If Jonah Goldberg hasn't heard conservatives "deny the patriotism of the opposition," he's not listening to Limbaugh
SUMMARY: On The Big Story, discussing Rush Limbaugh's recent "phony soldiers" comments, Jonah Goldberg asserted: "I've never heard actually a conservative basically flat-out deny the patriotism of the opposition." In fact, Limbaugh himself has done so. For instance, on his August 23, 2005, radio show, Limbaugh said, "It's time for somebody to tell the people on the left, you're damn right we're questioning your patriotism."
On the October 2 edition of Fox News' The Big Story, discussing Rush Limbaugh's recent "phony soldiers" comments, National Review Online editor at large Jonah Goldberg asserted that "the Democratic base right now, they're like werewolves. ... These guys for a very long time, they've been driven crazy ... by people allegedly questioning their patriotism." Goldberg went on to assert, "I've never heard actually a conservative basically flat-out deny the patriotism of the opposition." In fact, as Media Matters for America noted, on the August 23, 2005, broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh said, "It's time for somebody to tell the people on the left, you're damn right we're questioning your patriotism." Limbaugh subsequently featured his self-described "brilliant El Rushbo monologue" on his website under the heading "You're Damn Right, American Left; We're Questioning Your Patriotism."
Indeed, as Media Matters has documented, Limbaugh has questioned the patriotism of liberals and Iraq war critics numerous times, including:
- In a commentary segment on the September 7, 2006, broadcast of the CBS Evening News, Limbaugh said, "But some Americans, sadly, not interested in victory, and yet they want us to believe that their behavior is patriotic. Well, it's not. When the critics are more interested in punishing this country over a few incidents of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay than they are in defeating those who want to kill us, when they seek to destroy a foreign surveillance program which is designed to identify those who want to kill us and how they intend to do it, when they want to grant those who want to kill us U.S. constitutional rights, I don't call that patriotic. Patriotism is rallying behind the country, regardless of party affiliation, to defeat Islamofascism."
- On the August 21, 2006, broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh said, "I want to respectfully disagree with the president on the last part of what he said. I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with him because the people that disagree with him want to lose."
- On the September 17, 2004, edition of his radio show, Limbaugh said that half of 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's base "hates the military, hates America, hates Bush, hates the world except for France and Germany."
- On the January 25 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh asserted, "By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator [Chuck] Hagel in Nebraska, we got General [David] Petraeus and we got Senator Betrayus, new name for Senator Hagel." A day earlier, Hagel had sided with Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in voting to approve a nonbinding resolution declaring that Bush's escalation in Iraq was against "the national interest."
- On the September 20 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh asserted: "Well, we've got another tape from -- I get these guys confused -- Usama bin Laden. Another tape says he's going to invade Pakistan and declare war on Pakistan and [President Pervez] Musharraf, which, ladies and gentlemen, puts him on the same page with a Democrat [sic] presidential candidate -- that would be Barack 'Uss-Obama.' " Limbaugh then aired an audio clip of a recent statement by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL).
- In July, Limbaugh displayed a graphic on the front page of his website that depicted a screen shot of C-SPAN's Washington Journal, doctored to show Osama bin Laden appearing as a guest identified as "Mr. Osama bin Laden, D-Afghanistan."
From the October 2 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with Gibson and Nauert:
GIBSON: Jonah, the other thing that's really strange about this is you never see the senators going after Charles Gibson, the anchor of ABC News World News Tonight. He and Brian Ross did this same story two days before Limbaugh did it. They called them "phony heroes," and they identified the exact same character Limbaugh was talking about. So if they were so outraged, why don't they go after Charlie Gibson?
GOLDBERG: Because that -- look, I mean, the Democratic base right now, they're like werewolves, and every full moon they must feed, but they don't necessarily want to feed on Charlie Gibson. They want to feed on someone like Rush Limbaugh. These guys for a very long time, they've been driven crazy by these alleged -- by people allegedly questioning their patriotism.
And meanwhile, what they've wanted to do, in fact, is actually attack conservative patriotism. And so they're doing it with this sort of, phantasmagorical allegation against Rush Limbaugh. I've never heard actually a conservative basically flat-out deny the patriotism of the opposition. Meanwhile, you have senators, Democratic senators on the floor of the Senate outright saying that Rush Limbaugh is unpatriotic, which -- when Republicans do something a thousandth as dramatic as that, they are denounced routinely.
This is just -- this is a chance to vent because it actually shows in some way the powerlessness of the netroots. We've been told all this time that they're so powerful, that these MoveOn.org and Daily Kos types are controlling the Democratic Party, and it's turning out that they're not controlling anything at all. And so they're throwing them -- you know, Rush Limbaugh is the bone that they're trying to throw to these guys. I just don't think it's going to work.
GIBSON: So, I've got to thank Jonah Goldberg and [former] Senator [Rick] Santorum [R-PA]. I guess there are days like this where you're glad you're out of that craziness. Appreciate it, both of you.
SANTORUM: Many days.
"i am going to challenge the patriotism of the people who disagree with [bush] because the people who disagree with him want to lose". pretty clear, jonah. and what a balanced show, gibson, goldberg and rick santorum. maybe goldberg was the liberal balance?
Like Geist, I think Goldberg got a liitttle carried away.
GIBSON: So, I've got to thank Jonah Goldberg and [former] Senator [Rick] Santorum [R-PA]. I guess there are days like this where you're glad you're out of that craziness. Appreciate it, both of you.
FOX IS Fair and Balanced. Yeah real fair and real balanced.
The ironic thing is that people like Santorum caused a lot of that craziness.
good point "onionhead" however thanks to the the good people of Pennsylvania, Rick (I look just like Dicky Smothers) Santorum, was soundly beaten (by nearly 20 points) because of his rhetoric.
And a pro-war, anti-abortion Democrat put into his place instead. Wow, big change there.
So much BS, so little time.
Patriotism not only includes love of country, but a willingness to defend it. Aside from military service, I can think of no better way to do that than speak out against incompetently rogue leadership.
I agree Pete. I think we must be patriotic toward our constitution and the integrity of our nation first and foremost.
He's either lying through his teeth or this guy just arrived on earth from Mars. This is what the right wing does, it questions the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with their xenophobic nationalism and they do this irrespective of political affiliation since they jump on the Repups that express of different opinion particularly about this war and the best way to fight terrorism.
"I've never heard actually a conservative basically flat-out deny the patriotism of the opposition."
Does Jonah Goldberg not own a television or a radio? Has he ever heard of Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh?
Hey, that's Jonah Goldberg you're talking about! Of course he's heard those shows. He knows everything. He's blessed with a voracious intellectual appetite. I for one can hardly wait to read his soon-to-be-released book, "Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Hegel to Whole Foods", wherein Professor Goldberg shares his brilliant critique of the German philosophical tradition within which Hagel wrote and exposes its insidious relationship to the contemporary corporate marketing of organic. He also argues that Nazis were the same sort of socialists that leftists, in brave contrast to all scholars who have foolishly maintained that Nazi national socialism actually conceived of and despised Marxian and other strains of socialism as perverse Jewish ideologies. But Goldberg is a courageous academic, and he's not going to be stopped by such facts on his path towards enlightenment.
Anyway, I'm just saying that this man is a genius, so you mind your Ps and Qs.
That's a real book? Is he going to tell us about how Adolph loved sipping lattes at Starbucks while listening to Suzanne Vega?
Yes, shockingly, it is a real book. Either that or it's the most elaborate parody of an ultraconservative polemic ever undertaken. Amazon claims that the book weighs in at 496 pages, each one full of arguments like this:
(From the publisher's description)
"The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist."Do these striking parallels mean that today’s liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler's Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal."
Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.
Yeah, I mean, the Dewey Decimal System always did seem kinda fascistic to me.....
You sure that ain't written by Colbert?
"a few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp," an Ohio legislator and Marine Corps Reserve officer. "He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."
Congresswoman Jean Schmidt 2nd congressional district of Ohio November 18th, 2005
I guess you must have been visiting your Mom that day Jonah
Murtha the cowardly liar?
"A federal judge refused Friday to dismiss a defamation case against Rep. John P. Murtha and ordered the Pennsylvania Democrat to give a sworn deposition about his comments alleging "cold-blooded murder and war crimes" by unnamed soldiers in connection with Iraqi civilian deaths."
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j-LnJlto4CJin4_NnKFQIIGSm2hQD8RUNFG84
I know you all will come up with some lame excuse to why he said it. Just like the Right would do.
The accuracy of Murtha’s comments “ U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer said the congressman might be right, but said she won't know for sure unless Murtha explains himself.” will be played out shortly. More importantly it has absolutely nothing to do with Jonah Goldberg’s comment. So go blow smoke up someone else’s ….
Here, try this: sounds like Murtha let his mouth get ahead of his brain, just like Rush often does. What we do know is that the deaths took place, and the soldier in question admits that he killed those people. What is in dispute is whether it rises to the legal definition of "murder", or was it just an unfortunate result of combat. Murtha should have given them the assumption of innocence, but he was apparently repeating what he had heard from military people. I see no reason to make excuses for him...he mouthed off when he shouldn't have.
The fact that Murtha, in his comment, was deploring the conditions --psychological and physical-- our kids have to endure in Iraq would indeed be considered a "lame excuse" by right-wingers. Those haters are the armchair warmongers who actually have no real regard or empathy for the stress those soldiers are under. They want to keep them in Iraq indefinitely, not bring them home, as Murtha and most of the country does.
Officers sit in the nice safe air-conditioned bunkers while their men go out and die and get maimed on the battlefield. Never trust an officer in a war crime, they're all just dreaming of promotions for themselves. They don't care who dies to get it.
Jonah Goldberg, has a history of attacking Generals.
[link to thinkprogress.org] class="blog_title">A Military View On Clark, Generals Etc [Jonah Goldberg]
Good morning, Mr. Goldberg. My name is [Name withheld] and I've enjoyed your columns for about a year now (also managed to catch your spot on The Daily Show. Keep up the good work). Anyway, just wanted to give a perspective on Wesley Clark from the active-duty side of things. I'm currently a major in the U.S. Air Force (flying special ops helicopters in [withheld], if you're curious) and nothing that Clark has said or done has surprised me in the least. Why? Because he acts just like the vast majority of general officers that it has been my displeasure to deal with during my 16 years in the U.S. military. Generals are, for the most part, a gigantic pain in the ass and we usually accomplish our military objectives despite their chaos-inducing presence. There are a few good generals here and there but most of them are an embarrassment. Here's a couple of reasons why that is so: - Generals are ambitious in the same way that wolverines are aggressive. It's their defining trait. A few years ago, the Army Command and Staff College ask during an informal survey "Would your division's commanding general throw his own mother under a bus if it would get him promoted?" 60% of the majors and colonels replied "Not only yes, hell yes!" I know that running for President pretty much demands a nauseating degree of ambition but this kind of hyper-careerism can't be healthy, in my opinion. - Generals are dull. I don't mean this in the cant-tell-a-good-joke kind of way. I mean the anti-intellectual, zero-curiousity, hasn't-read-a-real-book-in-years kind of dull. Wesley Clark obviously had (and still probably has) no freakin' idea who Michael Moore is or what he stands for. All he knows is that Moore is famous and other Democrats like him. Hell, Clark doesn't even know anything about CAPPS II, the system he was supposedly advocating as a board member! I could go and on on this theme. Take it from me, most generals are as sharp as a bowling ball and Clark is no exception. - Generals are arrogant. Generals truly believe that they are completely right 100% of the time and woe to those underlings who demonstrate that this isn't so. This trait is what makes generals so dangerous. They will ignore sound advice and do the stupidest things imaginable, all because "Well, I'm a general, dammit, I know what I'm doing and. . . ugh, what was the question again?" Generals can be damn near unreasonable when they get their minds made up and it's almost impossible to get them to see an alternative way of doing things. Scary stuff to see in the flesh. Hopefully I'll never have to experience the Wes Clark brand of hubris. - Generals are dishonest. This is a tricky charge to throw out, but it's the sad truth. I've seen more out-and-out lies from general officers than any other people in the military. In a weird way, they are just like professional politicians in this regard. They act like the main character from "Memento", they can't remember a @#$% thing they said or wrote older than 15 minutes ago. If it wasn't so frustrating, it might be funny. Once again, just compare anything Clark says now to anything that came out of his mouth one year ago. Weird, huh? That's all for me. Pet Cosmo for me, take care of yourself and keep up the good fight. The troops are behind you guys at NRO all the way!
Sounds like an Air Force Major who is bitter because he knows he is NEVER going to make General. BTW, Wes Clark is a Rhodes Scholar. They don't hand those out to bowling balls.
Aye, the US has a long history of poor generalship by political appointees. McClellan in the Civil War, most of the generals in the War of 1812, even many in WWII. As a student of Sun Tzu, I know what constitutes a good general and that those are very rare. Hell, even George Washington was a political general and lost almost every battle he commanded in. The Revolution was won by other men on different fronts.
I know I could beat most of our officer corps in war games and I'm just an ex-longhair punk with a lot of computer sims and military books.
If you're an officer serving in Afghanistan, Siestan is where the enemy is, not Pakistan. Cordon-n-sweep, man, cordon-n-sweep. If you're in Iraq, walk out. Iraq's a war crime according to the GC and Nuremburg. You might lose a career, but you'll save your soul.
Does your assessment apply to Gen Betrayus as well? Or is he one of the good generals you speak of?
Lynn, it wasn't mine but info at thinkprogress. They caught what Jonah Goldberg was saying about moveon.org and then caught that.
If this fool doesn't listen to Sheer Insanity I wouldn't blame him. But Insanity has, time after time, denied the patriotism of progressives. Along with Mel-UH-nie Morgan, of course. And Ann Falter. And many more...
To the right, a patriot is someone who can never admit that there is ever anything wrong about what the US and especially this president does.
To sane Americans, patriotism is a willingness to defend and improve our nation, for the good of the people who live in it. It has very little to do with the government.
Knowing that, it makes perfect sense that the right questions the patriotism of the sane Americans.
Last time I looked, the slogan was "My country, right or wrong", which implies that our country can sometimes be wrong. Conservatives can't seem to grasp that concept.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
The redeeming value for the Republican Pundit is that they may tell a completely ridiculous lie, and embarrassly obvious lie with conviction and a completely straight face that should in their estimation be enough to make it so!!
To say the very people who would say anything, including the most obscene, and beyond the pale remark, statement, or slander with the most barest of disclaimer should be believed!! They get the podium, the pedestal that is a "NEWS SHOW" on national network TV, and this should make their comments truth.
They promote "DRAFT DODGING SCOUNDRELS AND CRIMINALS" as the real patriots, and slight, slander, and smear those who served with honor and they think the American public is stupid enough to believe it!
Gig is up, the truth has caught up to them. They are on the tracks and running out of bridge before the truth will run them over! A metaphor that makes me feel warm all over!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
That's a good point, Dan. There's some value in telling an outrageous lie with enough audacity that it will convince those who don't know for sure that it may be right, and may even cause those who DO know for sure to question what they know.
Since recent studies show that liberals are generally better with incorporating new data, this tactic is far more effective when targeting the Left than it would be when targeting the Right.
Another advantage of limited thinking.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Since recent studies show that liberals are generally better with incorporating new data, this tactic is far more effective when targeting the Left than it would be when targeting the Right.
Another advantage of limited thinking.
You make this scurrilous argument without an example! What progressive political thinker finds him/herself needing to LIE to promote a policy??
Maybe the better question is what Republican actually uses the truth to promote their policys, and doesn't need to LIE?
Which network is dedicated to this kind of behavior, say like Fox News??
Do you think by making a hypothetical example, you some how debunk the reality in front of you?? Neo-Con thinker to be sure!!
Maybe your were part of that Occupation Planning for the President!
No, no, you balance the budget for the Neo-Cons!
No, no, you protect, preserve, and defend the constitution!
No, no, you respect the law, checks and balances, and supeonas from the Congress!
No, No, you are in charge of our geopolitical stategys, and American prestige in the world!
When you wake up please notice that the conservatives have been in charge for 14years now, and we have gone "to hell in a hand bag."
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
It's hard to tell, but I think you may have misunderstood my post.
The audacious lies I was referring to were those like Limbaugh's spin -- he claims that he was tlkaing about a single person when he clearly wasn't, but those who don''t know any better may give him the benefit of the doubt. And that may be enough for him to skate on this.
My point about the liberal mind was that, since liberals take in new information with more ease than conservatives, and are more willing to rethink their positions, they are more vulnerable to misinformation than conservatives. Cons will simply disregard what doesn't fit with their established mindset.
Jonah Godberg is a twit. The only reason he even gets to bloviate on TeeVee is because his mom was instrumental in setting up Bill Clinton's perjury trap, and the GOP Slime Machine owed her a favor.
I always figured the reason you never saw the Doughy Pantload on TV was because he fit too well the Republican stereotype of the overfed, pasty white man cheering on those sent to fight so that he may sit and blog.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
archfiend / Wednesday October 3, 2007 02:50:40 PM EST
I'm sorry for venting on you sir, I miss read your comment as substantiating the technique because we are somehow all a part of the liberal intellectual elite.
I was a Mess Specialist in the Navy, a cook! I'm about as intellectual as "Sh_t on a Shingle."
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Jonah could never understand his own statement, because he sees the world in black and white, like most ultra-conservatives. There are only absolutes, no grey areas.
Jonah might be familiar with some of these phrases:
"Cut and run"
"Defeat-o-crats"
"With us or against us" - that's from GWB himself
"Emboldening the enemy"
I mean, Ann Coulter wrote an entire book called 'Treason' where I assume all she does is accuse those who disagree with her of being un-patriotic.
I wonder if Jonah could pull his head out of his butt for a few, and then maybe open his eyes to the world around him...
There world is black and white in many ways. Good versus evil, liberalism versus repression, etc. The Taoist Law of Opposites does apply. The troub with American "conservatives" is that their entire world view is based on the Repub-Democrat struggle for political supremacy, and they gear all their thought and concepts around that. But both are rignt-wing parties with very similar policies. So the "conservative" worldview becomes even more skewed as they invent lie after lie to justify the other party as the enemy of their ideology, when it actually assists in their movement towards repression. This just compounds the insanity of their indefensible philosophies. They can't tell a liberal from a fascist, all they look for is the D behind the name. Most are dyssocial/alienated sociopaths to begin with, and they bring all that hate and malice with them into the discourse. We are literally ruled by madmen.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Jonah Goldberg's Credentials as a Patriot of the United States of America:
"My mother was the one who advised Linda Tripp to record her conversations with Monica Lewinsky and to save the dress. I was privy to some of that stuff, and when the administration set about to destroy Lewinsky, Tripp, and my mom, I defended my mom and by extension Tripp...I have zero desire to have those arguments again. I did my bit in the trenches of Clinton's trousers." [5]Trenches in Jonah's world is in the virtual world of innuendo, and his battlefield would be the world of smearing Democrats.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
"I've never heard actually a conservative basically flat-out deny the patriotism of the opposition."
Intentional blindness on Goldberg's part. It reminds me of the supposed independent O'Reilly saying he checked and checked, but just couldn't find any venom on rightwing websites.
Those on the right will lie and lie again and buttress one lie with another. Their strategy is to always be on the attack and never apologize. To date, it has worked.
I would like to state a few points on the whole matter of the war in Iraq. I did not get any of this information from the media. I actually have a source that is on the inside and this person gives me insight of what is really happening and not what is being portrayed as happening by the media. I know some of you may not believe me, and I ask to please put your opinions aside and read with an open mind. Each of my points will be a different post so that people can reply to an individual point if they disagree with it or would like a better explanation. I also ask to remain civil in your replies; for we are all adults here and we should be able to discuss an issue without name-calling and anger. The information that I have received from my source, who will remain nameless to protect the person’s security, will be inside of quotations and things that are not inside of quotations will be my understanding of the situation and questions for those who read
Please name a politician that has never in their life lied. Can you do it? I highly doubt that. That can be blamed on us. Would a politician that told the truth get voted into office? Doubtful. There is a huge group of voters in this country that do not look at the issues or study the issues. I’m sorry to say that these people are ignorant about politics. These people give republicans and democrats both a bad name because some of these people vote republican and some of these people vote democrat. We vote for what we want to hear and want to believe will happen, we don’t vote for truth. We vote for a politicians dream that sounds the best. They know this, so that is why many politicians say things that very well could not be done. So please don’t label every democrat or republican an idiot because there are many idiots on both sides. If you are a person that looks at both sides of an issue before coming to a decision then I applaud you. I do not have a problem with someone who shows critical thinking to come to a decision even if it is the opposite of mine. I only have a problem with people who do not research issues and just listen to what their media of choice has to say. I also have problems with people that do not vote, but complain about our government. The way I look at it is if you do not vote then you have to right to complain because you did not use the freedom we have in this country to vote. If you have an opinion that is great, just research the opinion and come to a conclusion, then voice it for the politician that best represents you. Notice I said best represents, not exactly represents. No politician will be perfect, no politician will have the same exact ideas as you. And if you find yourself having the same exact views as a certain politician on every issue, then I hate to say it but you are not coming to your own conclusion.
I have read a lot on this website of people stating that media is biased towards the right. Well yes conservatives have fox news, but liberals have cnn. Media bias is all around us for one side or the other. Why can’t there be a news station that is objective. A station that equally shows both views and lets the individual choose which one they are the closest to. The reason is because that station would not receive money. We as a people have some sort of lust for watching shows that only show our opinion and reinforce our ideas or a show that is against our opinions so that we can bitch about it telling lies. Its our nature. No one wants to be proven wrong; we all want to be on the so called “right” (not meaning politically) or the side that wins. We are a country of sore losers and if you don’t believe me then watch a sporting event and you will see what I’m talking about. The funny thing is that with the president we have to be sore losers for at least 4 years. As soon as our candidate loses, we think that complaining for 4 years will make things better. It won’t. Yes you may disagree with the winner of the election, but that will happen every election. I’m not stating this towards one political group, I’m stating this for both Democrats and Republicans. In some way or another every president has affected this country in a good way and a bad way. There is no perfect president and there will never be a perfect president. There is no perfect party and there will never be. We as people are divided by our own country into groups like Democrats and Republicans. We may disagree on certain issues, but we disagree not because we hate what the other people stand for, but we believe that our views are what is best for the country. So please do not be quick to anger with those of the opposite party or views, listen to what they have to say because they have the same conviction about their views as you do about yours. This country would be a lot better if both parties did that.
1: There are several facts about the war that have been reshaped by both biases of the media. I will state the information that was told to me and mind you I do not know the political affiliation of this person and I do not dare to ask because I do not want to look at people as red or blue. I trust this person because he knows what is going on in Iraq and he knows many things that are not being broadcasted on any media network. The first issue is that of whether or not Osama and Saddam were together or allies I guess you could say. The information given to me is not my own so please do not shoot the messenger. “America has visual evidence of Osama and Saddam meeting together. It is also known fact that Saddam used his country as a safe haven for terrorists, he gave weapons to terrorists, and he funded terrorist groups.” Does that label them as being allies? Could have Osama used the funds given to him by Saddam to train his terrorists? Could he have used Saddam’s money to buy plane tickets? I will leave those questions for anyone to answer because I keep an open mind and enjoy reading others opinions and seeing where they come from. So if you reply please explain your reasoning so that I can see where you are coming from.
2: The question of whether or not Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Some may be surprised and some may not, this is just what was given to me. “America has located and destroyed many underground bunkers in Iraq containing chemical warheads that would have the ability to kill tens of thousands of people at one time. Also the military has seized trucks heading towards Iran and Syria carrying these same kinds of chemical weapons.” Would you consider a bomb that could take out tens of thousands of people at once a weapon of mass destruction? If not what would you consider a weapon of mass destruction? Would it surprise you if I mentioned that “the bombs seized by the American military were later found out to be made from technology that France gave to Saddam for oil?” Maybe that is a reason France was against America going to war with Iraq. Perhaps they had some skeletons in the closet they did not want to be known to the world. Mind you that I am not attacking anyone’s position I am just stating what was told to me.
3: There are many people in our country that are anti-war. But remember that we would not be a free country if it was not for war. Before we fought for our independence we were a lot like the people of Iraq. We had a ruler that held few high above the majority. Our ruler did not kill hundreds of thousands of people for fun, but besides that we were a lot alike. We stepped above our fear and decided to fight back to gain our independence. Did we do it alone? No we did not. We most likely would not have won the war if the French did not show up to help us. Likewise, World War 2 is another example of this, only it progressed farther than Iraq. Hitler craved power and began to extend his rule. If we would not have been attacked would we have joined the war? Would we have joined the war too late to stop Hitler from taking over all of Europe? Would we have just sat at home and not cared about what Hitler was doing to Jews and the people of countries he was attacking? If we wouldn’t have joined in the war do you think that after Hitler extended his power throughout Europe he would have looked to go for America? We almost stepped into that war too late. If we would have cared more about what was happening in the world, then maybe we could have stopped Hitler before he started. Maybe we could have saved many lives, before he killed them. Mind you these questions are more to think about, since we really do not know what could have happened. But is that not what was happening in Iraq before we stepped in. Saddam was exterminating a whole social group in his country because he disagreed with what they believed. By attacking Iraq we saved thousands of people who could have been next on his list to torture. Do you not think that his crave for power would have gotten the best of him and made him join with Iran and other countries that were his friends to extend their power? He would have gained a stronger military by doing this. Do you think he would have left America alone, even though the thought of us and what we stand for disgusted him? Could Saddam have been another Hitler? Maybe we stopped him before he could destroy the lives of millions? We don’t know but it could be a possibility.
4: The amount of American casualties during this war. I believe that the amount I last heard was 3,800 deaths. If that number is divided by the number of years we have been there that roughly estimates out to be about 1,000 deaths per year. Why do people get upset about this number when there are several times more deaths a year in our own country because of AMERICANS killing their fellow AMERICANS? Yes, the deaths of those soldiers are horrible and I would very much like to see the government, no matter Republican or Democrat, keep those names in the ears of our country so that they will never be forgotten. But we should not be at war with ourselves. People that complain about those dying overseas, mind you they are people following orders and should be known as heroes to all of us for doing the most commendable thing a person can do-- lay down their life for people that do not have the freedom that we have in our own country--, but before you complain about those dying in the war, I just ask you to look out your window or in the city next to you. Our people are being killed everyday by our own people. Those that die in our own country are not dying for a just cause. They are not following orders that put them in the line of fire. They do not walk outside thinking that they could be murdered. Please find a way to help protect those in our own country dying from our own people. That would be a great starting point for peace in the world. Other countries would see a country whose people are working together for the good of all people. Then our country would thrive above what we already are and other countries could use the U.S. as a goal to reach for. That may be far fetched but would you believe that makes sense? Our country may be split between political parties but that doesn’t mean we cant unite, does it? Instead of sitting at home and complaining about the government, why don’t you go out and do something to help someone in need? Why not make an example for others to follow because you never know who is watching. We need to be role models for children so that they can have a better way of life then us.
5: The next issue is the amount of Iraqi civilian casualties. This is a number that has been thrown into our faces ever since the war started. Well read this and decide for yourself what you think. “Many soldiers go into so called “civilian” homes and are met by women and children with guns or bombs strapped to them.” We are at war! If you were in a soldiers shoes and you believed a woman or child to be a civilian only to be surprised by them pulling a gun on you, how would you react? Would you not go into every house skeptical of the people you see in front of you that look harmless? Now I know there are civilians that have died by mistakes made by our soldiers. Don’t people usually live by a better safe then sorry attitude? If you were a soldier and found yourself in a house with some civilians and one makes a suspicious move. Would you not act upon your fears and make sure you keep yourself alive? Our soldiers do not go into war wanting to kill civilians. They see civilians dying everyday from terrorists in from the civilians own country. We are unable to communicate with these civilians because many of our soldiers are most likely unable to speak the people’s native tongue. They only can act on body movement. I know the death of civilians is nothing that anyone wants, but what if one of these civilians had a gun or a bomb strapped to them and ended up killing Americans? Would you then complain about more American deaths? The soldiers have to make assumptions to keep themselves from dying. Some of the assumptions are wrong and no one wants that but that is part of war.
6: The last point I want to make is about those that have been called anti-Americans for disagreeing with the war and wanting the troops to come home. I’m sorry to hear that some republicans are ignorant enough to call anti-war supporters anti-Americans. If you disagree with the war that is fine, its an opinion. Everyone has an opinion about something. We are able to think for ourselves so why not use that ability, right? But I am asking everyone, people for and people against the war, please stand behind the troops. I remember hearing a general of the enemy forces during the Vietnam War stating that the only encouragement behind their attacks was our own media when they started voicing the amount of people against the war. He mentioned that they were being pushed back and on the edge of defeat, until they started hearing the American media protesting against the war. That gave them the second wind to push and win the war. Do you not see that our own media is the best intelligence against us. Our own media is our countries worst enemy. If you are against the war, that’s fine, but instead of voicing your opinion by saying we have no hope and we will never win, why not say that we support our troops and we are cheering for them. Supporting the troops and supporting the government are two separate things. The soldiers watch the news so they know what is being said. If you were a soldier and heard that your own people back home were saying that you were a part of a war that wouldn’t be won, would you be encouraged to fight? You would probably feel let down. The media needs to give hope to our soldiers, make them excited for doing what the country asks for them even if the soldiers, media, or us back home do not agree with the war. They will finally feel like the heroes they actually are. At
I want to close with a question for both republicans and democrats. If you do not think that you are biased, I’m sorry but you are lying to yourself. But if you are one that is lying to yourself please ask yourself these questions. These questions are not my own. They were written by a journalist in my area’s newspaper so I do not want to take credit for them:
Democrats: If it was Clinton that was in Bush’s place and Clinton was the one that went to war with Iraq, would you be behind him and support his decision like many Republicans are for Bush?
Republicans: What if it was Bush and not Clinton that committed adultery in the oval office, would you be so quick to forgive him like many democrats were of Clinton?
Most disgusting part of the particular site is the Little Dick Sanotrum said something. And to think he is considering a run for Governmor of Pa. He'll lose by 50 points if he does.