The arrogance of liberals (George Will)

TownHall.com ^ | 1/23/03 | George Will

[kattracks]

WASHINGTON--After braving subfreezing temperatures here to urge the president to heed John Lennon (``Give peace a chance''), the 30,000 or 500,000--estimates differed; and how--at last Saturday's antiwar demonstrations returned to their suburban homes or their hotels, where they could watch HBO's live telecast of a concert by the Rolling Stones, three of whom are older than the president. Mick Jagger once said he could not imagine being 45 and still singing ``Satisfaction.'' He will soon turn 60, and so, it sometimes seems, will the unsatisfactory rhetoric of today's left.

[alwaysconservative]

Only those people who have willingly chosen to ignore the evidence of Iraq's compliance in September 11, or in its continuing assault and export of terrorism, are willing to further appease Saddam to the point where he is "invited" to use WMD against us "evil" Americans (who, in the parlance of the leftists, probably deserve everything we get). I agree with Mr. Will, this arrogance is both dangerous and silly, particularly from a position that has to borrow old rock lyrics as slogans and champions killing of innocents on a daily basis.

[Teacher317]

A Washington Post photograph of one of last Saturday's demonstrators showed an Illinois woman with ``No Nukes'' written on a face contorted by the rigors of struggling to prevent a war aimed at preventing Iraq from acquiring ...

ROFL!

[JohnGalt]

Will was a college leftie who found that he could make a living writing as a neo-Conservative. He can turn a phrase for sure, but I suspect the street figthers you mention grew up in a family that recognized there was a culture war going on and learned to use the tactics of the enemy against the enemy.

[Miss Marple]

Lets not forget Bush Sr. did not march into Baghdad when he had the chance. Dont go blaming it all on Bubba and the UN. And lets not forget that the reason he did not go in are the same reasons used by the anti-war crowd as reasons for not going in now (instability, US stuck running the place, civil strife, etc).

I will blame not going into Baghdad back in 1991 PRECISELY on the UN, which gave a mandate ONLY to force Iraq out of Kuwait. Because the UN did NOT want to press on, and because we were operating under that mandate, we failed to finiish Hussein off.

Now, you cannot gripe at Bush 41 because he did what the UN wanted, and then in the same breath insist that his son comply with all the UN's wishes.

We are operating under the UN resolution which Saddam Hussein has never obeyed. How come no one is interested in HIS flagrant flouting of international law?

[Teacher317]

Oh, goody, another chance to read the Democrat talking-points!

Iraq has never ever threatened or shown agression against the U.S.

1. shooting at our planes enforcing the no-fly-zone
2. financing terrorism by giving the families of suicide-bombers (who have killed Americans) $25,000
3. It doesn't matter if he hasn't attacked the US, as you were the wuss who brought up the "need" to obey "international law"... we are enforcing those rules. Did you miss the speech to the UN?

The problem I see is that by declaring self defense as a rational[e] for a preemptive strike invites LOTS of trouble.

self-defense has always been a rationale for striking... or would you rather wait until after your child has been killed before you oust an armed madman?

I mean mutual assured destruction (the cornerstone of our nuke policy throughout the cold war) worked because both sides accepted that pre emptive strikes were not self defense. If one side had, we would all be dead now.

Saddam doesn't have nukes (yet). MAD doesn't apply. (This is also the reason we aren't using the same approach to North Korea... they do have nukes. Get it?)

Ignoring what resolutions?

Apparently you DID miss the UN speech. Do a quick internet sesarch. The 14 resolutions are listed. These include refusing to buy food and medicine for his citizens, preferring weapons build-ups and palaces.

a) there is no smoking gun to show that Saddam has not disarmed.

And start watching the news... we've already found undeclared chemical weapons cases that should have been destroyed.

b) I think we can all name countries who have not complied with UN resolutions (one specifically comes to mind but I am not prepared to open that can of worms ;) ) and yet face no sanctions, let alone war from the US or her/his allies.

Funny thing, there's a difference between intentionally targeting/murdering non-combatants and self-defense against those who desperately desire your extermination.

Lets not forget Bush Sr. did not march into Baghdad when he had the chance.

So now you advocate taking Saddam out? Typical liberal... can't hold a consistent opinion for an entire post.

Don[']t go blaming it all on Bubba and the UN.

Who blamed Clinton for Iraq? On the other hand, his 3 refusals to accept Osama binLaden on a silver platter...

And let[']s not forget that the reason he did not go in are the same reasons used by the anti-war crowd as reasons for not going in now (instability, US stuck running the place, civil strife)

Bzzt. That is NOT why the anti-war crowd is against military action in Iraq. They were eerily quiet when Clinton got Congress to authorize military action against Iraq. Look at the reference to the dolt who brought a "no nukes" sign to the rally, when we're expressly trying to stop Saddam (a habitual murderer who is the ONLY leader in the history of the planet to use WMD's against his own population) from getting nukes. These are anti-American and anti-GWB protestors, not anti-war. If they were anti-war, they would have protested Kosovo, Somalia, etc.

[OldBlondBabe]

I have flown my flag every day since we were attacked on Sept. 11. I also display a "Bush/Cheney" sign and "Veterans for Bush" in my front window.

[lorrainer]

Some people have all the fun...