The Post-Gazette delivered its usual dose of moonbattery today. First of all, there's an editorial cartoon that compares the prisoner abuse to the Gestapo and the KGB, but that hardly even surprises me anymore. I'm more worried about a letter to the editor that seems to be on both sides of the Iraq issue. Check it out:
Resources for the real war on terror have been misusedRepeat anything often enough and people believe it.
Well, the Nazi comparison didn't take long, did it?
The Bush administration is pushing this concept relentlessly.
It's pretty easy if the thing being repeated was true to begin with.
There has never been a proven Iraq/al-Qaida connection as with Afghanistan...
...but Bush deceptively labels the Iraq war the "front of the war on terror."
I've heard this so many times. "It's a distraction! It's a distraction! It's a distraction!" As we'll see in a second, this person apparently forgot what he believed halfway through the letter.
While the war on terror is the war on al-Qaida and similar world terrorists...
You narrow-minded buffoons, AQ does not represent the only major terrorist organization in the world, nor does it represent how all of them operate. And how are we supposed to take out Al Qaeda if we leave its supporters in power? Oh, yeah, no proven connections...
Bush's Iraq war is for other reasons.
Are you going to enlighten the unwashed masses by telling us what those reasons are, or should we assume that it's about ooooooooiiiiiiiiiilllll?
The beheading of Nick Berg and the 9/11 suicide bombings were the work of al-Qaida, not Iraq.
In case you missed it, genius, the beheading of Nick Berg happened IN IRAQ! So, let's think about this. Al Qaeda is currently operating in Iraq. We have our armed forces in Iraq. Our armed forces are trained to kill our enemies. Al Qaeda is our enemy. Are you getting the picture yet?
Yet many of the pro-war letters to the editor bring up these events as reason to wage war on Iraq or rationalize the prisoner humiliation.
"Prisoner humiliation." At least he's honest about it. As for the rest, I'll say it again: How do you expect to prevent more terrorist attacks if we leave murderous dictators in power? Especially murderous dictators who have chemical weapons.
Their anger is misplaced; they should work to destroy al-Qaida worldwide.
I must have missed the meeting where we all collectively decided that Iraq isn't part of the world.
Bush's Iraq war is misusing terror war resources and surely producing more terrorists.
Killing more terrorists, maybe, but not producing. They were terrorists already. We're just giving them the chance to get to their 72 raisins a little earlier.
We are wrongly occupying another people's land and putting American soldiers in harm's way for the wrong reasons.
Yeah, I'm sure the Iraqi people loved Saddam so much more than us. I wish relativism would die an excruciating death.
I love my country, but with the conduct of this war, the president is subverting important principles America is supposed to embody.
Like what? Begging terrorists not to attack us? That's the only other option at this point.
When Bush casually uses the Iraq war and war on terror synonymously, he must be challenged to prove the connection.
Since it seems like you LLLs won't be happy until Saddam and Osama both give a press conference where they reveal all their secret anti-America plans, I doubt you'll accept any of the proof we have right now.
Although this country may overwhelmingly support the war on terror, I do not believe a majority would support the Iraq war for Bush's reasons.
See, the problem is that you didn't give Bush's reasons. You gave the reasons that would convince you that war was justified. You completely ignored WMD, human rights violations, and numerous other Hussein-related evils, because you think that Al Qaeda is the only terrorist organization that poses a threat to us.
It's amazing that this kind of thing always comes from the side that claims to believe in diversity and open-mindedness.
Posted by CD on June 16, 2004 06:16 PM