An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume V, Issue # 144, May 26, 2003
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
Home Page   Main Menu   Recent Articles   Site Map   Website Index   Issues & Controversies
  Cyberland University   Political Science, Philosophy, & History: Lectures   U.S. Constitution
  American Constitutional Law   American Constitutional System   American Political System
  Conservatism, Liberalism, & Radicalism   How America Goes to War
  World War IV: Islamist Terror War Against the U.S.A. & the West

By Paul Walfield

Thousands of Americans were slaughtered on September 11, 2001, slaughtered by terrorists who had declared war on the United States of America years before. In the years prior to the Islamic terrrorists' attacks on the World Trade Center and Penta- gon in 2001, terrorists of the same Islamist movement had killed hundreds of Ameri- cans on bases, in embassies, and on ships throughout the world. Yet, the Liberals demanded that we not fight back militarily, that we should instead treat the terrorist actions as a matter for the police.

America went to war in Afghanistan anyway, and removed the Taliban, the political regime that had harbored, supported, and collaborated with the Al-Qa'ida terrorists, a repressive and oppressive regime that had imposed tyrannical rule over its own citi- zens, even to the point of prohibiting music and smiling in public, beating women who were not dressed properly, and making it illegal for its female citizens to go to school or work. Afghan women are now free to pursue their dreams and wear what they please. Al-Qa'ida has been decimated and the Taliban destroyed. The country of Afghanistan, no longer a haven for terrorists, is in the process of rebuilding. Yet, the Liberals only see “chaos” and failure after the war.

As the war in Iraq was just getting underway, the Pentagon and other named and of- ficial governmental sources were saying all was going as planned. Yet, the Liberals were saying that America was bogged down, resistance was stiff, and America was facing another quagmire, the same kind of quagmire we faced in Vietnam. The supply lines were stretched too thin and were imperiled. The supply lines would be cut, the street fighting in Baghdad would be horrendous, and the Liberals wanted to know, “what price is America willing to pay for victory.” All the doomsday predictions were coming from places like the Nation magazine, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Boston newspapers. The imbedded reporters were reporting the contrary, but that didn’t stop the Liberal hogwash.

In the end, the supply lines were never cut or even shown to be inadequate. Iraq fell like a house of cards. The course and outcome of the war showed that the retired generals of CNN and the New York Times were utterly incompetent and that America was fortunate that those socalled “experts” had retired.

Prior to hostilities in Iraq, the Liberals demanded that, even after twelve years and eighteen UN resolutions violated, “inspections be allowed to continue.” Yet, even after only a few weeks of war, the Liberals are claiming “vindication” for their notion that weapons of mass destruction are not in Iraq. The Liberals had been willing to allow years for the UN inspectors to search for WMDs, but America was not allowed to wait for the bombs to stop exploding to find the prohibited weapons. Even the be- loved Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly, on April 29, 2003, condemned the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times for declaring the weapons of mass destruction, claimed to have been the cause of war in Iraq, a myth. On the other hand and quite inexplicably, Bill O’Reilly, in the same breath he used to condemn the Left's accusa- tions, said the President would have a lot of explaining to do in the next few weeks.

It was fascinating watching good ole Bill damn the Left for saying what he was saying. Bill even explained that the Left’s arguments were just as outrageous as the Right’s were, when it came to rationalizing the war in Iraq if WMDs were not found. To prove it, Bill talked about the front page articles in the Los Angeles Times and New York Times as examples of the silliness of the Left and then showed an email he received from a viewer as an example of what the folks on the Right were saying. For Bill, the front page of the New York Times and the front page of the Los Angeles Times dis- playing Liberal arguments were on an equal footing with an email he received from a viewer as an example of Conservative ideology and spin. Apparently, the Conserva- tives are keeping their rationalizations a secret, except in the emails to Bill O’Reilly. If the rationalizations of the Right, as explained by Bill, were indicative of Conserva- tive thought, you would think O’Reilly would have used a more appropriate example. Talk about spin, Bill is making it an art form. I still watch Bill on Fox News, but I’m hoping they move Scarborough Country to eight o’clock on MSNBC.

Anyway, following the major hostilities, Iraqi civilians slowly but surely welcomed the Americans as a liberating force. Iraqis were leading coalition forces to weapons caches that were hidden in schools, hospitals, and Mosques. The Iraqis were giving tips to our military on where our POWs were and where top Iraqi officials could be found. Yet, all the Liberals saw was a group of Iranian Shiites protesting American “occupation.”

Liberal congressional leaders were declaring that the Iraqi people were no better off now than they had been under the despotic political regime of Saddam Hussein, even throgh Saddam’s torture chambers were now destroyed and his secret police closed down. Former Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro and current Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean simply don’t see what the fuss was all about. Iraqis free from the tyranny of Saddam and the vile raping of children at will by Saddam’s son Uday is no big deal. But restoring electricity to all the folks in Bagh- dad is really a big deal, something to be concerned about. For the Liberals, having freedom to speak and live without fear is less important than being free from a tem- porary electrical shortage.

For decades, the Iraqis had been living under the thumb of a brutal dictator, and America’s military freed them. Yet, Democratic Party leaders believe that it wasn’t our military that was so good, that our military success in Iraq was due to the fact that the Iraqis were so inept. Senator Tom Harkin says he feels better knowing that he was right all along, right in realizing that the Iraqis were not ever a threat to to the U.S.A. If it had been otherwise, according to Senator Harkin, America could not have beaten the Iraqis so easily in a war. Honestly! The good Senator somehow misun- derstood why Saddam was a threat to America, deciding that it wasn’t because of Saddam’s ties to terrorists and WMDs, that it really was Saddam’s military, which could trample over American defenses and occupy Washington, D.C.. However, be- cause the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division took out the Iraqi military, President Bush must have lied. Democratic pundit Dick Morris still believes the Democrats have a chance in the 2004 presidential and congressional elections. With the Democratic Party leaders and spokesmen willing to open their mouths and speak their minds, the Re- publicans may not even have to campaign in 2004 to win the elections.

Although the coalition in the war against Saddam’s Iraq was made up of over fifty countries, the Liberals, to this day, say America was wrong in “going it alone,” or “acting unilaterally.” More to the point, when America was trying to get other nations involved in reigning in North Korea, the Liberals insisted that America was being a bully and acting diplomatically foolish.

When it is pointed out that Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter had acted diplomatically foolish and naïve by accepting a promise by Stalinist North Korea to stop its quest for nuclear weapons, in return for billions of dollars in U.S. financial and technological aid, the Liberals cry foul.

The Liberals accept as truth the ranting and ravings of dictators from Fidel Castro to Robert Mugabe, while they refuse to give even the benefit of the doubt to the U.S. government when led by a Republican President and carried on by a Republican ad- ministration. When evil tyrants behave as evil tyrants around the world, the Liberals find some reason to blame the U.S.A. for creating the problem in the first place. When America attempts to resolve the problem and restore or create freedom for foreign populations, the Liberals claim that America has no business imposing itself on other peoples. Yet, in America, the Liberals demand equality and full rights for all people, whether or not they are citizens, and want the borders of America to be opened to accept and accomodate what would be a massive influx of aliens into the U.S.A., the Liberals showing very little or no concern for the adverse consequences of a policy of open borders and permitting mass immigration into the country from Latin American and other third world societies--consequences such as the huge financial burden the policy would place on the public welfare agencies, the public schools, and the Ameri- can taxpayers, the problem of assimilating such a large number of aliens into the common national culture of Americans, and the very real danger of foreign terrorists penetrating American society for the purpose engaging in acts of terror, destruction, and mass murder.

The inconsistencies of the Liberal Left are flagrant, yet they all have a common theme. If you are France, Canada, or any country opposing American sovereignty and power, you are given a free pass. If you are America, you can do no right. This begs the question: If you align yourself with those who seek your own nation’s diminution and humiliation, what does that say about your make-up, genetic or otherwise?

Liberals, Statists, Socialists, & Other Leftists

Political Culture, Patriotism, & American National Identity

Paul Walfield is a freelance writer and member of the State Bar of California, with an undergraduate degree in Psychology and post-graduate study in behavioral and analytical psychology. He resided for a number of years in the small town of Houl- ton, Maine, and is now a California attorney. His articles appear in numerous peri- odicals and on numerous websites. He has been the featured guest on KTSA News Talk Radio.  CONTACT INFORMATION:  Email:

Return to Top of Page

Return to Beginning of
Public Issues & Political Controversies

Return to Beginning of
Volume V, 2003

Return to Beginning of
Subject Matter Highlights



Africa: Black Africa * Africa: North Africa * American Government 1
American Government 2 * American Government 3 * American Government 4
American Government 5 * American Politics * Anglosphere * Arabs
Arms Control & WMD * Aztlan Separatists * Big Government
Black Africa * Bureaucracy * Canada * China * Civil Liberties * Communism
Congress, U.S. * Conservative Groups * Conservative vs. Liberal
Constitutional Law * Counterterrorism * Criminal Justice * Disloyalty * Economy
Education * Elections, U.S. * Eminent Domain * Energy & Environment
English-Speaking World * Ethnicity & Race * Europe * Europe: Jews
Family Values * Far East * Fiscal Policy, U.S. * Foreign Aid, U.S. * Foreign Policy, U.S.
France * Hispanic Separatism * Hispanic Treason * Human Health * Immigration
Infrastructure, U.S. * Intelligence, U.S. * Iran * Iraq * Islamic North Africa
Islamic Threat * Islamism * Israeli vs. Arabs * Jews & Anti-Semitism
Jihad & Jihadism * Jihad Manifesto I * Jihad Manifesto II * Judges, U.S. Federal
Judicial Appointments * Judiciary, American * Latin America * Latino Separatism
Latino Treason * Lebanon * Leftists/Liberals * Legal Issues
Local Government, U.S. * Marriage & Family * Media Political Bias
Middle East: Arabs * Middle East: Iran * Middle East: Iraq * Middle East: Israel
Middle East: Lebanon * Middle East: Syria * Middle East: Tunisia
Middle East: Turkey * Militant Islam * Military Defense * Military Justice
Military Weaponry * Modern Welfare State * Morality & Decency
National Identity * National Security * Natural Resources * News Media Bias
North Africa * Patriot Act, USA * Patriotism * Political Culture * Political Ideologies
Political Parties * Political Philosophy * Politics, American * Presidency, U.S.
Private Property * Property Rights * Public Assistance * Radical Islam
Religion & America * Rogue States & WMD * Russia * Science & Ethics
Sedition & Treason * Senate, U.S. * Social Welfare Policy * South Africa
State Government, U.S. * Subsaharan Africa * Subversion * Syria * Terrorism 1
Terrorism 2 * Treason & Sedition * Tunisia * Turkey * Ukraine
UnAmerican Activity * UN & Its Agencies * USA Patriot Act * U.S. Foreign Aid
U.S. Infrastructure * U.S. Intelligence * U.S. Senate * War & Peace
Welfare Policy * WMD & Arms Control

This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics, civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.



Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.

Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs, International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests, Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy




An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis

Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor

Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic, Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues

Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity