South Dakota War College points out the (the latest) hypocrisy of the ACLU and the Left.
"Directors should remember that there is always a material prospect that public airing of the disagreement will affect the A.C.L.U. adversely in terms of public support and fund-raising," the proposals state.
If this is true for the ACLU (and I don't dispute the truth or accuracy of this conclusion one iota), then why is it the most wonderful and glorious thing for a bunch of spoiled brats on the Left to malign, badmouth, and accuse our own country of heinous crimes and lies (especially when they aren't true) in the world forum (e.g. peace marches, 911 conspiracy fantasies, and let's not forget the "Just so you know..." Dixie Chicks who slammed our president on foreign soil in time of war).
To put it more simply, if the Left realizes it's damaging to the ACLU for them to air their disagreements publicly, why do they think it does no damage to America when they falsely accuse America and other Americans of lies, deception, crimes, unconstitutional behavior, massacres and the like ...especially when it's just in the interest of scoring political points.
Do they not realize this leaves us in a weakened position in dealing with threats like Iran and North Korea? Or perhaps the more appropriate question is: do they care?
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Good for ACLU, Not Good for Country
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think it is a crying shame the way the Dixie Chicks have been treated. All they did was state their opinion. Myself I don't have much use for any of the new "country music" or the singers. For me country music has to have a lot of twang and yodeling in it. Now me I would have banned the song by Toby Keith that use the words "kick ass" or something like that. There is no need to use profanity.
The Dixie Chicks have a right to reveal themselves for the complete morons they are. I also have the right not to buy thier products and to denounce them for the childish brats they are.
Apparently my main point about undermining our country--especially while in a foreign country--either flew over your head, Anonymous1:57, or that kind of thing doesn't matter to you. But that was the whole point--the ACLU apparently realizes a bunch of public bickering undermines its standing, yet undermining the standing of the United States is of no consequence to some people.
Further, I might add, when there were a host of reasons for invading Iraq (17 UN resolutions flaunted, Iraq repeatedly firing on U.S. planes, intelligence from here and around the world indicating Saddam had or was working on WMDs--why else would he not acquiesce to the inspections he agreed to in 1991 if he didn't have anything to hide?--funding of terrorists in Israel and ties to Al Quada, and the challenge of a hostile flank in dealing with Iran).
Post a Comment