Bush's Obscenity - Mega Barf Alert

The Progressive ^ | October 4, 2002 | Matthew Rothschild

[Frapster]

Web Exclusives

Editor Matthew Rothschild comments on the news of the day.

October 4, 2002

---

Bush's Obscenity

On October 3, Bush uttered one of the grossest obscenities imaginable: "War may be unavoidable."

War is almost always avoidable.

In the case of Iraq, it is particularly avoidable, since Iraq has not attacked the United States and is in no position to do so.

It's only "unavoidable" because Bush so desperately wants to go to war.

Bush, not Saddam Hussein, is blocking the U.N. inspectors from going back to work.

And Bush and Blair are insisting that U.N. Security Council let the war begin.

How Bush could then say, with a straight face, that "we didn't ask for this challenge" is beyond me.

Then, pouring it on, he added, "None of us here today desire to see military conflict because we know the awful nature of war."

Actually, I doubt Bush has any appreciation of the awful nature of war, and his desire for military conflict against Iraq is on display for all to see.

These rhetorical feints are mere calisthenics before the heavy lifting of the bombs, a ritual clearing of the throat before the war whoop.

-- Matthew Rothschild

Archive

[wardaddy]

I would suggest Rothshild make a trip to his ancestral tribal homeland for a quick primer on human nature and get back to us.

[Anti-Bubba182]

I'M BACK!!!

SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

WIPE THE SMILE OFF OF THIS MAN'S FACE.
VOTE THE RATS
OUT!! DONATE TODAY
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate here by secure server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

[hosepipe]

Matthew don't have a clue about the awful nature of war.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something."
Plato

[dighton]

A lonely choice: Shaken and under attack, pacifists refuse to surrender their olive branch

So, like, why are we bombing Iraq and not Madison?

;-)

[=Intervention=]

This was my letter to the mag...

A few points...

War is almost always avoidable, as long as you are willing to pay any price to avoid it.

It is only unavoidable because Bush has been convinced of the necessity of halting Sadam's terrorist network once and for all. He currently enjoys around a 70% approval rating from the American people. Numbers do not prove a point, but that Bush is acting alone and without the support of the American people is untrue.

The U.N inspectors -- please. Do you honestly believe that Saddam will suddenly allow unfettered access when he's spent 10+ years denying it? Why is there this sudden rush to believe liars from the left? Is it because the hate-America slogan has taken such a deep root in your soul? Once again, we see the typical leftist credo in action. When your nation is threatened, the most patriotic thing to do is believe your enemies first. (Making Bush and Saddam equivalent is of course ridiculous. Bush was elected and Saddam was not.)

It's beyond your capacity to understand what Bush meant when he said "we didn't ask for this challenge"? Wow, leftists are truly less imaginative and less intelligent than I thought. At least I can comprehend the arguments of my opponents rather than simply throw up my hands and pretend that they are but ramblings of the ill.

Actually, I doubt that you have any idea about Bush. Honestly, you've stated that you can't understand him, so why can we believe anything you say about him?

As for war, I say bring it on. I'll sign up if the word goes out, too. (And that is the final irony -- that people like me, who are willing to fight and die for freedom, are the only reason why pacifists don't have to. The pacifist construct presumes a world of equal civility and all nations being equal in character, a situation which has never happened and never will happen.)

[Monti Cello]

It's not a policy, it's an 'obscenity'.

Perfect example of how there is no reasoning with these people.

They are not interested in considering alternatives to their religion until the bombs are crashing on them, and maybe not even then.

A person possessing such a complex of moral superiority and and stubborn idiocy is not someone to be convinced; they are someone to be ridiculed and defeated.

[Dan Day]

Wow, spectacular letter.

I was trying to think how to address the depths of this man's naiveté without calling him an ignorant fugghead, but you've nailed it.

Thanks.

[m1911]

"My feeling," said Hall, "would be the best way to approach this thing would be to keep talking to Muslim leaders everywhere and ask them to please go after these guys in their own court system."

Yeah, I'm sure the Taleban would have convicted Al Qaeda.

[redhead]

"As for war, I say bring it on. I'll sign up if the word goes out, too. (And that is the final irony -- that people like me, who are willing to fight and die for freedom, are the only reason why pacifists don't have to. The pacifist construct presumes a world of equal civility and all nations being equal in character, a situation which has never happened and never will happen.)"

Well said. Thank you.

[LiteKeeper]

later