Sorry, the end of my post, including the link to HJ114 got roasted: Here it is again.
P.S. Rick-- Does the spell check offer a preview function?Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 15.06.2005 @ 16:16
Please stop it; you are making too much sense. Here we had Saddam and his psychopathic sons running a country using internal security modeled on the East German secret police--a dictator inside a goodly sized country from which UN inspectors have been tossed and which hasn't been searched in what, two years? This same individual, like all war-obsessed dictators, would never voluntarily disarm unless he would benefit greatly from so doing. Okay. He claims he destroyed all the weapons, but has evidence whatsoever of their disposal. I submit if Saddam wanted to rejoin the community of nations in some meaningful way, one of the first things he could do would be to get rid of his weapons in a very public way, inspectors present and everything. No. Instead, Saddam would have us believe he got rid of the stuff in secret. Does anyone in their right mind take his word on this?
Then we have the so-called "Downing Street Memo," which is claimed to provide the ontological proof that Bush and Blair knew Saddam's weapons didn't exist. Once we enter this bizarre world, the whole desert charge of the 3ID in their suffocating chemical weapons suits must be explained away as a crypto-military plot concocted by the Bush Administration to keep from revealing THE SECRET! (Moonbat tip: Look up "Occam's Razor." It will help.)
Obviously there is a chasm between what the tinfoil hatters and the rest of America believes, but don't these people have access to bookstores? I mean, the whole fricking world knew Iraq was a problem. It was discussed just days after 9/11, and it was known to be on Bush's drawing board right after Kabul fell. Read Woodward's book, Bush at War. Bush asks, "Okay, who's next?"
One can disagree with the strategy of pre-emption, but this absurd notion that the WMD evidence was warped all out of proportion is only useful for those who didn't bother to read THE UNMAKING OF SACRED GROUND
I hope you are wrong. You never know what a few thousand angry protesters showing up every day can accomplish.
Another thing that occurred to me is that his ground has nothing whatsoever to do with current events, you know, like Bush turning America into a jackbooted police state--that kind of thing. A visitor arriving 50 or 100 years from now wouldn't have the slightest idea why the man who spread democracy to the Middle East and freed 50 million people from tyrannical regimes was being portrayed as Erich Honecker--at least I hope not.
This memorial is to be a historical record of what happened. When you see the battlefield of Vicksburg, you aren't thinking, "Boy the Southerners, they were bad people who deserved to die." You think, "What awful carnage. We can't ever let this happen again."Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 9.06.2005 @ 10:58
This is a blood-boiling outrage. These people have truly slipped their masks: they are the enemy. They don't support the troops, and they never have. They are a bunch of self-loathing sixties greybeards who can't get over themselves and their exquisite sensitivity to the feelings of tyrants. (Soros is a self-loathing freak of a different order altogether.)
There has been a great deal of commentary on this already, but this piece of crap must not be allowed anywhere near the place where those poor bastards were burned alive or crushed to death or went splat on the pavement.
Mr. Bernstein should climb off his imaginary high horse for a moment and ask himself this: Do you think the people murdered would want to know their memory was being kept alive with a lecture about America's supposed sins--the alleged reversal of human rights? (Such as what Tom: Subpeonaing library records? Taking your shoes off at the airport? Asshat--ed.) Or would they rather be remembered for the sheer injustice done to them by evil foreigners for the base sin of getting up and going to work one fine September morning.Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 9.06.2005 @ 10:26
Oops! A href tag got obliterated: See Hugh Hewitt todayComment Posted By Fresh Air On 5.06.2005 @ 11:14
Sadly, this sort of thinking is nothing new: Edwin Starr's "War" in the Sixties; "Imagine" by John Lennon; Farm Aids I-LVI by superannuated simp Willie Nelson. When you inhabit a world where clouds are cotton candy, rock concerts are frankincense and gold for all humanity. So the march goes on...useful fools displaying their lack of education and commonsense. But oh how significant it makes them feel to bathe in the tepid oatmeal of multicultural self-righteousness!
You know, the really sad part is that even John Hinderaker has gotten (scroll down).Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 5.06.2005 @ 11:13
This whole topic points out the inanity of campaign finance "reform." While I understand they are trying to keep politicians from operating as fake independent bloggers, the whole notion of bridling political speech is anathema to any red-blooded American.
Moreover the idea is risibly unenforceable. There are thousands of new blogs springing up every day, and many of them are domiciled overseas. Ed Morrissey has already shown the folly of attempting to inhibit the freedom of the press across borders.Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 4.06.2005 @ 16:48
My example is not fallacious.
As I say, I don't necessarily disagree with your position that people should put their bodies where their mouths are. But that is simply an opinion, not an argument. You have just shown why: Many people cannot serve for various reasons. Yet they are still entitled to support the war. If you choose not to march in the streets blowing a dog whistle and wearing a "No Blood for Oil!" T-shirt are you are a "chicken-dove"?
IMO, you would do well to expunge that "chickenhawk" word from your vocabulary. (It's also a poor simile: A chicken hawk is a ferocious bird that eats mammals for breakfast.)Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 7.06.2005 @ 11:54
What does "fantasy in science class" have to do with the price of onions?
You obviously have a beef with the current leaders of the military. Maybe you are justified in your criticism. But the previous administrations had a whole lot more to do with the fact that we rely upon a reserve-based military than the current one has.
I think Rick answered your posts very well, and you responded by going off and chewing up 75% of the pixels on this thread. Maybe that makes you feel better, but it doesn't make your arguments, if that's what you call them, any stronger.
Frankly, however, you sound more like a man with a personal grudge. Ever hear of Bill Burkett?Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 7.06.2005 @ 01:53
I think you did say something about book burning. But in any case, your honor will be intact if you make yourself scarce from this website.Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 5.06.2005 @ 12:21
ACCURACY IN MEDIA
AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
FOR YOUR CONSERVATIVE PLEASURE
HISTORY NEWS NETWORK
INSIGHT ON THE NEWS
INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE
MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER
MEMRI (MIDDLE EAST MEDIA RESEARCH INSTITUTE)
MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE
POLITICS WATCH (CANADA)
TAKE BACK THE NEWS
THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR
THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE
THE GUARDIAN UNLIMITED
THE LOS ANGELES TIMES
THE MIGHTY GWINN SHOW
THE NATIONAL INTEREST
THE NATIONAL LEDGER
THE NATIONAL REVIEW
THE NEW EDITOR
THE NEW REPUBLIC
The New Scientist
THE NEW YORK POST
THE NEW YORK TIMES
THE POST CHRONICLE - A WEB NEWSPAPER
THE RICK MORAN SHOW
THE WASHINGTON POST
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
THE WEEKLY STANDARD
HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE
PROJECT CONSTELLATION U.S.
The New Scientist
THE SPACE REVIEW
VOYAGE TO ARCTURUS
Colossus of Rhodey
DONE WITH MIRRORS
RHYMES WITH RIGHT
THE EDUCATION WONKS
THE GLITTERING EYE
THE SUNDRIES SHACK
WATCHER OF WEASELS
Powered by WordPress