I had an infuriating discussion tonight with someone who was impressed that a group of "freedom fighters" were able to use American planes to attack the United States, the country with the biggest weapons, on 9/11. They also felt that in choosing to have Canada stay in Afghanistan, Prime Minister Harper was just doing as he was told to by George Bush.
I’m just not sure that people who intentionally attack about 3000 civilianswith the intention of killing them should be referred to as freedom fighters. And I’m not sure how continuing military action started by the previous government, no friends of the U.S., is suddenly doing what President Bush wants.
From the point of view of the left, (union hacks, Euro-elite, mini-Moore extremists, MSM elitists, socialist utopians, KOS kids, and progressives) Iraq MUST FAIL. In order to be proven correct, in order to save their ideology, in order to put America in her place, Iraq as a country must not succeed, and terrorism must win in Iraq. If terrorism wanes and falls to a background threat, then the neo-cons, and the pragmatic leaders like prime ministers Blair and Howard, and G. W. Bush, and the coalition partners, will have been proven right. And, the doomsday preachings of the left will have been all for naught, not to mention that the religion of the United Nations will have taken a hit.
I guess that there are some people who can apologize for anything done by terrorists, as long as it has the added benefit of hurting the U.S. I am reminded of a line by Annette Bening from the movie The American President:
How do you deal with someone who claims to love America, while clearly hating Americans?
Powered by Bleezer