You can tell who your enemy is by the way it treats the innocents caught in the middle. This is the enemy in Iraq (warning, graphic), the enemy that is taking its war to England, and the enemy that would like to bring the war home to us. The anti-War liberals seem to have missed the fact that this enemy functions irrespective of whether we engage with it or not (hint: from our point of view, we weren’t engaged with it in 1983, 1993, 1996 or on September 11, 2001), nor has it made any demands with which we could comply even if we wanted. The squawks from that liberals that this reign of terror will all magically end if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq simply reflects the way in which they project their own beliefs onto the terrorists, and has nothing to do with either the terrorists themselves or their demands. (A subset of the way in which the liberals project their world view on the terrorists is their insistence that terrorists arise from poverty, despite all evidence to the contrary.)
Filed under: Islam, Jihad, Muslim violence
I read “anti-war liberals” and am reminded back of pre-war cries about the loony left’s myopic views and how silly they were to be against the war. The best anti-war arguments, however, came from Brent Scowcroft and the realists on the right, and there were several prescient warnings by other GOP heavyweights.
Now that 70% of Americans want us out of Iraq, and anti-war sentiment is rising within the GOP, it’s intellectually dishonest to frame anti-war sentiment as the province of “antiwar liberals.”
Such talk sure does fire up the 30% of Americans who still back the war, however.
If Bush nukes Iran and Syria like some scenarios I’ve come up with, and continue to actually taunt his enemies with his nukage power, Bush’s polls would go up at least 10-30%.
The crowds always loved the winner, and Americans definitely like military themed stuff now a days. Hugo had a good idea trying to appear militant, the crowd loves folks in uniform, even if Hugo wasn’t actually in the military when he wore that uniform.
The President’s suites are always so bland and conservative, nice for DC and the rat race there, but very unintimidating for military operations. Bush has got to ramp up the intimidation factor, and his polls will go up.
T.S. is right. Henceforward, anti-war sentiment should be framed as the province of “anti-war Liberals, isolationists and ostriches”.
I just say the Left, their Democrat allies, and alliance members. Got to watch out for those Axis Alliances as they say. Or was it the Axis of Evil?
Hi T.S.
Speaking as a Republican who opposed the war before it began, you are right on the money. But that’s why Bookworm singled out the anti-war liberals, rather than talking about all of us who opposed the war. Only the anti-war liberals are claiming that pulling out of Iraq (and generally being nicer to those who have sworn to kill us) will solve all of our problems. The rest of us know better, our opposition to the war notwithstanding.
By attacking only the anti-war liberals, not all of us who opposed the war, Bookworm is avoiding the “intellectual dishonesty” trap that you rightly state one could fall into here. View in that light, I’d be interested in your thought on the substantive point Bookworm is making.
Don’t get me wrong, DQ. I can respect your opposition even if I don’t agree. Not so with the Liberal/Left/Copperhead opposition to the war.
Call them “Doctor Death”
It should probably tell something when you see that the ringleaders in last week’s attempted terrorist attacks in London were doctors. According to Sky News (via LGF), at least five of the arrested suspects are doctors!