Fire of Liberty
For all of those people who have posted comments comparing President Bush and his administration to such scum like Hitler and Goering they should try to read more history and stop picking up quotes from the various left wing/extreme right wing websites. Until you can find any comment our speech from President Bush or his administration that calls for the complete exterimination of a race or mentions the "Master Race," then lay off the comparisons. You know you've beaten a liberal at their game when they start quoting the maniacal ramblings of Hitler or Georing to make their argument against the war in Iraq or the Global War on Terrorism.
As for this "Bush lied" argument, maybe the people who promote such ideas need to look back on President Bush's speech before the nation in Cincinnati, Ohio on October 7, 2002. During this speech he noted three arguments for attacking Iraq, 1.Saddam was suspected of having weapons and had used them in the past (Though we never found an enormous stockpile after the fact, we made an assessment based on US, British, French, Russian, German, Israeli, as well as UN intelligence that all said Saddam had them.), 2.Saddam was a big sponsor of terrorism and might have made a Faustian deal to provide these terrorists with WMD. When Saddam sends checks of $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and allows terrorists like Abu Nidal and makes deals of accommodation - see here ,here, and here - with terrorists since 1998, the President had sufficient evidence to worry about al Qaeda spreading its wings with the backing and support of a nation like Iraq that has the money to spend. 3.President Bush also argued that our intervention in Iraq was also motivated by the continued thuggish nature of Saddam -see here - towards his people (rape rooms, acid baths, putting people feet first in industrial shredders, cutting people's tongues out, chopping off hands, gouging eyes or just the systematic murder of people.). Just read Kanan Makiya's masterful book The Republic of Fear, to see the true nature of Saddam. As the chief promoter of freedom and democracy throughout the world, the US cannot turn a blind eye to such a blatant violation of human rights that occurred in Iraq under Saddam. 4.President Bush noted that by liberating Iraq from the clutches of Saddam's tyranny and giving them the chance to plant a democracy within the corrupt and evil Arab regimes of the Middle East, would exacerbate the turn towards peace and away from the darkness of terrorism. By giving the people of Iraq their G-d given rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as well as their own self-government laid out in a constitution, we will be able to establish a beacon that others will follow. It might not be an American style democracy but it's far better than what Saddam and the other despots in the region had to offer. It's sad that close to 2,000 soldiers have died in Iraq but if this reduces the breeding ground and the reach of terrorists like bin Laden and his ilk then it well worth our effort. So lets get off this academic discussion on why we went to war and focus more the issue at hand which is winning the fight in Iraq by standing behind our troops and supporting their commander-in-chief.
As for the canard that we fought in Kosovo and Iraq for minerals, I'd like someone to cite or show me proof where any such deals have occurred and some press release from Moveon.com doesn't count. In reality, we could have made deals with the regimes in Yugoslavia or Iraq by dropping sanctions but we intervened because the human rights of Muslims in these countries were being infringed upon when these regimes sent out their death squads against them and the high and mighty UN continued to ignore their plight because Annan said he could work with these devils. It's rather sad that people can sit back and ignore actual acts of evil and terrorism being committed by aggressors but somehow find the US at fault for stepping in and stopping such acts when no other nation chose to act.
Last but not least, I'd like to respond to the snarky comment about calling the US Army recruiter because I support the war. For one think, I'd be proud to sign up for the fight but unfortunately I'm confined to a wheelchair due to having muscular dystrophy. With that at hand, I formed Fire of Liberty to offer my hand in this effort to demonstrate on why we should dismantle the swamps in which the evil forces of this world reside. I might not be able to fight in the trenches in Iraq but I'm putting myself into the war effort by supporting the troops who willingly joined the military to do the dying for the spread of democracy and a fight against terrorism. It sure beats spending my time calling for our troops to turn tail and run in a time of danger. I think Jonah Goldberg shot down the "chickenhawk," argument that anti-war folks seem to throw up against supporters of the war. So if you want to barb with me then I'm all for it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Great, my son is in Iraq! If he loses his life, I will tell you this, I will consider it a complete waste. You have your right to your opinion of course! I will NEVER consider changing mine, not for one SECOND!!!!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps in all your reading you have overlooked the Downing Street minutes from a meeting between the head of British Intelligence and Tony Blair. In the meeting it said that intelligence was being fixed around the policy of invasion. The weapons that Saddam used were provided to him by the Reagan administration that was arming both sides in the Iraq-Iran conflict.
As for the torture and rape under Saddam, it has not stopped under the military intervention, the only difference is now it's the US doing the torture, which should sicken any true patriot as cruel and unusual punishment is a violation of our constitution.
As for Saddam sponsoring terrorism, your arguement proves the validuity of Cindy Sheehan, we are not there for us, but for Israel, who would not be the target of Arab agression if it only gave back all the Palestinian land they have taken since it's inception following UN resolution 667.
According to Seymour Hersh, the ballots in the last Iraqi election were stuffed top put a pro-American in power, effectively making the "were here for democracy" arguement a farce, but it's obvious that Bush and the Republican party don't believe in democracy following Florida in 2000 (57,000 voters illegally removed from voter rolls) or Ohio in 2004 (touch screen votes for Kerry not being registered).
As for Ksosovo and Bosnia, the UN itself sent inspectors who found no evidence of "ethnic cleansing" just a mass grave of casualties from a civil war there. We went there to secure the rights to the Trepca mineral complex.(You Are Being Lied To, Russ Kick, ed. "Colony Kosovo" by Christian Parenti ppg. 111-3
Saddam was placed into power by the US; alQaeda was created by the US and the Mossad to keep the Russians out of Afghanistan and the longer we stay in the region, the more terrorists we will create as we try to impose our way of life on a country of people who don't want it, that is the ultimate act of fascism. While Bush has never quoted Hitler directly, he has never admitted a wrong or mistake even keeping traitor Karl Rove in the White House after he said that anyone in his administration that leaked the name of an intelligence operative to the media would no longer have a job there,a bigger flip flop than John Kerry's stance on the war in Iraq. Bush supporters in the "liberal" media (Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter etc.) have all denounced anti-war protestors as both "traitors" and "unpatriotic". And finally, while you may not be able to fight in the war you so vehemently support, there a lot of chicken hawks who are able to fight, but like those in the Bush administration who had "better things to do" when the time to serve their country came up. Do not ask us to sacrifice what you will not sacrifice yourself.
You have a right to your opinion...but, to tell someone like Mrs. Ann Carson up top that her son's life being at risk sun up, sun down is for the best, is a crock of sh--t!
This war has wasted too many lives, too much money, too much time--just too much everything!
Yes, you have a right to fight, just as Mrs. Ann Carson and oh so many others just like her...have the right to life!
SEND THE TROOPS HOME, NOW!!!
=========
Hello everybody!
2day's my Birthday! Please, stop by my blog and wish me "Happy Birthday!"
I'd like to respond to Lew Scannon's comments. I'll leave that for the wing-bats to muddle over due to the fact that they have problems reading the Queens English. If they did, they'd realize that the memo was referring to the Bush administration's decision that they were going to attack Saddam by tying WMD and Terrorism together and had to get all of its ducks in a row to make a strong argument. In the public policy making arena you generally set out an objective and research the information to make their case. So when the President set out on a course of attacking Saddam to clear the swamp of regimes that support terrorists like al Qaeda he had all his info before him when he went before the American people to make his case on invading Iraq. I prefer an administration that was patient enogh to take its time in gathering this info and making its case rather than one who says "Screw it, I'm the President don't bother with the details." As with all aspects of foreign policy and intelligence work you need to present facts and that's what the did. We might have provided Saddam with Guns, bullets and RPGs and sold weapons to Iranians to release hostages and get money for the Contras but we never gave them any WMD and I challange you to find proof of your claim. As for comparing our troops to the monsters of Saddam's thugs. Don't forget that when we've had reports of people being abused we've tried them and convicted them, something Saddam and al Qaeda would do. (They generally kill our folks and don't provide them three square meals, clothes, hot showers, and Harry Potter books like we do.)
As for the remark on fighting the war for Israel, you need to lay off the Moveon.org and Air America stuff. To begin with, you need to get your facts straight on Israel first. In 1947, the UN partioned the land between the Palestinian Arabs and the Jews with Jerusalem being a nuetral city controlled by the UN. So after the partition, Israel declared itself a formal nation in 1948 upon which the Six Arab states neighboring Israel declared war on the newly created Jewish state. This would be known as the 1948 war in which the greatly undermined a fledgling nation defeated the attacking Arab forces and conquered some 26% of the mandated territories from them. Israel was also attack by the Arabs in 1956, 1967, and 1973 which resulted in three more victories for Israel and the taking of more land all of which Israel rightfully won via the defeat of it's enemies. In fact Osama would be gunning for us even without the existance of Israel because he noted is his arguments for attacking the West because we showed weakness in leaving Vietnam, Iran, Lebanon and Somolia(The same would be for Iraq and Afghanistan), he also listed the loss of the Muslim(Moorish)Spain in 1492 to the forces of Isabella, the destruction of the Ottoman Empire as well as US troops in Saudi Arabia and had Israel as the seventh or eigth reason for attacking the West. I'd say he's way beyond Israel. In fact he detests a computer and a free flowing of info more than Israel, that's how whacked out on returning to a 7th Century caliphate.
I know several people from the area and they'd beg to differ with that claim. I'd also have to wonder that if there weren't so many people being killed why did the European nations and NATO argue and fight the Serbians, let alone imprison Slobodan Milosevic and put him on trial in the Hague for 'Crimes against Humanity'.
As for Saddam being placed on the throne, you need to recheck that. In fact Saddam worked his way into the ranks of the Baath party who had taken over the government in coup in 1968. During this time Saddam served as VP under President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr who was his cousin. As various biographies of Saddam go, he pulled all of the levers of power and consolidated it via horrific acts of terror and brutality until he took complete control of the nation. As for the claim that the US and the Mossad helped create of al Qaeda, give me a break. First of all, during the nine year Soviet invasion and war in Afghanistan, Osama was living it up in Saudi Arabia getting jiggy with his many wifes, watching soccer and working for his dad while the Mujahedeen fought it out with the Soviets via the support of the United States (CIA), Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Osama sent them cash but eventually became too radical for the Mujahedeen and created al Qaeda in 1988 thus creating forces oppossed to the Muj and eventually siding up with the Taliban in the mid to late 90's. I'd highly doubt that the Mossad would have as much success as the Pakistani ISI would have with Pastun speaking Muslims.
Oh, I see that when you run out of things you return to your old stand-by of referring to the Bushies as Nazis. I'd like for you to show me what promoting democracy, spending money on building schools and repairing a country's infrastructure, and freeing them from a horrific tyrant like Saddam has anything in common with a man and ideology that promoted racial superiority and the murder of six to eight million people because they were a Jew, Slav, Gypsie, Disabled, or just being old. There's no comparison and no matter what you say the "Nazi" claim makes you look really silly.
As for Rush, Sean Hannity, and O'reilly, just provide me some examples of where they've questioned Sheehan's patriotism or called her a traitor. I can't say the same about Colter because she's an odd bird and I don't read her rambling screeds because I've have better ways to waste my time.
I can tell that your beyond talking to so I bid you a good day.
The US backed the coup that led to the rise of Saddam, same difference. As for Osama, 1.) he's dead, he died and his death notice was reported in the Egyptian Times.
2.) If he was so cozy with the Taliban, why did they offer to turn him over to the US on several occaisions (under Bill Clinton)? The intelligence that was cooked up to frame Saddam came from Larry Franklin in the Department of Special Operations of the Pentagon, with links to the AIPAC scandal. When Joseph Wilson investigated the claims that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium, he found no evidence. He report to the Bush administration was then selectively edited as evidence that, indeed Saddam was trying to purchase the uranium. When Wilson complained in an op-ed piece in the New York Times, Karl Rove committed treason (US code 793 and 794, look it up) by leaking Wilson's wife as an intelligence agent, effectively destroying years of work and wasting millions of dollars of taxpayer money.
As for helping the 1968 coup of the Baathists in Iraq, the US was against it because the Baath were more in line with the Soviets than the US. I think you thinking about The Shah in Iran who we helped to regain the Peacock Throne from the communist Mossadeq in 1955. It was the Cold War and Eisenhower was a realist who preferred authoritarian nations than a commie one. As for Osama being dead, your sadly misinformed. For one thing the liberals would be yelling "Mission Complete, we're done with the War," secondly the media would be non-stop wall-to-wall coverage on his death, and there's no Egypt Times. They have a daily called al Ahram but we'd know because they're chummy with CNN. Osama was offered up on a silver platter by Sudan but the Clinton administration passed on the option and he scurried away to Afghanistan. Now it's true the US communicated with the Taliban some 30 days since September 1996 to July 2001 to hand over Osama but they kept on saying no and we see why now.
Again, you find a way to find some Jewish plot afoot in the Pentagon or the administration. In fact Franklin, who works as a mid-level analyst at the Iran desk at the Pentagon, is being charged for providing information on Iran and on what we had on some Israeli operatives in northern Iraq to former members of AIPAC. If you work in the Iran desk, you have enough on your plate to be worried about Iraq. It's unfortunate that he's being charged for handing over such info but he seems to have been dragged into Iraq for no apparent reason.
Let's look at the Plame case. First of all let's get the law right. When you note US Code 18 Section 793 and 794 have nothing to do with Plame. 793 deals with the Transmitting Or Losing Defense Info and 794 deals with the Gathering Or Delivering Defense Information To Aid Foreign Government. What you meant is US Code 50 Section 421 or what is better known as Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. According to former Assistant Deputy Attorney General Victoria Toensing who helped write the law notes that no criminal activity has occurred because 1.Her status as undercover had to be classified and 2.She had to have been in the field currently or within the past five years, all would be checked no in Plame's case. Even the liberal columnist Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times pointed such out in his October 11, 2003 column(He even found time to blast Bob Novak) where he noted:
First, the C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given Mrs. Wilson's name (along with those of other spies) to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons.
Second, as Mrs. Wilson rose in the agency, she was already in transition away from undercover work to management, and to liaison roles with other intelligence agencies. So this year, even before she was outed, she was moving away from "noc" — which means non-official cover, like pretending to be a business executive. After passing as an energy analyst for Brewster-Jennings & Associates, a C.I.A. front company, she was switching to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having "C.I.A." stamped on her forehead.
Third, Mrs. Wilson's intelligence connections became known a bit in Washington as she rose in the C.I.A. and moved to State Department cover, but her job remained a closely held secret. Even her classmates in the C.I.A.'s career training program mostly knew her only as Valerie P. That way, if one spook defected, the damage would be limited.
All in all, I think the Democrats are engaging in hyperbole when they describe the White House as having put Mrs. Wilson's life in danger and destroyed her career; her days skulking along the back alleys of cities like Beirut and Algiers were already mostly over.
I know Karl Rove is known as the devil to the left like James Carville is to the right but let's hold off on convicting someone who isn't indicted. I guess people like the New York Times, Judy Miller and Matt Cooper will think twice about calling for a special prosecutor again, seemed to have left egg on their face.
It's good to have this rap session but I'm calling it a night.
Post a Comment