Cowardly socialist hides anti-war views in lofty, historical guise

The cowards have been against the Iraq War since Bush first said he was considering it, way back in 2002. The socialists are anti-war, and always have been, regardless of the reason for fighting. They were against WWI, because any aggressive act, even if it thwarted a Kaiser bent on conquering Western Europe, was unacceptable. Better to lay down and sue for peace, they said. Socialists were advocating doing nothing about Adolf Hitler before and even during WWII. They protested the Vietnam War, which, had the war been waged without socialist harassment at home, could have allowed millions of people to live with freedom and prosperity instead of brutal oppression.

So when I checked The New York Times today to see what kind of socialist spew they were pushing, I was not terribly surprised to see one of their socialists invoking names such as Madison and Hamilton to further their "the Iraq War is illegal" and "Bush is an imperialist" agenda.

As opinion turns more decisively against the war, the administration is becoming ever more dismissive of Congress’s role. Last week, Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman brusquely turned away Senator Hillary Clinton’s questions about how the Pentagon intended to plan for withdrawal from Iraq. "Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq,” he wrote. Mr. Edelman’s response showed contempt not merely for Congress, but for the system of government the founders carefully created.

The author, a socialist named Adam Cohen, believes Bush is usurping the power of Congress because he's imperialist. Which empire in history has overthrown a genocidal tyrant and returned control to a democratically elected government? I'd like to hear Cohen answer that question. Even if Cohen had the stones to tackle that facet of his own idiocy, he would still be left with the central flaw in his socialist thinking: those of his ilk are against war for any reason. Cowardice is one of the central tenets of socialism.

Latching on to the writings of our founding fathers to advance a cowardly, hippie attitude is wretched. All of our beloved founding fathers believed making war to stop an oppressive tyrant was just; so it is really pathetic to find somebody using the founders as an argument against a war to stop an oppressive tyrant. If people like Cohen held sway in 1776, we would still be English subjects being oppressed by the descendants of King George -- and they'd be happy because even though we'd have no liberties, at least nobody would have gotten shot.

Interestingly enough, editors at The New York Times were extremely concerned about Saddam Hussein and WMD at one time. To be specific, they were concerned until the moment Bush was concerned.

NYT editorial, 1998:

If required, air strikes may not force full Iraqi cooperation or destroy Baghdad’s chemical and biological weapons and the capacity to manufacture them. But as Mr. Clinton said yesterday, military action will diminish those dangers and make Mr. Hussein less likely to threaten his neighbors. To do nothing in the face of Iraqi defiance will only embolden Mr. Hussein. The last time he believed the world was indifferent, he invaded Kuwait.

1998:

. . without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year. If inspectors are unable to resume work, future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again. A purely diplomatic solution would be preferable, but no one has devised a workable plan for dealing with a dictatorial regime in Baghdad bent on terrorizing its neighbors as well as its own citizens. It is hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as his country’s salvation.

1999:

Saddam Hussein would clearly prefer to have no U.N. arms inspectors snooping around as he tries to rebuild his biological and chemical arsenals and continues his pursuit of nuclear weapons. He has already had more than 13 months to work on these programs unobserved.

Go here to see a nice collection of NYT editorials indicating their opposition to Hussein and an acknowledgement of the threat he posed. Compare this to the anti-war, anti-Bush socialism we see today.