Do as USA says, not as it does? (exceptionally stupid op-ed)

USA Today / Yahoo ^ | 04/25/2003 | Julianne Malveaux

[dighton]

Our reasons for invading Iraq shift like the tiles in a kaleidoscope: because its weapons of mass destruction imperiled us; because its government was totalitarian; because we want to bring it democracy.

Meanwhile, what has happened to democracy and free speech here? Consider:

* Some Republican U.S. senators, including Maine’s Olympia Snowe and Ohio’s George Voinovich, advocated limiting tax cuts. For that, they are described as unpatriotic and likened in TV ads from the Club for Growth as similar to the French. These senators have been excoriated as unpatriotic enemies of the president because they spoke their consciences and attempted to promote an alternative point of view. Isn’t the notion of a diversity of voices something we’ve advocated in Iraq?

* The Baseball Hall of Fame canceled an event with actors Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon because of their anti-war views. Although the stakes are much lower, here’s that notion again that there is no room for diversity in our democracy. While some Americans are defending First Amendment rights abroad, others are stomping on them at home.

* Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, the Massachusetts senator, was attacked after he advocated "regime change" in the White House. GOP strategists suggested Kerry is unfit for public office simply because his comment was an unwarranted attack on the president, someone they apparently perceive as impervious to criticism during times of conflict. Yet unless I’ve missed a constitutional change, American voters decide every four years whether to have regime change in the White House.

* President Bush has promised that the United States will work to "restore electricity and water supplies, medical care and other essential services in Iraq." It is ironic that Bush would promise the residents of a foreign country services that still are unavailable to many millions of Americans -- most notably, access to adequate health care.

The United States shows its best face to the world when it offers hope, democracy, free speech and a decent standard of living to another country’s oppressed citizens. But we’re being two-faced if we don’t also offer the same to all Americans.

[jagrmeister]

This liberal is too stupid to realize that war is fought for multiple reasons. Looking for a simple answer? Sorry liberal, the world doesn't work that way. Looking for a little soundbite to explain away national conflicts? Liberals need either to inform themselves about realpolitik or remain quiet while the adults resolve these serious matters of foreign policy. The simple fact is that our strategic priorities were served by eliminating a national security threat (which had chemical weapons and the munitions to deliver them) and reduce the threat of terrorism by spreading democracy in the middle east. It had the added advantage of removing 26 million Iraqis from Saddam's tyrannical rule. Liberal lightweight Julianne Malveaux can't understand why national conflict might have multiple equally justifiable explanations. Oh well. She'll have a teriffic career catering to the Left. They are suckers for her brand of simplistic nonsense.

Interesting to note how superficial liberals focus more on style that substance. The Bush administration articulated three separate reasons for why war on Iraq was justified it. Rather than take on the intellectual challenge of refuting those valid reasons, liberals stoop to critiquing the "timing" of the reasons given. It's inconsequential when the reasons were given and if they were given on the same days or separate days. Lastly, this is further evidence of Yahoo News's bias in highlighting liberal editorials.

[BrooklynGOP]

President Bush has promised that the United States will work to "restore electricity and water supplies, medical care and other essential services in Iraq." It is ironic that Bush would promise the residents of a foreign country services that still are unavailable to many millions of Americans -- most notably, access to adequate health care.

But if he didn't promise that, then Julianne Malveaux would chastise Bush for his apathy towards the plight of the Iraqi people.

[republicman]

Typical liberal, believes that free speech ends when they stop talking

in all points cited Mal-content-veaux gets angry that people exercise THEIR right to free speech to criticize liberals

Pretty ironic from the people who boycotted Dr. Laura, got Toby Keith thrown off an awards show, and helped oust Trent Lott (now salivating over ousting Santorum)

They just can't stand to taste their own medicine, "oh its tho unfair!"

[Congressman Billybob]

Malveaux is a fire-breathing, hard-left, geopolitical moron. She confuses freedom of speech with freedom to speak, force others to listen, and not have any consequences. Like most lefties, she assumes that the "little people" neither have nor deserve any freedom of speech. They should just sit down, shut up, and listen to their "betters."

She assumes, based on no evidence whatsoevr, that she is one of the "betters." I support her freedom to spew this nonsense for the reason that Tom Jefferson stated, "as a monument to her own errors."

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, now up on UPI or FR, "All-American Arrogance"

Latest book(let), "to Restore Trust in America."

[Russell Scott]

The author's name is all you need to know. Julianne Malveaux is radical feminist full of lies and deceit. In fact, the whole feminist movement is built on a foundation of lies, in direct opposition to the laws of God and nature. It will soon completely collapse and fade away, like everything else not standing on the Rock of Christ, as the floodwaters of tribulation continue to rise.

[daddypatriot]

I've seen this woman on television talk shows and she is no bargain. It's her kind that will help bring back communism, socialism and all the other isms that are bad for the heart and soul. When liberals talk about civil rights they really mean their right to impose their will on others which inevitably leads to shackles. Their Gods are lenin, Stalin and Mao. I would, by the way, hate to meet her in a dark alley.

[Texas_Jarhead]

Of course it is stupid. It's written by a racist ass!

[fat city]

You gotta love the way she equates "medical care" for a nation in chaos with national "health care". On the other hand, why aren't there thousands of AK-47s in every hamlet in America?

[ShorelineMike]

Julianne Malveaux ... oh, please.

I thought she had expired by drowning in a puddle of her own emetic hatred already.

She has long ago satisfied the requirements for her MBA (Mandatory Barf Alert), joining the ranks of Maureen Dowd, Ellen Goodman and Molly Ivins.

Bleah. I must go take a shower now; perhaps I can scrub her filth from my mind.

[El Gato]

Meanwhile, what has happened to democracy and free speech here?

Free speech doesn't mean only one side gets to speak, nor that you aren't liable to be critized for what you say. It's really only a limittion on the government, but in the spirit of it we try to let everyone, even idiots, have their say. But once they have their say, they are not immune from critisim, which is merely other folks exercising their free speech rights.

Democracy, such as it, means we vote, and the loser goes along with the result. A democratic republic, OTOH, means what can be voted upon is strictly limited and the rights, including property rights, of all are respected.

[gcruse]

Yuck. One look at the author's name suffices.
Julianne Malveaux is a foul bag of maggots.

[AmericanVictory]

This woman is an excellent example of what affirmative action by the guilty liberal media produces. An unabashed Marxist of astonishing historical ignorance outside of "black studies", she is barely coherent and continually refers to black nationalist insider tag lines and epithets in lieu of thought and logic. A white woman who acted in similar fashion and spoke in an equivalent way would have long since been dumped.