Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
Doug Miller wrote:
Oh, really? You honestly think he's worse than Saddam Hussein
Given his attitude towards torture, I'd say they're about the same.
Mike
Is there some code or rule someplace that requires anti-Bush tirades to be
ignorant and stupid? To compare any approved Bush "torture" of which
includes sleep deprivation, cold rooms , loud music, maybe water boarding
(harmless but scary).... even including any and all of the unapproved
nudity, ridicule and the big dogs at Abu Grraib...... to Saddams murderous
and very public atrocities, his mass graves, approved rape, the tens of
thousands of Kurds and Shiites murdered and imprisoned .....is just so over
the top one has to wonder......Even though Saddam is responsible for over a
million deaths including the Iranian and Kuwait war, one could still easily
say it is not worth any American life or coin to stop such atrocities....
although it does make one wonder how many million must die before we should
be concerned? Were we as equally wrong to use 50,000 troops and spend
billions containing him in the decade prior? Rod
To understand these sort of moronic comparisons, you have to understand
the philosophy that animates much of the "leadership" that is driving
the anti-Bush/anti-war noise. These are people who are the detritus left
over from the 60s anti-war movement. In their dark flabby hearts they
*hate* the US military. They secretly still think of the military as
"baby killers" - except, of course, when it is neutered under a UN flag
handing out food and humanitarian supplies to the next generation of
Jihadist murderers.
They can't come right out and say this, of course, because their
anti-military insanity is currently not in fashion. So, they resort to
diminishing Bush (or whoever the enemy of the day is) to being
equivalent to Hitler/Hussein/Castro et al. The irony is, that especially
in the ideological Left (where most of the anti-Bush noise gas is
passed), these people never had all that much of a problem with
Hitler/Hussein/Castro et al. Prior to Pearl Harbor, the Left political
sentiment as regards to Hitler was appeasement or just ignoring him. It
took considerable pressure to even get weapons and supplies shipped to
Britain that was fighting for its very survival at the time. Similarly,
the Left was generally very quiet about Castro after the Bay Of Pigs
debacle and Kennedy's subsequent inability to do much about Cuba. Ditto
Sadaam. It was, you'll recall, the noisy Left that was just *horrified*
when Reagan called the USSR an "evil empire". The point is, that the
Bush haters are comparing him with despots they didn't have all that
much of a problem with overall. Ironic isn't it?
I'll repeat. Bush is a flawed present, but so too have been all the
preceding 42 of em'. It's an impossibly difficult job with any number of
political opportunists ready to jump in an exaggerate the smallest fault
for crass political advantage. The big difference this go around is
that, more than ever before, the political opportunism - in this case
from the Left - has become far more important than the good of the
nation. Instead of working quietly and diligently as *loyal* opposition
to steer the executive branch to better choices, the Left has done
little more than howl, hold its breath until it turns blue, and hope
against hope that Bush will fail spectacularly. They are craven,
shallow, despicable, and evil for doing so.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/