|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Posted on 04/11/2003 6:02:47 AM PDT by benjaminthomas
The anti-war crowd has some explaining to do
Jonah Goldberg
April 11, 2003
I want to rub it in the anti-war crowd's face so badly. I want to hear the protesters explain why it's a bad thing we released more than 100 children from an Iraqi gulag for underage political prisoners. I want them to talk about how they were fighting for the Iraqi people as the Iraqi people hug and kiss the American forces in Baghdad and greet the human shields with signs reading "Go Home You Wankers." I want them to explain why it wasn't worth it.
And they do have answers. The communist front group ANSWER is still organizing "Stop the War" rallies, which, practically speaking, is like trying to bail out the Titanic with a spoon 10 minutes before it goes under. They'll say stuff like it's still a war for oil, or that one tyranny is being replaced by another, or something else very silly. And that's fine -- if the anti-war movement really wants to attain permanent parody status.
During much of the lead-up to the war, I thought many people in the anti-war movement were silly and misguided. Once the war started and they kept playing their games, I thought they went from being wrong to being dangerous fools. Because once we were committed to war, the idea of stopping it without total victory was nuts.
Osama bin Laden attacked us precisely because he perceived Americans as weak in the wake of the first Gulf War, the first World Trade Center bombing, the so-called "Black Hawk Down" incident in Somalia, the Cole attack, etc. He concluded that we didn't have the intestinal fortitude to stand our ground.
If the peace-at-all-costs crowd had its way, we would have called off the fighting a week into the war, leaving Saddam Hussein in place -- making him a hero and putting a "kick me" sign on Uncle Sam's back.
But that debate is over. The war happened. Now, the protestors can move on or wallow in bitterness. The practical question is, what's next? The Bush administration says it wants what is best for the Iraqi people. The anti-war protestors say they want what is best for the Iraqi people. If the anti-war people are more serious than I generally give them credit for, they will stop whining about U.S. imperialism and start offering constructive support for making Iraq a democratic and prosperous country.
Instead of sending "human shields" to prop up a dictator who ordered the rapes of his enemies, they will send people to help with the reconstruction. Instead of whining about their lost civil liberties here at home whenever they get arrested for blocking traffic, they will offer support for the creation of real civil liberties in Iraq, where until very recently the meekest whisper against Saddam would result in an amputated tongue.
I was giving a speech at Williams College on the future of democracy in the Middle East on the day Saddam's statue was torn down in central Baghdad. I had the opportunity afterward to talk to a very bright anti-war student activist. He told me that the main reason he still couldn't support the war -- even though he conceded the brutality of Saddam Hussein and acknowledged the joy of the Iraqi people -- was that he simply didn't trust George W. Bush.
I suspect this is the case with many anti-war folks. It certainly seems to be, judging from the e-mail I get or from reading the drek one sees at the more rabid Web sites, like the hilariously deluded Democraticunderground.com.
And that's fine; distrust of politicians is one of the things that make America great. But dislike for a president shouldn't eclipse love of country or adherence to principle. The anti-warriors claim they aren't anti-American. I believe that's true of the vast majority of them, though some of them clearly think America is a force for evil in the world (and I think these people should be ashamed for being so asinine).
Regardless, all of them claimed they cared deeply about the fate of the Iraqi people. Well, 99.99 percent of the Iraqis will still be in Iraq when the war is over. Presumably, the anti-war crowd wants the Iraqi people to have the same rights and freedoms that we have here. If they do, they should be prepared to support the president when he works to make that happen, and they should feel free to criticize him when he doesn't.
But if the anti-war activists start from the position that Bush is wrong no matter what he does now simply because they disagreed with him back then, well, then these people aren't serious people at all. They're just the fools so many of us take them for.
Boy, so do I. So do I.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At least that's what the Germans would like us to think.
They didn't protest Haiti, Somalia, Kosovo, or Bosnia because Western Civilization was not at risk. They protest Vietnam, the Cold War, Afghanistan and Iraq because those conflicts promoted Western security.
In so far as Bush is willing to defend Civilization they are anti-Bush. And, Republicans tend to prosecute wars only when National Security is at risk. Democrats since Vietnam have only promoted conflicts where no National Security was at stake. So, it is coincidental that they protest Bush.
Imagine Clinton prosecuting a War against Saddam. First, he wouldn't because it actually protects civilization. Second, the anti-war crowd would suddenly turn anti-Clinton like they turned anti-Johnson during Vietnam.
How can purported Liberals make common cause with Islamofascists? Because both first require the destruction of Western Civilization in order to found their respective dystopias.
Anti-Bushism is a cover story for opponents of Western Civilization.
My prediction is that they can forget the notion of millions of marchers tomorrow - they'll be damn lucky to get 10,000 people in DC, and they'll almost all be the usual hardcore activists that have been protesting stuff since Reagan's first term. Tyler and Brittany Campus will be too busy trying to figure out how they're going to explain to Mom why they put the cost of attending all these rallies on her VISA...
Ummm...one problem with that rationale...they supported Clinton's actions in 1998 when he was making noise about Saddam and WMD. Sometimes things are just as simple as they seem...the bottom line is that they just flat-out hate Bush and Republicans.
I have searched my memory for any untrustworthy action that George Bush has done - and I can't think of a single one. This bozo doesn't trust Bush because he has been told the Republicans are evil and liberals say that Bush can't be trusted.
These folks aren't worth troubling over. They aren't capable of independent thought. They think with feelings rather than facts. Forget about them and move on.
Thank you for promoting sanity, maturity, and dignity.
Yes and no. Some of them aren't worth troubling over. But think of how many ex-liberals are now conservatives. Ignoring them (and political reality) is what capital-L Libertarians have done, to no visible success. But big-tent actions got Reagan and GWB elected.
I pretty much agree with that sentiment, however I think a serious look at who they're being financed by (Noth Korea) and what they represent (communism) should merit some serious attention. Their organizational apparatus is a little bit too effective when they can mobilize 100's of thousands of fellow travellers to stage protest/riots in the streets and shut down parts of major cities. I would like to see some effort to dismantle these organizations.
A small group of Marines were calmly doing a search through one of the hotels in the Baghdad region. All the while there was this vally girl type following them every where they went screaming,
"..THEY'RE HERE TO KILL YOU! THEY ARE KILLING WOMEN AND CHILDREN! THEY WANT TO KILL YOU!..",over and friggen over again. This loud mouth peace-wench was a carbon copy of every lying, spoiled rotten, "anti-war" protester you've ever seen.
Now, to the Marine’s credit, they simply ignored her, secured the area, and then left. But the cameraman stopped and panned over to a family that was staying at the hotel that were visibly shaken. The Marines had already left the room but PeaceWench walked over to the family and started yelling at them,
“THEY ARE GOING TO KILL YOU!..”At that point the camera focused in on the face of the families darling little girl, three to five years old, shaking uncontrollably. Her pupils were dilated and it looked like she was too scared to even scream.
That brief moment encapsulated everything one needs to understand about the anti-war protestors.
I note with interest their absence from the streets, both local and foreign, when our emabassies, ships and buildings were bombed. I note that the 'human shields' fled their posts when the ordinance began to fly. I note that the principles they espouse are at wide variance from the principles they practice. All of which means that there is another agenda at play here, one that is, in many, even most cases (excepting the clueless tagalongs), kept carfully under the table rather than on it.
One way to summarize that hidden agenda is this: "Down with us. All power is illegitimate, every exercise of power is immoral. The stronger the power the more immoral and illegitimate it is. Therefore all power must be brought low and replaced with something else, anything else so long as the power that was is no more. We (Americans) are powerful, as a nation the most powerful on the planet at this time. Therefore America is inherently immoral and illegitimate, and must be destroyed. Anyone who disagrees with or questions any part of this self evident truth is corrupted by power and discredited thereby."
This neo-Marxist philosophy is the cornerstone of the left's political agenda. I submit that if you look you can see the threads of it permeating their policies.
The pot calling the kettle black, if you ask me. Especially, and specifically, with regard to the previous occupant of the Oval Office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.