Phil Donahue
I listened briefly to an exchange between Phil Donahue and Bill O'Reilly about the Iraq war. Phil was demanding to know whether or not O'Reilly would send his own children to war in Iraq, this "false, unjustified" war. This is something that I've heard many liberals say, and there are several flaws with this argument.
Parents don't have the right to "send" their children to war or not. Their 18 year old "children" have the right to do whatever they want, and if they choose to sign up for the military, that is their right. Parents cannot sign their 18 year old "children" up for the military, but it sounds better for liberals' arguments to make it sound as though Bill has the power to send his children off to war. The goal is to make Bill, or another conservative in question, sound hypocritical because they support the war but won't "send" their own children over. If liberals have a problem with 18 and 19 year olds being able to enlist in the military, then they need to work on changing the enlistment age; but, of course, that would mean being proactive and not griping about something.
Another issue that hysterical liberals forget to address is exactly how they would like the president to protect the American people. On the one hand, we hear how angry and outraged they are that he didn't decipher the intelligence pre-9/11 to determine that lunatic terrorists were going to hijack our planes and slam them into buildings. The liberals were outraged at Bush over 9/11, saying the blood was on his hands. So, now that he had intelligence from several different countries, plus our own country, saying that Iraq still had WMDs, he decided to be proactive and protect the American people. After all, this intelligence was more specific than the pre-9/11 intelligence. So, Bush takes the US to war, but the WMDs are gone. The libs cry that Bush is a liar (how are you a liar for believing intelligence and acting on it?). Why aren't the libs concerned with what happened to the WMDs? We know Saddam had them; where are they? The libs don't care; it's just one more way to attack Bush.
On this same issue, I would also like to see an outline of an acceptable plan of action from the libs. Since Bush acted on specific intelligence regarding WMDs, but he didn't act on vague intelligence regarding 9/11, what would the libs have done differently? It seems to me that he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
Let's take the vague 9/11 intelligence. Can anyone come up with a plan of action that the libs would find acceptable? We already know that we cannot target specifically Middle Eastern people, because that would be "racial profiling". So, let's go back to the pre-9/11 days. Did we really expect the security guards to confiscate a boxcutter from a Middle Eastern man? Sure, and then we would watch him lawyer up for discrimination and profiling. So what legal course of action would the libs have enacted pre-9/11 to ensure 9/11 didn't happen? How can we protect everyone's privacy, extend the same rights to everyone, not profile, but still catch the bad guys before they do something evil? Drawing a blank? Me, too.
Since Bush had the lessons learned from 9/11, what was he supposed to do with all of the specific intelligence on Iraq? Sit on it? Wait and see if the bad guys unleashed a WMD in the NYC subway so he could at least say that he didn't send America's children to an unjustified war? I'm tired of the libs having a stranglehold on the media, I'm tired of their relentless griping and their Monday morning quarterbacking. If there is a better way to do something, give us the solution. In the mean time, I have to believe that GW is doing something right. After all, how many terrorists attacks have occurred on American soil since 9/11?
Parents don't have the right to "send" their children to war or not. Their 18 year old "children" have the right to do whatever they want, and if they choose to sign up for the military, that is their right. Parents cannot sign their 18 year old "children" up for the military, but it sounds better for liberals' arguments to make it sound as though Bill has the power to send his children off to war. The goal is to make Bill, or another conservative in question, sound hypocritical because they support the war but won't "send" their own children over. If liberals have a problem with 18 and 19 year olds being able to enlist in the military, then they need to work on changing the enlistment age; but, of course, that would mean being proactive and not griping about something.
Another issue that hysterical liberals forget to address is exactly how they would like the president to protect the American people. On the one hand, we hear how angry and outraged they are that he didn't decipher the intelligence pre-9/11 to determine that lunatic terrorists were going to hijack our planes and slam them into buildings. The liberals were outraged at Bush over 9/11, saying the blood was on his hands. So, now that he had intelligence from several different countries, plus our own country, saying that Iraq still had WMDs, he decided to be proactive and protect the American people. After all, this intelligence was more specific than the pre-9/11 intelligence. So, Bush takes the US to war, but the WMDs are gone. The libs cry that Bush is a liar (how are you a liar for believing intelligence and acting on it?). Why aren't the libs concerned with what happened to the WMDs? We know Saddam had them; where are they? The libs don't care; it's just one more way to attack Bush.
On this same issue, I would also like to see an outline of an acceptable plan of action from the libs. Since Bush acted on specific intelligence regarding WMDs, but he didn't act on vague intelligence regarding 9/11, what would the libs have done differently? It seems to me that he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
Let's take the vague 9/11 intelligence. Can anyone come up with a plan of action that the libs would find acceptable? We already know that we cannot target specifically Middle Eastern people, because that would be "racial profiling". So, let's go back to the pre-9/11 days. Did we really expect the security guards to confiscate a boxcutter from a Middle Eastern man? Sure, and then we would watch him lawyer up for discrimination and profiling. So what legal course of action would the libs have enacted pre-9/11 to ensure 9/11 didn't happen? How can we protect everyone's privacy, extend the same rights to everyone, not profile, but still catch the bad guys before they do something evil? Drawing a blank? Me, too.
Since Bush had the lessons learned from 9/11, what was he supposed to do with all of the specific intelligence on Iraq? Sit on it? Wait and see if the bad guys unleashed a WMD in the NYC subway so he could at least say that he didn't send America's children to an unjustified war? I'm tired of the libs having a stranglehold on the media, I'm tired of their relentless griping and their Monday morning quarterbacking. If there is a better way to do something, give us the solution. In the mean time, I have to believe that GW is doing something right. After all, how many terrorists attacks have occurred on American soil since 9/11?
posted by PJ at
4:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home