Paleocons wrong again
Many of the Paleocons have adopted the leftist position that Saddam would never have had a relationship with Al Qaeda because Saddam and Osama were ideologically opposed. Of course this is one of the most moronic positions as history provides many examples of similar alliances (i.e., Sparta/Persia, Rome/Visigoths, Hitler/Stalin, USA/Stalin, etc… Nevertheless, the press is willing to continue this fraudulent argument mostly because their audience is also devoid of history.
Now recently translated documents show that Saddam was up to his ears in supporting Al Qaeda – in fact Iraq was more involved in supporting terrorists and planning terror than any previous claim by any high level Bush Administration official.
On another note, I recall a Paleocon at JAS repeating the Michael Moore fraud that Iraq was a free and peaceful country prior to the invasion. How shameful. I will never forget.
UPDATE: I just heard Murtha say on Meet the Press that there was no connection of Iraq to Terrorism. Russert asked him about Iraq's connections to Al Qaeda. Murtha blew it off as an "excuse." The paleocons and the misguided continue to lie to the American people...to our peril.
Now recently translated documents show that Saddam was up to his ears in supporting Al Qaeda – in fact Iraq was more involved in supporting terrorists and planning terror than any previous claim by any high level Bush Administration official.
On another note, I recall a Paleocon at JAS repeating the Michael Moore fraud that Iraq was a free and peaceful country prior to the invasion. How shameful. I will never forget.
UPDATE: I just heard Murtha say on Meet the Press that there was no connection of Iraq to Terrorism. Russert asked him about Iraq's connections to Al Qaeda. Murtha blew it off as an "excuse." The paleocons and the misguided continue to lie to the American people...to our peril.
posted by Sloanasaurus | 3/19/2006 09:17:00 AM
Federal Farmer was on to something when he labeled Sloanasaurus a PaleoConPhobe. I also believe S'aurus is a closet PaleoCon, afraid to explore his heart for fear that in the deepest recesses of his soul lie the dark impulses, that he may be more like Us than he would admit.
One always knows they are right when their opponents resorts to name calling.
. . . Paleoconophobia, nuttiness, that kind of name calling. You can tell you're doing really well, for example, when there's a rash of posts indiscriminately bashing "Paleocons."
I would vote to drop the label "paleocon." Simply use the term "those on the right against the war" or some such. Again, I agreed (and agree) with many or most of the foreign policy positions of those labeled "neo-cons" but I still hate the term.
Post a Comment