You’ve set up some straw men here, with that quote standing in for everyone on the vibrant left. I am on the left, glad to be a Liberal with a capital “L” but I also spent nearly 5 years in the military, including three Vietnam tours.

Most of the people you list do not think that “nothing is worth war,” but they (and I) object to being lied to about why our young men are dying in Iraq.

Left by Terry Calhoun on February 4th, 2005 at 1:55 pm

…but they (and I) object to being lied to about why our young men are dying in Iraq.

Speaking of straw men… What lie would that be, Terry? That the only reason we are at war is because of WMDs?

It’s been well documented that not only our intelligence agencies, but those of the French and British, believed that Saddam still possessed WMDs and was intent on making more. And there’s no question that he had WMD and used them in the past. Those intelligence agencies, Presidents Bush and Clinton, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and members of Congress like Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy — who are on record as sharing this belief — may all have been mistaken, but that doesn’t mean any of them “lied.” That requires the intent to deceive, and the burden of proof is on the accuser. And that burden has not been proven.

Remember this quote?

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.

Remember who said it? That’s right—Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. Did he lie too?

Have you read the Joint Congressional Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, passed by the House and Senate in October 2002? If not, I implore you to read it now.

Note, that of the 23 resolutions, only 9 of them mention WMDs. There were numerous other reasons that we justly went to war against Iraq, to include (from the resolution voted on—including former Presidential candidate John Kerry—by Congress authorizing force):

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region…

That one’s a biggy—and, in face of the fact that you “think war is almost always wrong”—I’d counter that freeing people from the brutal repression of a murderous thug like Sadaam is worth going to War for.

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (editor’s note: passed under President Clinton) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

Mission accomplished on this one. Did you watch the election day news coverage in Iraq? Those people understand that a war was not only worth it, but the ONLY way to achieve this accomplishment.

So, what part of the war was wrong in your opinion again? And what parts of those resolutions (specifics please) are lies?

I don’t know if you felt the same way back then as you do now about war, or if your experiences in war have shaped your opinion, or if you have simply grown to believe differently than you did some 30-odd- years ago. Either way, I thank you for your service to your country when you were called. It’s a shame that more young man and women can’t see the value of serving in our country’s military.

Left by Robbie on February 22nd, 2005 at 2:15 pm

President Bush’s critics never seem to tire of claiming that the war in Iraq began over weapons of mass destruction and only later morphed into a war of liberation.

As I’ve spelled out in the comment above, this criticism isn’t entirely correct. But for the sake of argument let’s assume it is.

What does it mean? President Bush has altered his arguments to conform to reality, while his critics remain fixated on obsolete disputes. This would seem utterly to refute the liberal media stereotype. Bush, it turns out, is a supple-minded empiricist, while his opponents are rigid ideologues.

Left by Robbie on March 2nd, 2005 at 2:46 pm

Now it looks like there were WMD prior to the start of the war.

Charles Johnson reports on an article in the NY Times-–the Bible for Barking Moonbats—has finally let go of their “there were no WMD” stance and has reported on the looting of weapons facilities prior to the US attacks.

So, now that the Left doesn’t have “Bush Lied” about WMD as one of the numerous reasons for going to war…what are their objections again?

Left by Robbie on March 16th, 2005 at 3:43 pm

Add George Soros and MoveOn.Org to the infamous list…

Left by dianne on June 23rd, 2005 at 5:12 pm

[...] See here for more people that I have indicted. [...]

Left by UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » Q&A of the Day on July 25th, 2005 at 9:17 am

Sorry, why is this list composed only of liberals- isn’t the point to show who has not served in the military? Is a ‘We Support the Troops’ magnet on the back of your car somehow equivilent to being a soldier? Is serving in the military a necessary prerequisite for engaging in debate over US foreign policy?

If you are going to take a pro-military stand I don’t see how you can ignore the lack of service of Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, or Rush Limbaugh.

ps. it’s absurd to claim that the New York Times or MoveOn has not served in the military. Or John Kerry, for that matter. If, on the other hand, you are assailing them with the Mills quote you are taking enormous liberties by equating opposition to invading Iraq to the opinion that ” nothing is worth war “.

Left by Preston on July 25th, 2005 at 12:35 pm

This list is not exclusive to those who have not served in the Military (note the presence of Sen. Kerry).

These are simply people whom I detest because they have provided comfort and encouragement to the enemy terrorists. As ProteinWisdom clarified:

“I blame those on [this list] (and not the left en masse) who continue to provide terrorists with rhetorical cover for providing them with rhetorical cover—and for helping to legitimize the terrorist’s medievalist longings to eradicate modernity. Such rhetorical decisions have practical consequences”…such as the death of innocent civilians and US Soldiers.

Left by Robbie on July 25th, 2005 at 12:46 pm

helping to legitimize the terrorist’s medievalist longings to eradicate modernity.

That’s quite a claim.

I wouldn’t have suspected Janeane Garofalo of being smart enough to eradicate modernity.

Left by Preston on July 26th, 2005 at 9:10 am

[...] The Ugliest of Things are listed here [...]

Left by UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » The Daily Thief on August 8th, 2005 at 11:37 am

[...] Markos Alberto Moulitsas Zúniga, otherwise known as the Daily Kos, is the self-proclaimed “highest-trafficed (sic) political weblog.” He’s also one of biggest idiots in the Blogoshere. Which is only part of the reason why he is on my Miserable Creatures list. [...]

Left by UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » The Daily Thief on August 9th, 2005 at 9:08 pm

[...] I don’t know much about Christopher Walken’s politics. But if he announces Sean Penn for VP, I wouldn’t be surprised. We could then look forward to Susan Sarandon as Secretary of State, Tim Robbins playing Secretary of Defense, Janeane Garofalo acting as Attorney General, Barbara Streisand as Secretary of Education, and maybe Mick Jagger as his Ambassador to the UN. Look for an Adam Sandler cameo somewhere along the way—that’s the way those guy’s roll. [...]

Left by UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » Christopher Walken for President in 2008 on August 12th, 2005 at 5:10 pm

[...] And just for the record, Dean and Pelosi have been on my List of Miserable Creatures for quite some time — all of whom I consider to be my enemy. [...]

Left by UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » Declaring War on The Unhinged Left on December 8th, 2005 at 11:59 am

Yes, the anti-war crowd is what is messing up America. Because Michael Moore controls both houses of Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Supreme Court. PLEASE!

You cowardly chicken-hawk, Republicans are the Party of Politics, Not Governing. Your party could make the Holocaust look like a picnic. Your side could spin Rwanda into a vacation hot spot. But your neo-con pals lost New Orleans. They blew the entire war, from the botched pre-war intelligence to the post-war construction. They blew our surplus. They lost the World Trade Center on their watch. They didn’t catch Osama. They are helping the Iraqis set up a theocracy.

What did Michael Moore do?

This dribble was such a worthless waste for a mind. Why don’t you write a list of problems our countrymen face? Poor healthcare. Poor education. Poverty. Huge Debt. Huge Defiti. Outsourcing.

Michael Moore is the problem??

Left by Teddy Stern on December 28th, 2005 at 3:32 pm