Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: fporretto
Liberals complained during the Cold War that the United States was willing to coddle dictators. So now Bush is willing to take out a dictator and free the people of that country - and now liberals say he doesn't have the authority to do what they have demanded all along.

Liberals complained that we walked away from Afghanistan after the Soviets left. So Bush is willing to stay afterwards, stabilize Iraq and rebuild the country - and now liberals complain about the cost.

Liberals complained that sanctions are killing thousands of Iraqi children. So Bush is ending the regime that takes the UN oil-for-food money and builds palaces and weapons - and the liberals now demand that sanctions be given more time to work.

Liberals complained that we're only going into Iraq for the oil. So Bush and Blair are willing to let the UN administer the Iraqi oil revenues - but the "No Blood for Oil" signs persist.

So, in other words, the conduct of this war eliminates many of the old liberal complaints about the use of American power - yet the protests continue and the shrill rhetoric rises to a fever pitch. So what, then, is the actual problem with this intervention? Why does Mike Farrell, who supported the Kosovo intervention where Clinton took one side in a low-grade civil conflict and made matters worse, now vehemently oppose Bush and action against a dictator Ferrell himself acknowledges to be horrific? Why was action against Kosovo and Iraq by Clinton acceptable to the left, without UN Security Council resolutions, but Bush has failed at diplomacy when he attacks an enemy over the threat of a French veto of ANY possible course of action save capitulation to Saddam?

The answer is simple - the liberals simply cannot stand America using military force to promote its own interests, and will simply come up with a new list of complaints when the old ones are satisfied by the current plan of action - and then complain that the Bush Administration does not listen to what they are saying, so they can maintain their sense of righteous indignance to an American government who does not listen to their demands, primarily by constantly changing those demands.

2 posted on 03/21/2003 9:44:20 AM PST by dirtboy (Render yourself invisible to the media - attend a Rally for America today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: dirtboy
The answer is simple - the liberals simply cannot stand America using military force to promote its own interests, and will simply come up with a new list of complaints when the old ones are satisfied by the current plan of action - and then complain that the Bush Administration does not listen to what they are saying, so they can maintain their sense of righteous indignance to an American government who does not listen to their demands, primarily by constantly changing those demands.

I believe that it was Ann Coultor who said that leftists only oppose wars that are in the interest of the US, and they support war where there is none.

Mark

10 posted on 03/22/2003 4:00:18 AM PST by MarkL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson