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

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 02/18/2003 8:48:58 AM PST by 1Old Pro

Can we face the truth?

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

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.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: youthagainstsoap
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-126 next last
To: PresterJohn
You also have to consider this world is a far different place than 60 years ago. With the technological advances, it behooves us to pre-emptively strike. What warning did we have on 9-11? What warning will we have the next time? We have proof saddam has WMD. No one wants to have war, but I'd rather not wait for the alternative.
81 posted on 02/18/2003 4:51:15 PM PST by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

Comment #82 Removed by Moderator

Comment #83 Removed by Moderator

To: PresterJohn
"I don't think that advancing technology is ever an excuse to strike preemptively"

Presicely why we have to take the offensive on this. Who would have ever guessed the technology advances 60 years ago we are seeing today. Pre-emptive stikes might not have been a precident in the past, but as with all precidents, it has to be established somewhere. Do you really know what our government has learned from their investigations? For the most part, our government has reacted in the best interest of our country. If we allow the middle east to develop and USE this technology without us interveening, who's to say what may happen. What's the computer law? Every 18 months computer's douple their capacity, or something like that. If we sit back, who's to say our enemies will not advance quicker than us. Russia surpassed us in weapons until we beat them economically.

It's a far SAFER place than it was 50 years ago

Is it? We, the United States have been very good at protecting our people and our way of life. If we don't tap into the newest resources available, who's to say what our enemies will try to do, and to use against us. I firmly believe our government sources have much more information at their hands than they are letting us know. Is that good? Yes and no. If you look at most of the technological advances available to the public, most have occured through government research and development.

Ask yourself this, when did our government every make a critical decision that affected our constitution to the detriment of this nation and to render it obsolete? I trust this admin more than a gore or clinton admin. We have good people looking out for the best interest of our country. We have to trust someone. I would not trust gore.

84 posted on 02/18/2003 5:54:05 PM PST by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro
What is "Anti-Bush" exactly?

Ya know, on any given day half of FR might be considered "Anti-Bush"

You gonna do a vanity on them also?

85 posted on 02/18/2003 5:59:06 PM PST by Jhoffa_ (Jhoffa_X)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PresterJohn
I think we'll probably get around to dealing with North Korea. But we have a clear mandate with regards to the war on terror. The North Korea problem falls under nuclear proliferation, and we have long established diplomatic venues for dealing with such matters.
86 posted on 02/18/2003 6:32:17 PM PST by TPartyType
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro
No, they haven't forgot about 9-11. They celebrate it.

hillary and the democrate are hoping and praying that they will attack the U.S. again, in order for them [hilary and the democrats] to make political hay from the spilling of Ameerican blood.

In like manner they are also hoping for the U.S. to go into a depression for the same reasons.

No amount of American blood is to large to be shed if it results in the democrats again assuming political power. No number of Americans starving is too large if it results in the democrats assuming political power.
87 posted on 02/18/2003 6:33:36 PM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro
Oh so true!

And you can bet your britches that if Bill Clinton had bombed the dickens out of Iraq in 1998 none of these Bush hating demonstrators, celebrities, and other assorted lefties would have raised an eyebrow, much less a protest placard.

88 posted on 02/18/2003 6:40:52 PM PST by YaYa123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
Of course they are anti Bush. It's very clear every time a reporter speaks to one of them or even viewing the signs at protest. But I am fuming as no one on the tv news shows seems to call them on this. Is it me? Tonight I tuned in to Crossfire,Why does Tucker allow Carville to spew the Dem line with hardly a comeback!!!
89 posted on 02/18/2003 6:46:42 PM PST by 2rightsleftcoast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
Bill Bennett on MSNBC's Donahue, just confirmed the basic points of this post.

Paraphrasing, "the protesters were all about hating America and the President". Try and catch the re-run. Worth it.

90 posted on 02/18/2003 6:48:03 PM PST by AGreatPer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: sport
Couldn't agree more. Dems would love another attack on our soil. They are salivating for it. Hillary and her friends do not care about America IMHO, only about power and control. God help us.
91 posted on 02/18/2003 6:50:25 PM PST by 2rightsleftcoast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

Comment #92 Removed by Moderator

To: SoCalConservative
airborne_vet is probably neither airborne nor a vet.

He is in all probalility a du plant.
93 posted on 02/18/2003 7:11:55 PM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Comment #94 Removed by Moderator

To: AGreatPer
Thanks for the heads up...I'll catch the rerun for sure.
95 posted on 02/18/2003 7:18:16 PM PST by YaYa123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

Comment #96 Removed by Moderator

To: eleni121
There's always a small hard-core of left crazies who are against anything. However, the vast majority on the left half of the spectrum were quite happy with the 'war' on Yugoslavia.
97 posted on 02/18/2003 7:35:00 PM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro
Damn Straight, 1Old Pro...I agree completely. How easy it is for them to conveniently forget Bubba Clinton's 450 cruise missiles lobbed at Iraq. And how about hitting on Serbia, Sudan, without UN endorsement, without Congressional approval, without one stinkin' slimey grungy commie, socialist, liberal democrat protesting.

But, maybe they were more interested in the lies and do not recalls of the great Clinton's Federal Grand Jury testimony, or post impeachment celebration which just so happened to coincide with his frequent bomb flicking.

98 posted on 02/18/2003 7:39:12 PM PST by harpo11 (The United Nations is NOT united with America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #99 Removed by Moderator

To: PresterJohn
Picture it is Summer, 2001. Let's say someone told you that terrorists were planning to blow up the World Trade Center and that the only way to prevent it would be to go to war with Afghanistan. You would have dismissed such a person with exactly the same arguments you are using now. You would have been wrong. What 9/11 should have done is shift the burden of proof of innocence onto the Islamists and the Pan-Arabians.

You are demanding a level of forensic proof that is impossible to provide given the circumstances. There was absolutely no proof whatsoever that the Germans were exterminating the Jews other than the fact that everyone was pretty confident that that was what was going on. Proof - incontrovertible proof - of the planned crimes of fascist regimes can only come after we invade them or after they attack us. That is nature of the world we live in. The stakes of the game after 9/11 are so high that wating to find out what people like Hussein are going to do next has suddenly become the worse option.

The U.S. was never able to pin anything other than tax evasion on Al Capone. Imagine the difficulty if Capone had had his own country. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a fine principle to apply to an individual. It is a terrible principle to apply to fascist regimes pursuing an atom bomb.

100 posted on 02/18/2003 8:05:07 PM PST by caspera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-126 next last

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.

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