Perhaps ardent lefties think that, but such whining doesn't explain why pro-American leaders have, since 9/11, been elected in France (Sarkozy), Germany (Angela Merkel), Canada (Stephen Harper), and now Denmark. John Howard of Australia was reelected in 2004. Tony Blair's party won reelection in 2005, although he has now stepped down.
Lefties never let facts get in the way of their "truth".
3 comments:
Do the math, Darren; how many troops are they sending to Iraq? Go ahead--add them all together. Heck; multiply the result by ten. Now divide by the number of US military. I'll wager a euro the result is less than one. I'd wager a dollar, but it's not worth so much these days.
I really like it when those brave anonymous drive by posters state their contempt. Here's the deal, much of Europe is very unhappy with much of what went on during the last decade. And because of that they fired their socialist leaning leaders and replaced them with more conservative leaders who are more sympathetic to the United States' actions. While they may not send troops, France, Germany and other nations are certainly in a position to used political and economic means to push the Islamist nations back into conforming with international codes of conduct. I love the way that liberals seem to think the president had nothing better to do that send troops over there. But then again, most of the anonymous posters are the same folks who think 9/11 was an inside job.
I'm not a spelunker so maybe I'll get this wrong but I'll descend into the dark, circuitous depths of anon's comment to see what bright prizes of meaning I can secure.
All mighty intellects agree that this is Bush's war. Not as many Euro troops are in Iraq as American. Ergo, the European nations, despite their selection of conservative leaders, must not support Bush's war.
So how'm I doing, anon? Did I parse out the left wing knee-jerk comment correctly or is there some more subtle, possibly even nuanced, meaning?
Post a Comment