US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
I believe in this country and believe in the freedoms that the flag of this grea (english)
03 Mar 2003
For some, stopping a tyrant from terrorizing the world is an important thing to do. For some, opposing the dethroning of a tyrant is important and necessary; because the individual leading the charge to rid the world of the tyrant is, in the opinion of New York Times ace reporter Maureen Dowd, using rhetoric that is not subtle, but "rhetoric [which] is gratuitously gladiatorial."
Honestly, that is it. The President of the United States is waging a war against terrorism, planning a campaign against a vicious tyrant who has weapons of mass destruction, and the Liberals are against the war, not because they believe Saddam Hussein is not worth getting rid of, but because the American President is a straight talker.

Pundits, journalists, antiwar demonstrators, and European diplomats and leaders all complain that when George Bush speaks, he does not do so "diplomatically."

The "progressives," are involved in a campaign that will keep Saddam Hussein, a known mass murderer, a despot who has tortured and imprisoned women, children and the elderly, used poison gas on his own people and is generally not a nice guy in power; because George Bush is a "cowboy."

Of course, the "progressives" do not define "cowboy" but they make it clear it is an egregious moniker and far greater a threat than Saddam Hussein.

What is needed is a little history. George Bush was elected President of the United States in 2000, and took office in 2001. Despite the rants of the ignorant, George W was in fact "elected," to the Presidency and for those who disagree, please check the Constitution and see how Presidents are elected in the US and get back to me.

A few months after his election, terrorists struck the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a flight in Pennsylvania killing more than 3,000 Americans. The greatest number of Americans murdered on our soil, ever. Mr. Bush and American intelligence traced the murderers to Afghanistan, the Taliban and of course, al-Quaeda.

Mr. Bush ordered the Taliban to turn over the killers to America, they refused, the Taliban no longer exists, and the terrorist group al-Quaeda has been decimated and scattered.

Mr. Bush gave a speech naming an "axis of evil:" Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Events to date have proven Mr. Bush quite correct in his assessment.

Mr. Bush also said America is at war with terrorists. Other people and nations can either be with America, or be with the terrorists. That seems to have ruffled some feathers in Europe and elsewhere. Some nations do not like to "ruffle feathers," of other peoples, or nations, unless the other nation is the US.

If America is as bad as the terrorists or if President Bush is "worse" than Saddam Hussein; just what do the "progressives" think someone worse would do if he had nukes and was lambasted by the likes of snooty Europeans?

Apparently for the Left, France can send troops into a former colony in Africa; kill a few people and then negotiate a deal with terrorists, giving the terrorists concessions and power and that is fine, because they do it over escargot, brie and a bottle of cabernet or more appropriately a bottle of "merde de poulet."

Other than speaking plainly, honestly and from an American perspective, what has George Bush done to warrant so much scorn from the Left? Why do millions of people all across the globe profess to be "antiwar," but in reality are anti-America, and specifically anti-Bush?

It may be that it is simply a matter of form over substance gone insanely awry. It has become abundantly clear that the Left, while professing to be progressive in its thinking, is in fact quite primitive in its reasoning. For the Left, how you say something is far more important than what is actually being said.

For instance, when Mr. Bush proclaims that America is at war with terrorists and the civilized world must stand together and combat the "evildoers," clear thinking people would have to agree with him. On the other hand, those on the Left may agree with the concept, but not in how it is stated and therefore will create straw man arguments (hypotheticals that do not exist in reality) to thwart its implementation.

The Left will talk about "tens of thousands of dead Iraqi children," or "no blood for oil," or the best, "the inspections are working." Seriously, people who have never set foot in Iraq, no nothing about its history, or anything about the UN inspectors, or UN Resolution 1441, "know" the inspections in Iraq "are working." Why doesn't anyone ask them what they base that on? Is it Iraq's lack of cooperation? How about Hans Blix reporting to the UN that Iraq is not taking the inspections seriously?

While some may claim that the differences between America and the rest of the world is a matter of how each perceives world and even local events, and some may argue that perception is as important as reality, the only thing that should matter is the reality America faces and how it deals with that reality.

Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.