The We Don't Care, Liberals.
Monica_Blowinsky
By The Brilliant & Beautiful Ann Coulter
June 5, 2003
Seething with rage and frustration at the success of the war in Iraq,
liberals have started in with their female taunting about weapons of mass
destruction. The way they carry on, you would think they had caught the Bush
administration in some shocking mendacity. (You know how the left hates a
liar.)
For the sake of their tiresome argument, let's stipulate that we will find
no weapons of mass destruction - or, to be accurate, no more weapons of mass
destruction. Perhaps Hussein was using the three trucks capable of
assembling poison gases to sell ice cream under some heretofore undisclosed
U.N. "Oil For Popsicles" program.
Should we apologize and return the country to Saddam Hussein and his winsome
sons? Should we have him on "Designer's Challenge" to put his palaces back
in all their '80s Vegas splendor? Or maybe Uday and Qusay could spruce up
each other's rape rooms on a very special episode of "Trading Spaces"? What
is liberals' point?
No one cares.
In fact, the question was never whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass
destruction. We know he had weapons of mass destruction. He used weapons of
mass destruction against the Kurds, against the Iranians and against his own
people.
The United Nations weapons inspectors repeatedly found Saddam's weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, right up until Saddam
threw them out in 1998. Justifying his impeachment-day bombing, Clinton
cited the Iraqi regime's "nuclear, chemical and biological weapons
programs." (Indeed, this constitutes the only evidence that Saddam didn't
have weapons of mass destruction: Bill Clinton said he did.)
Liberals are now pretending that their position all along was that Saddam
had secretly disarmed in the last few years without telling anyone. This
would finally explain the devilish question of why Saddam thwarted
inspectors every inch of the way for 12 years, issued phony reports to the
U.N., and wouldn't allow flyovers or unannounced inspections: It was because
he had nothing to hide!
But that wasn't liberals' position.
Liberals also have to pretend that the only justification for war given by
the Bush administration was that Iraq was knee-deep in nukes, anthrax,
biological weapons and chemical weapons - so much so, that even Hans Blix
couldn't help but notice them.
But that wasn't the Bush administration's position.
Rather, it was that there were lots of reasons to get rid of Saddam Hussein
and none to keep him. When President Bush gave the Hussein regime 48 hours'
notice to quit Iraq, he said: "(A)ll the decades of deceit and cruelty have
now reached an end." He said there would be "no more wars of aggression
against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of
dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be
gone. The day of your liberation is near."
Liberals kept saying that's too many reasons. The New York Times' leading
hysteric, Frank Rich, complained: "We know Saddam Hussein is a thug and we
want him gone. But the administration has never stuck to a single story in
arguing the case for urgent pre-emptive action now." Since liberals never
print retractions, they can say anything. What they said in the past is
never admissible.
Contrary to their current self-advertisements, it was liberals who were
citing Saddam's weapons of mass destruction - and with gusto - in order to
argue against war with Iraq. They said America would suffer retaliatory
strikes, there would be mass casualties, Israel would be nuked, our troops
would be hit with Saddam's chemical weapons, it would be a Vietnam quagmire.
They said "all" we needed to do was disarm him. This would have required a
military occupation of Iraq and a systematic inspection of the 1,000 or so
known Iraqi weapons sites without interference from the Hussein regime. In
other words, pretty much what we're doing right now.
Remember? That's why liberals were so smitten with the idea of relying on
U.N. weapons inspectors. As their title indicates, "weapons inspectors"
inspect weapons. They don't stop torture, abolish rape rooms, feed the
people, topple Saddam's statues or impose democracy.
In January this year, The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof cited the sort of
dismal CIA report that always turns up in the hands of New York Times
reporters, warning that Saddam might order attacks with weapons of mass
destruction as "his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number
of victims with him." He said he opposed invading Iraq as a pure matter of
the "costs and benefits" of an invasion, concluding we should not invade
because there was "clearly a significant risk" that it would make America
less safe.
In his native tongue, weaselese, Kristof claimed he would be gung-ho for war
if only he were convinced we could "oust Saddam with minimal casualties and
quickly establish a democratic Iraq." We've done that, and now he's blaming
the Bush administration for his own idiotic predictions of disaster.
Somehow, that's Bush's fault, too. Kristof says Bush manipulated evidence of
weapons of mass destruction - an act of duplicity he calls "just as
alarming" as a dictator who has weapons of mass destruction.
If Americans were lied to, they were lied to by liberals who warned we would
be annihilated if we attacked Iraq. The left's leading intellectual light,
Janeane Garofalo, was featured in an anti-war commercial before the war,
saying: "If we invade Iraq, there's a United Nations estimate that says,
'There will be up to a half a million people killed or wounded.'" Now
they're testy because they fear Saddam may never have had even a sporting
chance to unleash dastardly weapons against Americans.
--
"I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the
state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek
social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class,
and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.
It all sums up into one single purpose -- the abolition of dog-eat-dog
under which we live. I don't regret being part of the communist
tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I
wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United
Front road to get it."
-- Roger Baldwin, Co-Founder ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)
Average Joe Common Bloke Regular Guy Median Civilian Member of w w w D O T c p u s a D O T o r g
so either START caring, or be EXPOSED as hypocrites
eventually your actions speak more than your words
(there is nothing Christian about not feeding the poor and being
economicaly uncompassionate)
Matthew 7
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged:
and with what measure ye mete,
it shall be measured to you again.
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits.
Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit;
but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit,
neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down,
and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
YOU ARE GOING TO BURN IN THE HELLFIRE OF REALITY, once no tolerance for
your hypocrisy remains
--
T H E E s o l u t i o n t o t h e w o r l d ' s p r o b l e m s ?
w w w D O T m y s o l u t i o n D O T w s
m y B L O G i s o n m y s i t e !
Lee Marston
Guy Median Civilian Member of w w w D O T c p u s a D O T o r g"
<avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote:
>Christian religion requires that you care ...
<snip rest of stupid reply>
Please excuse Altopia Joe's dumb reply. Altopia Joe has a hard time
responding from his room in the mental ward, along with all of those
anti-psychotic drugs he has to take.
ob...@real.com
Obwon
(Monica_Blowinsky) wrote:
Hahaha... Now what do we see?