bader Meinhof, Shining Path, the Sandinistas, the Palestinians, and other terrorist revolutionaries in the past.
Wow. Another liberal having a grasp of the War on Terror.
He can join the other few jewish anti-surrender liberals like Lieberman and Ed Koch.
Democrats For Victory - Muslims For Peace
right....
Somebody should'a told Marc that being Dhimmicrat doesn't entitle you to a line-item veto...
--- "Did I miss the part where it was progressive not to fight medieval religious fascists?" ---
That was right after the part where it's progressive to be disarmed and work toward taking away the rights of law-abiding gun owners. That all comes under the heading of it's progressive to deny the right of free choice to everyone that might possibly make a choice different from yourself.
Good luck with that Marc. Sorry if I don't buy into it at the moment, but I've seen now the libs "support" the troops.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I often watch the DU to see what they're saying..most of it is unintelligible dribble, followed by stupid comments..but the one thing I see over and over again at that "progressive" website is, whenever anyone, anyone DARES to defend the action in iraq and the WOT in general, they're immediately labelled a troll (FReeper) and are completely trashed and most likely tombstoned. a prime example is joe lieberman. even though they agree with 95% of his policies, simply because he supports the WOT, he's been completely disowned. It's sad, but true..you can't be progressive (liberal) and support the WOT..it's impossible..
articles like this guy have written will cause him to get trashed over there, I guarantee it..
Case in point: paper or plastic.
Obviously far too weighty a desision to be left to mere shoppers, so now San Francisco has decided for you that the only correct choice is paper.
A KEY key point. It is where GWB and his administration have failed miserably. Sure, the President's speeches have been strong and remarkably consistent. But giving a speech does not color the square and he's got it covered. You have to make sure the message is received. The MSM has also been remarkably consistent and the Bush administration still hasn't learned THAT lesson from Vietnam. Don't surrender the homefront, George!
Sorry, Saddam and his bathists were socialists and (comparatively) religious moderates. Own him. And while the lib pol is at it, he can blame his commie cohorts for staging most of the anti-war propaganda. And blame the left in Europe/the UN for keeping Saddam propped up through the sanction years with Oil for food kickbacks.
This is a secret for you: Most of them are indeed freepers troll ;). Although you may found very, very, very few liberals who are smart enough to understand the importance of the war we are fighting and support it, they want America to win.
True. However, most of those we're fighting now are indeed medieval religious fascists. What's your point?
Marc Danziger. Christopher Hitchens.
That's two.
Now, I'm in despair because it seems that the defeatists have secured their own perverse form of "victory" no matter what happens in Iraq.
In the short term; if Bush vetoes the pork-for-surrender Iraq funding bill, he will be the one deemed guilty of "not supporting the troops". If he signs, then history will show it was he who signed the documents of surrender.
In the slightly longer term; if the surge works, and Iraq is pacified, the Democrats will claim credit for setting timetables and forcing the Iraqi government to get serious. If it doesn't work; they'll just continue to say that the war is an unwinnable quagmire -- and that proves that withdrawal (AKA surrender) is the only sensible option.
In the somewhat longer term; if the Iraqi government can keep a lid on things, the Democrats will again claim credit. If all-out civil war results -- the Democrats (and their defeatist, anti-American, anti-Bush supporters everwhere) will say it was all due to the invasion and ousting or Saddam.
In the longer term -- the abandonment of the nascent Iraqi government will fuel a massive resurgence of Islamist aggression against all of western civilization. The defeatists will lay this at Bush's door.
It's maddening!
ping
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.