thedrifter
06-14-05, 09:40 AM
Whose Side Are You On?
June 13, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Edward Daley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I constantly hear liberals decry the policies of George W. Bush, using catch-phrases like "out of the mainstream" and "dangerously irresponsible" to describe them. Apparently, if you repeat something often enough, using the same carefully crafted terminology, and applying to it the same condescending tone each time, it magically becomes the truth... at least in the minds of leftists.
And, of course, the primary policy target of left-wingers in Congress remains the war in Iraq, even though nearly all of them supported it initially. As recent polls show support for the war waning, liberals all over the country are redoubling their efforts to convince average Americans that the Iraq conflict is "Bush's Vietnam." What you won't hear any of them admit to, however, is that this decline in approval is primarily due to their own anti-war propaganda efforts.
Just take a look at the type of war coverage we are inundated with these days. For example, every morning I check out the Associated Press wire on the internet. This is one of the main sources of information used by both the print and broadcast media in the United States. Over the past several weeks I've made a point of noting what the top stories posted on the AP have been on a daily basis, and while it may come as a shock to some folks, I was not surprised to find that over the course of about a month's time, only a half dozen of the lead stories presented there were about something other than American soldiers or Iraqi civilians being killed by "insurgents".
Not once in did I see a story about something positive happening in Iraq or Afghanistan, yet well over a thousand suspected terrorists have either been captured or killed by our forces since the middle of May, and massive stores of weapons and other terrorist appurtenances have been seized.
While some people think that such one-sided war coverage is merely the result of laziness, or a proclivity on the part of the popular media to focus on tragedy, it is quite clear to me that a strong anti-war bias permeates the entire news industry nowadays. To believe otherwise is to be utterly dismissive of the available evidence.
If only half as many positive war stories as negative ones were being reported every day, few Americans would fail to support our efforts over there, and the seditious ravings of addle-brained hypocrites like Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, who like to throw around terms like "quagmire", would be dismissed out of hand by the vast majority of people.
But that issue aside, the president has managed to stick to his guns on the issue, in spite of the fact that a growing number of people in this country are starting to go wobbly in the knees. Frankly, it doesn't matter what they think. The war is going to continue no matter how many people get brainwashed into thinking it's a mistake, because the president knows better, and he's a very serious individual.
Perhaps people like John (I voted for the war before I voted against it) Kerry have forgotten why the vast majority of U.S. Congressmen backed Bush's plan to dethrone Saddam Hussein, but I haven't. They did so because for decades the Iraqi leader was a known terrorist supporter, who used weapons of mass destruction on his own people, ignored every U.N. resolution ever created to prevent his regime from developing WMD, sought refined (yellow cake) uranium ore from Africa, and fired upon U.S. and British war planes in the Iraq no-fly zones hundreds of times, breaking the conditions of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire agreement.
Even the liberals in Congress couldn't argue with his reasoning, since Bush was saying exactly what his predecessor Bill Clinton (not to mention John Kerry) had said only a few years earlier, and there was certainly no reason to think that Saddam had suddenly decided to stop behaving like a psychotic dictator all of the sudden.
Of course now those same liberals want us all to believe that Bush lied to them, even though they had access to the same intelligence he did at the time. They also want to everyone to think that the war is now unwinnable, even though we've already accomplished every major objective that we set out to achieve. Sure, there's still plenty of terrorists running around Iraq, and we'll do everything we can to wipe them out while we're there, but the immediate goals of the invasion were to overrun the country, prevent the enemy from setting fire to the nation's oil wells, depose and capture Saddam Hussein, and set up a democratically elected government in the place of his brutal regime.
Not only have we accomplished those missions, but weve done so in record time, while simultaneously rebuilding half the country. The only reason we're still in Iraq is because there's a whole lot of terrorists left to kill there. I don't know if the Bush administration planned it this way, or if we just got lucky, but our presence in that country has drawn into the fray thousands of the very scumbags our fine fighting men and women were just itching to frag all along. We may have lost some good troops along the way, but we've taken out far more of them than they have of us, no matter what the New York Times would have you believe.
Every time an "insurgent" is shot in the head over there, it means there's one less dirtbag running around that we have to worry about sneaking into Manhattan next year with a suitcase full of God only knows what, hell-bent on killing American civilians.
Liberals in this country argue that the cost of the war is too high, either in dollars, body bags or both, but when asked what alternative plans they've managed to devise concerning the eradication of the terrorist threat, their solutions leave more than a little to be desired. So far the best ideas they've come up with are to abandon Iraq, apologize to the French for not being as appeasement oriented as they are, and let the United (oil-for-bribes) Nations deal with international terrorism.
President Bush may be losing popularity points over the war right now, but he's still got the support of those Americans who understand how important it is that we finish what we've started in Iraq. Those who hold the leftist view of the matter have the support of every terrorist slimeball in the world, and I'd rather be in the minority than be on the side of people like Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.
For some reason, liberals remain oblivious to the fact that much of what they stand for is endorsed by people who hate the United States of America, and they seem incapable of understanding that even some of their own political heroes of yesteryear would likely be appalled by many of their current policy initiatives.
continued.............
June 13, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Edward Daley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I constantly hear liberals decry the policies of George W. Bush, using catch-phrases like "out of the mainstream" and "dangerously irresponsible" to describe them. Apparently, if you repeat something often enough, using the same carefully crafted terminology, and applying to it the same condescending tone each time, it magically becomes the truth... at least in the minds of leftists.
And, of course, the primary policy target of left-wingers in Congress remains the war in Iraq, even though nearly all of them supported it initially. As recent polls show support for the war waning, liberals all over the country are redoubling their efforts to convince average Americans that the Iraq conflict is "Bush's Vietnam." What you won't hear any of them admit to, however, is that this decline in approval is primarily due to their own anti-war propaganda efforts.
Just take a look at the type of war coverage we are inundated with these days. For example, every morning I check out the Associated Press wire on the internet. This is one of the main sources of information used by both the print and broadcast media in the United States. Over the past several weeks I've made a point of noting what the top stories posted on the AP have been on a daily basis, and while it may come as a shock to some folks, I was not surprised to find that over the course of about a month's time, only a half dozen of the lead stories presented there were about something other than American soldiers or Iraqi civilians being killed by "insurgents".
Not once in did I see a story about something positive happening in Iraq or Afghanistan, yet well over a thousand suspected terrorists have either been captured or killed by our forces since the middle of May, and massive stores of weapons and other terrorist appurtenances have been seized.
While some people think that such one-sided war coverage is merely the result of laziness, or a proclivity on the part of the popular media to focus on tragedy, it is quite clear to me that a strong anti-war bias permeates the entire news industry nowadays. To believe otherwise is to be utterly dismissive of the available evidence.
If only half as many positive war stories as negative ones were being reported every day, few Americans would fail to support our efforts over there, and the seditious ravings of addle-brained hypocrites like Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, who like to throw around terms like "quagmire", would be dismissed out of hand by the vast majority of people.
But that issue aside, the president has managed to stick to his guns on the issue, in spite of the fact that a growing number of people in this country are starting to go wobbly in the knees. Frankly, it doesn't matter what they think. The war is going to continue no matter how many people get brainwashed into thinking it's a mistake, because the president knows better, and he's a very serious individual.
Perhaps people like John (I voted for the war before I voted against it) Kerry have forgotten why the vast majority of U.S. Congressmen backed Bush's plan to dethrone Saddam Hussein, but I haven't. They did so because for decades the Iraqi leader was a known terrorist supporter, who used weapons of mass destruction on his own people, ignored every U.N. resolution ever created to prevent his regime from developing WMD, sought refined (yellow cake) uranium ore from Africa, and fired upon U.S. and British war planes in the Iraq no-fly zones hundreds of times, breaking the conditions of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire agreement.
Even the liberals in Congress couldn't argue with his reasoning, since Bush was saying exactly what his predecessor Bill Clinton (not to mention John Kerry) had said only a few years earlier, and there was certainly no reason to think that Saddam had suddenly decided to stop behaving like a psychotic dictator all of the sudden.
Of course now those same liberals want us all to believe that Bush lied to them, even though they had access to the same intelligence he did at the time. They also want to everyone to think that the war is now unwinnable, even though we've already accomplished every major objective that we set out to achieve. Sure, there's still plenty of terrorists running around Iraq, and we'll do everything we can to wipe them out while we're there, but the immediate goals of the invasion were to overrun the country, prevent the enemy from setting fire to the nation's oil wells, depose and capture Saddam Hussein, and set up a democratically elected government in the place of his brutal regime.
Not only have we accomplished those missions, but weve done so in record time, while simultaneously rebuilding half the country. The only reason we're still in Iraq is because there's a whole lot of terrorists left to kill there. I don't know if the Bush administration planned it this way, or if we just got lucky, but our presence in that country has drawn into the fray thousands of the very scumbags our fine fighting men and women were just itching to frag all along. We may have lost some good troops along the way, but we've taken out far more of them than they have of us, no matter what the New York Times would have you believe.
Every time an "insurgent" is shot in the head over there, it means there's one less dirtbag running around that we have to worry about sneaking into Manhattan next year with a suitcase full of God only knows what, hell-bent on killing American civilians.
Liberals in this country argue that the cost of the war is too high, either in dollars, body bags or both, but when asked what alternative plans they've managed to devise concerning the eradication of the terrorist threat, their solutions leave more than a little to be desired. So far the best ideas they've come up with are to abandon Iraq, apologize to the French for not being as appeasement oriented as they are, and let the United (oil-for-bribes) Nations deal with international terrorism.
President Bush may be losing popularity points over the war right now, but he's still got the support of those Americans who understand how important it is that we finish what we've started in Iraq. Those who hold the leftist view of the matter have the support of every terrorist slimeball in the world, and I'd rather be in the minority than be on the side of people like Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.
For some reason, liberals remain oblivious to the fact that much of what they stand for is endorsed by people who hate the United States of America, and they seem incapable of understanding that even some of their own political heroes of yesteryear would likely be appalled by many of their current policy initiatives.
continued.............