A liberal stands up to the Surrender Lobby

Michelle Malkin ^ | March 31, 2007 | Michelle Malkin

[olderwiser]

From Wikipedia:

The Arab Socialist Baath Party (also spelled Ba'th or Ba'ath; Arabic: حزب البعث العربي الاشتراكي Ḥizb al-Ba`ṯ al-`Arabī al-Ištirāki) was founded in 1947 as a radical, secular Arab nationalist political party. It functioned as a pan-Arab party with branches in different Arab countries (Yemen, Lebanon, Sudan), but was strongest in Syria and Iraq, coming to power in both countries in 1963. In 1966 the Syrian and Iraqi parties split into two rival organizations. Both Baath parties retained the same name, and maintain parallel structures in the Arab world.

The Baath Party came to power in Syria on 8 March 1963 and attained a monopoly of political power later that year. The Baathists ruled Iraq briefly in 1963, and then from July 1968 until 2003. After the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime in the course of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the occupying authorities banned the Iraqi Baath Party on May 16, 2003...

[Marine_Uncle]

One could expect there are a percentage of liberals that do understand the stakes are high in the ME. Sadly as many of us have pointed out from day one, and really needs no pointing out, the blithering fools will cut their fingers off before giving any support to this POTUS regarding the GWOT.

[wontbackdown]

drifless 2 wrote "Deep down I suspect a great many liberals know Bush is right about the war. "

Before the last presidential election a woman at work told me that she is a liberal Democrat who wants gay marriage and all the other liberal agenda. But she said that she would be voting for Bush and any other Republicans running for president in the future until the terrorist threat was elimintated. She said you can't have gay marriage or anything else if you're dead, and Republicans are the only ones who can be counted on to fight. She said she was keeping her voting plans a secret from all her Dem friends. Let's hope there are a lot like her! I suspect that there are.

[driftless2]

He was neither rightwing or leftwing. He was simply a murdering, megalomaniac dictator. He wasn't the first, and he won't be the last.

[kalee]

Lots of luck.

[olderwiser]

Oh, now he's just a dictator without a set of bathist socialist "ideals". Didn't you claim in your other post he was a fascist?

And try not to take 2 days responding to posts if you really want a debate.

My original point was not to let a lib put Saddam into the "ultra-conservative" political spectrum. He and his party followed an Arab brand of socialism.

Oh, and he was a dictator. Duh.

[driftless2]

I stand by my previous statements. The Nazi Party was originally some sort of socialist party too. Hitler changed it into the Hitler Party. Hussein did pretty much the same thing to the Baath Party. How's that for a quick (and LAST!!!) response?

[Fred Hayek]

That is similar to the same position of Ron Silver, another liberal who supported Bush.