Fred Barnes: Fascist Pigs!

The Weekly Standard ^ | 02/17/03 | Fred Barnes

[Pokey78]

Demonstrations over the weekend show the left's dedication to preserving murderous, dictatorial regimes--no matter what the cost.

THERE WAS A TIME--the 1960s, 1970s--when the political left in America favored wars of national liberation in countries ruled by dictators, some of them fascist dictators. True, the left would have installed communist dictatorships in their place. But at least leftists targeted enemies who were corrupt, brutal abusers of human rights.

Now the left has flipped. The effect of its crusade against war in Iraq would be the survival--indeed, the strengthening--of Saddam Hussein's oppressive regime. The left has brushed aside the pleas of Iraqi exiles, Kurds, and Shiite Muslims who are seeking liberation from Saddam's cruelty. Instead, leftists have targeted those who would aid the Iraqi dissidents, particularly the Bush administration.

The corruption of the left has deepened in recent years. At no time was this more evident than last Saturday when large antiwar protests were staged in New York, San Francisco, and other cities in the United States and around the world, including London. Did the demonstrators march on the Iraqi consulate in New York to demand an end to Saddam's murderous practices? No. Did they spend time condemning him in their speeches and placards? Nope. Did they come to the defense of Saddam's victims? No. The left now gives fascist dictators a pass. Its enemy is the United States.

No one has explained this better than British prime minister Tony Blair in a speech Saturday. If he took the antiwar demonstrators advice, Blair said, "there would be no war, but there would still be Saddam. Many of the people marching will say they hate Saddam. But the consequences of taking their advice is he stays in charge of Iraq, ruling the Iraqi people . . . There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the torture chamber which, if he is left in power, will be left in being."

In ignoring the 25 million Iraqis who suffer under Saddam's autocratic rule, the left has stripped any moral dimension from the antiwar cause. And its arguments for opposing a war of liberation in Iraq are either uninformed or merely stupid. Here are a few of those arguments:

(1) War will mean thousands of civilian casualties. If there's anything Saddam has produced in his nearly 25 years of rule in Iraq, it's civilian casualties. He ordered the gassing of thousands of innocent Kurds. He had thousands of Shiites murdered. His war against Iran caused tens of thousands of civilian casualties, and his invasion of Kuwait was marked by the killing of thousands of Kuwaiti civilians. Saddam has personally ordered the execution of thousands of Iraqis. He has allowed thousands of Iraqi children to die from starvation or lack of medicine.

Compare that with the few hundred civilians killed in Afghanistan by the U.S. military. In fact, the American intervention saved hundreds of thousands who would have starved to death otherwise. And in the 1991 Gulf War relatively few Iraqi civilians were killed. In truth, a war that deposes Saddam in Iraq will save civilian lives, thousands of them.

(2) It's a war for Iraqi oil. There's an easy way to get all the oil in Iraq that President Bush or anyone else might desire--and it's not war. No, the easy way is to lift sanctions on Iraq and make a deal with Saddam. He's eager to sell the oil and make money. And the United States doesn't need Iraqi oil anyway, what with Russian oil production coming on line. At the moment, America's problem is the cutoff of oil from Venezuela. A war for oil would oust President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Of course there is no such war planned, nor is there one to cut the price of oil. The price favored by Bush and the domestic oil industry--and producers like Saudi Arabia--will be restored when Venezuela is pumping fully again, probably soon.

(3) War in Iraq will stir a new wave of terrorism. We've heard this one before. The Gulf War, it was warned, would arouse the Arab street and subject Americans to a wave of attacks. That didn't happen. When the United States went into Afghanistan and, worse, bombed during Ramadan, it was supposed to prompt a worldwide uprising of Muslims, and Muslim terrorists in particular, against America. Again, that didn't happen. So when the Arab leader most hated by other Arab leaders--a leader who's far more secular than Muslim, is removed, it's highly unlikely to cause more terrorism. Most likely, the result will be less.

(4) Give the inspectors more time. This was a common cry at Saturday's antiwar demonstrations. But of course those cries were entirely disingenuous. By definition, the "stop the war" protesters don't want war, no matter what the United Nations inspectors in Iraq happen upon. The demonstrators are playing Saddam's delaying game: Let the inspections continue until support in the United States for military action in Iraq dissolves and war is averted. Then Saddam survives. The inspections ploy is further proof the left has given up wars of national liberation against oppressive dictators and is now in the business of saving oppressive dictators from wars of national liberation.

[Howlin]

I gave you a reply. It just doesn't satisfy your need to try to prove your superior intelligence on any thread where you can bash the nasty "Republicans." I'm so surprised.

[DAnconia55]

Sir, its 4:30 in the morning thus its a bit too early for me to write up for you a report on Birchers

Ok, but You felt it necessary to refute me, based on the Birchers 'stopped clock' - was a response above based on someone elses ATTACK that the other poster was either a pitchforker or a bircher.

Don't you understand the illogic of this? You can oppose their positions without stepping up to defend that which you cannot defend.

The point being you're attacking ME, for stopping a newbie poster who is attacking BY SMEAR.

[DAnconia55]

Which parts of the Constitution would you like to openly debate, without crawling for help?

I'll use the Founders own words.

And you can use what you believe to be the modern and politically convienient Republican rebuttal.

[Howlin]

"We" weren't discussing that; we were discussing your snotty remarks to posters on this thread, which, by the way, is about Iraq!

[JoJo Gunn]

Holy Mother of God! This thread went from being a spot-on article about the gravity well of Leftist hypocrisy into the Twilight Zone!

[Howlin]

It's all the fault of us nasty old Republicans! (You have ot *say* that like it's the worst thing on earth!)

[DAnconia55]

"We" weren't discussing that; we were discussing your snotty remarks to posters on this thread, which, by the way, is about Iraq!

"WE" were discussing this the moment you opened your mouth to type :

Some on here believe they and they alone can read and interpret their copy of the Constitution and have the correct answers to any and all things under the stars; and no matter WHAT you might believe, you can damn sure bet they think you're wrong.

Which was directed at me, and entirely out of place, seeing how I was only expressing my opinion that BOTH Kondrake and Barnes are compromised 'journalists'. And anyone who is reading this - with a brain and the ability to scroll back, can see...

Which is NOT A Constitutional issue.

---

I repeat, (since you brought it up directly ):

Which parts of the Constitution would you like to openly debate, without crawling for help?

I'll use the Founders own words.
And you can use what you believe to be the modern and politically convienient Republican rebuttal.

[driftless]

Oh great wise one, please educate us poor ignorant slobs that we may have the benefit of your unlimited wisdom and intelligence. We humbly beg for forgiveness and ask for your kindness in tolerating our stupid and unnecessary mutterings when you and you alone know the truth.

your humble statist ignoramus, Driftless

[DAnconia55]

And you were brought into this how?

Let me guess, you're a poster on the Day in the Life of Bush threads?

Yes? No?

Then what is your purpose in defending an indefensible attack on me?

I expressed my opinion that Barnes and Kondrake are bought and paid for 'journalists' that represent the Government line.

Are you related to them? Do you own stock in them?

Else, what is the purpose of your attack?

[LilithUnfair]

Barnes and Kondrake are actual journalists? They're so Hannityish....

[driftless]

Show us your proof. You said that Barnes and Kondracke are "bought and paid for" without ever mentioning what it is they said that you object to. You make some outlandish assertions inviting ridicule, and you're surprised when some posters respond with derisive comments. Get real.

[Carolinamom]

An opinion unsupported by fact(s) lacks validity.

[The Wizard]

bump

[Ron H.]

Not being a Fred Barnes fan myself I must say that he has hit a home run with this particular article. I have often said that the anti-war protesters are primarily dejected Gorebots and Clintonistas who just can't stand having a republican, especially George Bush in the Whitehouse and now in control of the other two branches of government as well.

They are still regurgitating the 2000 loss in Florida. They haven't gotten over their losing and being out of power with no leader in sight and it was readily apparent once again in their protests to anyone who has at least one eye and half a brain this past weekend. Hey, you morons on the left (and that includes you LIEbrals in the media), get over it! You lost! Move on!

[KantianBurke]

right. sure. ok.

[MeekOneGOP]

Hooray for our best supporter on his side of the pond - Tony Blair !

Tony Blair: The price of my conviction

Excerpt:

But there are also consequences of 'stop the war'. There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the torture chambers which if he is left in power, will remain in being.

I rejoice that we live in a country where peaceful protest is a natural part of our democratic process. But I ask the marchers to understand this.

I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour. But sometimes it is the price of leadership and the cost of conviction.

If there are 500,000 on the [Stop the War] march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for. If there are one million, that is still less than the number of people who died in the wars he started.

So if the result of peace is Saddam staying in power, not disarmed, then I tell you there are consequences paid in blood for that decision too. But these victims will never be seen, never feature on our TV screens or inspire millions to take to the streets. But they will exist none the less.

President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of England walk out to address the media in Cross Hall at the White House Nov. 7. "We've got no better friend in the world than Great Britain," said the President during his remarks. White House photo by Paul Morse.

[MeekOneGOP]

Boo to the 'RATS !!

[edwin hubble]

Something's in the water here...somehow this thread has gone into fantasy land.

I've met Fred Barnes. He is smart and thoughtful.
His article is Dead On.

The left has Flipped. They used to support legitimate wars of liberation. Now they support the fascists.

I think we should close this thread with that.

[edwin hubble]

typo:
They used to support "legitimate" wars of liberation.

[PhilipFreneau]

There WERE Communist spies in the government, the historical record has proven so.

Now the communists control Hollywood, the Democratic Party, and the Anti-American, Anti-War movement.