No Debate Necessary: How To Talk to a War Protester (If You Must)
Editor’s Note: As fate dictates, we may find ourselves sometimes in the unpleasant situation when we are confronted by a liberal, who rants against the President and our nation. Typically, we hear the equivalent of MoveOn/DeanDNC talkingpoints. And, usually, it’s best to simply ignore moonbats, as reasoning is impossible. But if you must engage (if only for sake of amusement), Amy Proctor provides some facts.
George W. Bush unilaterally took us to war.
False. George W. Bush did not drug the entire Senate and Congress TWICE, forcing them to vote for the 2 resolutions for war. If you think the war is wrong, you have no further to look than your own Democratic representatives. A President is not a king, he is a leader who cannot act unilaterally. This is American politics 101.
The United States is the aggressor.
False. The aggressor is Saddam and the terrorists along with the peaceniks who wanted to enable Saddam to continue on with his murderous ways, including the United Nations. This is moral Darwinism, pure and simple. “We’ll stick our heads in the ground because it’s not happening to us.” There’s a good dose of compassionate liberalism for ya.
Bush Lied (about WMD).
Well then so did John Kerry, Tom Daschel, John Edwards, Torricelli and a bunch of other Democrats and the United Nations. If you don’t want to believe Saddam had WMD, ask the Kurds in northern Iraq. Oh, wait, you can’t. They’re dead. What does it mean that Natalee Holloway has been missing for 3 months on an island only 75 sq. miles? Perhaps she never existed and Natalee Holloway is a lie.
Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
We didn’t go to war with Saddam solely because of 9/11, but Osama Bin Laden made trips to Baghdad and Al-Zarqawi was treated in a Baghdad hospital after being wounded in Operation Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan. Saddam was a terrorist and he supported the 9/11 attacks.
Bush made Iraq a magnet for terrorists.
Yay! Or do you want another 9/11 in your town?
Bush and Blair started this war.
False. Saddam started it in ‘90 when he invaded Kuwait. For 12 years he shot at our planes, via the United Nations No Fly Zone, attempted to assassinate our President and murder our allies, like Israel and Kuwait, and continued to develop and use his WMD program. The U.N. is more responsible for this war than either Bush or Blair because they enabled Saddam (and were in bed with him, we now know). You bear responsibility for keeping the war going by fighting against the US through your public displays of anti-Americanism.
Soldiers are pawn of Bush.
False. They are willing ministers of freedom, like it or leave it. This is a 100% volunteer military. This isn’t the 70’s anymore, so stop using Vietnam rhetoric that doesn’t apply. It’s the pacifists who are using the soldier for political gain. (Did Michael Moore get that tactic from the peaceniks or the peaceniks from Michael Moore?) In fact, if you’d ask our military if they want to be in Iraq, they’d give a resounding “Yes”.
Our ‘boys’ in Iraq want to come home.
Really? Is that why the Army is boasting a reenlistment boom from soldiers already deployed in Iraq? My husband reenlisted in Baghdad. 3rd Infantry Division, the first Army division to return for a second tour in Iraq, has reenlisted 117 % of its goal this year, and 1st Cavalry Division retention is at 136 % of its goal. How about if you support the troops and let them do the job they volunteer to do?
The anti-war protesters care about our troops.
You feign interest and concern about the troops by saying, “Bring them home now! We support them!” but make their mission more difficult by siding with our enemy (Saddam, Osama, al-Zarqawi..) That isn’t loving the troops, it’s hating them. Just ask John McCain about his experiences with the enemy emboldened by anti-war pacifism while he was a POW in Vietnam, who also says Iraq is no Vietnam . If you really cared about the troops, they’d ask the troops what they want to do, and like Cindy Sheehan’s son, they’d say, “Mom, please! I want to serve my country!”
If someone “supports” the troops but opposes the war, why do they protest outside Fort Bragg Army base? Sounds like they oppose the military, which of course they do, since there are no policy makers at Fort Bragg. The same would be true of their protests outside of the Walter Reed Army Hospital, where injured members of the Army are rehabilitated. Talk about tasteless and tacky.
Did any of these anti-war folks protest our “invasion of Haiti”? Or the “unjust bombing” of Bosnia? Of course not, because this isn’t really a campaign of pacificism, it’s a campaign of politics. The Democratic party supports immorality and the abuse of personal freedom and pacifists will do anything to protect that platform, even if they make idiots of themselves in the process. Compare: against stopping dictatorial aggression; for under aged abortions. Against the liberation of an oppressed people; for gay civil unions. The current anti-war movement is not about opposition to Operation Iraqi Freedom, but opposition to George W. Bush and his party.
September 14th, 2005 at 11:50 am
Under your “United States is the Aggressor” paragraph you state that “Saddam Hussein and the terrorists” are the aggressor.
If you could set aside your desire to feel right, would you honestly link the terrorist bombings of September 11 with Saddam Hussein? The invasion of Iraq was initiated for ideological and political reasons - and was not based on any real threat to the security or stability of the U.S.
There is a good documentary on PBS’s Frontline web-site about Donald Rumsfeld’s work as the President’s Secretary of Defense. It is called “Rumsfeld’s War”. Through the course of the documentary I think that the facts make it clear that an ideological, rather than a factual, link was made by members of the current administration between the small group of Saudi’s who crashed planes into American buildings and Saddam Hussein.
I think that the notion that the U.S. is “an aggressor” is an established fact of global affairs. Perhaps “peaceniks” are guilty of willful ignorance of certain facets of global military reality, but so are the idealogues on the right when they claim that the U.S. is not “an aggressor”.
If you can bear to admit it, what is so wrong with being an aggressor?