Quick Links to Posts By Category

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, November 20, 2005

Anti-War Democrats Promote War

A week ago, leading Democrats catered to their FrankenSheehanMoore fringe extremists by ratcheting up the anti-war rhetoric.

This past week, El Jazeera gave these Democrats plenty of air time. Terrorists then ratcheted up their attacks killing more Iraqi civilians and U.S. troops.

Coincidence -- or a living history lesson?

In his autobiography, North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap revealed his strategy to win the Vietnam war. He acknowledged that North Vietnam was losing on the battlefield. They were losing so bad that they considered surrendering.

But, American media and protesters led by Jane Fonda and John Kerry came to North Vietnam’s rescue.

North Vietnam engaged in covert activities to sponsor and promote anti-war efforts in the United States. Giap believed that anti-war protesters and a media biased against U.S. involvement were his best allies. His plan was to keep things bloody and hope that Americans would lose the will to fight. Protesters provided the rhetoric while the media provided the images.

Giap was right. We were winning Vietnam on the battlefield, but lost it in Washington D.C.

Our success in Iraq is phenomenal – a regime toppled, the dictator standing trial, first free elections, and a constitution within two and half years. The best way to win the peace and support our troops is to promote their successes in Iraq. Tell the world over and over how we are defeating the terrorists who seek to prevent a free Iraq.

So, why are so many Democrats desperate for a repeat of Vietnam? Why are they so willing to rescue our enemy with words of hope? They claim to be “anti-war” yet they offer no rhetoric condemning the actions of the terrorists. Instead, they condemn U.S. involvement in Iraq – the land terrorists seek to own.

It is not war that these Democrats protest – it is U.S. victory. More specifically, it is a “President Bush victory” that they truly protest.

Can we call them “unpatriotic” yet?


Blogger Jambo said...

When Right Hook gets out of high school he'll be signing up to go fight, right?

11/21/2005 4:57 PM  
Blogger John said...

Man, this is the only blog I regularly read. I just can't get enough.

Thank the Lord Jesus that Jane Fonda's settled down a little bit since Vietnam, or we would have already lost this one by now.

11/21/2005 6:30 PM  
Blogger G-man said...

I often wonder why those who oppose the war resort to the canard of attacking one’s presumed service. This is particularly silly since supporters of the President and most of those serving share a common belief in this mission. If those wearing the uniform don’t question the service of those who defend their mission, why is it an issue?

If service is relevant, the question of one’s service doesn’t lie with those who support the troops and their mission -- it lies with those who oppose the mission and seek to see its defeat. Should we fail in Iraq, are the opponents willing to line up in protest of the terrorists? Are they willing to form human shields to protect likely targets from terrorist attacks?

11/21/2005 9:03 PM  
Blogger Right Hook said...

As Hugh Hewitt has said, liberals in general are just silly people. Unfortunately we live in serious times.

Many on the left have such an irrational hatred for President Bush that they will accept nothing but defeat in Iraq just to prove his decision to preemptively stop terrorist intent and capability was wrong. Earth to liberals: George Bush won the last two elections and cannot run for president again. Get over it.

What part of 9/11 don't they understand? They can't figure out that every terrorist killed in Iraq by trained volunteer soldiers is one less terrorist to attack unarmed civilians on American soil.

Rush is right--you can lead a liberal to the truth, but you can't make them think.

11/22/2005 7:27 AM  
Blogger Jambo said...

What part of 9/11 don't they understand?

The part where Iraq had something to do with it.

11/22/2005 12:06 PM  
Blogger G-man said...

Right Hook, what part of 9/11 don’t they understand? Everything!

Jambo, who said that Iraq was connected to 9/11?

Are you of the mindset that 9/11 was not an act of war, but simply a crime? Do you believe the threat of terrorism against the United States ends with the capture or killing of those individuals who were directly involved?

11/22/2005 6:47 PM  
Blogger Right Hook said...

Yo, Jambo! Wake up! To borrow some semantics from Der Schlickmeister (who, incidentally, did little to nothing to combat or discourage terrorism) it depends on how you define "something to do with it".

Even if Saddam wasn't directly involved with the specific 9/11 attack (which is not a given) he unquestionably harbored, sponsored, and trained terrorists for years. He allowed al-Qaeda to have training facilities within Iraq. There is evidence that Mohammed Atta was trained in Iraq. Czech intelligence still stands by their claim that they observed Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence officials before 9/11.

Even if Saddam was absolutely squeaky clean with respect to 9/11 he was a known terrorism supporter with the capability to launch or support terrorist attacks as bad or worse than 9/11 on the US or our allies. There is also mounting evidence that Saddam was up to his eyeballs in the Oklahoma City bombing (see http://www.jaynadavis.com).

What liberals often fail to grasp it that the Global War on Terror is not just about punishing and eliminating those responsible for 9/11, it is also about preventing another attack by those who did it before as well as attacks by others. It may not be "fair" in the warped touch-feely liberal way of thinking, but taking out the threat Saddam posed was the responsible thing to do as the first step in draining the swamp of Islamic terrorism. Brace yourself, because it's highly probable that dealing with Syria and Iran are also on the President's to-do list.

11/22/2005 9:40 PM  
Blogger John said...

Yeah, wake up Jambo. Don't listen to all those people who say that removing Saddam has essentially turned Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorists, while simultaneously tieing our troops up there as Al-Qeada and Bin-Laden squirm off. Don't listen to all of those silly people. The liberals, I mean. Those are the only ones who oppose the war. I mean, with population growth and all, we could, in theory, lose 1000 soldiers a year and get that many new recruits to fill there boots. Wake up, Jambo. Quit getting your news from everywhere except for FOX. I heard that they're the only ones who aren't silly. Look at our leader. He's never silly. He hasn't taken a vacation since this whole thing started, that's how dedicated he is to doing this thing right.

11/23/2005 3:18 PM  
Blogger G-man said...

Yep, you can lead them to truth, but you can’t make them think.

11/24/2005 1:08 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


MOB Logo

Powered by Blogger