To the Leftists at Calvin
JohnC
Calvin and President Bush's commencement visit this Saturday..
POMP AND POLITICS IN GRAND RAPIDS: Bush visit brings controversy
[some liberals at Calvin bring the controversy, Bush doesn't]
[Some liberal] Students and faculty to protest Christian school's
commencement speaker
May 19, 2005
BY KATHLEEN GRAY
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/bush19e_20050519.htm
Calvin College may be predominantly Republican, but a visit from
President George W. Bush on Saturday is stirring up some discontent
among [liberal and leftist] students, faculty and alumni. [see
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org for linkages]
One-third of the faculty members have signed a letter of protest that
will appear in a half-page ad in the Grand Rapids Press on Saturday,
the day Bush is to deliver the commencement address to 900 graduating
seniors at Calvin. The ad cost $2,600.
[I did not know there were that many liberals and leftist professors at
Calvin but it is good to know. I am glad this event flushed them out.
Now we can address them directly and defeat their failed liberal ideas
in the arena of ideas. We can also keep a close eye on them to make
sure they do not inject their wrong-headed politics into the
classroom.]
"As Christians, we are called to be peacemakers and to initiate war
only as a last resort," the letter says. "We believe your
administration has launched an unjust and unjustified war in Iraq."
[The liberal and leftist faculty members are wrong in their beliefs.
Let's take them one at a time:]
"As Christians, we are called to be peacemakers and to initiate war
only as a last resort"
[I'm sorry to say it, but to me that is nothing but sheer cowardice
and refined selfishness.
Don't you get it? We fight wars not to have peace, but to have a
peace worth having.
As a strong Christian, President Bush is a peacemaker and he does
initiate war only as a last resort. For Calvin professors to present
the leftist canards of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy and
Michael Moore as "Christian" beliefs is arrogant and wrong. What
gives you the right to say that Christ did not want us to protect the
safety and freedom of all Americans, while liberating 50 million
innocent people in two countries?
And if you think the Iraqi people are not happy we liberated them, I
think you need a hug. See:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/allpolitics/0502/gallery.sotu.big/content.1.11.html
It's interesting to see how are the current leftist Democrats are
linked to other extremist groups, George Soros, radical
environmentalists, pro-abortion extremists, and so on. See
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org
Leftists at Calvin, I ask you to think about this serious question: do
you think Bush and Americans love war, or do they love peace?
Think about it seriously, Leftists at Calvin: I am not asking you to
regurgitate the same old liberal mantras...I am asking you to really
think...
Leftists at Calvin: I, and Bush, do not feel America is right to
attempt to help spread democracy in the world because it is our way and
therefore the right way.
Nor do I think America should attempt to encourage Democracy because we
are Western and feel everyone should be Western. Not everyone should be
Western, and not everything we do as a culture, a people or an
international force is right.
Rather, we have a national-security obligation to foster democracy in
the world because democracy tends to be the most peaceful form of
government.
Democracies tend to be slower than dictatorships to take up arms, to
cross borders and attempt to subdue neighbors, to fight wars.
Democracies are on balance less likely to wreak violence upon the world
because democracies are composed of voters many of whom are parents,
especially mothers, who do not wish to see their sons go to war.
Democracy is not only idealistic, it is practical.
Leftists at Calvin, Americans and Bush are by nature peaceful.
Americans don't want to send their sons, or daughters, off to war. They
don't like that kind of excitement, or they don't like it for long.
This is part of why we used to be called Isolationists.
We weren't and aren't isolationists--we just have a bias for peace. Can
that bias be overcome? Of course. Pearl Harbor overcame it. The Soviet
desire to expand and impose communism overcame it. Sept. 11 did too.
Leftists at Calvin, on Iraq: I think that there's no way 'round it but
through it. We have to stay, and we have to win.
I define winning in Iraq as the yielding up of, at the least, a
relatively stable society unafflicted by governmental sadism and
dictatorship, and, at the most, a stable society in a fledgling
democracy that demonstrates, with time, that the forces of Arab
moderation, tolerance and peacefulness can triumph.
Such an outcome would give so much good to the world. What a brilliant
beacon this Iraq could be, and what a setback to terrorists, who thrive
in darkness.
Here is one thing I like about President Bush. He has the moral clarity
to make it clear that he hates war, really hates it, and loves peace.
Bush always made it clear he thought the impending and then ongoing war
a painful tragedy. Mr. Bush has made it clear, repeatedly, that he
hopes for peace, yearns for peace, loves it. Bush does not enjoy war
and he hopes and prays we can defeat the terrorists so they will not
longer be a problem.
So, Leftists at Calvin, PLEASE stop bashing President Bush, and
pretending you do it because you are Christian and he is not. Take the
plank out of your own eye before you pay attention to the speck of
sawdust in your brother, President Bush's eye. How can you vote for
Democrats who aggressively promote the killing of innocent unborn baby
American boys and girls, through the painful and bloody procedure of
abortion? 40 million innocent children have been summarily executed,
and you prance around carrying signs and putting your little letters in
the papers due to your partisan hatred of Bush. You lost the election,
get over it! Sure, you may have policy differences with President Bush,
and with 20/20 vision you may critique how one technique or another
turned out in the war, please please stop the partisan Bush bashing
under the guise of "Christianity".
With that said, Leftists at Calvin, I'd like to address this constant
reference to "Blessed are the peacemakers", as an attempt to further
your anti-American and leftist views. Some take quotes from Sermon on
the Mount, and make ethical mistakes with it. Leftists at Calvin, the
Sermon on the Mount is a declaration of personal Christian ethics, not
the rules corporations and states should be run by. If you read Romans
Chapter 13, you will see how God says governments should be run: with
justice, mercy and grace.
Jesus said to "turn the other cheek". Imagine someone has broken into
your house, broke your face, you sue him and take him to court. The
judge says "did you hit this man?" The perp answers "Yes". Then imagine
if the judge said: "Don't you go to church?" Perp: "yes". Judge:
"well, this is simple, turn the other check, take another whack at him,
buster!"
Why does that seem out of order? For a very uncomplicated reason: it is
not the judges cheek! Duh! If he were standing there with a broken jaw
and missing teeth, he wouldn't like that judgment.
Leftists at Calvin, the Sermon on the Mount says that we should give to
those who ask. So imagine you are the President of a bank, and a
homeless man walks in and says "I'd like to borrow $100,000. "Do you
have any collateral?" "No" "Why do you think you can borrow $100,000
from this bank?" "Jesus says, 'turn thou not away .' What's wrong
here?
It's not his money, it's yours that the bank president is giving
away. Leftists at Calvin, this is a PERSONAL Christian ethic. He can
give his own $100,000, that would not be a problem.
Leftists at Calvin, Romans 13 states: rulers are the messengers of God,
the ambassadors of God, they are rending vengeance on evil doers, they
are commanded by God to do that. They bear not the sword in vain. The
sword is the symbol of capital punishment. The duty of government is
justice. Our duty is to live in peace as much as possible.
As long as you have men that are as wicked in the extreme...Hitler,
Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, men of
incredible wickedness, then I believe force must be used to bring them
to cease their wickedness. Saddam has killed 2 million Iraqis, and
caused 6 million more to flee the nation. Not to mention the number of
Iranians he has killed. In Iran, veterans of war with Iraq are
emaciated, dying a slow death from the poison he used on them. They are
dying a slow death that had already taken 22 years in the hospital.
Ann Clwyd, from the British Parliament, talked about Saddam's use of a
plastic shredder. Saddam's opponents were dropped into it, and they
were forced to watch...head first, or feet first and died screaming.
Witnesses saw 30 people die like this, and their remains were collected
and used to feed the fish in their ponds. They saw Kusi, Saddam's
son, personally supervise this torture. Others were dropped into acid
which ate them alive.
Leftists at Calvin, how does anyone argue with the fact that such a man
needs to be removed from power?
The Bible makes it clear force must be used to stop evil -- Jesus used
force to cleanse the temple. He will use far greater force when he
comes to end the war with Satan and his minions. The decisive battle
with Satan was fought on blackened hill called Golgatha. There was
great glee in hell, at last Satan thought he had the arch pretender in
his grasp. There was delight in hell, when Jesus uttered his last
words, "it is finished". Satan thought he had won the victory. Until
that glorious morning when, as the sun rose above the horizon,
spreading across the dome of the temple. People saw the tomb was empty,
Christ had risen from the dead, Conqueror. The decisive battle has been
won, and this is just a clean up operation until he comes back again.
The victory belongs to Christ and those who belong in him.
Now let's address this liberal lie that Bush did not initiate war as
a last resort.
Leftists at Calvin, not every situation requires military action. As a
matter of fact, military action is the very last resort for us. As you
noticed, for example in North Korea, we've chosen to put together a
multinational strategy to deal with Mr. Kim Jong-Il.
And a reminder, Leftists at Calvin : When you mentioned Saddam Hussein,
I just wanted to remind you that the Barbaric mass murderer and former
tyrant dictator Saddam Hussein's military action took place after
innumerable United Nations Security Council resolutions were passed --
not one, two or three, but 17 unanimous UN Resolutions.
Leftists at Calvin, the liberation of Iraq and the disarming of Saddam
was justified over 14 years, 17 UN resolutions, 2 bipartisan and
bicameral overwhelming resolutions, and the overwhelming support of the
American people. We were further justified by the Iraqi Survey Group
report detailing the WMD, and the linkages found between Saddam and al
Qaida.
For more details on the linkages between Saddam and al Qaeda see:
Al-Qaeda's "Boogie to Baghdad"
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200410070845.asp
Case Closed (Osama and Saddam link found)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
Liberals like to say "There is no connection between Islamic
terrorists and the Saddam Hussein regime." This statement represents
one of the few examples of anti-war activists disagreeing with the
official line of the Iraqi government. Saddam and his killers always
emphasized the proud support of the heroic and revolutionary Iraqi
people for Islamic fighters everywhere, including the holy warriors of
al-Qaida.
Meanwhile, the al-Qaida crew similarly expresses its solidarity with
Saddam - as they did in their Internet statement claiming credit for
the recent Kenya attacks, and linking future assaults to potential war
against their friends, the Iraqis. If Iraq expresses solidarity with
al-Qaida, and al-Qaida expresses solidarity with Iraq, peaceniks face a
difficult challenge in arguing that they represent utterly disconnected
phenomena.
Furthermore, the disarming of Saddam by force is not based on any links
between al Qaeda and Iraq, even though they do exist. They are based
on 14 years of flaunting the UN Resolutions and building WMD with the
intention of destroying America. We disarmed Saddam for the protection
of our people. Thank You President Bush and Thank You Troops!!!
In a videotaped message, the al-Qaida "military commander" for Europe
claimed credit for the bombings, saying that the terrorist attack was
meant to punish Spain for supporting the war in Iraq. The message came
as a total shock to liberals who have been furiously insisting that
Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with al-Qaida.
Apparently al-Qaida didn't think so. After the Madrid bombings, it
looks like liberals and terrorists will have to powwow on whether there
was an Iraq/al-Qaida link. Two hundred dead Spaniards say there was.
Another liberal lie bites the dust.
Al Qaida ADMITTED they are linked to Iraq terrorists after they bombed
Spain! So much for the liberal mantra, "no links between al Qaida and
Saddam"!
And so, Leftists at Calvin, this nation is very reluctant to use
military force. We try to enforce doctrine peacefully, or through
alliances or multinational forums. And we will continue to do so.
Leftists at Calvin, we must never forget the lessons of September the
11th. The terrorists will strike, and they will kill innocent life, not
only in front of a Red Cross headquarters, they will strike and kill in
America, too. We are at war.
Leftists at Calvin, as Bush said right after September the 11th, this
would be a different kind of war; sometimes you'd see action and
sometimes you wouldn't. It's a different kind of war than what we're
used to. And Iraq is a front on the war on terror. And we will win this
particular battle in the war on terror.
The battle is now joined on many fronts. We will not waiver, we will
not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail. President Bush has
kept his word to the American people and the world on this.]
Leftist Calvin professors also said:
"We believe your administration has launched an unjust and unjustified
war in Iraq."
["Unjust and Unjustified"? Come on, Leftists at Calvin!
Leftists at Calvin, the democrats are looking for détente with the
terrorists...they are playing for a tie. Republicans are playing to
win. Democrats don't believe in a victorious America.
Leftists at Calvin, how would what the democrats are doing now be any
different than if they were openly supporting our enemies?
Leftists at Calvin, pacifism and appeasement, in the face of
unimaginable inhumanity, is not peace. You may think it is, but try
being the victim like the Iraqis under Saddam, and tell me if it's
peace!
"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits
of the social group without being willing to pay--and claims a halo for
his dishonesty." -Robert A. Heinlein
Leftists at Calvin, you liberals used to care about atrocities, you
used to care about human rights. Apparently you haven't been moved by
the 300,000 mass graves we found in Iraq...
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/iraq2003/joyce_030514.html
I thought you liberals cared about ATROCITIES!! How can you see men
shredded, then say you don't back war to liberate Iraqis!?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html Saddam
threw people into plastic shredders and fed the remains to fish, Saddam
raped wives in front of their familes.
Leftists at Calvin, what part of tyranny and murder, using WMD on his
own people, hiding WMD production from the UN, and consorting with
terrorists do you NOT consider a good reason to disarm Saddam?
If you go back to the 14 month national discussion about going to Iraq,
you will see many reasons were discussed for the liberation and
disarming of Iraq...and they have all been proven true by events
Leftists at Calvin, you seem to be saying "War is not the answer"
... that depends on what the question is now doesn't it? War ended
slavery, fascism, The Taliban harboring al qaeda, ba'athism, Soviet
totalitarianism, but other than that, it has a limited repertoire.
Apparently your answer is to have America take no action against
barbaric despots who seek America's destruction.
Leftists at Calvin, Saddam and his supporters wished and planned for
the death of every man, woman, and child in America, and Osama has
declared since 1998 that every American, civilian or military, adult or
child, richly deserves to die. And strong linkages between Osama and
Saddam have been documented at:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price
of chains of slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course
others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"
-- Patrick Henry (March 23, 1775)
Leftists at Calvin ... Slavery is "peace". Tyranny is "peace".
For that matter, genocide is "peace" when you get right down to it.
Are YOU willing to sit by and do nothing and put up with THAT kind of
"peace"?
Leftists at Calvin, remember: PACIFISM IN THE FACE OF AGGRESSION IS
SUICIDE.
Leftists at Calvin, if you love wealth greater than liberty, the
tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for
freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor
your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may
posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Leftists at Calvin, the historical consequences of your philosophy
predicated on the notion of no war at any cost are families flying to
the Super Bowl accompanied by three or four trusted slaves and a Europe
devoid of a single living Jew.
Leftists at Calvin, war has never solved anything except for ending
slavary, fascism, and communism, Talibanism, and ba'athism.
Leftists at Calvin, it would be nice if there were a way around this.
History, not merely my opinion, shows us that there is not.
Leftists at Calvin, we must face the hard and bitter truth that good
people can walk away from a fight, but when they do, bad people will
have the field and we have seen the horrors they can inflict. For
example, Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin
Laden...
Leftists at Calvin, if all you are willing to do is think happy
thoughts, then those are the consequences. If you want justice, and
freedom, and safety, and prosperity, then sometimes you have to fight
for them.
Leftists at Calvin, the liberation of Iraq and the disarming of Saddam
was justified over 14 years, 17 UN resolutions, 2 bipartisan and
bicameral overwhelming resolutions, and the overwhelming support of the
American people. We were further justified by the David Kay and Duelfer
reports detailing the WMD capabilities Saddam was hiding and building,
and the linkages found between Saddam and al qaeda.
Leftists at Calvin .......the Iraqi people are preparing a constitution
that provides the same level of civil and personal freedoms that
vitually every western country enjoys. Freedom of religion, of
expression, of the press. The idea that this is morally equivalant to a
brutal dictatorship shows a sharp lack of understanding of the horrors
of Saddam's regime, and the freedoms you yourself enjoy.
So the liberal lie you push is that Bush "rushed to war", and this
is an "unjust and unjustified" war. Nothing could be farther from
the truth.
For 14 long years, our country and the world had and open and free
discussion on disarming Saddam. I, for one, am glad that Bush and the
large coalition of countries have liberated Iraqis, and Iraqi citizens
are free to discuss issues without the fear of a dictator torturing
them for speaking up. And I'm glad we have a thoughtful, Christian
President who has thought through all these issues carefully and
thoroughly, along with the best minds we have had in an administration
in a long time. We discussed this issue since way before 9-11-01, at
our kitchen tables, in our churches and schools, in the UN, inside the
Bush Administration and in the US Congress. Senators and congressmen
from both sides of the aisle discussed all angles of this issue and
voted overwhelmingly to authorize the President to use force if
necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein and enforce the 17 UN Resolutions
demanding that he disarm now.
I followed the arguments on both sides through the congressional
debate, and saw the result: two (2) overwhelmingly supported
bipartisan congressional approvals. The first one gave the President
the authority to use force against those nations he determines aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored
such organizations or persons, in order to prevent an future acts of
international terrorism against the United States by such nations,
organizations or persons.
On 9-14-01, Congress approved the "Joint Resolution To authorize the
use of United States Armed Forces" (Resolution 23) In this Resolution,
the US Congress gave THE PRESIDENT, George W. Bush, the authority to
use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations,
organizations, or persons HE DETERMINES planned, authorized, committed,
or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future
acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.
http://allen.senate.gov/PressOffice/SJRES23.pdf
House Joint Resolution 64: Passed the House 420-1. September 14, 2001.
Senate Joint Resolution 23: Passed the Senate 98-0. September 14, 2001.
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those
responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
So President Bush was given the authority, in September of 2001, to use
force against nations that harbored terrorists, which includes Iraq.
But, he wanted to go above and beyond, he wanted to move slowly and
deliberately, and make sure he got the approval of the American people
and both houses of Congress. So Oct 2, 2002, Joint Resolution 114, the
"Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces
Against Iraq" was overwhelmingly approved by a bipartisan House and
Senate. This joint resolution specifically gave President Bush
authority to use force, "Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War
Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended
to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of
section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."
Full text of the October 2002 Resolution:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces
Against Iraq.
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of
Military Force Against Iraq".
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces
of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate
in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions
regarding Iraq.
I watched as President Bush spurred the UN Security council to action
with a September 12 speech to the U.N. General Assembly. I then
followed the arguments as Bush, the United States, and the world moved
deliberately and slowly, avoiding a rush to war. In November 2002 the
UN Security Council issued Resolution 1441, the 16th resolution in 12
years, demanding once again that Saddam Hussein disarm.
The Resolution confirmed that Iraq is and has been in material breach
of the 16 previous UN resolutions, and they offered him one last chance
to disarm. He was told once again to actively cooperate with the
inspectors...bring out your Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and let
the inspectors verify their destruction. If not, he was told he would
face the serious consequences of using force to disarm him.
This "final chance" resolution, Resolution 1441, was passed
unanimously in November 2002 by all 15 countries in the UN Security
Council: France, Syria, the United States, the United Kingdom, China,
the Russian Federation, Mexico, Ireland, Bulgaria, Norway, Singapore,
Colombia, Cameroon, Guinea and Mauritius. The vote was 15-0.
Nothing in the resolution constrained any Member State from acting to
defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce United
Nations resolutions protecting world peace and security.
SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN 'MATERIAL BREACH' OF DISARMAMENT
OBLIGATIONS, OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING
RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)
"Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council
resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
long-range missiles poses to international peace and security..."
See the entire UN Resolution 1441 at:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm
So, after ALL THAT careful deliberation and overwhelming support for
disarming Saddam, you lefists at Calvin want to go back and rewrite
history. Well, I have news for you: we are not going to let you get
away with it. You will keep losing elections if you keep promoting
these lies, because you no longer have a monopoly on the news sources
like you did in the past. The truth will win out.
After all, before the war, President Bush's foes warn of body bags.
There will be body bags. But the question does not seem to be "invade
and get body bags" versus "don't invade and no body bags." If that were
so we'd all say fine, no invasion. The question is: "invasion body bags
or noninvasion body bags?" Removing Saddam and taking losses, or not
removing Saddam and waiting for the losses that will no doubt follow.
Saddam is a body-bag bringer. Where he is, loss follows.
>From "Gut Time - Colin Powell has persuaded me" by Peggy Noonan
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110003048
Thank God Bush made the right decision to disarm Saddam and liberated
the 25 million people of Iraq. Saddam will NOT be passing any
dangerous WMD through terrorist groups to have them show up in American
cities, which would have killed 10s if not 100s of thousands of
innocent Americans. Liberals, have you forgotten 9-11-01 already? If
so, Shame on you.
But let us address this accusation of an "unjust" war directly.
Liberals like to say that the war to liberate Iraq and disarm Saddam
did not meet the long established standards of a "Just War" Just
War doctrine or tradition was formulated and promoted 1,600 years ago
by Augustine, refined by Aquinas and de Vitoria must address the
criteria of:
· Last resort with all other means to resolve the conflict being
exhausted,
This WAS the last resort, we tried diplomacy for over 12 years and he
continued to build and use WMD. We didn't want to wait until we see
a mushroom cloud over an American city before we disarm him.
· Sanctioned by the society and outsiders to the society, a
recognized legitimate authority,
We have a large coalition of countries with us, including many Arab
countries. The US Congress voted overwhelmingly for the use of force
against Iraq for not complying with UN resolutions, and the UN voted
15-0 to use force if they didn't comply given one last chance.
Furthermore, the Iraqi people themselves wanted to be liberated from
this madman that was terrorizing their families.
· Redress of "wrongs" suffered - - - with the "right"
intentions (revenge is not in the list of right intentions)
We did not disarm Saddam out of "revenge"...we disarmed him to
protect the citizens of the United States and our allies. This
redressed the wrongs of his 12 years of contempt for the will of the
UN, and his continued torture and building and proliferating WMD
through terrorist groups.
· Violence employed must be proportional to the violence suffered
(proportionality),
We only used the proportional, necessary force needed to disarm Saddam
for the sake of peace.
· There must be a reasonable chance of success; lives lost in
hopeless causes are not morally justifiable,
No one doubted the US and our allies would be successful, and we have
been. In fact, the war has been an overwhelming success. If you only
listen to the liberal mainstream media, you may not know this, so read:
A Look Back (Victor Davis Hanson)
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200503110746.asp
and
How Far We've Come (Victor Davis Hanson)
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200412030809.asp
and
Better or Worse? (Victor Davis Hanson)
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200401230840.asp
· Peace established after the war must be preferable to the peaces
that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought,
Peace after the war, without Saddam in the picture, is much more
preferable to the non-peace we had when Saddam was in power...we had
torture, mayhem, tyranny, and starving of citizens for the express
purpose of building more weapons of mass murder, like chemical,
biological and nuclear weapons.
· Risk to innocents / noncombatants of injury must be minimized and
avoided. Combatants and noncombatants role must be distinguishable to
avoid civilian casualties.
Risks to innocents and noncombatants was minimized in this war, America
has the best technology available and did everything possible to avoid
civilian casualties.
Michael Novak is a conservative Catholic theologian and author of
numerous books. He addresses the "just war" issue in an article
attached below. He points out that the Catholic Catechism assigns
primary responsibility not to distant commentators, but to public
authorities themselves. This makes sense because "First, they bear
the primary vocational role and constitutional duty to protect the
lives and rights of their people. Second, they are closest to the facts
of the case and - given the nature of war by clandestine terror
networks today - privy to highly restricted intelligence. Others have a
right and duty to voice their own judgments of conscience, but the
final judgment belongs to public authorities"
"What is new in the world of Just War theory in the 21st century is
the concept of "asymmetrical warfare." This concept has been developed
by international terrorist groups that are not responsible to any
public authority."
"No one today denies that international terrorism is a deliberate
assault on the very possibility of international order, or that public
authorities have a duty to confront this terrorism, and to defeat it.
Either the world community now upholds international order or it backs
down from its own solemn agreements. In the latter case, individual
sovereign nations will refuse to be complicit in the policy of
appeasement. To do otherwise would be to join Saddam's conspiracy
against international order, and to accrue responsibility for anything
he might do.
Let us hope that Saddam Hussein as a last resort decides to obey his
solemn obligations under the negotiated peace of 1991, and thus at last
meets the minimum requirement of international order. In that case,
there will be no war. In that case, the policy of the United States
will have succeeded without the need for war."
Michael Novak, The London Times | February 13, 2003
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6133
Now, back to the POMP AND POLITICS IN GRAND RAPIDS article:]
More than 800 students, faculty and alumni also have signed a letter
protesting Bush's visit that will appear Friday as a full-page ad in
the Grand Rapids paper. The ad cost more than $9,500. [you have
wasted your money...America rejects your Bush bashing and America
bashing]
"We are alumni, students, faculty and friends of Calvin College who are
deeply troubled that you will be the commencement speaker at Calvin,"
the letter states. "In our view, the policies and actions of your
administration, both domestically and internationally over the past
four years, violate many deeply held principles of Calvin College."
[OK, I addressed the liberal canard on the war above, but this is a new
one! "Domestic" policies and actions violate many deeply held
principles of Calvin College? Really? How dare you speak for "Calvin
College" in public! Next time please say "violate many deeply held
principles of liberals and Leftists at Calvin College."
Besides, what "domestic" policies could possibly be construed as
"violating deeply held principles of Calvin"? You mean Bush's tax
relief for all working Americans? That let working Americans at ALL
income levels keep more of their own wages, to be spent on what THEY
deem important to their families. Is it a "deeply held principle"
of "Calvin" that the government should confiscate more and more of
our money and waste it on government programs as they see fit?
What other domestic policies are you talking about? Bush's No Child
Left Behind program, with record high funding for education that uses
testing, accountability, and high standards to help ensure educational
excellence for every child. What is wrong with that?
Or was it Bush's policies and actions on abortion that go against
Calvin's deeply held principles? The last time I checked, one of
Calvin's and Christ's principles was to respect life created in the
image of God. Bush has fought hard to promote a culture of life,
against the aggressive pro-abortion stance of Democrats and their
strong supporters, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, People for the American
Way, National Abortion Federation, NOW, The Democratic Party, Emily's
List, and so on. See the details and linkages at
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org ]
And about 100 students are expected to adorn their graduation gowns
with armbands and buttons bearing the slogan: "God is not a Republican
or Democrat."
[Are these Calvin students really going to wear armbands with THAT
slogan? "I know Liberals always try to impugn and ridicule Bush's
faith, and try to scare-monger that he is waging war somehow because
"God told him to". This reflects a misunderstanding about Mr.
Bush's faith. Bush actually prays for guidance, for wisdom, for
strength. Mr. Bush told an audience the other day that he thinks the
most generous gift one person can give another is a prayer. Bush said,
"I pray for strength. . . . I pray for forgiveness. And I pray to offer
my thanks for a kind and generous Almighty God." This doesn't make Bush
strange. It puts him in the normal range of Americans.
Bush doesn't think 'I'm God's guy, he agrees with everything I do'.
If he did it would be disturbing to say the least. But Bush is not John
Brown saying God himself told me to start this war, and he's not an
ayatollah saying death to the Great Satan. Bush is just a Christian
asking God for help and trying in turn to do what is helpful. When you
do this you're acknowledging your inadequacy and dependence. It's a
declaration not of pride but of humility. To a Christian it's like
declaring reality. It's like saying, "There's weather outside."
So Mr. Bush doesn't shy from conclusions and he isn't embarrassed that
he asks for and needs God's help." From "Gut Time"
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110003048 ]
"I'm definitely worried about a Christian school being affiliated with
the Christian right," said Elise Elzinga, a 22-year-old Lambertville
resident who will graduate Saturday with a degree in political science
and international relations.
[What worries you about a Christian school being affiliated with the
majority of Christians in America, Elise?]
Elzinga sometimes has felt isolated during her years at Calvin because
of her views. She volunteered for Sen. John Kerry's presidential
campaign last year. In a poll before the 2004 elections, 80 percent of
Calvin's student body said they planned to vote for Bush.
[Elise, maybe you should examine you soul. ]
But the visit from Bush also has aroused [liberal] alumni and faculty.
David Crump, a professor of religion at the college for the past eight
years, said even though he's not scheduled to get tenure until this
summer, he felt he had to speak out.
"The largest part of our concern is the way in which our religious
discourse in this country has largely been co-opted by the religious
right and their wholesale endorsement of this administration," he said.
[David: there is no "wholesale endorsement of this
administration"...just a thoughtful analysis of the facts, and the
application of intelligence guided by experience.]
Others said they're concerned that the Bush speech will politicize the
event.
[Oh really! Well, if the unhinged left wants to make a big fuss, they
can. But don't blame it on Bush or his supporters, please.]
"I can see that the Bush administration is gaining capital from this
appearance, but I don't see what it does for Calvin," said Dale Van
Kley, who was a history professor at Calvin for 28 years before he
joined the staff at Ohio State University in 1998.
[Dale, how arrogant of you! Bush is not doing this to "gain
capital"! It is an HONOR for Calvin to be chosen as one of two
schools where Bush will make a commencement address. And as President
Byker said, "It provides an opportunity for Calvin to communicate its
distinctiveness to a broad audience."]
"What it will mean for the students is that they will be objects of a
kind of campaign appearance."
[Dale!? A "campaign appearance"?! Are you familiar with the 22nd
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Bush is not running again! You
may not have ever read the U.S. Constitution, or you may see it as an
obstacle to implementing liberalism, but here it is just in case:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/help/constRedir.html ]
Many faculty members don't share those views.
Randall Bytwerk, a communication arts and sciences professor at Calvin,
said this week that he's thrilled that the president will speak to
students. [As are most Americans.]
"It will make commencement memorable. Unless it's somebody really
interesting, it's low on people's list of memories," he said. "But no
one is going to forget this." Administrators at the college tried to
address concerns raised about the Bush visit in a letter to parents of
seniors.
In the letter, President Gaylen Byker said it is an honor for Calvin to
be chosen as one of only two sites where Bush will speak to graduates.
The other is the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis.
[Yes, thank you President Byker, and thank you for not backing down to
the radical left.]
"It provides an opportunity for Calvin to communicate its
distinctiveness to a broad audience," he wrote. "Please know that
accepting this request from the White House does not identify Calvin as
an institution that is necessarily aligned with the person or the
politics of the president."
Nick Monsma, a junior at Calvin, will return to the college Saturday to
volunteer at the commencement ceremonies. He views the president's
visit as a historic opportunity for Calvin.
"It will be a neat opportunity to get close to a sitting president,"
the 21-year-old Hudsonville native said.
[Thank you for your work, Nick! You are a great American!]
He said he's disappointed that students, faculty and alumni are
protesting the visit.
[Yes, Nick, we are all disappointed with the embarrassing students,
faculty and alumni that are protesting the visit. Hopefully they will
examine their souls and rethink their mistakes, or at the very least
show some civility and maturity.]
"There's a certain forum for that kind of discussion and I don't think
this is the right forum."
[You are 100% correct, Nick. The forum was the campaign for the 2004
election, and liberals lost the argument. They can express their views
in other forums but please don't disrupt this happy Calvin Graduation
occasion and this great American president, George W. Bush.]
Contact KATHLEEN GRAY at 248-351-3298 or gr...@freepress.com.
Brent Bourgeois
I simply don't have the time to counter everything you've said.
Right-wing John, this must have taken you so long to write.
Right-wing John, you have confused 'patriotism' with 'jingoism'. You
assume that anyone who is against the war in Iraq is a liberal
pacifist. Wrong, Right-wing John.
The jingoists at the end of the 19th century whipped this nation into a
frenzy against the Spanish government over what turned out to be bogus
charges that they blew up the battleship 'Maine'. The 'Maine' was
blown up by an accidental explosion. That didn't seem to matter to
the jingoists, led by Head Jingo, Teddy Roosevelt. They had the hated
Spanish to fight, and colonies to acquire, which we did, in the
'purchasing' of Cuba and the Philippines. Check your facts, Right-wing
John. How many ways do people like you need to be hit over the head
with facts? This is a simple grab for oil, Right-wing John, and I
would have a lot more respect for this administration if they would
have just come clean with the facts by saying something like:
"Look, you Americans are all oil junkies. You are, I am, your neighbor
is. Well listen- I know where there's a whole BUNCH of it, and it's
sitting under the weakest link in the Middle East. It's only gonna
cost us 3, maybe 400 BILLION dollars, but hey, you're the ones that are
hooked, don't look at me, and maybe 2000 of our soldiers are gonna eat
it, but again, they're VOLUNTEERS, so who cares. Yeah, of course,
there's gonna be some 'collateral damage', but be honest- is an Iraqi
life worth as much as an American life? Hehehe, didn't think so...."
Right-wing John, if you REALLY wanted to go after the terrorists, why
are you supporting this idiotic war in Iraq? True, the very fact that
we are there has turned Iraq into a giant piece of terrorist fly-paper.
But that, my friend, is bass-ackwards thinking.
Right-wing John, you have confused the word 'patriotic' with
'partyotic'. Your words are all too typical of those on both sides who
choose party over country.
Right-wing John, if you truly were patriotic, not partyotic, and
thought of the best interests of your country and not your party, you
would know that attacking a secular state such as Iraq, which Osama
bin-Laden hates as much as the infidel West, is the wrong way to do it.
The Saudi government has been playing a game of
both-sides-against-the-middle for 50 years. If you want to go to the
root of the evil, it is the Wahhabist teaching that continues
unhindered at Saudi mosques today. Saudi support of this teaching by
way of exporting this discipline is in the hundreds of billions of
dollars. It is the Saudis who support the madrasses in Pakistan that
turn out thousands of new jihadi every year. It is the Saudis who
supported the Taliban. It is no coincidence the 15 of the 19 hijackers
came from Saudi Arabia.
The words that come from the Wahhabist mosques preach hatred of the
infidel, and jihad.
Right-wing John, Iraq wasn't a threat to Lebanon, much less a threat to
us. Is/was Saddam Hussein a brutal tyrant? Absolutely. You must
remind yourself, though, o Righteous Crusader of All that is Good
Right-wing John, that he was OUR brutal tyrant just a few years ago,
before he became a modern-day version of Hitler. Oh, that was back in
the day when he actually HAD WMDs, and could've actually done some
damage. Oh, that's right, he DID do some damage! He gassed his own
people! Was that BEFORE, or AFTER the 2 meetings with Rummy?
In 2003, Right-wing John, Saddam was the very epitome of a tin-cup
dictator. Ask yourself this, Right-wing John, if he was such a threat
to his neighbors, who was he the biggest threat to? Five seconds,
Right-wing John. ISRAEL! That's right, Right-wing John! Now listen
carefully, Right-wing John. As much as I have issue with many of their
tactics and policies, there's no denying that Israel has the
best-equipped, best-trained military in the region. They have been in
a state of high alert for 57 years. Plus, the Mossad is generally
recognized as the finest intelligence unit in the world. PLUS, they
own about 200 nukes. The Israelis have never been shy about
unilaterally taking out threats to their national security (Entebbe
1975, Osiraq 1981). If Saddam was actually an imminent threat to
anyone, Right-wing John, don't you think the Israelis would have
something to say about it? Besides laughing?
Oh, Right-wing John, I don't have the time to refute point-by point
your all too simple logic. I will, however, take the time to recommend
that you apply for a job at Fox News. This would seem to be the
perfect place for an intelligent, up-and-coming party mouthpiece like
you. Best of luck to you.
And please, Right-wing John, don't confuse dissent with patriotism.
It's the first step on the road to Fascism.
Sincerely,
Brent B.
JohnC
I noticed you fell into the all to familiar pattern of Leftists and
liberals and immediately started calling me names instead of addressing
the facts and logic contained in my post.
Is that all you have, Brent? Name calling and the politics of personal
destruction? No wonder you guys keep losing election after election
after election. The American people are tired of your partisan politics
and "hate America first" knee jerk reactions.
Then you use the lame excuse that you don't have the "time" to
refute my arguments. Is that really it? Take your time, take all the
time you want. The real reason you can't answer is because you
can't compete in the arena of ideas.
While your arcane treatment of the Spanish government was boring, it
was also irrelevant.
And, Brent the Leftist, I'm sorry to say it, but to me it was nothing
but sheer cowardice and refined selfishness. Don't you get it? We
fight wars not to have peace, but to have a peace worth having.
Leftists at Calvin, the democrats are looking for détente with the
terrorists..they are playing for a tie. Republicans are playing to win.
Democrats don't believe in a victorious America.
Leftists at Calvin, how would what the democrats are doing now be any
different than if they were openly supporting our enemies?
Leftists at Calvin, pacifism and appeasement, in the face of
unimaginable inhumanity, is not peace. You may think it is, but try
being the victim like the Iraqis under Saddam, and tell me if it's
peace!
Leftists at Calvin, what part of tyranny and murder, using WMD on his
own people, hiding WMD production from the UN, and consorting with
terrorists do you NOT consider a good reason to disarm Saddam?
Leftists at Calvin, if you go back to the 14 month national discussion
about going to Iraq, you will see many reasons were discussed for the
liberation and disarming of Iraq...and they have all been proven true
by events
Leftists at Calvin, you seem to be saying "War is not the answer"
... that depends on what the question is now doesn't it? War ended
slavery, fascism, The Taliban harboring al qaeda, ba'athism, Soviet
totalitarianism, but other than that, it has a limited repertoire.
Apparently Leftists at Calvin 's answer is to have America take no
action against barbaric despots who seek America's destruction.
Leftists at Calvin, Saddam and his supporters wished and planned for
the death of every man, woman, and child in America, and Osama has
declared since 1998 that every American, civilian or military, adult or
child, richly deserves to die. And strong linkages between Osama and
Saddam have been documented at:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
Next, Brent the Leftist, you launch into the tired, old argument that
"Bush went to Iraq for oil!" Oh really?! Is THAT why he liberated
the 25 million people of Iraq and turned over the government and the
oil fields to the people of Iraq?
If you were an honest Christian, Brent, you would admit that the Kofi
Annan and French "Oil for Food" Scandal at the corrupt UN is the
real reason the French didn't support disarming Saddam.
Some Leftists at Calvin falsely accuse the United States of attacking
Iraq "for the oil". Nothing could be further from the truth. We
do want the Iraqi people to be able to use their own natural resources
for the benefit of their own people, not for building WMD to be used
against America. That's why we disarmed Saddam Hussein.
Here are some other articles discussing how it's not about oil for
the United States...but maybe it is for France:
No Blood for France's Oil!
There's only one country in this world that's motivated by a lust for
Iraqi oil: France. France wanted to avoid liberating the Iraqis for a
whole host of reasons, but #1 on the list is black gold, Texas tea,
bubblin' crude. If the US wanted Saddam's oil, all we'd have had to do
is
lift the embargo and let him sell all the oil he wants. Or we could
have
confiscated Kuwait's oil. Our troops are already there, and they can't
stop us - ditto the Saudis. "Well, Bush wants the oil personally."
Absurd. They said the same thing during Gulf War One. Why didn't we
take
the oil then? The supposedly anti-war crowd in France cares nothing for
the suffering of the Iraqi people or Saddam's development of WMDs.
Where were they protesting when Saddam killed a million people in wars
with Iraq, Kuwait, the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs? Iraq has lost between
$100 billion and $200 billion in oil revenue so he can hold onto his
programs to get nukes. Ken Adelman writes in the New York Post, "Iraq's
having gobs of oil shows how principled America and England are. For
unlike the French and Russians, our leaders - both Republican and
Democratic, Labour and conservative - have willingly sacrificed
acquiring
cheaper oil to force Saddam's scrapping his WMD arsenal."
Adelman writes that even Jimmy Carter declared what became known as
"the Carter Doctrine," pledging protection to all the oil-rich Persian
Gulf
states after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Quote: "Moreover, Iraqi
oil
is not just there for the grabbing after liberation. Iraqi oil fields
have become as dilapidated as has Iraq under Saddam.... To turn the
protestors on their head: President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair
don't act on the basis of 'blood for oil.' It's Saddam who's been on a
clear path of 'oil for blood.' That now must end."
There is an embargo of Iraqi oil, but remember: it's on the market
anyway. If it were to flood the market, the price would go down - and
all
those evil oil stocks our president and vice president supposedly have
(though they gave up millions worth to serve the nation) would be worth
less. So the next time you hear someone chant this simplistic pap
rather
than face the true danger Saddam poses, tell them: "Yeah, this is all
about oil - to France. France imports most of its oil from Iraq, and
have
sweet economic deals with the butcher of Baghdad." That's the truth, so
speak it!
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022503/content/truth_detector.guest.html
Other articles on "it's all about oil?"...
"NO BLOOD FOR OIL/DOING IT FOR GREED"
This was all the rage when I was in college during the first Gulf War
and
it hasn't gotten any better with age. The basic argument goes like
this:
Bush and Cheney are oil guys. They want to get their grubby hands on
Iraq's oil. Ergo, this is a war for oil. I guess it could be stated
with
more sophistication, but why go to all the trouble of putting a dress
on
a pig?
As Peter Beinart of The New Republic notes in his latest - and
excellent
- column (registration required), war is not the best means to get at
Iraq's oil. If all we wanted was a bigger slice of the Iraqi petro-pie,
all we'd have to do, literally, is say so. Dick Cheney could negotiate
that with Saddam over Turkish coffee and a few tortured lackeys
tomorrow.
Saddam has made it known that he'd be perfectly willing to sell a lot
more oil to the United States, and that he'd certainly write up some
fresh contracts if the U.S. would drop its sanctions and forget about
this "regime change" nonsense.
Going to war just to boost Iraq's oil production from three or so
million
barrels a day to 6 or so million barrels a day involves massive risks,
both political and financial. A war on Iraq could ruin Iraq's oil
fields.
It could foment instability in the region or a civil war inside Iraq.
It
could easily cost the Republicans the White House if it went badly. In
short, if this were all about oil, any good businessman would simply
say,
"Let's just lift the sanctions." And, as Beinart notes, if all Bush
wants
is oil, why is the U.S. making assurances to the French and Russians
that
they can keep their existing contracts if they approve an invasion?
In fact, if Bush and Cheney are doing the bidding of the oil industry,
someone needs to explain why the American Petroleum Institute lobbied
for the lifting of sanctions prior to the 9/11 attacks. Also, you might
ask
why oil prices go up when war becomes more likely, and go down when the
prospects for peace improve.
But, in my mind, the most compelling response to the blood-for-oil
argument is a simple one. The people who make it are morons. Oh, I
don't
mean the folks who say that, as a geopolitical necessity, the U.S. must
assure stability in oil markets, or those who (rightly) argue that we
need to lessen the power and influence of the Saudis. I mean the people
who argue - Cynthia McKinney-style - that Bush and Cheney and
Rumsfeld want to get rich off the war. This is the Carlyle Group
argument you hear on Pacifica Radio and in the sweatier fever swamps of
the web. The simple problem with this thesis is that it betrays a
fundamental misunderstanding of rich people.
Rich people who want to get richer do not run for president or vice
president. They don't take jobs as secretary of defense or treasury
secretary. And, for that matter, they don't run for senator - like
John
Edwards and Jon Corzine. Such people may have selfish motives, but
greed for filthy lucre isn't one of them. They may like the power, they
may
want to do good, they may want their names in the history books, they
may
even want to prove something to the third-grade teachers who said
they'd
never amount to anything. But they don't do it to make a killing in the
stock market. Every day, I hear from people who honestly think Bush &
co.
want to invade Iraq to make a few more bucks. These people are either
stoopid or they are trapped in a Twilight Zone where Thomas Nast
cartoons
seem real.
Indeed, this is the problem with most goofy theories about a war: They
reveal a profound naiveté about how government works. If Bush were
doing this for oil or for money or for "revenge" against the man who
tried to kill his dad, he wouldn't be able to say so in a single
meeting. He
couldn't say such a thing to his inner circle, let alone his senior
staff
or the hundreds of people below them who make the policy. Word would
get out. Opponents would leak it. Ambitious men would blow the whistle
and become heroes. Decent men would blow the whistle too.
In other words, Bush would have to keep all of his motives secret from
the people he'd have to convince to go along. Now, since most of these
anti-Bush, antiwar types also think the commander-in-chief is an idiot,
it's hard to imagine how they think he'd be smart enough to pull off a
con like that.
>From "Same Old Tiresome arguments of war", by Jonah Goldberg
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg100102.asp
Michael Medved
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29921
"It's all about oil. "
Not really, but so what? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that our
whole
economy, and therefore our national security, depends upon imported
oil? Why is it even theoretically inappropriate to fight in order to
ensure the
continued delivery of a substance so essential to our survival and
independence? Meanwhile, Saddam's psychotic and despotic regime would
represent a profound danger to the world even if he controlled no oil
assets whatever. The United States imports almost none of its petroleum
from Iraq, but our European "allies" (the French, in particular) get a
great deal of their energy from that country - and therefore ardently
oppose the idea of waging war. On this issue, it's the appeasers -
not the hard-liners - who are "all about oil."
Next, poor old "Brent the Leftist" regurgitates the old liberal
canard about "Iraq is a distraction from the REAL war on terror! We
should be finding Osama!"
"Where's Osama, Bush!", they foolishly and childishly chant.
Democrats like the Leftists at Calvin try to make a big point of
opposing every antiterrorism initiative on the grounds that Bush should
be single-mindedly focused on capturing Osama bin Laden.
Leftists at Calvin seemed to imagine that President Bush was supposed
to be spending his time in Arab bazaars offering bribes to people who
might have known where Osama was.
Leftists at Calvin, it would have made more sense to carp about sending
troops to Normandy when we really needed to be "focusing on Adolf
Hitler."
These are perilous times for Democrats like Leftists at Calvin : What
excuse would they use to oppose the war on terrorism after Osama bin
Laden was captured?
With each additional capture of a major al-Qaeda leader, it turned out
that, unlike the Democrats like Leftists at Calvin, a Republican
administration could chew gum and walk at the same time.
The Democrats like Leftists at Calvin 's infantile obsession with
Osama bin Laden to the exclusion of all other Islamic terrorism allowed
them to sound like hawks while opposing every aspect of the war on
terrorism.
Leftists at Calvin, if America's entire national defense effort came
down to the capture of one man, then the only justification for war was
a connection to Osama bin Laden.
The next mistake the leftist Brent make is to say that Osama hated
Saddam so therefore he would not have teamed up with him to bring WMD
to American cities.
Liberals like Brent like to say "There is no connection between
Islamic terrorists and the Saddam Hussein regime. " This statement
represents one of the few examples of anti-war activists disagreeing
with the official line of the Iraqi government. Saddam and his killers
always emphasized the proud support of the heroic and revolutionary
Iraqi people for Islamic fighters everywhere, including the holy
warriors of al-Qaida.
Meanwhile, the al-Qaida crew similarly expresses its solidarity with
Saddam - as they did in their Internet statement claiming credit for
the recent Kenya attacks, and linking future assaults to potential war
against their friends, the Iraqis. If Iraq expresses solidarity with
al-Qaida, and al-Qaida expresses solidarity with Iraq, peaceniks face a
difficult challenge in arguing that they represent utterly disconnected
phenomena.
Furthermore, the disarming of Saddam by force is not based on any links
between al Qaeda and Iraq, even though they do exist. They are based
on 12 years of flaunting the UN Resolutions and building WMD with the
intention of destroying America. We disarmed Saddam for the protection
of our people.
Thank you President Bush and Thank You Troops!!!
The liberation of Iraq and the disarming of Saddam was justified over
14 years, 17 UN resolutions, 2 bipartisan and bicameral overwhelming
resolutions, and the overwhelming support of the American people. We
were further justified by the David Kay report detailing the WMD
evidence he found, and the strong linkages found between Tyrant Saddam,
barbaric mass murderer and former dictator and AQ.
jvandiver
indictment. If one questions the motives behind neoconservative
political behavior, does that by itself become a litmus test for being
branded "liberal?"
Once again this mindset only divides the world into people who are
"with us" or "against us." If you attempt to choose an independent
perspective, you are by this test forced into some enemy camp. (And
given the sins of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram, who would want to
end up there?) The "liberal" enemy is presumably to be flushed out,
identified and targeted for punishment.
And why do people who tout the "democratization" of Iraq, never address
the issue of provenance or ownership of Iraqi oil? What has our
tradition of stewardship been in our occupation there so far? What are
our articulated goals? Are our commercial interests best served by
fostering a democratic parliament with enough strength and integrity to
actually vote us out? Are we clearly unable to distinguish between a
real democracy and a puppet state? Or is this lip-service for
democracy only a ruse to shield a desire to perpetuate a condition of
civil war so that oil resources can be channelled in the back rooms of
undisclosed criminal dealmakers?
It's very easy for ALL people of conscience to formulate these
questions. To marginalize and target them as liberals, is to avoid
addressing their root concerns. All discussion gets framed behind the
smokescreen of predictable rhetoric, reducing inquiry to the simplistic
catch-phrases of a black-and white domestic culture war.
To talk about Iraq (and Afghanistan for that matter) without ever
mentioning oil interests is to ignore the elephant in the room, and
avoid facing an important moral responsibility of active citizenship.
ALL Christians should be free to speak their minds openly in this
matter, without fear of reprisal or censure.
Protestant comes from protest. It's a proud tradition, dare I say a
conservative value......and one of the few acts that we can witness to
prove that liberty still exists.
Brent Bourgeois
You are a funny guy. I was parodying your use of 'Leftists at Calvin'!
The 'politics of personal destruction'? Gosh, I thought that was
invented by such esteemed thinkers as Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly,
Michael Savage, and Sean Hannity. You, by the way, didn't take the
time to read, much less refute much of anything I said. You have your
agenda, and nothing like the truth will stand in the way of your
telling it.
We fight wars, my friend, to further the selfish interests of our
country and the corporations that represent us. That is no better or
worse than any other country. This is not 'hate America first', it's
calling a spade a spade, which is something a party hack like yourself
will never do.
As for the Democrats playing for a tie, I wouldn't know. I consider
myself a Christian first, above being a member of either party. As
Christians, we should be asking ourselves what is the purpose of what
our government is doing? Blind acceptance is neither Biblical nor
morally right.
> was also irrelevant.
hackneyed phrases like arcane and boring. The truth is, the example
fit all too well, so you dismissed it as irrelevant. Classic.
Once again John, our nation was formed by a group of Dissenters, and
this line here:
> different than if they were openly supporting our enemies?
all dissent in the name of loyalty and patriotism! If you're not for
us, you must be for them!
I'm for us, John. I support our troops. I don't happen to support the
mission. That doesn't make me any less of a patriot than you.
America, above all international law, impervious to all reason, the
bullies on the block. Just like those bullies in high school, John.
All Empires have come tumbling down, most by their own hubris. This
one , in the direction it's heading, will be no different. That's not
'hating America', it's just sad.
> unimaginable inhumanity, is not peace. You may think it is, but try
> being the victim like the Iraqis under Saddam, and tell me if it's
> peace!
Afghanistan worth any less than the value of a stockbroker at the World
Trade Center? In performing our 'great liberating deed' in Iraq, does
this calculation ever come into play?
> own people, hiding WMD production from the UN, and consorting with
> terrorists do you NOT consider a good reason to disarm Saddam?
much sense and pretended they just weren't there. there's just too
much evidence that completely shoots this argument all to shreds.
> about going to Iraq, you will see many reasons were discussed for the
> liberation and disarming of Iraq...and they have all been proven true
> by events
that with a straight face. Your kidding, right? This is joke, isn't
it? You DO have a sense of humor!
> the 25 million people of Iraq and turned over the government and the
> oil fields to the people of Iraq?
the oil fields of Iraq have been turned over to Iraq. Hehehe.
> Annan and French "Oil for Food" Scandal at the corrupt UN is the
> real reason the French didn't support disarming Saddam.
careful about pointing the finger at any one country. Remember, there
are four fingers pointing back at you. There's enough blame, frankly,
to spread in many different directions, my friend. You are merely
showing your partyotics by limiting it to the French, as if American
oil corporations didn't have their sticky paws in it as well.
> 14 years, 17 UN resolutions, 2 bipartisan and bicameral overwhelming
> resolutions, and the overwhelming support of the American people. We
> were further justified by the David Kay report detailing the WMD
> evidence he found
The overwhelming support of the American people? You're in the Kool-Aid
again, John.
David Kay's report? This is classic! This is EXACTLY how the
administration used ALL reports to justify what they were doing!
Here's an example:
I shot a 69 one time over nine holes of golf.
Administration version:
I shot a 69 one time.
Another:
Hummers aren't gas-guzzlers when compared to F-16 fighter jets.
Administration version:
Hummers aren't gas-guzzlers.
And another:
Saddam's brother-in-law, who was definitely in a position to know, told
interrogators that Iraq did indeed have WMDs, but that they were either
destroyed in the 1st Gulf War, or they were subsequently destroyed by
UN weapons inspectors.
Administration version:
Saddam's brother-in-law, who was definitely in a position to know, told
interrogators that Iraq did indeed have WMDs.
> canard about "Iraq is a distraction from the REAL war on terror! We
> should be finding Osama!"
'old liberal canard' that I know of. But it IS the fundamental
(forgive the pun) problem. Do your research, John.
> opposing every antiterrorism initiative on the grounds that Bush should
> be single-mindedly focused on capturing Osama bin Laden.
me at odds with most on the left. Put the 'broad brush ' away.
As for the argument that Saddam rejoiced at 9/11, c'mon John! He's an
evil dictator! We only ripped his army to shreds in 1991. Sure he
hates us. So do millions upon millions of other Arabs. That's nothing
new, nor did it start with this administration. It was under the
Clinton watch that we starved almost 500,000 Iraqi women and children
with useless sanctions. And using the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend'
argument, all kinds of strange bedfellows can be made, including some
horrible ones of our own.
> Islamic terrorists and the Saddam Hussein regime. "
greater supporters of Islamic terror out there, starting with Saudi
Arabia, Syria, and Iran. Let's go turn all of those countries into
parking lots too, John. Rah! Rah! Rah! USA! USA! USA!
Listen, I really have the rest of my day to get to- it's been swell,
really it has.
May the peace of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ be with you, my
friend.
-Brent Bourgeois
JohnC
people, and disarming one of the worst tyrants this world has ever
seen? You can "questions the motives behind neoconservative political
behavior", but you have to stand on some sort of facts or logical
reasoning, or evidence or history. Your post revealed none of these
- just more name calling from the left.
And the only reason we call you "liberal" is because you exhibit
and support the failed liberalism of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Harry
Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Teddy "Splash" Kennedy. Someday, we hope
you will see the error of your ways and come back from the dark side.
Then, Jvandiver., you get all bent out of shape out of the possibility
we might divide the world into people who are "with us" or "against
us." Why do you fear this? Whose side are you on? Aren't you with
us?
In the choice between Bush/Americans and the terrorists/state sponsors,
do you have some sort of "independent perspective"?
Then you bring up the New York Times and the left's favorite topics:
Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram. Jvandiver, do you really equate a
few rogue soldiers putting a pair of panties on some terrorists head
with the cutting off of innocent Americans heads, like they did with
Nick Berg, or the state run rape rooms and mass graves of Saddam?
Jvandiver, your moral equivalence is disgusting, but typical for a
liberal such as yourself.
Let me explain the difference between the terrorists and Great
Americans to you liberals like Jvandiver, who sees none
Nice try, Leftists at Calvin Why do you want to do this? Would you give
me shred of similarity between the examples you posted and the Nick
Berg video?
No, Jvandiver, you sound like an otherwise reasonable guy. You sound
like you've got a modicum of intelligence out there, yet you wish, you
search, you actively seek out a way to make equivalent our actions with
these terrorists in the Nick Berg video. I don't understand that.
Jvandiver, what is the compulsion so many Americans have to want to
draw these lines of equivalence between us and this human debris?
Jvandiver, we're in a war. We have insurgents like this al-Sadr fellow
and his terrorist cohorts and they've taken over a town and they've
taken prisoner of kids, and they're hiding behind them.
Jvandiver, they are cowards. We are not there to murder. We are not
there to maim and kill children. We are not there to burn down their
homes or their schools and weren't. We are rebuilding their schools. We
are rebuilding their hospitals. Their schools are open, their hospitals
are functioning, the electricity is back with more wattage and power
and functionality than it ever had under Saddam.
Jvandiver, the U.S. military does not target civilians, the U.S.
military does not target children, the U.S. military does not seek them
out for wanton murder and call it war.
So Jvandiver, when I see those images, yeah, and I haven't, but I know
they exist. I don't sit around and beat my chest over it and say,
"Ho-ho, look what the mighty United States of America did." I blame the
people who are responsible for it, and that is the cowards who are
using those children as shields and using their women as shields and it
frustrates me to no end that you don't also see this.
Jvandiver, you know who these people are. It is not a mystery. They are
not good, there's nothing good about them. They are perverted, they are
demented, they are pure trash human debris. They have declared war on
us. They treat their own kids far worse than anything that might happen
to them as a result of the United States riding to their rescue.
Jvandiver, these are the people that strapped bombs on their own kids
and send them out to be blown up, and they lie to them, and they say,
"Do this and you'll get to heaven. You'll meet Allah," or whatever it
is they tell them.
Jvandiver, these terrorists are willing to kill their own kids to save
their own lives. They are nothing. They have no value. They are not be
respected. They are not to be protected. They are not to be understood.
They are to be eliminated.
Jvandiver, these terrorists do not bring anything decent to their own
country, to their own people, to their own families, to their own
population. They bring destruction. They bring death. They bring
misery. They bring poverty.
Jvandiver : we, the United States of America, and the people of this
country, banded together via our elected officials and our money are
attempting to save these people from their own so-called leaders.
In the process, Jvandiver, unfortunate things happen, but it is not our
aim. It is not our purpose. It is not our desire. We do not put these
kids on television and do to them what was done to Nick Berg, and then
ask CBS to broadcast it to the Arab world. And the idea that you can
post here and try to establish some degree of similarity offends me and
all decent Americans, Jvandiver.
Jvandiver, go ahead and vote for your favorite Democrats, and go ahead
and open the borders to the people that murdered Nick Berg and let 'em
come on in because we're not going to have the guts to stand up to them
because we're too busy feeling guilty that we're just like them.
And you, Leftists at Calvin, are going to be among the first to go.
Because you think they're going to understand you. And they're going to
look at you as an absolute dupe and an idiot, useful or otherwise, and
you're gone.
Leftists at Calvin, you need to be thanking God there are people who
have the vision and the courage to see this for what it is and are
willing to put their lives on the line to protect ignorant people and
people who are otherwise doing other things and don't care what's going
on, to protect them so they can go ahead and live their lives as
blissfully as they choose.
Leftists at Calvin, we do not need to be stringing people up who are
trying to bring decency and freedom to other peoples in the world and
make examples of them and say they're no different than al-Sadr,
al-Qaeda, Zarqawi, whoever it is was in these pictures that murdered
Nick Berg.
I'll never understand the way you think, Leftists at Calvin ...But what
I've realized is there's no talking you out of it. I don't even know if
there's any shaming you. How you can even post here after having known
what's on that video and dare say that there is some similarity to what
we, the people of the United States believe and do, to what was done to
Nick Berg in that video, makes me as repulsed and angry and fearful as
I was when I watched the video.
So yes, Jvandiver, the liberals are harmful to America and they are be
flushed out,
identified and targeted for defeat in the arena of ideas.
Jvandiver, I addressed the "Bush did it for oil" canard in a
previous post. Go back and read it with an open mind...try not to let
your "blame America first" bias creep in.
You are right, Jvandiver, Protestant comes from protest. It's a proud
tradition, dare I say a conservative value - but that doesn't give
you there right to constantly blame America and bash our great
President Bush with no facts or logic backing you up - just hatred.
Don Jones
cowardice".
The first post assumes that labels like "leftists and liberals" mean
something. We can see from the following posts they do nothing to
illuminate.
We should all read "God's Politics" by Jim Wallis.
Anyway, it was great to out number the Bush supporters 50 to one at the
entrance to Calvin College and see our efforts covered by CBS.
JohnC
What's funny is to watch liberals absolutely IMPLODE when you ask
them logical questions!!!
You say the 'politics of personal destruction' "was invented by such
First of all, Bill O'Reilly and Michael Savage are not conservatives.
I see you have never listened to them, you simply lump everyone who
doesn't tow the liberal line into one big group. You really need to
expand your horizons and do some real reading and research!
And no, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity did not invent and do not use
'politics of personal destruction'. That is an invention of the Left.
And, sadly, it is about all they have left today since their party has
run out of ideas.
Brent, don't you get it? We fight wars not to have peace, but to have
a peace worth having. Slavery is peace. Tyranny is peace. For that
willing to sit by and do nothing and put up with THAT kind of peace?
you NOT consider a good reason to disarm Saddam?
and disarming of Iraq...and they have all been proven true by events
ourselves what is the purpose of what
our government is doing? Blind acceptance is neither Biblical nor
morally right."
Christian first, above being a member of either party. President Bush
also agrees with you. That is exactly why these silly "God is not a
Republican or a Democrat" buttons some Calvin grads wore were so
asinine. It is true, God is not a Republican or a Democrat, and to wear
a button insinuating that Bush things God IS a Republican is rude,
simplistic and dishonest. We don't think God is a Republican, it
doesn't work that way. We are just saying Republicans are for
protecting innocent life, while Democrats are passionately and
aggressively for abortion. Oh I don't mean YOU are Brent, and perhaps
some of the Calvin Grads and Profs who signed those misguided letters
in the newspaper are not. But your leaders are bought and paid for by
the far left, militant abortion industry. So how can you justify voting
for them when you know they will push hard for more and more abortions,
available to a younger and younger age group with no parental
permission? How do you sleep at night knowing you are sentencing these
innocent American baby boys and girls to death with your vote?
For example, Brent, and other leftists at Calvin, did you vote for
John Kerry in 2004?
Teresa Heinz Kerry says she's pro-choice but believes abortion is
"stopping the process of life". John Flipflop Kerry is radically
pro-abortion and gets a great deal of support from radical pro-abortion
special interest groups. (if you don't believe me go to
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org and look up NARAL, Planned
Leftists at Calvin, some politicians say that they're 'personally
opposed' to abortion, yet 'pro-choice', but we must ask: Is this
a position that can survive the test of logical coherence?
After all, Leftists at Calvin, if abortion is wrong, surely it is wrong
because it is the unjust taking of the life of a developing human
being. And Leftists at Calvin, if one believes that, then what could
possibly justify a regime of law that licenses so grave an injustice?
Of course, Leftists at Calvin, if abortion is not a form of homicide,
if the developing embryo or fetus has the moral status of an unwanted
growth-such as a tumor-there would be no grounds on which to
'personally oppose' abortion.
So Leftists at Calvin, the question is this: Is the developing embryo
or fetus a human being or a mere unwanted growth? Leftists at Calvin,
notice that this is not a religious or even an ethical question. It is
a question of human embryology and developmental biology.
If you say the fetus is a "mere unwanted growth" then why do
Democrat politicians say they are "personally opposed" to abortion,
if it is just an unwanted growth? Their position does not make logical
sense.
If you say the fetus is a human being, then how can Democrat
politicians justify a regime of law that licenses so grave an
injustice?
Leftists at Calvin, the same is true of other issues, like the
environment, caring for the poor, education, national defense, fixing
and strengthening Social Security, putting good judges on the bench
that won't legislate liberalism from the bench, and so on. The
liberals ideas are either bankrupt or mission in action on all of these
topics, and they cannot claim they are Christian while the Republicans
are not Christian on these topics. So why bring the democrat campaign
buttons into a graduation ceremony? Did you even listen to or read the
Bush commencement speech? Or were you too busy hating? It was great!
Bush never says God is a Republican...however Bush is a Christian and
it is disingenuous at best to use the event of this commencement for
your leftist partisan political agenda.
Then, Brent, you see my question:
any different than if they were openly supporting our enemies?
all dissent in the name of loyalty and patriotism! If you're not for
us, you must be for them!"
defending American freedom and safety? Have you forgotten 9-11-01
already? And what does the irrelevant mention of the British Colonies
have to do with anything here? Who is "stifling dissent"? Sure,
the liberals and some weak kneed "Republicans" like John McCain
tried to stifle any dissent 60 days before an election, when it counts,
with the so-called "Campaign Finance Reform" law. But answer the
question! How would what the democrats are doing now be any different
am just saying they have put themselves in the horrible position of
having to hope for bad news on the US economy, and bad news in the war
in terrorism in Iraq or elsewhere. What's good for America is bad
for Democrat politicians. When we reached 1000 soldiers who had given
the last full measure of devotion to their country, the Democrats tried
to make a big show of it instead of honoring their lives and respecting
their families. With the recovery in the economy due to the Bush tax
relief, the Democrats are always trying to talk down the economy. Why
can't they just be on America's side for once instead of trying to
use EVERYTHING, including our war on terror, to their politican
advantage?
Brent, then you say "I'm for us, John. I support our troops. I
a patriot than you."
cowardice and refined selfishness. You disingenuously say you
"support the troops" but you don't support their mission or their
Commander in Chief. You can't have it both ways, Brent. Their
mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,
and our freedom and safety. You say you support the troops, but you
laugh with glee and repeat over and over "Guantanamo! Abu Ghraib!
Bagram!" Why don't you focus on THE ENEMY instead of the
occaisional rogue soldier who makes a mistake and is properly punished
for it by America?
The media campaigned heavily for Kerry in 2004 with endless Abu Ghraib
coverage, phony National Guard documents and, days before the election,
false news reports that hundreds of tons of munitions had been looted
in Iraq. Now we have the Newsweek lies that caused 17 deaths and a
further worsening of Americas image abroad, and the CBS lies about what
Ken Starr said about the judicial filibusters. How can you support
these leftists when they are caught every other day in a terrible lie
about America?
It is no WONDER the United States has such a poor image abroad...they
are fed nothing but anti-American LIES like the CBS and Newsweek lies!
Then Brent, you comment on my words:
about how I want America to be "above all international law,
impervious to all reason, the bullies on the block." Have you
forgotten 9-11-01 already Brent? SHAME on you! America will defend our
innocent people and our freedom, and we will NOT wait for France or the
UN to "approve" of protecting our own people. Thank God we did not
wait for France and the UN to approve of our liberation of Iraq and
disarming of Saddam. France and the UN were making too many dirty oil
profits from the "oil for food" scandal to approve of that.
The French opposed the US in doing anything to dispose Saddam because
they were due a hundred billion dollars in oil contracts in the future
from Saddam.
The French wanted Saddam to stay in business. It was all about money,
and it was all about oil for France. No More Innocent Iraqi Blood for
France's Oil!!!
Reporters have documented all the people that got oil bribes and
kickbacks from Saddam to support him, and it lists many names from
around the world, but not Halliburton, Bush, or Cheney. No More
Innocent Iraqi Blood for France's Oil!!!
Likewise, reporters have exposed Germany's involvement with Saddam.
We know that both France and Germany were involved with Saddam in
building him up and maintaining whatever it was he had, they were both
getting bribes and kickbacks.
So yes, Brent, just like those bullies in high school, eventually the
adults in charge have to maintain order and keep them under control so
they don't prey on the weak. That is why many communists, tyrants and
socialists around the world hate America.
Brent, then you comment on my statement:
unimaginable inhumanity, is not peace. You may think it is, but try
being the victim like the Iraqis under Saddam, and tell me if it's
peace!
Afghanistan worth any less than the value of a stockbroker at the World
Trade Center? In performing our 'great liberating deed' in Iraq, does
sad that you are either so misinformed or so blinded by your hatred of
Bush and America that you would make such a statement.
Brent, Saddam and his henchmen were raping, killing and throwing in
mass graves the very mother and child you speak of. And Bush and the
troops stopped them from doing that anymore. What part of that do you
not get?
Brent, your moral equivalence is disgusting, but typical for a liberal
such as yourself.
Brent, what is the compulsion so many Americans have to want to draw
wanton murder and call it war.
the mighty United States of America did." I blame the people who are
responsible for it, and that is the cowards who are using those
children as shields and using their women as shields and it frustrates
me to no end that you don't also see this.
million American lives, unfortunate things happen, but it is not our
kids on television and do to them what was done to Nick Berg, and then
ask CBS to broadcast it to the Arab world. And the idea that you can
post here and try to establish some degree of similarity offends me and
So again, Brent, answer the question: what part of tyranny and murder,
consorting with terrorists do you NOT consider a good reason to disarm
Saddam?
liberation and disarming of Iraq...and they have all been proven true
accomplishments if you wish, but please think seriously about it and
stop laughing at the sacrifices made and all we have accomplished.
Then, Brent, I asked you "Is THAT why he liberated the 25 million
people of Iraq?"
have been turned over to Iraq. Hehehe."
do some real reading. We turned over the oil fields and the sovereign
government to the Iraqi people, on schedule and just as Bush said he
would. I know that bothers you that Bush does what he says he will do.
He has integrity. But is THAT the best argument you have, "come back
in 50 years and see if we turned over the oil fields?" We already
turned them over! So your argument is "well, yeah, but....you might
go over their and take them over in the next 50 years because I just
KNOW you guys are a bunch of oil grubbing imperialists!!!"
Come on Brent! Wake up and smell the liberation!
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/allpolitics/0502/gallery.sotu.big/content.1.11.html
And I see by your answer you have not read anything about the largest
financial scandal in world history, the Kofi Annan and French "oil
for food" scandal.
Brent, the liberation of Iraq and the disarming of Saddam was justified
overwhelming resolutions, and the overwhelming support of the American
people. We were further justified by the David Kay report detailing the
Brent, your answer to this is to talk about "Isreal" and the UN.
Oh dear. Brent, the UN is a moral cesspool. The chair of its human
rights commission is Libya. It condones black slavery in the Sudan,
while 25% of its resolutions condemning human rights violations are
directed at the only democracy in the Middle East. Ten days before 9/11
the UN's "conference against world racism" was the scene of an orgy
of Jew-hatred not seen since the Nuremberg rallies of the Third Reich.
Brent, the UN resolutions were NOT the reason for liberating and
disarming Saddam. Even the UN, immoral and corrupt as it is, had to
agree that Saddam had to go.
And YES, Brent, as much as you want to deny it, Bush had the
overwhelming support of the American people. Don't drink the liberal
Kool-Aid, Brent...just look at the FACTS:
The FACTS were my previous post but obviously you tried to ignore them.
But Brent, facts are stubborn things:
mischaracterize statements by cutting off the critical part of the
sentence to fit their need. You give examples about golf score and
Hummer gas milege...but of course no actual examples where Bush or
conservatives have ever done this. But, there are MANY MANY example of
the liberal media using just this technique. They are all well
documented at http://www.mrc.org but here is just the latest example:
CBS (See-BS) took Ken Starrs comments COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT! He
was criticizing democrats for "invoking judicial philosophy as a
grounds for voting against a qualified nominee" and instead they made
it look like he was criticizing Republicans (!) for doing the
"nuclear" option! CBS LIED, BUSH JUDGES SHOULD GET A YES OR NO VOTE IN
THE FULL SENATE!
Next, poor old "Brent the Leftist" regurgitates the old liberal canard
about "Iraq is a distraction from the REAL war on terror! We should be
finding Osama!"
about the liberals infantile obsession with Osama bin Laden to the
exclusion of all other Islamic terrorism, and how this has allowed them
Brent, you seem upset that we "only ripped his [Saddam's] army to
other Arabs."
here...We ripped his army to scheds in 1991 because he attacked a
sovereign country, Kuwait, and tried to take over their oil as the
first step toward a complete takeoever! George H. W. Bush and the
troops stopped him along with a broad coalition of nations, almost as
broad as the one W had going into the war to liberate Iraq in 2003.
Then, Brent, you spew this scary statement:
"There are simply other, much greater supporters of Islamic terror
out there, starting with Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran. Let's go turn
all of those countries into
parking lots too, John. Rah! Rah! Rah! USA! USA! USA!"
Brent, not every situation requires military action, in fact, military
North Korea, we've chosen to put together a multinational strategy to
deal with Mr. Kim Jong-Il.
multinational forums. And we will continue to do so.
front of a Red Cross headquarters, they will strike and kill in
America, too. We are at war.
wouldn't. It's a different kind of war than what we're used to. And
Iraq is a front on the war on terror. And we will win this particular
battle in the war on terror
friend.
prc
Wow, to think you've got it all figured out--and at such a young age!
I wish I were that smart. You should totally...run for president. Or
maybe, just seein' as how you have all the answers and everything, we
should send you to Iraq. After all, we don't even have an ambassador
there right now, and Mr. Bolton's tied up with that pesky, oil-grubbing
UN.
prc
JohnC
statements. Facts are stubborn things and the truth will win out. I
noticed you did not even attempt to respond to the substance of my
comments, since you understand there ARE no real, good answers to the
truth I posted.
And thank you for your kind suggestions about running for President or
becoming Ambassador to Iraq..I will take it under advisement.
And yes, you are correct: Mr. Bolton is tied up with that pesky,
oil-grubbing UN...isn't the UN oil for food scandal DISGUSTING! Of
course you have to dig a little to find any reports on it! The
mainstream press is totally ignoring it, since it goes against their
liberal template on the news and it might wake people up to the fact
that Bush and Bolton are right about the UN.
Here is a good place to start if you want to be knowledgable about the
UN oil for food scandal, prc:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132832,00.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004801
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040321-101405-2593r.htm
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry complains that President
Bush pursued a unilateralist foreign policy that gave short shrift to
the concerns of the United Nations and our allies when it came to
taking military action against Saddam Hussein. But the mounting
evidence of scandal that has been uncovered in the U.N. Oil For Food
program suggests that there was never a serious possibility of getting
Security Council support for military action because influential people
in Russia and France were getting paid off by Saddam.
prc
I cower before the devastating logic of following up your statement on
the "mainstream press...totally ignoring" the UN oil-for-food scandal
with three mainstream press articles on said news item.
I tremble at your razor-sharp wit; like the watchful mongoose, no irony
escapes your eagle's eye. No doubt you chuckled heartily at the
implication that in the end no one, "conservative" or "liberal,"
thought your post worth a serious riposte--or even a defense. Little
ol' me, however, seems to have stumbled into the cobra's nest with my
jesting skip-diggery. Funny thing about fools is they never fail to
recognize each other, eh comrade?
I must admit, though, you have bested me completely in one respect: I
am utterly dumbfounded how our Lord's own words "Blessed are the
peacemakers, for they will be called Sons of God" (Matthew 5:9, NIV,
for anyone who cares to keep track) translate into the "refined
selfishness" (your words) of those who argue that Christians are called
to be peacemakers (Brent B, JVandiver, et al). I want to be called a
Son of God, but obviously don't want to violate the Apostle Paul's
Philippians 2:3 mandate to "do nothing out of selfish ambition."
Please teach me more of your thunderous logic, so that I may reconcile
my lack of understanding and replace it with wisdom divine.
Come, let us learn together! As the sage Han Shan wrote many centuries
ago, "Who will leap the world's ties, and sit with John C. among white
clouds?" I, for one, treasure this chance at enlightenment.
Your willing student,
prc
Jesse Lingeman
every single one has been torn down to the point he is at now, simple
name calling) by out lasting his opponents. People do have lives
outside of this message board and it is difficult to read and go
revoltingly ignorent point by revoltingly ignorent point until the end
of time, because he will always counter with the party line. Bring
back 9/11 or something like that.
He does not deserve the gratification of our time, he obviously has far
too much to himself.
prc
Regardless, let us be greater people by being generous with our time,
so that brother John C can lead us to enlightenment.
I continue patiently to await his wise tutelage, but he seems suddenly
to have become very busy elsewhere, and may no longer have time for us
little people.
Thanks for your input.
prc
xmar...@yahoo.com
As a moderate Republican and Calvin alum, I can say that your rhetoric
neither fosters healthy discussion or offers enough reason to pull the
left toward the middle. In fact, you only push them farther left.
Liberals are stereotypically known for calling the opposition "stupid."
You seem to have taken on this trait in spades.
Step away from the edge, and have a decent conversation.
prc
For the record, I state all of the following without contempt, sarcasm,
spite, or hate of any kind:
First, and speaking only for my self, I respectfully disagree with your
statement that John C.-style rhetoric drives the left further left.
While it may entrench me somewhat, my opinions are not driven by fringe
elements who illustrate little regard for truth or real logic. Again,
I don't say this to be disagreeable, only to clarify my own position
and set the tone for the following, which is the real substance of this
post.
Although I stand by my comments in previous posts of this thread, as I
think everyone can always use what I hope passes for a measure of wry
humor, something I really wonder about is why I seem to be hearing so
little from people such as yourself? As I've posted elsewhere on this
forum, I met some great people during my years at Calvin. A number of
those people were distinctly both "conservative" and Christian. I know
(at least in a Michael Polanyi sense, if not by the exact numbers) that
thoughtful people that might place themselves in both of these
categories exist, but why don't they seem to be speaking here? I also
know that this site in some respects is founded on the idea of dissent,
but why let people like John C try to have the last word, or even allow
him to characterize one side of the debate? I really believe (and some
may hereby label me blazingly optimistic) that some people on both
side have good things to say, but I don't see many thoughtful posts
from the rightward side of the spectrum--whether Christian, of another
faith, or from a secular standpoint.
In saying this, I feel that I am not being personally hypocritical. I
cannot and do not take seriously, for example, posts that refer to Bush
as an "idiot," etc. Nor have I made any statements similar to those.
Nor will I. I am, however, prepared to acknowledge that some of my
above perception may be colored by my lenses. Let me also state
explicitly and seriously that in my perception this is also a problem
for people who generally fall on the left side of the
political/religious/social spectrum and post here.
Moreover, this seems to be true of both "conservatives" and "liberals"
in our national dialogue. A lot of people are screaming that America
is becoming more polarized--with no small amount of supporting
evidence. For instance, it took until the last minute for Republicans
and Democrats in the senate to make a common-sense compromise?!! The
optimist in me wants to refuse to swallow whole the idea that
Republicans/conservatives all think like John C. (or that all
Demcrat/liberals think Bush is the Anti-Christ) but the pessimist in me
is having trouble finding cases where level-headed people are hashing
it out passionately, but with some wisdom and grace and without bowing
to simple party lines. I guess my query here is if all really is not
lost, where are the moderates?
As a self-proclaimed "moderate Republican and Calvin alum," what do you
think about this? Where can I--and others who also may be
interested--find thoughtful "conservatives" (or "liberals") who are
speaking out thoughtfully? Jim Wallis, of course, is one prominent
example of someone who walks a middle road, but who else? One thing
that has absolutely not been sarcastic in any of my previous posts is
my admittedly impatient yearning for learning beyond the simplistic,
parroting of those like John C. To that end, I really would appreciate
your putting any comments you may have on this thread or forum. Of
course, responses from others are also more than welcome. My
underlying aim here is, as Wallis recently put it in a talk at Calvin,
to begin to generate winds of real change by inviting genuine dialogue.
So again I say: Come, let us learn together!
JohnC
board has cut me off. Censureship of diverse thought, I guess.
JohnC
Anyway, for a few days this google group had cut off my access.
I don't have time to respond now but I appreciate all of your comments.
I admit, my initial post was long and parts of it could have been
worded better. But, I wanted to get the basic facts out as a basis for
discussion.
I agree, we should all engage in a genuine dialogue and seek the truth.
I am inspired by the words of Clarence Thomas: "we best arrive at truth
through a process of honest and vigorous debate. Arguments should not
sneak around in disguise, as if dissent were somehow sinister. One
should not cowed by criticism. In my humble opinion, those who come to
engage in debates of consequence, and who challenge accepted wisdom,
should expect to be treated badly. Nonetheless, they must stand
undaunted. That is required. And, that should be expected. For, it is
bravery that is required to secure freedom. On matters of
consequence, reasons and arguments must be of consequence. Therefore,
those who choose to engage in such debates must themselves be of
consequence."
Thomas also says: "Pope John Paul II has traveled the entire world
challenging tyrants and murderers of all sorts, speaking to millions of
people, bringing them a single, simple message: "Be Not Afraid." He
preached this message to people living under Communist tyranny in
Poland, in Czechoslovakia, in Nicaragua and in China-"Be not afraid."
He preached it to Africans facing death from marauding tribes and
murderous disease-"Be not afraid." And he preached it to us, warning us
how easy it is to be trapped in a "culture of death" even in our
comfortable and luxurious country - "Be not afraid."
Listen to the truths that lie within your hearts, and be not afraid to
follow them wherever they may lead you.
Those three little words hold the power to transform individuals and
change the world. They can supply the quiet resolve and unvoiced
courage necessary to endure the inevitable intimidation.
The Founders warned us that freedom requires constant vigilance, and
repeated action. It is said that, when asked what sort of government
the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin replied that they had given
us "A Republic, if you can keep it." Today, as in the past, we will
need a brave "civic virtue," not a timid civility, to keep our
republic. So, this evening, I leave you with the simple exhortation:
"Be not afraid."
Clarence Thomas's entire speech, "Be Not Afraid", can be found at:
http://www.murrayco.com/forum/be_not_afraid_clarence_thomas.html
It is long, but It is well worth the read. Don't give up during the
first half..the second half is the best part.
I shall return when I have more time to continue the discussion with
you all.
Thank you