Posted on 01/26/2003 12:58:58 PM PST by logic101.net
LIBERAL LIES AND A WILLING PRESS; A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY 1/26/02 MARK A SITY
In today's Milwaukee Urnal/Sentinel, on the front of the editorial section an op/ed appears by a woman named Barbara Minner. It starts out basically comparing the US role in the future Iraq war to Hitler's genocide program. Had the paper any respect for the truth, this posting would have been struck. Instead it was featured in a prominent spot.
Let's look at the facts.
Iraq has practiced genocide; the US has fought those who practice genocide. Iraq has used poison gas against the Kurds, including women and children, and killed thousands of them in a very horrible way. Hitler used gas to kill off Jews. Hitler used gas chambers so that the killing was confined. Iraq just lets a gas bomb go off in a village populated by Kurds to kill them all off at once. Gas attacks are not pretty or pleasant, nor are they good for targeting a specific group of militants. This is why they are listed as "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD) and have been banned from the battle field since the end of WWI.
Hitler wanted to kill off all the Jews. Gee, most of the Muslim nations want to do the same. Iraq is a Muslim nation and has send missiles against Israel during the Gulf War, even though Israel was a non-combatant. He just wanted to kill some Jews; there aren't any left in his country.
Iraq lost the Gulf War and surrendered. One of the terms of surrender, which they agreed to, was the destruction of all WMD. Another was free access of inspectors to ensure that these weapons, and systems to deploy them, were to be destroyed. Iraq never gave this access and continued to harass the inspectors and kicked them out. President Clinton did nothing of substance, allowing Iraq to continue its weapons programs, including a desperate search for nuclear materials. One interesting point here is that Iraq kicked out the inspectors saying they were spies. Well duh! What did they think the inspectors were when they signed the surrender agreement?
Iraq also agreed to 2 "no fly zones" which would be patrolled by US and other aircraft. Implied in the agreement is that they not try to shoot down our planes. They have not done so.
Finally, does any rational person think that we plan to execute all Iraq citizens? Of course not, so how could removal of the current regime be genocide? Never mind, it's a liberal lie, so goes unchallenged in the paper. Our goal in Iraq is to put in a government that is responsible to the people, that answers to the people. A government that the people of Iraq can change if they desire. Things like elections will be held in Iraq after we leave, elections that have competing candidates.
This nit wit goes on with some bullet points:
1) "…not exhausted diplomatic means…." Say what? For 12 years there has been little more than diplomatic measures, they haven't worked. With some people you need to step on their toes until they apologize. This is one of those regimes. Any attempt at diplomacy is seen as a sign of weakness by such people.
2) "Iraq does not pose any immediate danger…." Really? How about their support of terrorists? How about the fact that they could supply terrorists with WMD? How about the fact that it is looking like the anthrax used in mail attacks seem to have come from Iraq labs? How about his frantic search for weapons grade nuclear material? Should we wait until he gets and A bomb?
3) "The Bush administration is overly willing to act unilaterally." Really? What was the UN resolution he sought, scrap paper? If the UN is not willing to enforce its own resolutions, or even to allow us to enforce them, does that not make them irrelevant? The author continues with this, "…without support of…key allies." Excuse me, but of the 19 nations in NATO, 15 support us. The only NATO nations not on board are France, Germany, Luxemburg, and Belgium! This is not really a huge loss; all these nations have depended 95% on the US for their national defense since the end of WWII, how much help would they be?
4) "The war is being used as a test case for … (Bush's) policy of pre-emptive war." Gee, ok, let's just wait for Iraq to get and use a nuke before we worry about them. Let's loose 3 million people in the next attack.
5) "…desire to control oil supplies…" We could have had all the oil in Iraq the last time. We didn't take it. In fact, we required Iraq to limit sales of oil to that needed to support its population, thus driving up prices by limiting supply. Iraq has not only failed to use the money from legitimate sales to feed its people, but has smuggled oil out of the nation against the surrender agreement. Little of this money makes it to the population; most is diverted to WMD programs or to keep the leaders in a lavish lifestyle.
6) "The war will increase the appetite for revenge…" Oh no, we might make Osama mad! Well MS Minner, the extremists ARE mad, in the sense that a rabid dog is mad! These people are lower forms of life (the extremists); they have not developed higher forms of emotion like love and compassion. They respect only power and the ruthless application of power. They know only hate and fear. They need to fear us, for if they don't fear us, they will continue to attack us and kill innocent people all over the world.
7) "…diverts US attention from… countering terrorism…." Taking out the current Iraq regime IS countering terrorism. There is a hanger in Baghdad with a 727 used to train terrorists in the fine art of taking over jet liners. There is strong evidence that those terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 were trained in this hanger.
8) "…the Bush … "go it alone" mentality." See point #3.
9) The cost of the war will "…further undercut the faltering US economy and divert needed dollars from social programs…" The only thing holding back the stock market relating to the war is the wait. Note: this is why I'm holding much of my 401k in bonds; we should have a huge drop once we first go in, followed by a huge rally when we start to kick butt. Plus, one of the reasons our economy is slow is that there is too much money tied up into "social programs" and not in the private sector, which IS the economy. In addition, we were starting to come out of the Clinton Recession just before 9/11, the attack on our nation pushed us back. If we don't take out this evil regime that sponsors terrorism we will be inviting more of the same, by showing weakness.
Ms Minner closes with; "Twenty years from now, wouldn't you like to be able to tell your … grandchildren… I not only opposed the US war with Iraq, I did something about it." Let's finish this line with; "And that is why there are so many areas of this nation that are radioactive waste."
Liberal lies and the main-line press; the terrorists' best friend.
MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/
MARK A SITY
Journalism is the business of grabbing attention. That is easiest done with lies and half-truth slander of the people and institutions upon whom the public depend. This makes journalism anticonservative in principle.Political liberalism is simply demagogery and sailing down the propaganda wind from anticonservative journalism. It is more true that liberal politicians are "willing" to "go along and get along" with journalistic anticonservatism than that journalists are "willing" to go along with politicians who in fact are acting as reporters' toadies.
I look at this Reuters photo and shake my head in amazement over the stupidity of some of these people. Let's see....Hitler hated the Jews, so Bush hates the Jews? Or would that perhaps be Saddam who hates Jews.....and wants to eliminate them? And sadly, this man is old enough to know the real history....
Liberalism is also the lame leading the lame. No offense to lame people.
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.