Where were the anit-war protesters Here??

[Bonnie]

Liberals Hate Freedom, Not War
By Nathan Tabor (08/17/05)

“How DARE you imply that we hate freedom?”

That’s what red-faced Liberals say, even as they protest against the war for freedom in Iraq and call our President a war criminal.

Liberals are such hypocrites, and I for one am sick of it.

Our brave men and women in uniform are fighting and dying on foreign soil, thousands of miles away from their homes, so that these misguided, misanthropic Liberals can exercise their Constitutionally protected rights to whine, moan and protest in public.

It reminds me of a flashback to the radical anti-war protests of the 1960s and ‘70s. These modern radical Leftists might not be wearing their old-fashioned Birkenstocks and tie-dyed t-shirts, but their cowardly, anti-American mentality is the same as it has always been. They don't want to pay the price for their own freedom, let alone anyone else’s. Their last presidential nominee even threw his own Vietnam War medals away. Yet they assume an obnoxious air of moral superiority because they are supposedly “anti-war.”

Conservatives, on the other hand, truly love freedom – so much so that when necessary, they are willing to fight to preserve and protect it, as well as to export it around the world and extend it to other peoples less fortunate than we are.

Let me give you a few examples of how patriotic Americans should support our troops.

Bill Clinton was one of the worst Presidents in American history. He disgraced the Oval Office, and he spent more time hiding his numerous girlfriends from Hillary than he did working on foreign policy matters – except maybe when he was cutting shady deals that would benefit the Chinese and Indonesians and other foreigners who were making sizable illegal contributions to his campaign coffers.

Yet when newly elected President Clinton launched his 1993 “nation-building” experiment in Somalia, by turning U.S. troops over to incompetent United Nations commanders, most Conservatives supported our soldiers – even though they disagreed with Clinton’s unconstitutional action and the deadly disaster that it ultimately produced at Mogadishu.

When Clinton later sought NATO military action in the former Yugoslavia, intervening in behalf of the desperate Bosnian Muslims who were being slaughtered in a ruthless campaign of ethnic cleansing by the Serbs, most Conservatives did not protest – despite the fact that no vital U.S. interest was being threatened in the Balkans. (If you remember, Clinton completely bypassed the UN on this one.)

When Clinton invaded Haiti with UN approval, supposedly to restore law and order and democracy, most Conservatives didn’t protest – even though the Marxist dictator Aristide was restored as ruler of Haiti through the intervention of our American military.

Finally, when Clinton decided to bomb Iraq and obliterate its infrastructure with cruise missiles, merely to deflect attention from his own proven perjury and pending impeachment trial, there was no outcry from most Conservatives.

Why? Conservatives love freedom!

But when newly elected President Bush responded to the devastating 9-11 terrorist attacks by deposing, first the Taliban’s misogynist mullahs in Afghanistan and later the brutal tyrant Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the clueless Liberals literally screamed bloody murder.

Where are the NOW-NARAL feminists protesting against Saddam for his brutal campaign of rape and murder against the women in his own country? Are the feminists thanking President Bush for liberating their sisters half a world away from the Taliban’s rigid repression?

Where are the Liberal gun control freaks thanking Bush for disarming Saddam’s war machine and for making absolutely sure that no weapons of mass destruction can be exported from Iraq for terrorists to use on American soil?

And just where were all of these bleeding-heart Liberals during the eight long years when Clinton was carrying out his unconstitutional military misadventures all over the world? If they hated war so much, why didn’t they protest against Clinton?

The answer to all these questions is simple. Liberals don’t really hate war. They hate freedom. It is time for these misguided, guilt-ridden, hypocritical Leftists to ‘fess up and just be honest with the American people.

Here’s the hard truth. Liberals are pro-abortion, pro-death, pro-gay, and anti-American. They don’t love our freedoms, let alone the Constitution that guarantees them. And they don’t really mind the State’s using war to advance their utopian goals of universal peace.

Listen up, Liberals! Why don’t you want the women and children of Iraq to have the same freedoms as you do here in America? If you don’t love freedom, move to Cuba. Then you won’t have the rights you now enjoy, and you won’t have to worry about your spoiled, pampered children having to go to war to defend them.

Copyright © 2005 by Nathan Tabor

http://www.americandaily.com/article/8777

 

[sagegirl]

Well typically, this rant was full of arrogance and stereotyping and polarizing attitudes. Anyone who sees the political picture as so clearly cut between libs and cons has unreasonable bias. Comments like cons truly love freedom and libs hate freedom hardly deserved the time it took to read this article. The rest of it poorly supports its premise,.....while we are still at war and people are dying there is a voice that tells us libs to quit bringing up topics like abu ghraib, wmd's, the Downing Street Memos, estimated troop strength, actually just about anything that reflects poor or inaccurate predictions regarding the actual truth as it becomes exposed. The cons tell us that it is old news and to get over it, and yet this article still complains about Clinton. (Im no fan of clinton either) There are plenty of current issues that need open discussion.....an article that just addresses the past and criticizes libs demonstrates a lack of desire to debate pertinent issues and stick to old wornout "standards".

 

[dmp]

Well typically, this rant was full of arrogance and stereotyping and polarizing attitudes. Anyone who sees the political picture as so clearly cut between libs and cons has unreasonable bias. Comments like cons truly love freedom and libs hate freedom hardly deserved the time it took to read this article. The rest of it poorly supports its premise,.....while we are still at war and people are dying there is a voice that tells us libs to quit bringing up topics like abu ghraib, wmd's, the Downing Street Memos, estimated troop strength, actually just about anything that reflects poor or inaccurate predictions regarding the actual truth as it becomes exposed. The cons tell us that it is old news and to get over it, and yet this article still complains about Clinton. (Im no fan of clinton either) There are plenty of current issues that need open discussion.....an article that just addresses the past and criticizes libs demonstrates a lack of desire to debate pertinent issues and stick to old wornout "standards".

I think this article shows the true nature of today's libs...they don't hate the War...they just hate George Bush - they are using the War as an excuse to berate, insult, and lash out.

IF Libs really hated war, they would have marched on the white house during Somalia. But, since Clinton was 'their boy', they didn't. This article shows how Liberals, as a group, tend to support people over causes.

 

[Bonnie]

Well typically, this rant was full of arrogance and stereotyping and polarizing attitudes. Anyone who sees the political picture as so clearly cut between libs and cons has unreasonable bias. Comments like cons truly love freedom and libs hate freedom hardly deserved the time it took to read this article. The rest of it poorly supports its premise,.....while we are still at war and people are dying there is a voice that tells us libs to quit bringing up topics like abu ghraib, wmd's, the Downing Street Memos, estimated troop strength, actually just about anything that reflects poor or inaccurate predictions regarding the actual truth as it becomes exposed. The cons tell us that it is old news and to get over it, and yet this article still complains about Clinton. (Im no fan of clinton either) There are plenty of current issues that need open discussion.....an article that just addresses the past and criticizes libs demonstrates a lack of desire to debate pertinent issues and stick to old wornout "standards".

"Stereotyping" aside what do you say to the actual allegations. And possibly the reason for complaints about Clinton is that they are especially relevant given the other sides constant and most times unwarranted bashing of Bush. Where were the protests from the left during Clinton's presidency? Why do they remain silent when their boy is in the White House even when it compromises their ideals??? And where is the praise from feminists towards Bush for liberating women in Afghanistan????

 

[Zhukov]

I don't think they hate freedom so much as many of them don't appreciate it or even understand it.

You are, after all, free to do what they say. That's their idea of freedom.

And I'm refering to the liberals and the lefties. Not the hard working American's with American values (which are synonymous with conservative values) who, for a variety of reasons which are mostly misconceptions, continue to vote Democrat.

 

[sagegirl]

"Stereotyping" aside what do you say to the actual allegations. And possibly the reason for complaints about Clinton is that they are especially relevant given the other sides constant and most times unwarranted bashing of Bush. Where were the protests from the left during Clinton's presidency? Why do they remain silent when their boy is in the White House even when it compromises their ideals??? And where is the praise from feminists towards Bush for liberating women in Afghanistan????

I dont like the labels lib and con, because they are so restricting. To identify with either side on any issue, seem to burden a person with a whole slew of other opinions and positions.
I think both sides tend to blame the president for what goes on, but realistically, our government is balanced with the senate and house. Sure a pres and his cabinet are strong influences on what the government does but we have to direct our attention to all the others that promote and legislate our laws and purpose. Judicial positions which are now in the news due to the Supreme court nomination are extremely important, perhaps the most important, especially on local levels. Ever notice how little info is available, unless you dig, on judges in local elections. Some federal judges, who have lifetime appointments are purely political paybacks. There are many and varied abuses of our system such as lobbyist and pacs, and we should be willing no matter what our political affiliation, to address the real fairness and openness of our wonderful country and fight those who would prefer to use it for their own political or personal benefit......rep, dem, lib, or con.

 

[dmp]

I dont like the labels lib and con, because they are so restricting. To identify with either side on any issue, seem to burden a person with a whole slew of other opinions and positions.
I think both sides tend to blame the president for what goes on, but realistically, our government is balanced with the senate and house. Sure a pres and his cabinet are strong influences on what the government does but we have to direct our attention to all the others that promote and legislate our laws and purpose. Judicial positions which are now in the news due to the Supreme court nomination are extremely important, perhaps the most important, especially on local levels. Ever notice how little info is available, unless you dig, on judges in local elections. Some federal judges, who have lifetime appointments are purely political paybacks. There are many and varied abuses of our system such as lobbyist and pacs, and we should be willing no matter what our political affiliation, to address the real fairness and openness of our wonderful country and fight those who would prefer to use it for their own political or personal benefit......rep, dem, lib, or con.

I don't like people who are afraid of labels...they are 'fence-riders'.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I like labels. Liz Claiborne, Oscar de la Renta, Bombay Blue Sapphire.

Clinton could have done his own mother in the Oval Office, and the Libs would have defended him. Sorry to be crude, but when talking about Billy Bob, crudeness just springs to mind.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Well typically, this rant was full of arrogance and stereotyping and polarizing attitudes. Anyone who sees the political picture as so clearly cut between libs and cons has unreasonable bias. Comments like cons truly love freedom and libs hate freedom hardly deserved the time it took to read this article. The rest of it poorly supports its premise,.....while we are still at war and people are dying there is a voice that tells us libs to quit bringing up topics like abu ghraib, wmd's, the Downing Street Memos, estimated troop strength, actually just about anything that reflects poor or inaccurate predictions regarding the actual truth as it becomes exposed. The cons tell us that it is old news and to get over it, and yet this article still complains about Clinton. (Im no fan of clinton either) There are plenty of current issues that need open discussion.....an article that just addresses the past and criticizes libs demonstrates a lack of desire to debate pertinent issues and stick to old wornout "standards".

"Anyone who sees the political picture as so clearly cut between libs and cons has unreasonable bias."

Unreasonable bias? You are missing the big picture of what is really happening between libs and cons. This is a struggle for the very life and soul of our country. It is a war between freedom/democracy and socialism/communism/tyranny.

 

[nakedemperor]

1. The U.N. Security Council, on December 15th of 1995, voted unanimously to authorize a U.S.-led NATO force be led into Bosnia. I'm not sure where the "Clinton bypassed the U.N." part of that article came from, but I'm pretty sure its wrong.

2. How can conservatives possibly use this "even though conflict X didn't involve U.S. vital interests, we went along with it" logic? We've been suffering through legitimacy shift after shift in regards to our mission in Iraq, the most recent of which was the 'free the Iraqis' (which is nonsense, we were there protecting American vital interests, which incidentally was also nonsense).

3. (And, IMO, most importantly) Liberals have protested in droves against the Vietnam and Iraq wars not only because they have been and were against the wars for many varied reasons, but because they are/were *WARS*. I'm SURE there were people who protested against Bosnia, and Somalia, and even Haiti, but they didn't do so consistantly, vehemently, and en masse because they were (relatively) extremely small-scale conflicts. Iraq and Vietnam, the darling wars of hawkish conservatives, cost us hundreds of billions, thousands and thousands of soldiers, tens (if not hundreds or millions) of thousands of civilians, etc.

Point is, there's an issue of scale here. Its simply apples and oranges to say 'we didn't protest Haiti, so why are you protesting Iraqi?' And the conclusion of the article, that liberals *actually hate freedom* and conservatives *actually love freedom* is the stuff of the binary, black and white rhetoric of the Bush Administration. With or against, good or evil, freedom or evil. Right. Whatever.

Why not go back even further? Which president started our involvement in WWII? A Democrat? If we're willing to draw inane parallels between unrelated conflicts with different justifications, sizes, legalities, etc., why not go there?

This article is just silly. Its partisan hackery at its most simple-minded and binary.