PROTESTORS AREN'T ANTI-WAR, They are anti-Bush and anti-American

[1Old Pro]

Can we face the truth?

These peacenick protestors who can't explain why they are against a war saying:

• Give peace a chance
• Let the inspectors have more time
• Blix says he's making progress
• A war will make us more enemies
• It's all about oil

They don't have any serious arguments for opposition.

The fact is, they are ANTI-BUSH FIRST, ANTI-AMERICAN SECOND, and protesting the war just gives them a reason to publicaly oppose Bush.

I recently called in a local talk radio show where the host was debating to protestors. They had no arguments, just platitudes. I asked them if they weren't so much anti-war as they were anti-Bush. I asked them if they voted for Bush, of course they did not. They "bristeled" at the question because they were flushed out.

Bottom line, the "protestors" are mainly Gore voters and Nadar voters who want to protest Bush. The war gives them that vehivle to protest. If protestors were polled, 99% would have to admit they they did not vote for Bush. If the anti-war movement had any good reasons to oppose war they would be more like 50%-50% voting for Bush.

CONCLUSION: what we have here is anti-Bush, anti-American protestors. Ask them if they voted for Bush and find out for yourself.

[Uncle Miltie]

What we have is two civil wars with a mis-identification of the primary enemy.

First, Islamofascists and regular muslims should be warring, but cannot because every country in which they co-exist is a totalitarian dictatorship of one over the other. Being unable to confront each other directly due to the tanks down the street, Islamofascism confronts the soft underbelly of the West, its secondary enemy.

Second, Western Civilization and its leftist opponents are intellectually warring, but do not break out into physical violence due to the police and the voting booths. This severe disagreement over the legitimacy of Western Civilization is being manifested via the secondary conflict with Islamofascism. The left is just unwilling to defend the security of civilization.

The bulk of people in Islam are not Islamofascists. The bulk of people in Western Civilization are not Utopian Leftists. So, the minority Islamofascists and Utopian Leftists make common cause because they cannot win their own civil wars.

The only common thread between Leftists and Islamofascists is that the destruction of Western Civilization would be useful to their cause. Islamofascists require our destruction in order to bring Allah's rule to the world. Leftist must destroy civilization in order to remake it in Marx's vision. If it weren't for this confluence of interest, they would philosophically hate each other.

Pundits who make nice-nice ignore the essence of the anti-war movement: It seeks to destroy Western Civilization. The punditry assumes that the exercise of freedom in anti-war protest is legitimate, even when its real goal is the destruction of precisely that freedom. We cannot be allowed to look behind the curtain and see the Workers World Party coordinating the protests.

If the anti-war protests were lead by Quakers, attended by blue collar union Democrats, and funded by small businessmen, I would believe in their honesty and legitimacy. But the anti-war crowd is lead by communists, attended by anarchists, and rhetorically supports mass murderers.

I conclude the anti-war movement makes common cause with Islamofascists in order to destroy Western Civilization.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Indeed, they were very happy when Clinton was bombing the Yogoslavs without permission from the UN.

Yugoslav's, Chinese embassy, what have you. And pissing off the Russians royally for no good reason. The US sided with Hamas in that war. Think they'll return the favor?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your views and discussing COINTELPRO! The intelligence community was crippled for decades, but most especially under the Clinton administration. Spying on American citizens is always unpopular, but it is needful at this time to prevent future terrorist attacks. Perhaps the effort used to identify terrorists will also identify any collaboration with political groups.

[Protagoras]

What we need is a war against THEM. Exterminate the scum who live INSIDE our borders before we worry about exterminating the scum outside.

Who gets to define "scum"?

Extermination of protestors in a free society is scummy.

[savedbygrace]

Well, you don't have to get snippy about it.

(LOL)

[Southack]

You know that they are actually "anti-Bush" instead of "anti-war" because NONE of the protestors at the last rally demanded that Iraq disarm.

Gee, wouldn't that be the BEST way to insure "peace"?!

So no, these agitators are not peace-supporters. They've simply hi-jacked that moniker in order to help conceal their real motivations and ideologies...

[mabelkitty]

They are anti-Soldier and anti-Military.

When they say they support the Soldiers but are against the war, that inane remark is meant to take the Vietnam sting out of their protests. Images of spit upon soliders and unemployed Vets seal the left's fate.

Ask them, "Can you be pro-Al Quada but anti-Terrorism? No, of course not. You cannot seperate the act from the person. Therefore, you can't be pro-Soldier and anti-War. You are either pro or anti both. Which is it?"

Next time you hear a Leftist use the above-mentioned Clinton phrase to justify their stance, ask them how that is logically possible using the above example.

They can't.

[Doug Loss]

Iraq is no immediate threat.

Whether it is or not (and I believe it is) is immaterial. This is just an early action in the war on terrorism, not a separate war on Iraq by itself. You could make a case for other countries being more deserving of our military attentions at this time, but none of them are positioned so nicely to permit us to move on to the next leg of the war. Once Iraq is occupied, our forces will be well positioned to bring tremendous pressure on Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Those governments are undoubtedly tremendously concerned for what our next action will be.

[Dr. Frank fan]

1. Iraq is no immediate threat.

So you say, from your vaunted lofty position of authority (on the internet). You've studied the issue, you've studied the high-resolution satellite imagery, you've interviewed defectors, you've tortured informants, you've been given personal classified briefings. And that's how you know that Iraq is no immediate threat.

Right?

2. If they were a threat, why is Bush wasting time SELLING it instead of protecting America?

Who says he's "SELLING it"? He already "sold" it last fall, to the only audience which mattered. (Remember, our Congress has already authorized war powers.) Maybe now he's just messing around with the UN to give our troops time to get into position. Do you know otherwise?

Of course you do! You receive top-secret classified intelligence briefings! I keep forgetting.

[Steve_Seattle]

Seeing the demonstrations on tv, the speeches, the placards, and reading about it, convinced me that the demonstrations were indeed an anti-Bush and anti-American hatefest.

Bush is despised (hated with a passion) by the Left in America and Europe because he is: a Republican, a (sort of) conservative, a born-again Christian, a Texan, and a staunch defender of American sovereignty, unwilling to yield our independence to left-wing international bodies based in Europe.

If the war in Iraq were being spearheaded by Clinton or Gore, 90% of the opposition would melt away. How do we know? Because of Kosovo, where the U.S. and NATO intervened - with only token opposition from the Left - in a civil war in a small country that posed no security threat to the U.S. or greater Europe, an intervention that had no clear exit strategy (we are still there), which involved us in a conflict between ancient enemies, which antagonized Russia and China, and which was intended primarily to displace the elected leader of a sovereign nation. In other words, although the war in Kosovo failed nearly all of the "just war" tests that are now being applied to Iraq, opposition was minimal. Indeed, the fact that Serbia/Kosovo posed no strategic threat to the U.S. was hailed as a reason FOR the war - remember how supporters called it (incorrectly) "the first humanitarian war"?

[TigersEye]

2. If they were a threat, why is Bush wasting time SELLING it instead of protecting America?

Time for troop placement? This deployment has taken far less time than deployment for Gulf War I took.

I don't see much evidence that he is SELLING this war at all. He has been very reluctant to divulge classified information that would help sell it. It seems to me that he has done the bare minimum to satisfy the critics and no more than necessary to meet a reasonable standard of informing the people and Congress.

He has set a straight course and pursued it steadily.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I AM anti-UNNECESSARY war....and this war Bush, and so many other wannabe Rambos who are going to do their fighting from the comfort of a bar stool, wants is unncessary.

How do you know? Are you in the intelligence loop?

This war would be waged against Iraq...Iraq is a nation of people...THEY will feel the brunt of this war, not Hussein.

How do you know? Do you know something about our CinC's war plans which the rest of us do not?

Hussein is our problem.....he's like the knuckle dragging bully from the other block. Neither you nor I would take baseball bats to his neighbors [...]

I don't get it. You seem to be trying to equate ousting the dictator of some people with "taking baseball bats to" them. Do you think the people of Iraq like living under Hussein?

It is Hussein who needs the bat, not his people.

I agree. That's what we're gonna do. No?

So my protest, and that of many, many others I rallied with, isn't against war, it is against waging war on a nation of people when a simple assassination of one bully would do.

If it were so "simple" is there any doubt we would have done it?

Anyway, your objections seem reasonable, but they are ill-timed. Your objections only make sense if, after the war has started, it proves that we have killed a large number of Iraqi civilians to get to Hussein.

But how the heck do you know that will be the case?

Why not wait to see how the war turns out, and how we wage it, before you start whining about it? This is what I don't get; how can you whine about our methods of war before it's even started?

If the war is relatively painless, with relatively few civilian deaths, and Hussein is ousted, and the Iraqi people are happy, will you take everything back? If so, then what's the purpose of protesting now?

In short: instead of saying "Don't do it!", you should (if you were logical and consistent) be saying, "Ok, if you're gonna do it, at least do it right!"

If you said that, I could respect your position.

[expatpat]

Don't hold your breath.....

[exile]

You are absolutely right.

[DAPFE8900]

NO disrespect but what is your airborne unit and where did you serve and what years? Just interested!

[TigersEye]

This war would be waged against Iraq...Iraq is a nation of people...THEY will feel the brunt of this war, not Hussein.

Nonsense. This statement reveals profound ignorance of our military doctrine not to mention Pres. Bush's stated goals.

[MJM59]

The problem with going to war with Iraq is that we can go in there and level the whole place. Put Saddam on a spit and roast him. Cover all of his portraits with the American flag. In spite of whatever victory we may win in Iraq, to think that this is going to stop terrorism is naive. The very next day after we declare victory, some fundamentalist knuclehead can drive through the Lincoln tunnel with a McVeigh style bomb and blow the whole thing to hell.

9/11 was perpetrated not with WMD, but with civilian aircraft. If anyone thinks that we as a nation can sleep soundly after Iraq is defeated, you better give it some more thought.

BTW, Saddam should be taken out. But, that should have been done the last time we went to war with these idiots. Mr. "I Just Had An Aircraft Carrier Named After Me" blew that one in the very same manner that allowed Nazi Germany to rise to power after WWI.

[TigersEye]

9/11 was perpetrated not with WMD, but with civilian aircraft. If anyone thinks that we as a nation can sleep soundly after Iraq is defeated, you better give it some more thought.

Very true! What's your point?

[1Old Pro]

and rather see harm come to our country than to see GW sccessful and thats the truth,they will put politics in front of security.

That's why America is in danger when the Left is in power.