Monday, January 12, 2009

Bad Company

Iraq war veteran turned anti-war activist John Bruhns thoughtfully explains how the anti-war movement killed itself.

Bruhns:

"Too many other issues were dragged into the effort. What middle-of-the-road Americans would attend a demonstration against the war if they knew they'd be standing in a mob of Che Guevara T-shirts listening to chants of "Free Mumia!"?

Bingo!

What Bruhns doesn't get is that the anti-war movement's loss was Iraq's gain. The refusal of the Bush Administration to pull-out during the darkest days of the terrorist insurgency, led to the defeat of al Qaida in Iraq and put the country on the road to democracy.

10 Comments:

Anonymous r said...

Libs always push too far.

January 12, 2009 at 11:38 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

did you catch bush's fox interview where he admitted that the gop wanted him to leave iraq to help its candidate win the election? looks like the gop was the real cut-and-runner looking to cut its political losses. proving that all the pro-war arguments were hollow.
the anti-war people had a basic principle: save lives
the gop principle was: get votes (at the cost of lives)

January 12, 2009 at 12:19 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

The "anonymous" anti-war left speaks: The GOP is for having American soldiers killed to win elections.

Just the sort of rhetoric that made anti-war activists look like the out-of-the mainstream Mumia-lovers that killed the movement.

Nice job.

January 12, 2009 at 2:28 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

american soldiers AND dark-skinned foreigners. death equals votes from the flag wavers like r that can't seem to get enough soldiers killed to satisfy their bloodlust.
but, why take my word for it? your holy bush that complained about his fellow gop on a fox interview with britt hume.

January 12, 2009 at 3:07 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Gil - Your emotional "The GOP is for having American soldiers killed to win elections.", was a cheap shot. I didnt see the interview, but if thats what Bush said, Anon's conclusion was correct. What else could it possibly mean?

January 12, 2009 at 3:11 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Bob,

Go paint a picture.

January 12, 2009 at 4:28 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Aroused Hurt Feelings Bush-haters aside, let us not forget that it was in fact Obama who asked the Iraqi Prez to delay any agreement on U.S. troop withdraw until after the election for his political benefit. This, more than anything else, likely led to more troop deaths. By you weepers so concerned about the lives of our troops are willing to overlook this.

the anti-war people had a basic principle: save lives

Everyone knows this is a lie. That wasn’t even a good attempt at spin, Frat Boy. Lol…

January 12, 2009 at 5:01 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Gil - A little thin skinned there! OK. I'll paint a picture for you. It's a picture of a party that had no problem sending our sons and daughters into a war based on bogus and cherry picked intel, but was ready to pull the plug if it meant losing votes. Here's the quote from the Hume-Bush interview. "During the darkest days of Iraq, people came to me and said, 'You're creating incredible political difficulties for us,'" the current president said as his term draws to a close. "And I said, 'Oh, really? What do you suggest I do?' And some suggested retreat, pull out of Iraq"
In Bush's own words, members of his own party were ready to cut and run for votes.
Anon was right on the money. The anti-war movement was in place before the war started. Even in Delco. Terry Rumsey, Bob Smith.
It was a legitimate movement, attempting to prevent, what they rightly predicted would be a disaster that would drag on for years. A prediction that was also made by the senior Bush, years before.
Anon never said "The GOP is for having American soldiers killed to win elections." They are your words. What Anon is saying, is that the GOP will do anything to win an election. But then they proved that when they trashed
Max Cleland, didn't they?

January 12, 2009 at 6:10 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Just saw Keith Olbermann being interviewed on the Times Hot Seat. I had to take a second look. He looked suspiciously like Spencers twin.

January 12, 2009 at 9:05 PM 
Anonymous r said...

The Bobs get their every weeping point from Olbermann.

January 13, 2009 at 6:58 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home