The American ultra-left has an array of despicable tendencies. And while I would be elated to provide an alphabetical list of the damaging ideals held by this portion of society, I will compose myself and limit my rant to one attribute: The ultra-left’s unwillingness to back the American government – even when it becomes painfully obvious that our officials are correct in their assertions – and even when millions of American lives are at stake.
We’ve been in a sociopolitical civil war since the Iraq war broke out in 2003; the world has been embroiled in debate over U.S. motives for invasion, George W. Bush’s alleged lackluster decisions, and the plethora of American policy decisions that have colored our world since September 11, 2001.
I have written on Iraq dozens of times. Each time I share my perspective, I am berated with negative commentary and the same old liberal talking points: “Bush did it for his daddy!” “It’s all for the oil!” “Bush is the anti-Christ!” The insanity never ends. If I had a dollar for every time a liberal actually blamed the radical Islamic terrorists for the score of terrorist attacks that occurred in the 1990’s, on 9/11 or leading up to and during the Iraq war, I’d be in Chapter 11.
The left is so intent on making excuses for the terrorists that they actually think doing so is patriotic. In the mind of American ultra-liberals – you know, those individuals who can’t stand their homeland, but who spend most of their time reaping the benefits the U.S. has to offer, while making daily stops at Starbucks, eating granola and sporting corduroy jackets – the U.S. is always the culprit.
So, when I stumbled upon an Associated Press story about Saddam Hussein’s pre-Iraq war intentions, I was exuberant. I thought for sure that George W. Bush would regain at least a minute proportion of respect. But, unfortunately, many liberals have either ignored the story or have simply refused to put a legitimate portion of thought into what it alleges.
Saddam Hussein let the world think he had weapons of mass destruction to intimidate Iran and prevent the country from attacking Iraq, according to an FBI agent who interviewed the dictator after his 2003 capture.
But wait, I thought George W. Bush made up those pesky rumors about weapons of mass destruction? After all, he needed to even the score for his daddy, whilst securing rich oil reserves. Right?
Typically, I’d have my doubts about the political slant coming from CBS, but now that Dan Rather is gone, I’ll take my chances. According to a CBS report, Saddam Hussein told the FBI that he did not anticipate a U.S.-led invasion over the alleged presence of weapons of mass destruction.
According to FBI agent George Piro:
For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that (faking having the weapons) would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq.
But, the most telling portion of the article:
He told me that he initially miscalculated…President Bush’s intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998…a four-day aerial attack. He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack.
So, not only did Hussein spread and then maintain his own lies about weapons possession, but also he was willing to place his people in danger pending a small-scale aerial attack. All for the sake of power and pride.
And what of that four-day attack in 1998? In political terms, the ineffectiveness of the preemptive strike Hussein recalled – and its very real and literal power to embolden Hussein (after all, it was the sole reason he believed the U.S. would wimp out) proves that many Democrats (cough, cough – Clinton) have no backbone when it comes to dealing with international criminals and their governments. Had Clinton actually done his job properly, we wouldn’t even be talking about this right now. Instead, he chose to start a job he didn’t intend to finish.
But wait, there’s more:
Hussein had the ability to restart the weapons program and professed to wanting to do that, Piro said.
“He wanted to pursue all of WMD…to reconstitute his entire WMD program.”
If you are sensible, you will take the following away from the aforementioned details: Saddam Hussein successfully tricked the American people (and portions of the international community) into believing that he had reignited his weapons program. He did so for political purposes, although he did actually hope to one day possess weapons he would have no doubt used against his enemies (America, included). Then, when the U.S. bought into his insanity and just so happened to have a president with enough sense to stop taking Hussein’s threats for granted, America reacted.
Unfortunately for the left, this debunks many mistaken notions. Bush did not lie or manipulate information. He simply worked with the same evidence that John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and other leading Democrats consulted. They, too, voted for the war (not Bill, of course) based on the same intelligence information. And not for anything, but if they are going to allege being manipulated by a man whose intelligence they regularly degrade and belittle, then they are even more absurd than I previously thought – and consequently even more foolish then they claim Bush is.
Guest post written by Billy Hallowell. Visit his web site.
People from around the United States have noticed Billy Hallowell’s hard work and dedication. He has been published/featured in political and cultural books, textbooks as well as articles and websites focusing on the youth of America and its role in the future of the world. In 2003, he attended the World Bank’s conference on youth development in Paris, France. Over the years, he has become known as a major force among young people and has received prestigious journalism and community awards for his work. Since he was 15-years-old, Billy has been working through the communications industry to connect and reach out to his peers.
Technorati Tags: billy hallowell, Iraq, War in Iraq, weapons of mass destruction
Yeah, thanks Billy. This will never make the main stream media though...
lol.
Billy,
Maybe you should read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq before posting your ignorance.
As Urban Conservative said, "This will never..."
Thanks for this post: Although I don't think that traditional news outlets will change their basic philosophy, it never hurts to blog about what's going on in the real world.
A related point: In recent weeks, Iraq's new government passed the first legislative benchmark set by the Bush administration.
Reading the Associated Press story on this milestone, it's very easy to leave with the impression that this is the first benchmark Iraq has met. In fact, last September the Government Accounting Office identified four of 18 benchmarks as "passed," which means that Iraq has almost a third out of the way.
That AP article, presumably on the Iraqi benchmark, also included an irrelevant incident in which several Iraqis were killed by American troops.
Call me cynical, but I think it's not unreasonable to think that AP editorial policy dictates that no achievement which involves the American government may be covered without some accompanying bad news.
Again, thanks for the post.
While I doubt that the AP and all will change any time soon, I think that there's a fighting chance that people will continue to get more of their facts from alternative media - like these blogs.
@ MX 1000
Just went to Wikipedia and this is the first thing I saw:
"The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed."
Perhaps you should read before posting your ignorant rhetoric.
Good job Urban. Everyone knows that citing Wikipedia - unless it is for background purposes - is dangerous and not for professional or academic pruposes, lol. And now MX 1000 knows too!
I agree with this artical 100%. As a vet of Iraqi Freedom, one thing that has always bothered me about all of this is the pure fact that Sadam was a bad man. I don't mean stealing Candy from a baby type bad, but the type where he raped and piliaged his own people. Sure he kept peace for the most part in a part of the world where peace seems to be very allusive, but at the price of gassing thousands of his own people, and arresting and killing at will.
Maybe I'm just strange but to me it would have been wrong to just stand by and let all of this continue on and on. I know a lot of people just sit back and say well that is not the United States and we have no buisness getting involved, but I always thought that part of being a stronger person was to help out those that can not help themselves. Sure granted we have paid a huge price in the death of many of our finest and bravest, but I for one would go over there again and again untill the job is finished to at least try and help these people out even if they are not all so greatful. Because you know what the ones that are greatfull, the ones that we make the biggest difference for are the ones who's voices will never be heard. The ones that left everything that they had to put up a tent as close to a military base in Iraq for what little shelter they could find under the umprella provide by being in the proximity of the US soldiers. Not every one of them are going to be greatful, and many of them are going to buy in to the same notion that many of our misguided libral politicans buy into, in that we are their illegaly and that we are their to steal oil, and this and that. But at the end of the day, I know because of my actions their that I saved one life, I helped make it possible for one little child to live a better life, and have hopes for a future is all that I need. Because when I go up to the big guy to be judged I will know that I did not just stand back and watch as more fellow humans, more of God's creation was tourtured and murdered by Sadam.
So the librals can say what ever they want, they can make what ever claims they want, but in the end Sadam was a bad person, and international law be damed, just because most of the people in this world are willing to sit back and turn a blind eye to those in need does not mean that I have to do it also.
I always scratch my head because I thought that the librals where suppose to be the ones that where all about helping out the needy and the down troden. I guess that only applied to the ones that have the ability to cast a vote to keep them in office, screw the rest of them I guess.
Wake up people, it is not all just about the United Stated. No one appointed us the sheriff of the world, but your own Morality, and your own Belife in a higher power should make you realize that it is our duty, and our obligation to not just stand by while so many people, in any country of any background color, belife or any other thing, is being treated the way these people where treated. It is one thing if they decided to elected this person to rule over them over and over, and they choose to live that way, but they did not.
i read this article, and it's laughable how some people are still trying to vindicate our president. But it's not really funny when you think of how many dead......
a black coffee(no sugar, please) kinda Liberal(david)
Jarrod, it is a nice sentiment to think we (americans) are agents of morality......we aren't
David
Okay, David. Then find a country with inhabitants you deem "agents of morality." If you don't like America, leave. It's that simple.
No, i think i'll stay and vote republicans out of office every chance i can get.......i'm not about to let those neo-con assholes co opt our fine institutions like the Corps, which can again be the guardians of morality......and not agents for dick cheney's political and business connections
@ Billy Hallowell
No, if you don't like your country, change it. It's that simple.
Billy Hallowell
You don't like to respond to my posts? I wonder why.
"If you don't like America, leave. It's that simple."
I can't believe this. A college education, and you make this statement? Doesn't say much for our educational institutions. I've heard of some people over the last couple of hundred years who didn't like parts of what made up America. Most of them decided not to leave. Most of them decided to stick around and IMPROVE the country instead of being satisfied with what it was. You should be happy, seeing as how you seem to love this country just the way it is. No changes needed. No need for progress. It's perfect the way it is... My fellow humans, we have reached our potential, we are the best we can be, this is it, and if you don't like it....leave. Utterly hilarious. Please, if some other meaning is secretly tucked away inside of your comment, explain it to me. Steph's reply summed it up quite nicely:
"No, if you don't like your country, change it. It's that simple."
Jarrod says:
"It is one thing if they decided to elected this person to rule over them over and over, and they choose to live that way, but they did not."
Did they choose the US to invade and occupy their country? If they did, I am not aware of it. Did they choose the terrible position they find themselves in today (I am referring to the ordinary Iraqi)? Their country is in A LOT of trouble. Do you know how many countries have horrible, murderous leaders? Why aren't we occupying their countries? Why do we support some of them? Definitely worth thinking about. History shows, quite clearly, that invasion/occupation do not create a stable/positive environment in the invaded/occupied nation. I wish it did. That would be nice. We are seeing this trend once again, and it looks like it might continue for a long time.
Some links that might change your mind on the WMD subject:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/
http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/white-house-knew-there-were-no-wmd-cia/2006/04/22/1145344306427.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1010-01.htm
Our leaders continually lie to us. That is factual. The questions are: why? And why do we continue to spread these lies as truth?
DS,
Something tells me that you're not really concerned about my happiness, and yes, i can be predictable in some matters. That is a byproduct of integrity, that's all. And actually i do have a value system of which hard work is one of its many tenets. But Europe is too crowded, Canada too cold, and socialism just needs more time to spring forth in america!
And as to a boy......well, you can check me out sometime, and rethink your own preconceived notions on liberals........Thanx!
Pleasehelp:
I wasn't avoiding your posts. I was busy. But, since I'm here now, let me say this: Of course people should work to improve the country -- and yes, much needs to be done. But, liberals act as though nobody likes America. If you recall, more than half of the republic voted Bush in office in 2004. You can't make a macro statement without validation. But, I can say "Leave the country" if someone tells me they hate it. You've got a problem on your hands when half of the country loves America and the other half doesn't.
If you like America but dislike some of its components, then stay (by all means). Work for a NGO and be proactive, but don't simply assume that your liberal inclinations are embraced by the rest of us. That was my point. And don't insult my knowledge-base. Liberals always do that. It's a weak argument. I disagree with you and you with me, so suddenly the American university system is horrible, lol. Typical.
Billy.....in reference to your statement:
"You've got a problem on your hands when half of the country loves America and the other half doesn't."
am i correct in assuming that only those people that voted for bush in 2004 "loves america".......
which leaves the rest of us as america haters?
David(didn't ever vote for a bush)
The logic of this site is amazing. Do I see a notion in the beginning of this article that we were tricked into attacking Iraq by Saddam's treachery and his fear of Iranian attack? Did not Rummy say that we knew where the WMD's were?
Are you trying to make the point that Saadam's buffoonery actually had the affect of victimizing Bush and the USA.
It used to be that one of the few redeeming characteristics of conservatives was the
need to take responsibilities for one's actions. Now that I'm hearing that it's Saddam's fault for our attack, not the not that of a crazed neo-con government
I know the end of your movement is near. Good ridden to the dust bins of history
I know you will blame others and still refuse to look in the mirror. WWJD? HuH?
I am a conservative voter registered Republican in the State of New Mexico.
I cannot for the life of me figure out how John McCain thinks he is going to "unite the party" (that is the Republican Party) when he just went to great lengths to rip us apart. He will not be getting my vote in November - with or without Huckabee as a running mate. I cannot vote for him with a clear conscience; isn't that what our Constitution says: "each according to the dictates of his own conscience"? And it is ridiculous on John McCain's part to expect us to.
I know many conservatives who suffer from myopia (short-sightedness) and the scriptures even caution us against it. But I will not be forgetting between now and November what he has done.
Nice try, John!
Sean, i noticed that too:
"Are you trying to make the point that Saadam's buffoonery actually had the affect of victimizing Bush and the USA."
Stella:
"I cannot for the life of me figure out how John McCain thinks he is going to "unite the party" (that is the Republican Party) when he just went to great lengths to rip us apart. He will not be getting my vote in November"
Maybe he has no intention to .........it maybe he is still smarting from his treatment by some in his party in the 2000 election.
"And don't insult my knowledge-base. Liberals always do that. It's a weak argument. I disagree with you and you with me, so suddenly the American university system is horrible, lol. Typical."
I was insulting both of our knowledge-bases. You made a comment that merited an insult. Sometimes I do that too. Hopefully you suck it up and never write something so stupid again.
How do you know whether or not I'm a liberal? I don't even know. Why make such large generalizations? Why do you bash entire groups of people who are very different in many ways? What good does that do?
"If you like America but dislike some of its components, then stay (by all means)."
I agree.
How about addressing some of the hard things? You still haven't explained why the occupation of Iraq was "necessary". All I'm asking for is a summary. I want to understand.
What did you think about the links I posted in direct reference to your article?
This is not a game to me. I am not a liberal trying to win a match against a conservative.
Our leaders continually lie to us. That is factual. The questions are: why? And why do we continue to spread these lies as truth?
pleasehelp points out a fact that needs to be constantly hammered home:
"Our leaders continually lie to us. That is factual. The questions are: why? And why do we continue to spread these lies as truth?"
We need to question conventional wisdom........
"The ultra-left’s unwillingness to back the American government – even when it becomes painfully obvious that our officials are correct in their assertions – and even when millions of American lives are at stake. " was Billy's original assertion(false)
Many Americans, including most all Liberals have questioned the assertion that our officials have in any way improved the chance for a happy outcome from the tragedies that have afflicted our nation over the past 7 years(or more)
On that note, i will pull a page from our commander in chief's SOP and "declare aVictory" ;this time however,
score a victory for the left
The right cannot back up their claims with logic or facts........
(you need both to come up with the truth)
This isn't entirely irrelevant:
Did anyone else notice that davidwwalters described himself as "a black coffee(no sugar, please) kinda Liberal(david)?"
I'm making an assumption that his metaphoric reference is to his ethnicity.
Rhetorical question: What does that (or his coffee drinking habits) have to do with this discussion?
Probably-correct answer: This is a rather poetic version of the old, familiar, position that 'if you don't agree with me you're a racist/sexist/polluter/Nazi.'
(Shameless plug follows)
" 'Liberal Fascism Explained:' This Book Should Get More Attention" introduces an important topic, and links to a book review. Even if you don't buy the book, anyone who gives a rip about individual rights and self-determination should read that detailed review.
Norski
.......aaaah, you can click on my name to go to my stumble upon website......the metaphor in my statement......"a black coffee(no sugar, please) kinda Liberal(david)?"
is that i drink black coffee/no sugar(no starbucks here!) and it was a subtle response from another conservative...
And yes, i think John Stewart had the author of (Liberal Fascism)on his show lately
.......it is another weak attempt by some conservative hack to revise reality.
(actually my grandfather was a real(german)nazi, fascist)
i use the term"Liberal Fascist" tongue-in-cheek......
so, Norski come check my site out, leave some hate mail if you wish!
I am a veteran. I've listen to this conservatie bull for a long time.BUSH and REAGAN are the worst president ever (DAD&SON)!!! Here's some facts you morons about that Idiot Reagan you cherish so much. As for BUSH I would like to thank him for giving the white house to the Democrats for the next four yours.
The central theme of Reagan's national agenda, however, was his belief that the federal government had become too big and intrusive. In the early 1980s, while he was cutting taxes, Reagan was also slashing social programs. Reagan also undertook a campaign throughout his tenure to reduce or eliminate government regulations affecting the consumer, the workplace, and the environment. At the same time, however, he feared that the United States had neglected its military in the wake of the Vietnam War, so he successfully pushed for big increases in defense spending.
The combination of tax cuts and higher military spending overwhelmed more modest reductions in spending on domestic programs. As a result, the federal budget deficit swelled even beyond the levels it had reached during the recession of the early 1980s. From $74,000 million in 1980, the federal budget deficit rose to $221,000 million in 1986. It fell back to $150,000 million in 1987, but then started growing again. Some economists worried that heavy spending and borrowing by the federal government would re-ignite inflation, but the Federal Reserve remained vigilant about controlling price increases, moving quickly to raise interest rates any time it seemed a threat. Under chairman Paul Volcker and his successor, Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve retained the central role of economic traffic cop, eclipsing Congress and the president in guiding the nation's economy.
:
davidwalters,
Hard to believe as this may be, I do not indulge in hate mail. Or flame.
I realize that belief systems similar to yours require the holder to view all non-liberals a crude, hateful, stupid and violent. However, I suggest that innuendo such as you indulged in is misplaced and, given your apparent attempts to sway the opinions of others, misguided.
Norski: (another poor, uneducated, and easily-led non-liberal)
Speaking of Starbucks: Just what is supposed to be wrong with those places? My understanding is that they serve pretty good specialty coffees.
Starbucks is fine, if someone else is buying!
Norski.....no,you still misinterpret my "banter"......i assure you it was not meant in nothing more than simple jest........however there are ignorant people of every political stripe.
"......... view all non-liberals a crude, hateful, stupid and violent....."
.
......in a curious way we both seem to be trying to dispel preconceived notions.....actually, i've been prone to violence(kicked a cop's teeth out) but that is all in my past ........i paid my price to society! but i would never harm or otherwise be violent to anyone "weaker" than me(........just dispelling myths......)
@ michael
Veteran or not, you lost total credibility with me, Moron! Next time, write your own post and don't copy and paste your rhetoric from http://economics.about.com/od/useconomichistory/a/economy_1980s.htm.
Grow some nuts and tell us what YOU think! Plagiarism IS NOT accepted.
oKay UC.....i don't follow(remember i'm stoned)
what did michael plagiarize?
all of this...
The central theme of Reagan's national agenda, however, was his belief that the federal government had become too big and intrusive. In the early 1980s, while he was cutting taxes, Reagan was also slashing social programs. Reagan also undertook a campaign throughout his tenure to reduce or eliminate government regulations affecting the consumer, the workplace, and the environment. At the same time, however, he feared that the United States had neglected its military in the wake of the Vietnam War, so he successfully pushed for big increases in defense spending.
The combination of tax cuts and higher military spending overwhelmed more modest reductions in spending on domestic programs. As a result, the federal budget deficit swelled even beyond the levels it had reached during the recession of the early 1980s. From $74,000 million in 1980, the federal budget deficit rose to $221,000 million in 1986. It fell back to $150,000 million in 1987, but then started growing again. Some economists worried that heavy spending and borrowing by the federal government would re-ignite inflation, but the Federal Reserve remained vigilant about controlling price increases, moving quickly to raise interest rates any time it seemed a threat. Under chairman Paul Volcker and his successor, Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve retained the central role of economic traffic cop, eclipsing Congress and the president in guiding the nation's economy.
........okay thanx,(One should at least give credit).........you're right, it's an integrity thing(a leadership principal)
UC.........
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/world/asia/06pakistan.html?ex=1202878800&en=3727d8cfda3a68c9&ei=5099&partner=TOPIXNEWS
i fear this is another nail in musharraf's coffin........and the prospects scare the shit out of me.
David
Its kind of funny to me that so many idiots across the net feel like they "know" why, how and and who was responsible for the war in Iraq and Afgan. Both sides argue that the other side lied, cheated, stole or committed some other stupid move. You fools spend your time arguing about who is right and who is wrong and who is to blame. meanwhile your countrymen, innocent civilian's (most of them anyway), contractors, soldiers from our allied nations and generally anyone who cant find a way out of the war zone ends up dead, maimed, disfigured for life or suicidal and/or murderous when they return. Children are growing up learning to kill men and women sent to protect them, women sacrifice their own lives to attack the "invaders" and in the end the only honest people in the whole situation are the ones dying on the front lines. So you "true americans" can argue this stupid crap all day long if you like but someone will still die today - personal experience teaches that leaving NOW is the best course of action for everyone involved and if that means a democrat or a liberal or a republic or a conservative makes it into the white house then so be it.
FOR GOD'S SAKE STOP ARGUING ABOUT IT AND END THE PAIN AND SUFFERING.
Billy,
Yes Saddam wanted to give the illusion that he had WMD's and he was a tyrant. But what you seem to ignore is that there was no proof and the adminstration said they had it. Saddam pretending doesn't change that. And what about those connections with Bin Laden and Al Qeada? Oh that's right there was none because Saddam viewed them as a threat.
I think you also fail to mention that Terrorism has actually gotten worse since the invasion. These brave young men and women have been sent over there on false pretences and now Iraq and the world are an even more dangerous place.
I would also like to point out that you are an idiot and the whole world hates our country because of people like you.
All of this reminds me of a quote from Newt Gingrich based on a speech of his titled "Sleepwalking into a Nightmare". Basically he says that both the Republican and Democratic approaches to Iraq are inadequate. They fail to address the long term strategic implications and do not provide sufficient resources. I myself believe that we are doing exactly what Al Qaeda wanted us to do. They thank Allah every night that George Bush is our President.
I've got the Gingrich article linked on my blog at http://www.TheCenterStrikesBack.com.