Are you part of the antiwar elite??? I am.

Seneca

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-22-03 11:25 PM
Original message

Are you part of the antiwar elite??? I am.

Edited on Wed Oct-22-03 11:51 PM by Seneca

I don't know sometimes whether to laugh, or go into a fit of blind rage at the idiotic spew that emanates from the almighty sphincters of the whore punditocracy, especially the Moonie Whores at the Washington Times.

Diana West, in the typically smug and fucktarded way of fascists, calls the Democratic candidates, and by extension, all those who opposed the invasion of Iraq, the "antiwar elite". :eyes:

Being antiwar is a very bad thing! We're ELITE. One of those loaded words the fascists love to pile on when their own bullshit gets too steamy to shovel and desperation for cover kicks in.

In this column I linked below, I can't even count the fallacies and boneheaded assertions. The same old tired rationale, "if you opposed the war, you love Saddam". Then she calls we elitists self-contradictory because we acknowledge the indisputable truth that Saddam was a vicious despot. Never mind that her alleged chain of logic would call for Bush to invade the rest of the sovereign nations with dictators in charge. Or her poo-pooing of multilateralism as a NECESSITY in U.S. affairs (when she attepmts lamely to shame Clark), OR that she contradicts herself by noting how wonderful it is Turkey is sending troops (ha! I'd love to see her smirk choke when she saw that they are having second thoughts), or Japan is ponying up (it is called blackmail, you Moonie elite!)

Ah, the simplistic dichotimies of fascist newspeak.

Read, all you fellow masochists! Then join me in the Lounge for some beer. Reading this kind of crap makes me thirsty. :-)

Link and some text:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1003/west1.asp

Bad news for Democratic candidates
The problem with the antiwar elite — and by that I mean most of the Democratic presidential candidates and their assorted liberal "wise men" — is that political attacks on the president's war on Islamic terrorism won't always be enough to satisfy them. It's just a matter of time before taking shots at the president (Howard Dean), nixing the White House's $87 billion funding request to stabilize Iraq (John Edwards, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich), and penning essays for The New York Review of Books entitled "Iraq: What Went Wrong" (Wesley Clark), will seem evasive at best, even obstructionist. Soon, the burning question Democrats must answer will be not what they think is wrong with George W. Bush's policy, but what they, as members of the antiwar elite, would do in his place.

and...
This rationale seems to be enough for some people. In a slurpy paean to Wesley Clark, Yale's Harold Bloom declares in The Wall Street Journal that because Gen. Clark saved tens of thousands of Muslim lives in Bosnia and Kosovo, he's the man for our times. (Given that George W. Bush saved that many Muslims and more by deposing Saddam Hussein, perhaps the Yale lit light should reconsider his endorsement.) Bloom also declares his anti-Saddam bona fides: "I trust it is clear that I am not deploring our deposing of Saddam Hussein, though its motivations remain obscure."

-end of copied text-

GACK! :nuke: :puke: :grr: "Animus towards Bush" indeed! He is FUCKING EVERYTHING ALL TO HELL!!!!!! GODDAMN RIGHT WE HAVE "ANIMUS"!!!!

Ok, gimme a beer! :beer:

Note to mods: I thought I was in GD, but you can make the call on whether it should stay here or be moved. If it stays here, it's closer to beer. If it moves, the GD-only crowd can get their 2 cents in too. :-) Sorry, and thanks! D'oh.