Betrayers of Freedom.

[nightperson]

Conservative Charley Reese just keeps pounding away at Bush and the neocons while still quoting Eisenhower:

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity." That's not unlike a statement made by another warrior, Gen. William Sherman, who said in a public speech: "There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is all hell. You can bear this warning voice to generations yet to come. I look upon war with horror." Nobody can ever accuse Sherman of being a softie. He was brutal in the extreme in his pursuit of victory...

As for Kerry's anti-war activities, he simply shared the same opinion of war as Eisenhower and Sherman because he had seen it and experienced it. Nobody can look back on the Vietnam War – which gained America nothing but 58,000 dead, a quarter of a million wounded and a divided country – and honestly say that Kerry wasn't right when he opposed it...

I wish there were some way we could gather up all these chicken hawks, put them on a plane with rifles and parachutes and dump them out over Fallujah. If they're so enthusiastic about war, they ought to participate in it. Instead, they are like a bunch of kids urging someone else to fight so they can be entertained. There is hardly a more contemptible role a human being can play than being a vicarious warrior...

If the president cannot fight terrorism and preserve American freedom at the same time, then he's obviously in a job well over his head. Instead of telling senators who disagree with them to go "f— —" themselves, we should be saying that to the terrorists. We should be telling the terrorists that nothing they can do will make us abandon our free society, that we can argue at home and fight them at the same time."

[NewHampshireDem]

1. I don't check Lew Rockwell often, for obvious reasons ...

But it is nice to see * get a Libertarian smack-down ... this one is my favorite:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/gregory2.html

We are so lucky to have a Republican as president. I hope that those of us who believe in freedom, small government, and personal responsibility will help reelect President Bush, whose recent fundraising e-mail lets us know he believes in "trusting people over government," and whose recent speech at the Washington Convention Center presents the "clear choice" voters face in November.

The choice is indeed clear. Either we elect President Bush, or America regresses back to the days of Bill Clinton. Bush’s speech highlights the very significant ways in which he and the Democrats hold "two visions of government: a government that encourages ownership and opportunity and responsibility, or a government that takes your money and makes your choices."

Oh how very true! If a socialist Democrat had won in November, the federal government would have surely expanded all sorts of unconstitutional Nanny State programs that compromise the delicate balance of the free market. They would have probably greatly increased farm subsidies, and put new restrictions on campaign donations. Those liberal Democrats would have sent billions of dollars in foreign aid to corrupt regimes in Africa and the Middle East, and pumped up funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. The Department of Education may have grown by seventy percent by now, with programs designed to appeal to emotion rather than reason, carrying such patronizing names as "No Child Left Behind" or some other name that only a condescending Democrat could contrive.
<more>

You really have to click over to check it out ... there are tons of embedded links to illustrate the writer's ironic stance and *'s idiocy.