Darth Be'lal
01-24-2007, 11:40 PM
I KNEW IT! The driving force behind Democrat opposition to the war in Iraq IS about Getting Bush rather than a real concern for our soldiers or international law or whether or not Saddam had WMDs. This one is by Dinesh D'Souza, no wonder I loved that book he wrote, dammit.
Dinesh starts by saying that if one were to believe that the Democrats want success in Iraq, then their actions are incomprehensible, but seen in the light of having the war in Iraq fail, then their actions makes sense. They can't out and out say that they want Iraq to fail, but the Dems can make it so difficult for success that it's nearly impossible for our soldiers to do their jobs. Just look at the criticisms leveled at Bush and the war in Iraq. Freethinker provides plenty of references on these boards. Everything from not having enough troops, to Abu Ghraib, to the "Mission Accomplished" thing. There's plenty of criticisms leveled at Bush. More importantly, the FEROCITY of criticism is something to behold. Again, freethinker is a prime example but there are plenty of other sources, Maureen Dowd being one of them, moveon.org, democratunderground, dailykos will give people plenty of examples of the all consuming hatred Democrats and the Left have for Bush.
On the other hand, Bin Laden and Al Qeada and other Islamists don't get much hatred from the Left and Demcorats. "He isn't a nice guy," or "I'm not a fan of Bin Laden" are the usual responses followed by a BUT then it's back to lambasting Bush. One would think that Bin Laden would be a bigger target for Liberal anger but, sadly, that's not the case, dammit.
In spite of the fact that both the Bin Laden and his henchmen and the Democrats and the Left are polar opposites in just about every single belief they've got. The Al Qeada types believe in their brand of Islamic religion to be the absolute law of the land and that DOES mean not only that there will be zero religious freedom but no pre-marital sex, no adultry, no homosexuals, no women's rights in addition there will be no free speech or any of that.
Democrats and lefties everywhere are firm believers in religious freedom, or at least in the kind of secular government that is intolerant of any kind of invoking any kind of religious references in government addition to gay marriage, divorce, abortion on demand, women's rights and that kind of thing.
Where the two groups agree on is that they both do NOT like Bush. They don't like him because he is an IMMEDIATE threat, while the other threat is far away. Bush sent troops to the Middle East to form liberal democracies in the very heart of Islamic nations. Bush is sitting there in the Whitehouse, opposed to gay marriage, packing the Supreme Court with people who are hostile to liberal beliefs like abortion and are anamthema to liberal values everywhere.
It makes for strange allies. From the libs point of view, it's perfectly okay for Bin Laden and company to impose Sharia Law in Baghdad. Who cares about Baghdad? Bush is trying to impose conservative values here in Boston or L.A. and that will never do.
From the Islamist point of view, the Libs are free to impose their decandent, fairy values in the U.S. but they sure as hell better leave the Middle East alone. The Islamist don't care about Boston or LA, yet, but Baghdad? The Islamist can't lose the heart of the Middle East to democracy or their cause will be lost.
It makes for rather strange allies and a symbiotic relationship of sorts. The Islamists go and blow up a Baghdad market or kill a couple of soldiers and the "mainstream" media gleefully reports it, the Democrats then use that info to go and criticize Bush and "his" war on terror in the hopes that enough criticism will bury Bush and his policies and pave the way for Hillary in the Whitehouse in '08 adn the world will be safe for liberal ideals. The Islamists hope that enough such attacks will cause enough criticism of Bush to force a pullout from Iraq and the world will be safe for Radical Islam. So it's Get Bush all the way, dammit.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/21/INGO7NKH9T1.DTL&hw=dinesh+d'souza&sn=001&sc=1000
Dinesh starts by saying that if one were to believe that the Democrats want success in Iraq, then their actions are incomprehensible, but seen in the light of having the war in Iraq fail, then their actions makes sense. They can't out and out say that they want Iraq to fail, but the Dems can make it so difficult for success that it's nearly impossible for our soldiers to do their jobs. Just look at the criticisms leveled at Bush and the war in Iraq. Freethinker provides plenty of references on these boards. Everything from not having enough troops, to Abu Ghraib, to the "Mission Accomplished" thing. There's plenty of criticisms leveled at Bush. More importantly, the FEROCITY of criticism is something to behold. Again, freethinker is a prime example but there are plenty of other sources, Maureen Dowd being one of them, moveon.org, democratunderground, dailykos will give people plenty of examples of the all consuming hatred Democrats and the Left have for Bush.
On the other hand, Bin Laden and Al Qeada and other Islamists don't get much hatred from the Left and Demcorats. "He isn't a nice guy," or "I'm not a fan of Bin Laden" are the usual responses followed by a BUT then it's back to lambasting Bush. One would think that Bin Laden would be a bigger target for Liberal anger but, sadly, that's not the case, dammit.
In spite of the fact that both the Bin Laden and his henchmen and the Democrats and the Left are polar opposites in just about every single belief they've got. The Al Qeada types believe in their brand of Islamic religion to be the absolute law of the land and that DOES mean not only that there will be zero religious freedom but no pre-marital sex, no adultry, no homosexuals, no women's rights in addition there will be no free speech or any of that.
Democrats and lefties everywhere are firm believers in religious freedom, or at least in the kind of secular government that is intolerant of any kind of invoking any kind of religious references in government addition to gay marriage, divorce, abortion on demand, women's rights and that kind of thing.
Where the two groups agree on is that they both do NOT like Bush. They don't like him because he is an IMMEDIATE threat, while the other threat is far away. Bush sent troops to the Middle East to form liberal democracies in the very heart of Islamic nations. Bush is sitting there in the Whitehouse, opposed to gay marriage, packing the Supreme Court with people who are hostile to liberal beliefs like abortion and are anamthema to liberal values everywhere.
It makes for strange allies. From the libs point of view, it's perfectly okay for Bin Laden and company to impose Sharia Law in Baghdad. Who cares about Baghdad? Bush is trying to impose conservative values here in Boston or L.A. and that will never do.
From the Islamist point of view, the Libs are free to impose their decandent, fairy values in the U.S. but they sure as hell better leave the Middle East alone. The Islamist don't care about Boston or LA, yet, but Baghdad? The Islamist can't lose the heart of the Middle East to democracy or their cause will be lost.
It makes for rather strange allies and a symbiotic relationship of sorts. The Islamists go and blow up a Baghdad market or kill a couple of soldiers and the "mainstream" media gleefully reports it, the Democrats then use that info to go and criticize Bush and "his" war on terror in the hopes that enough criticism will bury Bush and his policies and pave the way for Hillary in the Whitehouse in '08 adn the world will be safe for liberal ideals. The Islamists hope that enough such attacks will cause enough criticism of Bush to force a pullout from Iraq and the world will be safe for Radical Islam. So it's Get Bush all the way, dammit.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/21/INGO7NKH9T1.DTL&hw=dinesh+d'souza&sn=001&sc=1000