Snappy Answers To Stupid Antiwar Soundbites

The Jewish Press ^ | 3/5/2003 | Tom Adkins

[veronica]

Use this handy guide to tell you which snappy answer to give whenever a liberal uses stupid soundbites to help Saddam Hussein.

1) “The United States is taking unilateral action against Iraq.”

So far, it`s a 90-member worldwide "unilateral" coalition.

2) “We are in a rush to war.”

An 11-year rush?

3) “Tough inspections can disarm Saddam Hussein without our having to invade Iraq.”

Eleven years of inspections have done wonders so far.

4) “We should let the inspectors finish their job.”

We did. They didn`t. We will.

5) “Why fight? The Iraqi military is weaker than in 1991.”

But their biological and chemical weapons are much more dangerous.

6) “There`s no proof of those weapons.”

We know they have `em, we know they hide `em, and we have tape recordings and photographs. What more is needed? An Iraqi rocket in Martin Sheen`s pocket?

7) “If we invade, Saddam might use those weapons of mass destruction against us.”

I thought you said Iraq didn`t have them?

8) “But terrorists might attack if we invade Iraq.”

Oh — so if we don`t attack Iraq, terrorists will never strike again?

9) “We shouldn`t go to war without a UN resolution.”

ANOTHER resolution? What about the last 16 resolutions? Shall we use them as wallpaper? Or shall we use the same resolutions Bill Clinton used in Bosnia?

10) “We don`t have a real declaration for war.”

It`s called "Joint Congressional Resolution #114.

11) “We are giving $20 billion to Turkey. We could use that money at home.”

OK, we`ll use that money to strengthen our Iraqi border with Wyoming.

12) “If North Korea has nuclear weapons, why aren`t we invading them first?”

Uh, hello, isn`t that the point?

13) “European leaders are against the war.”

The Reichstag wasn`t attacked. The Grande Place wasn`t attacked. The Kremlin wasn`t attacked. And the Jerry Lewis Lifetime Achievement Museum wasn`t attacked. America was attacked. And besides, even with the tantrums of France, Belgium and Germany, only three European nations aren`t willing to defend freedom. The rest of Europe is with America.

14) “The French don`t support the war.”

Oh — did they surrender already?

15) “Germany objects to this war.”

Germany objected to Reagan`s "attitude" toward the Soviet Union. Of course, they objected to our presence in 1943 as well.

16) “Belgians are against the war.”

I can live without waffles and ice cream.

17) “The Russians don’t support the war.”

They’re still angry over Reagan`s brilliant Cold War victory.

18) “Polls show Europeans are against this war.”

Polls show Europeans believe their freedom was achieved by endlessly debating in marvelous dining halls, conveniently forgetting their right to be pompous blowhards was granted with American blood, not fabulous wine and Brie.

19) “We should build a coalition with our friends.”

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

20) “What happens if we can`t build a United Nations coalition?”

Who cares?

21) “But the UN is the world`s most respected governing body.”

Not as respected as the U.S. military.

22) “America has always waited until enemies attacked.”

Now that oceans can`t hold back enemies, pre-emptive war is forever a necessity.

23) “War will cost billions!”

So — how much is YOUR city worth?

24) “President Bush says he`s willing to violate the 1976 executive order forbidding assassinations of foreign leaders.”

As soon as the ink is dry on rescinding that idiotic order, will someone please pull the trigger? The line forms to the right.”

25) “Many senators don`t support Bush.”

Are you speaking of the senators from Bordeaux?

26) “Tom Daschle says George Bush has a ‘credibility gap’”

When was the last time we came to Tom Daschle for the truth?

27) “These problems didn`t happen under Clinton.”

Actually, they happened. But Clinton ignored them. Now Bush will clean up his mess.

28) “But Clinton didn`t start a war.”

Not unless his girlfriend was testifying before Congress.

29) “The first President Bush should have taken out Hussein in `91.”

That 1991 UN resolution forbade a march on Baghdad. Remember?

30) “Millions of peace activists are demanding we stop the march to war.”

Millions of Iraqis are begging for us to start the war.

31) “Thousands of innocents will be killed or injured.”

That`s a lot less than Hussein has killed and is killing.

32) “Young Americans will die in battle.”

Would you prefer they die in skyscrapers?

33) “Protesters have genuine objections to war.”

Just like they did in Somalia? Bosnia?

34) “People are coming from all over the world to be human shields on behalf of Saddam.”

Quick, hurry before the bombs start dropping.

35) “This is about American imperialism.”

So which country do we own? What nation sends us its tax dollars? If America were imperialist, we`d already own the entire world. Who could stand in our way?

36) “This is blood for oil.”

The only blood here has been that of Iraqis tortured, starved and killed while Hussein builds massive palaces to hide nuclear weapons — all financed with Iraqi oil.

37) “This is a racist war.”

America happily endorses a multicultural attitude toward anyone who dares to take away our freedom. Regardless of race, color or creed, we hunt them down and kill them.

38) “A U.S.-led invasion of Iraq is a great recruiting tool for terrorists.”

Have fun recruiting people into oppressive misery as they enjoy their first taste of freedom.

39) “An attack on Iraq could seriously undermine and destabilize Arab nations.”

Destabilize the region? The sooner we topple these oppressive 14th century terrorist regimes the better.

40) “Are we prepared for a multi-billion dollar occupation?”

Were we prepared to liberate Europe and Japan in 1945? South Korea in 1953? Grenada? El Salvador? Kuwait? The Eastern Bloc? Afghanistan? Nations always love Americans when we rescue them from tyranny. The price of freedom is never free.

41) “Polls show Americans are more concerned about the threat from Al Qaeda than the threat from Iraq.”

It`s not a war against Al Qaeda. It`s not a war against Iraq. It`s a war against terrorism. Anywhere we find it. One nation at a time.

42) “American opinion is against the war.”

No, it`s not. A majority of Americans want to fight now, not later.

43) “According to a recent poll...”

You know what? Flush those polls. We`re in a war against terrorism. If you don`t want to fight the vile murderers, get the hell out of the way. Go visit Paris. Or Antwerp. Or Berlin. Or Moscow. And stay there. Forever. But this time, don`t call us when the Visigoths are at the gates.

Tom Adkins is publisher of the website CommonConservative.com, where this column originally appeared.

[cateizgr8]

ping :)

[weegee]

22) “America has always waited until enemies attacked.”

Like in Kosovo?

[Physicist]

Yo, Tom! Still got the ol' cans of whoop-ass, I see. Great article.

[CarmelValleyite]

Answer to Uncle Teddy re the U.S. in a rush to war:

We GAVE peace a chance -- for YEARS; we GOT 9/11! How many more horrific incidents do we need on our shores?

[Chummy]

Consider these excerpts in a reply from and sent to me by Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl:

"...By any measure, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is one of the world's most active supporters of terrorism and a major contributor to regional instability in the Middle East. He is a ruthless dictator who has violently stifled dissent and presided over a regime rife with corruption and graft...

"...I believe the security of our nation depends on disarming Iraq and containing this regime notorious for its deceptions and ruthlessness. I voted for the Iraq resolution, H.Res. 114, to support the President...It is my hope that this show of unity from the American government will achieve our goal of disarming Iraq without war."

I'm not kidding you, these are direct quotes provided to me in writing. This United States Senator is telling me he thought a vote by the US Congress would give him hope that this would be enough to disarm Iraq without war.

The Senator continues:

"...I have always said we should not commit US troops abroad without the support of the international community. The costs are too great for us to take unilateral action unless we have no other choice..."

(There's that "unilateral action" thing again, ignoring the facts and realities of the nations allied in this united effort.)

Senator Kohl also writes, "...it is clear that Iraq is a rogue regime of the worst kind, [however] my vote was not an endorsement of a policy of preemptive war...Going in for the sole purpose of overthrowing the current Iraqi regime would be destabilizing...we cannot be the world's policeman, offering to make the world safe by eliminating each and every tyrant. My vote in favor of the resolution was to authorize the President to gather a world force against the threat of a dangerous regime armed with chemical, biological, and possibly nuclear weapons, and to disarm that regime...."

Nope, wouldn't want to destabilize a "dangerous regime armed with chemical, biological, and possibly nuclear weapons", a nation the Senator writes is "...one of the world's most active supporters of terrorism and a major contributor to regional instability in the Middle East." Such a regime would, apparently in Senator Kohl's thoughts, be the model of stability, despite feeling Saddam Hussein "...is a ruthless dictator who has violently stifled dissent and presided over a regime rife with corruption and graft...."

So, despite Saddam's contributions to the instability of the Middle East, Senator Kohl feels his removal by the United States -- unstated to also include, of course, the United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria, Poland, and a host of other nations around the globe -- would somehow worsen this situation?

After stabilizing the Middle East, I say we work harder toward finding LEADERS in this nation, Leaders like George W. Bush and other men and women of courage and vision, who do not fawn from the mightiest of challenges.

[EvilOverlord]

I only take issue with #22 -- this is NOT pre-emptive

Well, to some degree it is pre-emptive since we are not responding directly to an attack. However, war is always executed in this fashion. Armies do not sit and wait between battles for the enemy to attack in order to justify a response. They take the battle to the enemy to deny him comfort, supplies, funding, etc. They attack pre-emptively whenever possible.

The battle for Iraq is a part of the overall War on Terror. We go there to deny terrorists access to arms and money. There is no need to wait for another attack on our soil to justify denying comfort to the enemy.

[alancarp]

“Polls show Europeans are against this war.”

And we're to leave the safety of American Citizens at the mercy of those who don't know the facts and couldn't care less?

[Straight Vermonter]

23) “War will cost billions!”

So — how much is YOUR city worth?

Manhattan developer Larry Silverstein estimates the cost of rebuilding the lost office space from WTC at $5-6B. This does not account for the $7B spent on cleanup nor the $100s of Billions the attacks have cost the economy.

[alancarp]

The Human Shields thing continues to be a laugh riot.

• There are 5 MILLION people in Baghdad
• Maybe only 1000 showed up to be trea-, uh, human shields.
• They actually believed that the United States thinks more of them than the 5 million Iraqi citizens
• Most have left when they saw their choices were limited to guarding actual military targets
• Many more have left because they didn't want to die

[leadpencil1]

“Why fight? The Iraqi military is weaker than in 1991.”

Until you can guarantee me that you can provide our military with a 24 hour notice before any Saddam lackey provides biological, chemical or nuclear material or weapons to a terrorist, along with the exact coordinates and travel route so we can destroy it, shut the f*ck up.

[Cindy]

"ARE THEY FOR US OR AGAINST US?" (Updated Daily.)

[Chi-townChief]

Pretty snappy!!!

[weegee]

Many more have left because they didn't want to die:

They got tired of the food and the tv at the hotel didn't get MTV. Plus even in all that heat and sun, the women were not permitted to get a tan in bikinis.

On the upside, Al Jazeera had news stories two days before Pacifica and NPR broadcast them.

[enough]

Bump!

[Happy2BMe]

The More Things Change - The More Things Stay The Same

[HighRoadToChina]

Awesome BUMP!

[ConservativeLawyer]

It always gets me that the same people who said Bush didn't do enough to stop 9/11 in advance are now saying Iraq hasn't done anything to us yet, so we shouldn't do anything until after they do.

[goldstategop]

Liberals always make an issue over how much it costs to defend this country. Funny they never obsess about how much it costs to run all their useless and stupid, not to mention unconstitutional domestic programs.

[F16Fighter]

Nice find...

[Red6]

This is not new when I say that Clinton is the reason for this mess.

1 There is no doubt that the 1996 "Oil for food" program which is now helping divide the west was passed in the UN under Clintons nose.

2 When they tried to bring the WTC down in 1993? Maybe that should have set off alarms.

3 It was maybe Kobar Towers where the US should have gotten engaged.

4 After the 3rd attempt to bomb a US Navy ship was successful "USS Cole" we possibly should have done something.

5 How about when several US embassies just blow up in Africa simultaneously, should that have caused a reaction?

What I can't believe is that there is still support for this creep within the American public. What I can't believe is that he (Clinton) has in no way ever stated that he made a mistake or that his foreign policies were a complete and utter FAILURE.

1 It is almost unbelievable that he was able to be at the return of American fallen soldiers with no since of guilt, when it was his administration that pulled out all the heavy hitters because we were not an "Army of occupation" in Somalia.

2 It is sickening to think that he readily took credit for Bush seniors work. Making sure his face is between Arafat and Rabin during there signing of the 1994 peace accord, but immediately pushed off all responsibility when under his administration (later) the whole middle east just began to unravel.

It is just disgusting to think that all you need to be a president is to have a choreographed voice, good speechwriter and be able to manage fake facial expressions. A president who committed perjury, adultery with someone half his age. A president that bragged about how he was bleeding the military financially and fashionably called it the "peace dividend". An administration where half left/got fired for hiring illegal aliens, giving their corporate buddies government contracts (Braun who died in a plane crash) etcetera. A president that said during the election “don’t arm the Bosnians so they can defend themselves, that’s wrong”, but then after he got elected did just that what Bush senior recommended during the elections. By the way, was it not Clinton who said we’d be in Bosnia for no more than one (1) year? How can America even want to hear what this ASS has to say? Let him go to Europe and tour there. They like him over there, he fits in.

Clinton is directly (not indirectly in a round about way) responsible for the tragedy of 9-11. It is incredible that you can get busted in the government for stealing a $.50 pen (fraud waste and abuse), but there are no laws, no fines, it is no crime, to be grossly incompetent. You can legally get thousands killed because of your ignorance, that’s OK, and the American public says NOTHING!