The Lie of Modern Liberals: Human Rights
Progressive liberals no more care about extending human rights than I do about scrubbing the floor with a toothbrush and soapy water.
FACT: Self-proclaimed “progressive” liberals have never once praised the efforts of the United States and its allies for liberating 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq from two murderous dictatorships that were poster children in their suppression of human rights.
Instead, progressive liberals have been on a witchhunt against liberal Western democracies – looking for every possible sign and signal (most of them false) of Coalition troops committing “war crimes”.
Our own elected officials from the Democrat Party have repeatedly accused American troops of being terrorists and Ted Kennedy celebrates the anniversary of Abu Ghraib, but not the free elections in two previously oppressed lands. What the hell?!?
For Amnesty International and their ilk, it is more important to advance their progressive political agenda than it is to truly stand up for “human rights.” They have used the Geneva Convention as an article of convenience and have not applied the standards equally by keeping Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Sunni insurgents, Syria and Iran under the same scrutiny as the United States of America.
Latest example? On its website today, Amnesty International promotes its boat-led protest to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and its concern about the diamond trade (perfect story for limosine liberals!).
But not a single word about this Islamic terrorist violation of the Geneva Convention.
Four U.S. soldiers, one of them a New Yorker, were captured - and promptly murdered - last Saturday in the Shiite holy city of Karbala, 50 miles from Baghdad, officials confirmed.
Two of the slain soldiers were found handcuffed together in the back of a vehicle.
Soldiers die in combat, of course.
But the murder of disarmed and helpless troops - killing POWs, in effect - is what’s at issue here.
The murder of helpless captives is a stark reminder of the barbaric nature of the enemy that American-led forces face in Iraq.
Indeed, it puts into perspective the complaints about U.S. “atrocities” committed against prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.
Frankly, complaints about degrading photos and alleged desecration of the Koran can’t hold a candle to the savage abduction and execution-style murders of brave soldiers.
Those who have led the outcry over what they hysterically decry as U.S. “war crimes” in Iraq have a particular obligation to speak out against genuine atrocities of the kind committed by these terrorist insurgents.
I also don’t see Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force shedding many tears over the murder of Americans around the world and the torture of American troops by Islamic terrorists. Perhaps, for a socialist, it is better to support Islamic fascism than liberal democracy?
This clear hypocrisy of silence shows “progressive” liberals’ true colors. They stand behind the mantra of “human rights”, but they cast a blind eye when it comes to the human rights of Americans.
Shameful.
[RELATED STORY: Senator Kerry sits down today with former Iranian dictator - RadioJavan.com]
**UPDATE** - Another progressive liberal Democrat thinks that liberating Muslims from oppression is wrong!
Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said Bush “tricked” the country into an immoral war. “He did not tell the truth,” she said. “I will not vote one dime for this war.”
Reminder: President Clinton repeatedly stated throughout the 1990s the same intelligence conclusions known at the time that Saddam Hussein was developing WMD. Indeed in 2003, all of the world’s major intelligence organizations believed it.
“Tricked”!?! Hardly, Maxine. Your brain is just an inconvenient and untruthful mass of cells.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
C’mon Bruce.
They cared enough about 500,000 non-existent Albanians to ignore congress and the U.N.
On a similar note, I’ve said before that if Iraq was better off with Saddam, the Darfurians are better off now.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 27, 2007 @ 10:38 am - January 27, 2007
Feigning concern about “Human Rights” is just PR to cover what left-liberals are really all about: power. Just like Hillary’s pal Marian Wright Edelman admits that appeals for helping “the children” are just to put a sympathetic public face on the expansion of socialism and big government. If left-liberals gave a damn about kids, they would oppose abortion and support school choice.
Comment by V the K — January 27, 2007 @ 10:49 am - January 27, 2007
Look who they idolize:
Castro, Guevara, Stalin, Noriega, Ortega, Chavez etc.etc.etc.
and they want me to believe they give a d*mn about human rights?
That’s how I know Bush is not a dictator. They’d love him if he was.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 27, 2007 @ 10:54 am - January 27, 2007
I would expect no concern from libs regarding the murder of captured U.S. soldiers. After all, remember many of them thought the Pentagon a legitimate target on 9/11. I don’t think they’re hypocrites; they’re just supporting the other side.
Comment by Scott — January 27, 2007 @ 12:31 pm - January 27, 2007
What liberals who hold public office say they idolize Che Guevara, Stalin, etc? Or is this all about straw men, an attack on some fantasy you call “liberal”? Seriously - I am a liberal who despises all of those names in the foolish comment above, who, like all liberals of any intelligence, generously praised our success at the time in Afghanistan (and laments that that wonderful success has been tragically threatened by the unnecessary and resource/life-draining quagmire in Iraq). Like all intelligent liberals, I see Castro et. al. as bad men who brought a lot of grief on their people. Have you ever seen a Democrat in Congress wear a Che button? No, never. The only idiots who do this are college students who, in their ignorance, think they are being hip. Most grow out of it. Those that don’t and pursue ideals the likes of Castro’s and Stalin’s are not liberals or progressives, but hard-core leftist fools and cretins, comparable only to those on the right who revere equally repellent icons, like Pinochet or Hitler. Seriously guys, think before you post. If you really believe “liberals” were down on our victories in Afghanistan do a bit of googling. The “MSM” was delirious with praise at the time, and until we were deep in the Iraq debacle, Rumsfeld was treated with rock-star status - remember? Remember “Mission Accomplished”? The MSM was applauding Iraq, like Afghanistan, as an unheralded success…until it turned into a nightmare from which we may never emerge in our lifetimes. Every intelligent liberal - Josh Marshall, Kevin Drum, Maureen Dowd, etc., etc. - was firmly behind the president with the invasion and liberation of Afghanistan, and to say otherwise is to retreat into a world of fiction and delusion. It simply isn’t true. Repeat: It’s just not true.
Comment by richard — January 27, 2007 @ 12:45 pm - January 27, 2007
i hate the usa!
what a horrible country!
Gawd I really need to move to another country!
What a bunch of facists!
Now stop oppressing me and give me my marriage rights you facists S.O.B.s!
oh, sorry about that… I was having a Turet moment. I’m better now.
Sandy
Comment by sandy — January 27, 2007 @ 12:50 pm - January 27, 2007
Richard-
You are in a complete denial about where progressive liberals are in our day about freedom and democracy. I doubt you support Joe Lieberman.
Would you support the foreign policy of Truman now? How about JFK?
Thought so.
You need to remember what nation on this earth goes to bat for the world’s underdogs time and time again.
Think about that the next time you claim to “support the troops” while spitting in the face of their mission.
After all, Democrat elected officials are urging that we sit down and chat with the terror regime of Syria for crying out loud.
THAT is the state of progressive liberals today. Fact the facts, bro.
Comment by GayPatriot — January 27, 2007 @ 12:53 pm - January 27, 2007
I would indeed support Truman’s and JFK’s foreign policy. Lieberman has lost some of my respect - but I do respect him. I believe he is wrong about Iraq, but that many on the left have been unfair to him.
How dare you say I spit in the faces of our troops? I didn’t want them sent on a half-baked, doomed-to-fail mission in Iraq, especially when that mission would endanger the lives of our troops fighting in Afghanistan in a truly worthy and necessary mission.
About urging we talk with Syria and others - have you read the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations? Are you aware that James Baker is not a Democrat or a liberal? These generalities are painful, because you’re obviously smart. I am a liberal. I run a blog highly critical of Communist China. You can’t slot us all as if we are a monolith - it’s irresponsible. And because I criticize Bush, following the example of the vast majority of my fellow patriotic Americans, you dare say I spit in the soldiers’ faces? Reprehensible. Fictitious, unfounded and untrue.
You didn’t answer my question, though: Do you or do you not remember when the “liberal media” lauded our successes in Afghanistan and displayed huge encouragement of the mission? Or to put it another way, which liberal media, and which distinguished liberals were against that war and failed to praise our great achievements there in 2002? Because I was a journalist and read hudreds of articles from hundreds of “MSM” newspapers across America and never once saw what you say occurred (failure to applaud our victory). Because what you say ocurred is not grounded in reality.
Are you dealing with facts, or with straw men? Let’s get at least a little substance behind these provocative charges. Because for now it’s all hot air, and noxious fumes.
Richard, another gay patriot
Comment by richard — January 27, 2007 @ 1:26 pm - January 27, 2007
I find this to be an incredibly stupid rant. It displays none of the wisdom and insight that the best of the conservative perspective could offer. Rather, it just sounds to me like yet another limbaugh-Coulter-Savage wannabe rant. Like that is what we really need in this country.
The fact is, as any real conservative could tell you, that the best (only) way to spread virtue in this world is to - first step - practice virtue yourself.
You oppose torture as a means to oppress and control a populace? First thing to do is to outlaw it for your own side, and then enforce that. Once you start down the slippery slope of justifying torture for reasons of expedience, then the game is lost. The painful tragedy of Abu Ghraib (of all places there!) was that the little Saddamites of the world could point to that and say - see? there is nothing wrong with what we do - even the great shining city on the hill does the same thing when it feels the need to. Well, we feel the need to also”
You expect a government to respect the inherint freedoms of its people - as the geniuses who wrote our constitution envisioned? Then you resist, with all your might, the erosion of those rights by usurpers. Read Madison and Hamilton on the permanent dangers that they foresaw, from otherwise good people who find themselves in positions of power but feel they need a little more. The Bush administration are of that type - I dont doubt their sincerity but they have chosen to aggressively push the envelope on aggrandizing power to the government, especially the execultive branch. There are always arguments that can be found to justify these things - good lawyers can find good arguments for everything.
It is the role of the conservative to be a staunch defender of our traditional values against the encroaching of well meaning people who argue the pressing needs of the moment. In this, the conservatives of today have utterly failed.
“There is no explicit grant of habeus corpus in the Constitution”. Can any lover of America and the Constitution allow someone who says that to remain in a position of power?
You think the world would be, in general, a better place if nations were compelled to truly make every possible effort to avoid trying to solve their disputes through war, if at all possible? That was always the goal of decent human beings - and after the horrors of WWII, the world in general realized how important that standard was.
But once the great moral beacon decides that war is simply another tool in the toolbox for shaping foreign societies, and (given the great power of our military) a damn convenient one, then license is given to every tinpot leader in the world to use the same justifications to attack their neighbors and to get what they want through violence.
If you are not prepared to walk the walk, then you really have nothing to talk about.
Your rhetoric is completely in the realm of lunatic fantasy land. Liberals on a witchhunt against western democracies? Are you really so completely unmoored from reality that you could actually believe that? The fact is that the Bush administration, on the issues listed above, and so many others, has waged consistent war on the principles that have shaped the western world since the end of WWII, and of this country since its founding.
And of course, there is the deeply authoritarian mindset that has infected the rightwing in this country for quite some time now. Instead of embracing the notion of democracy - which rests on the notion of the people as soverign - the rightwing has consistently payed almost complete deference to the policy directions of the dear leader, and sought to suppress (granted mostly through rhetoric) any efforts of the people to openly discuss, debate and decide the course of our foreign policy.
The response of conservatives to the great crisis of our time has been deeply disappointing. For two short months, in the campaign agaisnt al-Q and the Taliban, all was well. But when bin Laden was allowed to escape, and the Leader decided to turn his attention to a wholly different war, the conservatives of this country turned off their brains and their senses and willingly, gladly accepted the role of sheep, following the leader uncritically, but also trying to savage all those who fully embraced our role as free people, participating in the democratic process of shaping the policy of our nation.
Comment by Tano — January 27, 2007 @ 2:01 pm - January 27, 2007
The fact is that the Bush administration, on the issues listed above, and so many others, has waged consistent war on the principles that have shaped the western world since the end of WWII, and of this country since its founding.
Complete and utter nonsense with no basis in rational fact.
Comment by GayPatriot — January 27, 2007 @ 2:11 pm - January 27, 2007
“Complete and utter nonsense with no basis in rational fact. ”
Mouthing of canned phrases with absolutely no thought behind it.
Facts are not rational. Facts are facts. It is our conceptual understandings or explanations of facts which are rational, or not.
I would advise taking some (a lot of) quiet time to actually start thinking afresh about the facts. You and your movement have lost (not only for yourselves but for the country) the sympathies and respect of most of the western world, and the support of the majority of the American people. There are reasons for that, and clearly you are so trapped in your ideological tunnel that you cant really grasp it.
Make the effort.
Comment by Tano — January 27, 2007 @ 2:40 pm - January 27, 2007
Why is it, in all seriousness, that the best argument the right can come up with against the left is “They’re no better than we are”?
Comment by Jody — January 27, 2007 @ 3:53 pm - January 27, 2007
Then, oh wise Tano, tell us YOUR plan to defeat Islamic radicalism.
Tell us YOUR plan to bring peace to Iraq.
I’m all ears… because all I ever hear from your side is defeatism and anti-American rhetoric.
If you won’t answer my questions about YOUR plans…. then you will be banned from this site.
ANSWER, not A.N.S.W.E.R., Tano!
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — January 27, 2007 @ 5:23 pm - January 27, 2007
thatgay- oh yeah, all liberals idoloize Stalin. It’s like when is john edwards going stop talking about stalin?
wreckless militarism isn’t “human rights”. we haven’t liberated anyone from anything.
there is no need for the US to go to war with anyone and there hasn’t been since 1776. anyone who does anything to stop it is a hero. the only human rights that idiot bush cares about is the right of his cronies to make billions of this war.
bruce- my plan to defeat islamic terrorism is to get the us out of the middle east completely. better than being driven out like the commies in afhanistan. and that’s whats gonna happen to us sooner or later.
my plan for iraq is equally inexpensive: leave. our not being there will do more to bring order and peace than anything we could do by staying.
another way I would insure we snever cross paths with al queda again is to close down all the right wing think tanks and fox news. if they want to go to the middle east and battle muslims they can buy a plane ticket, not steal my tax dollars.
Comment by lester — January 27, 2007 @ 6:40 pm - January 27, 2007
lester - perhaps your first plan should be to learn how to spell.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — January 27, 2007 @ 6:57 pm - January 27, 2007
The painful tragedy of Abu Ghraib (of all places there!) was that the little Saddamites of the world could point to that and say - see? there is nothing wrong with what we do - even the great shining city on the hill does the same thing when it feels the need to. Well, we feel the need to also”
That would make sense, Tano, if you had expressed the same horror and demand for immediate action for Saddam Hussein’s systemic, continuous, and unpunished torture at Abu Ghirab that you had for the United States’s allegedly doing it in a comparatively-miniscule fashion.
Furthermore, notice the difference. Those who tortured at Abu Ghirab in the name of the United States were swiftly reviled, arrested, put on trial, and punished. Saddam did so for DECADES and nothing happened — not until the “evil” United States and “awful” Bush administration decided to intervene.
So, in short, if a brutal dictator tortures and imprisons millions of people, you have nothing to say — but if the United States catches, prosecutes, and punishes people who do it, you demand the government’s immediate removal.
Are you REALLY against torture — or just against the United States?
Can any lover of America and the Constitution allow someone who says that to remain in a position of power?
Saddam Hussein said it all the time, and leftists like yourself worldwide saw nothing wrong with it.
Furthermore, I would put it this way; if suspension of habeas corpus for an individual prevents a terrorist from blowing up a downtown skyscraper here in San Francisco or on Manhattan, I’m all for it.
What exactly should I think about someone like yourself whose interpretation of the law is so rigid that he would rather allow tens of thousands of people to be killed or injured rather than abrogate it?
But once the great moral beacon decides that war is simply another tool in the toolbox for shaping foreign societies, and (given the great power of our military) a damn convenient one, then license is given to every tinpot leader in the world to use the same justifications to attack their neighbors and to get what they want through violence.
Then I suppose your leftist view is that we should not have attacked Kosovo or Afghanistan, that we were right to stay out of Rwanda, and that we should not intervene militarily in Darfur.
Sorry, but we tried waiting to use the military for too long, and the end result was 9/11. But if you and your fellow leftists are OK with saying that the military should not intervene until at least two thousand or so Americans are dead, I suppose that’s a position.
Instead of embracing the notion of democracy - which rests on the notion of the people as soverign - the rightwing has consistently payed almost complete deference to the policy directions of the dear leader, and sought to suppress (granted mostly through rhetoric) any efforts of the people to openly discuss, debate and decide the course of our foreign policy.
Such as the attempts by gay leftists last month to manipulate the Massachusetts Legislature into ignoring the state constitution and blocking the attempts of voters to raise a ballot issue.
Furthermore, Tano, your whining and crying about how people criticizing your ravings or making public statements against them is governmental “repression” is comic when compared against the backdrop of Ba’athist Iraq, in which making a joke about Saddam Hussein was a capital crime worthy of execution and in which the infant and toddler-age children of political dissidents were imprisoned and tortured.
In short, you and your fellow leftists are like the man who screams about the ant in his hotel room, oblivious to the fact that there’s a pile of elephant dung in the middle of the bed. The fact that you accuse the Bush administration of horrific crimes while ignoring the proven, systematic ones of Ba’athist Iraq, Iran, Taliban Afghanistan, and others makes it obvious that your concern is not with the crimes, but with using them as an excuse to hate the United States.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 27, 2007 @ 6:58 pm - January 27, 2007
if they want to go to the middle east and battle muslims they can buy a plane ticket, not steal my tax dollars.
Don’t worry, moLester. They’ll be coming here to saw your “compassionate” head off.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 27, 2007 @ 7:02 pm - January 27, 2007
#5
What liberals who hold public office say they idolize Che Guevara, Stalin, etc?
If I’m not mistaken, Bruce’s post was about liberals in general. Knowing I’m right, you try to narrow it down to liberals in public office to spin it into proof that I’m wrong.
Didn’t think I’d be smart enough to catch that, did you?
The liberals and their little whores in the MSM praised Afghanistan because they knew they had to. It was popular to do so. One thing you’ll notice in news articles for both Afghanistan and Iraq is that they care little, if at all, about how the enemy treats their prisoners, who are dead.
No. They’re far more concerned how our prisoners, who are alive and living high on the hog, are treated. They care more about false allegations of torture by our prisoners and could give a sh*t less about how our soldiers are treated by our prisoners. The MSM even had to make up stories of “torture” and mistreatment. How sick is that?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 27, 2007 @ 7:12 pm - January 27, 2007
#18 - TGC, if I’m not mistaken, when Castro was alive(!) and visited the UN in 2003, he made a side trip to Harlem to preach his anti-American, anti-capitalist and anti-democracy gospel of hatred.
Guess who was there in Harlem making him feel welcome?
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY)…who today is the chair of the House Ways & Means Committee. The most powerful committee in the House of Representatives.
So - to get back to Bruce’s main idea:
YES, there are liberals out there who are anti-American, though they claim they are not.
Take that, you libtrolls.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 27, 2007 @ 7:59 pm - January 27, 2007
TGC -
Thanks for getting us back on track and not diverted by the MadLibs away from the main point.
Self-proclaimed progressives don’t give a lick about the “human rights” of Americans… especially American soldiers.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — January 27, 2007 @ 7:59 pm - January 27, 2007
However, this does not mean that all liberals hate America, which is what we’re being encouraged to believe here.
Comment by vaara — January 27, 2007 @ 9:46 pm - January 27, 2007
Certainly not, vaara - but if one’s position, as an American, is that the United State is morally equivalent to Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist regime, one is pretty much putting oneself into the position of “useful idiot.” Don’t you think? It’s fine and good to “love” the United States, but if, like the junior Senator from Massachusetts, you then go hobnob (repeatedly) with its enemies and denigrate it before the world community (see Kerry’s latest at Davos), forgive me for doubting the sincerity of your “love.” And if you attend a peace rally with a “Vive Saddam” sign (see Althouse’s blog today), forgive me again for doubting that peace is your goal.
Tano, nobody who equates George Bush to Kim Jong Il (how old are all you people with the “Dear Leader” thing, anyway?) ought to be criticizing others’ rhetoric. Side note, but relevant: in Dallas a few weeks ago, I was in a novelty store in the Knox/Henderson area. There was a display at the cash register of buttons, one of which said, “Oh well, I wasn’t using my civil rights anyway.” The irony of that button’s being made and sold publicly was evidently lost on… well, pretty much everybody in the store.
Comment by Jamie — January 27, 2007 @ 10:23 pm - January 27, 2007
Ah, so a liberal 40 years ago welcomed Castro in Harlem. So all liberals worship Satan. Now I get it. So can I look at what Bob Ney or Duke Cunningham did and conclude all conservatives are corrupt liars? Is that how this works?
Guys, this is shite. Most liberals, like most conservatives, are good people who love their country. There will always be some loons on the extreme, like Gay Patriot and TGC, who says above as a matter of fact that “most liberals” venerate Che Guevara, when he can offer no proof. Note the smug, condescending tone as well, as dialogue descends into mockery. Maybe liberals like my mother and father and many other people I love really venerate Che and Castro. But where’s the beef? I.e., how do you know and what is such a claim based on? Tell us please, TGC - share your wisdom with us instead of, as always, hiding behind general accusations that condemn literally half of our nation’s population to hell as traitors and fiends. We’re all waiting: Why do you say most liberals idolize Che and Castro ad Stalin? Why? Serious discussion - no broad brush strokes of unfounded accusations, okay?
Comment by richard — January 27, 2007 @ 10:26 pm - January 27, 2007
Ah, so a liberal 40 years ago welcomed Castro in Harlem. So all liberals worship Satan. Now I get it. So can I look at what Bob Ney or Duke Cunningham did and conclude all conservatives are corrupt liars? Is that how this works?
Actually, Googling “Charles Rangel” and “Castro” brings up some rather entertaining accounts of Rangel’s public and political embraces of our favorite dictator.
Meanwhile, you might note one thing; Bob Ney and Duke Cunningham were repudiated by their party and thrown out of office for their activities.
Charlie Rangel is rewarded by Nancy Pelosi for his systematic support of Castro and Castro’s repressive regime by elevation to the House Ways and Means Committee leadership.
Put bluntly, Republicans kick out people who abuse their power and support criminal activity. Democrats reward them for their loyalty and give them positions of greater power.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 27, 2007 @ 11:15 pm - January 27, 2007
And, given that Maxine Waters is listed as one of the 20 most corrupt members of Congress, who herself has voted several million “dimes” to benefit herself, her family, and her cronies…..well, you figure it out.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 27, 2007 @ 11:19 pm - January 27, 2007
I am 84 years old and I well remember the liberal media refering to Stalin as Good Ole Uncle Joe. Also they did not think Hitler was not the bad guy either until he attached Communists Russia.
JRW
Comment by John Waggy — January 27, 2007 @ 11:35 pm - January 27, 2007
Put bluntly, Republicans kick out people who abuse their power and support criminal activity. Democrats reward them for their loyalty and give them positions of greater power.
Oh yeah?
Comment by Just A Question — January 27, 2007 @ 11:41 pm - January 27, 2007
Yeah.
Notice what happened to Tom DeLay, who’s listed in numerous of those complaints?
Meanwhile, remember the cries of Nancy Pelosi and her puppet Democrats like yourself, who claimed that anyone caught committing campaign finance fraud should a) never be in leadership and b) immediately resign and get out of politics?
Go to it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 28, 2007 @ 12:03 am - January 28, 2007
This stuff is funnier than Stewart and Colbert combined. When does the show on Comedy Central begin?
Comment by jimmy — January 28, 2007 @ 2:04 am - January 28, 2007
#20. What do you have to say to the American soldiers that took to the street and protested the Iraq Escalation on Sunday? Do they hate the troops, too? They must, right?
Comment by jimmy — January 28, 2007 @ 2:05 am - January 28, 2007
#5. All straw men, all the time. It is riveting.
Comment by jimmy — January 28, 2007 @ 2:06 am - January 28, 2007
Lot of stuff to deal with. I guess the first thing is to respond to Bruce - before he bans me! (geez how lame is that - I try to offer thoughtful, yet serious critique, and the hands clap over the ears!).
Anyway, I do find it strange that he demands of me the answer to bringing peace to Iraq and how to win against the jihadis - as if that was what his original post, or my response was about. But what the heck, gotta do what the man asks….
First thing of course, is to accept the fact that those always were two very different issues. The conflation of the two is what has led to this disaster. So lets take them one at a time.
The jihadis have bases and allies in southern Afghanistan and NW Pakistan. Although these are the people who attacked us and murdered 3K, they still exist, and are growing in strength. Why is that? Why has this battle been put on the back burner and these killers allowed to survive? A recommitment to that fight is the first order of business in the war against the jihadis, and from what I hear reported, that is a view that is widely held in the military. They know full well what can and cant be accomplished, and what the real dangers to the country are, and there is much desire to focus on the real enemy.
Beyond those bases, we must deal with the many cells that continue to fester in countries around the world. The key to that battle is to help to rebuild the political support for leaders in those countries to be seen helping us. We need to rebuild our image so that the shining city on the hill is not just some fantasy that we coddle ourselves with, but is, once again, the way the rest of the world looks at us.
I dont think that America is the great danger to the world, but a scarily large number of the people around the world have come to believe that. Now, you can rant all you want about how stupid those people are, but that is really besides the point. They have a different opinion because they see the world from a different perspective, and whether there is any objective validity to their fears or not, that is the landscape that we have to deal with. To the extent that they dont trust us, there wont be political support for thier leaders to cooperate with us, and without that, our task of tracking down those cells gets much harder. I dont know how Bush could possibly accomplish much here - we may have to wait for the next president.
As for Iraq, well, sorry no silver bullet here. But a few things need to be pointed out. What is required, above all else is a POLITICAL solution to this situation. So long as the Shiites are intent on driving out the Sunnis, and cutting them off from any share in the wealth of the country (and settling old scores, no matter how legitimate), and as long as the Sunnis have fantasies of returning to a dominant position, then there will be no peace, no matter how many tens of thousands of American soldiers are surged in there for no matter how many months, or years.
They will wait us out. I know that many on the right have made this argument against those who speak of timetables, but you dont seem to take your own arguments seriously enough. They will wait us out if we stay there five more years. Guess what folks, they live there. We dont. Eventually we will leave, even if it is not in the near future. Now, truth be told, they have not had all that much problem spiraling down into civil war even with us there. Lacking a political solution, there will be no end to the violence, even if this surge calms things down for a short while.
So that is where I think the focus should be. There are external players to the situation who are on the edge of becoming more involved in the violence there - we do not want a broader Shiite -Sunni middle east war.
And so my suggestion is basically to follow the recommendations of the ISG - demand as a condition for any further assitance real progress on political issues, engage the neighbors, and find a way to get our boys out of the line of fire, while keeping them nearby for emergencies (or on the borders to staunch the flow from outside).
I await the joy of being called a Stalin-loving, America hating retarded moonbat, for agreeing with the former Republican Sec. of State. (yeah GayPat - that was Baker and the other dems and repubs who made those suggestions, not librul dems as a group - as you well know).
And finally, to GP, I find it so bizzare that you can say that all we hear from the left is antiAmericanism. Man, you should get out a little more - what do you do for information, just listen to hate radio or read those absurd rw blogs? I mean, get real man - this is serious business, not politics as pro-wrestling type entertainment.
Comment by Tano — January 28, 2007 @ 2:21 am - January 28, 2007
North Dallas Thirty.
Well thank you for taking the time to respond at length - I feel a little strange taking up so much room here already, but I will try to address your points.
Belive it or not, I was amongst those who criticized people like Saddeam for a very long time. The guy was always a murderous psychopath. There is obviously no comparison to the levels of torture that he engaged and what we have (but it must be remembered, that our culpability did not end with Abu Ghraib).
I find it strange that you could actually write “I had nothing to say”. Do I know you? Have we been good buddies, or even causal aquintences over the years such that you would have the first clue as to what I have or have not said?
Or maybe you just mean me as some stereotypical representative of what you imagine the “left” to be? There again, if you did some research, you might find plenty of lefties who spoke out about Saddam in years past.
But to your larger point. There is, of course, a big difference between places like Iraq and the United states. The US is OUR COUNTRY, you doofus. We the people are soverign here. We decide what happens here. Hey, I would love to save the world, and I do support efforts to do that, even, occaisionally, in the right circumstances, using force. But the policies and practices of the United States government is a day to day concern - in fact a RESPONSIBILITY of free people who are citizens. We criticize the US government because it is us. That is, and always must be our primary concern - to make a more perfect our union.
You seem to have this bizarre notion that ending torture in Iraq and ending torture by the US government are two issues that can be compared - such that we can simply accept that it is worse by far in Iraq and so we should deal with that. You ignore the obvious, that one is a foregin country that we know little about, and the other is our country.
I’m sorry to be blunt, but I think it absurd nonsense to argue that because Saddam was orders of magnitude worse, that we should just shut up about what our government does in our name. We can control, we MUST control, as citizens, what our government does. We have very little control over what goes on in the rest of the world.
But we do have some means at our disposal. And as I said, I think it proper, in certain circumstances, to use force. But you damn well better know what you are doing. In Bosnia and Kosovo we did. We could see a genocide in progress, we could see a way that targetted and limited application of force could stop that, and we did so. I was find with that. I was also fine with the Fulf War - a blatant violation of the UN charter, and a straightforward rape and pillage of a small neighbor. We had to drive Iraq out and we did. Ditto Afghanistan after 9/11 - in fact I think we shoud have continued that fight.
So my point is, that taking out Saddam was not evil, in theory. But in this case we were not driving a forieng force out (like in Kuwait or, effectivly Kosovo), we were invading the country itself and taking out its government and thus inheriting responsibility for the lives of the people. I was opposed to the war - though I readily admit that it was a difficult decision. I just never got the sense that there was any realistic thought or committment to the aftermath. Although I didnt articlate it in my mind to the detail that we now see, I just sensed that we would not know what we were doing there and tha chaos could ensue. Maybe it was the mindless militarism of the Bush supporters, and the snow job (and yes, that is how it struck me) coming from the administration to justify the war, that made me think that there was not much serious thinking going on about what all this would bring. And sad to say, that is what happened.
Anyway, I shouldnt ramble on endlessly here. Quick riposte to some of your other charges. I did not claim any governmental repression of speech - I was referring to the mindset of the right that equates full participation in the democratic process with treason, or aiding the enemy. Thats a serious charge, the rhetorical force of which is to be an attempt to shut people up. I really wonder sometimes whether many righties might really be more comfortable in an explicitly authoritarian system - they just dont get this democracy thing (or at least, all its implications).
Anyway, at the end I sense you let yourself go a little, delving into madness perhaps. Let me just calmly assure you that nobody here on the left hates America, despite what the rabble rousers are constantly shouting in your ears. In fact, if you want to consider America hating, how about those entertainers of yours, who are constantly trying their best to get y’all to hate half of the people in this country. Isnt hating Americans kinda like hating America?
Comment by Tano — January 28, 2007 @ 2:54 am - January 28, 2007
And, while we’re at it, let’s fix Afghanistan too.
Comment by vaara — January 28, 2007 @ 3:12 am - January 28, 2007
#21
However, this does not mean that all liberals hate America, which is what we’re being encouraged to believe here.
Perhaps not. However, the silence of those who don’t is deafening. Just like the silent Muslims who disagree with those who have hijacked their religion.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 28, 2007 @ 5:45 am - January 28, 2007
#32
I try to offer thoughtful, yet serious critique,
Yeah. Let us know when you do that because so far, it ain’t happened.
The jihadis have bases and allies in southern Afghanistan and NW Pakistan.
And Bahrain, and Bangledesh and France and Germany and India and Egypt and Belgium and Bosnia and Iran and Saudi Arabia and Tanzania and the UK and Sudan and Switzerland and Mauritania and Ireland and Russia and Somalia (until recently?) and Qatar and Kenya and Lebanon and Switzerland and Uzbekistan and Malaysia… Shall I go on?
Why has this battle been put on the back burner and these killers allowed to survive?
It hasn’t. There’s just more jihadis dying than American soldiers. Therefore, liberals and the MSM don’t give a f*ck about it anymore. They can still get their rocks off with soldiers in Iraq though. THAT’S why it’s on the “back burner”.
CIA said we’ve killed or captured over 5,000 of them. Libs could give a rotten sh*t less. The only reason the MSM noticed the Taliban incursions into southern Afghanistan was so they could cheer their heroes and maybe Bush might lose there after all.
A recommitment to that fight is the first order of business…and from what I hear reported, that is a view that is widely held in the military.
From what I’ve heard for a number of years until recently, SF wants to go back to Somalia.
I dont think that America is the great danger to the world, but a scarily large number of the people around the world have come to believe that.
Bolstered by certain factions who constantly undermine the president, tells us how much we suck, tells us how much we deserved 9/11, tells us how Bush is the greatest threat to the world etc. What should they think when they see “our own” ranting about how much of a dictator Bush is, how he’s Hitler etc.? What should they think when the ditch b*tch humps Hugo Chavez’s leg? What should they think when they see “our own” demanding we surrender and give up on the job we set out to do? How would running away from Iraq impress “our allies”? What are they supposed to think when “our own” gleefully spooges over the deaths of our soldiers or makes criminals out of them on a regular basis?
Here’s a radical idea: How about making a sacrifice and supporting our soldiers in the jobs they have to do or shut the hell up? I don’t want to suppress dissent, however, I will call for the suppression of intellectually vacuous dissent, which is all we’ve heard for the past several years.
To the extent that they dont trust us, there wont be political support for thier leaders to cooperate with us,
Why should they when they keep hearing from Americans is how we should give them the finger, bail out and let the real bloodbath begin? I wouldn’t trust you either.
skipping ahead:
what do you do for information, just listen to hate radio or read those absurd rw blogs?
Don’t have to. All you have to do is listen to the words, watch the deeds and read the blogs of the liberal left. Before long, you wind up knowing liberals like every square inch of your glorious naked body.
I mean, get real man - this is serious business, not politics as pro-wrestling type entertainment.
Which is EXACTLY why liberals cannot be trusted with our interests. We hear libs whine about listening to the generals, then when a general tells them what they don’t want to hear, they (Hillary) essentially tells him to STFU. It IS serious business and we have liberals playing political games with our soldiers by issuing “non-binding” resolutions because they know they don’t have the balls to cut the funding. What’s worse is that some spineless tw*t Republicans have fallen for their political games.
How about a resolution for victory? How about supporting the U.S. for a change?
Oh BTW, we’re very much aware of Baker’s affiliation and history which makes the Iraq Surrender suggestion even more distressing. And here’s a newsflash for you…they don’t have any more authority in commanding our soldiers or what dictatorships we deal with any more than “my” a$$ clown Sen. Bill Nelson does.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 28, 2007 @ 6:40 am - January 28, 2007
If liberals don’t hate America, why are they trying so hard to destroy it?
I get the impression that when liberals claim they love “America,” they are only referring to a fondness for some of the scenery that incidentally occupies the middle portion of the North American landmass, or perhaps “America” refers to the landmass in toto, since liberals hate it when people chant “USA.” This is why liberals are so hot to change the national anthem from one that actually commemorates a historical event (”The Star-Spangled Banner”) to one that’s just a meditation on a landscape (”America the Beautiful”)
But when it comes to everything makes America unique among the world’s nations, liberals work hard on destroying it. They attack our history, shortchanging the Founding Fathers and the philosophy that led them to create a nation founded on liberty to instead focus on PC propaganda about blacks, native Americans and other “oppressed peoples.” Their goal, apparently, is to raise generations of kids indoctrinated in how awful America is. Perhaps not all teachers, but the ones that skew this way are invariably liberal, and the liberal ACLU and the liberal teacher’s union will defend the one who teach this way.
Liberals don’t seem to think American culture is anything special, which is why they eagerly flood the landscape with immigrants, illegal and otherwise, and insist that instead of adopting our culture, these immigrants be allowed to establish mini-colonies where they can recreate the culture they came here to get away from. And those who think it’s important for new immigrants to adopt our language, our laws, and our culture are derided, mainly by liberals, as nativists and racists. And immigrants who try to adapt are derided by multi-culti liberals as “assimiliationists.”
Liberals constantly attack individual freedom, which is what made America a great and unique nation, in favor of group rights doled out to designated sub-groups favored by the elite political class. Liberals constantly strive to eliminate individual choice in schools (except for elites), health care, even what cars we can drive and what food we can eat. With McCain-Feingold, even our political speech rights are limited, and liberals in the Senate led by Harry gReid are pushing for even more regulation of political speech through mandatory registration of bloggers and the “fairness doctrine.”
Liberals constantly attack capitalism, the greated mechanism for the economic and social advancement in the history of humankind, and an integral part of American greatness. They also constantly attack property rights, the recent Kelo decision being a great example. (5 liberal SCOTUS justices agreeing with a left-wing city government that it’s okay to confiscate private property from one owner and give it to another.)
Liberals even hold American-made products in contempt, as they pile into their Volvos and Subarus to drive to protests where they denounce Wal-Mart for being against American workers.
Do all liberals do all of these things all of the time? No, but if large numbers of liberals objected to what was being done by their politicians, their judges, and their leadership, would these things be happening?
Comment by V the K — January 28, 2007 @ 8:41 am - January 28, 2007
How about a resolution for victory?
Because they don’t want America to win. Simple as that.
Comment by V the K — January 28, 2007 @ 8:42 am - January 28, 2007
v to the k- a victrory for bush is a defeat for america and iraq
that gay- lol. al queda is going to come to america and saw my head off? how would they do that? You think muslims would sail over on great ships and conquer america?
and what does that have to do with iraq? Iraq has been a massive boon for al queda. there are suicide bombs EVERY DAY. you think we just have to wait till they run out of suicide bombers? lol they NEVER will. muslim reproduce faster than mexicans.
explain to me how al queda is goinf to take over america
Comment by lester — January 28, 2007 @ 9:13 am - January 28, 2007
Lester: Hmmm. They killed 3000+ Americans in New York only a few years ago. They didn’t need much to conquer our economy for a couple years. An open economy and society is far easier to conquer than you might think. Have you visited much of Europe recently? They are already conquered emotionally/spiritually and it is but a matter of time. Let me quote a line you stated “muslim reproduce faster than mexicans”.
Finally: :a victrory for bush is a defeat for america and iraq” - besides the obvious emotional fury showing through in your typing, this says it all.
Comment by Alan — January 28, 2007 @ 11:39 am - January 28, 2007
“Ah, so a liberal 40 years ago welcomed Castro in Harlem.”
Every year you can find prominent liberals praising Castro, some of them in elected office. And I am personally acquainted with Democratic Party workers who think well of Castro.
John Kerry praised the North Vietnamese regime, before he realized that such honesty might be bad for his political career.
And Jimmy Carter keeps saying the most amazing things.
Comment by pst314 — January 28, 2007 @ 12:13 pm - January 28, 2007
al queda and fellow travellers won’t need to “conquer” America. They’ll just work our liberal system against us like they do in Britain. One snap of their fingers and every Leftist in America will bow down to their every demand in the name of mulitculturalism and ssssenssssitivity. The Brits can’t even wave their own flag these days (too Crusader).
Comment by VinceTN — January 28, 2007 @ 12:46 pm - January 28, 2007
lester, does it have to be your head before you get concerned about it?
Comment by Jamie — January 28, 2007 @ 12:53 pm - January 28, 2007
Does the irony of Amnesty International activists protesting against the US at Gitmo — while an entire nation lies oppressed right outside Gitmo’s gates — completely escape the activists?
I can only hope that news of the protest gets spread within Cuba so that the AI activists are met by a flotilla of real refugees! Maybe the AI folks could give them a lift to the land of the free.
Then again, I doubt the AI folks would even know what a real refugee looks like…
Comment by biff — January 28, 2007 @ 1:00 pm - January 28, 2007
Jefferson on corporations: “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a
trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
Madison on religion: “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize [sic], every expanded prospect.”
John Adams on fear (the cornerstone of today’s GOP): “Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.”
Comment by vaara — January 28, 2007 @ 2:22 pm - January 28, 2007
Great post. And Scott has the right of it — they aren’t hypocrites and they ARE on the other side. J f’n K making common cause on the same stage with terrorists and dictators at Davos and repugnant moonbats protesting across the country this weekend prove it - they are hand-in-glove with our enemies and aren’t even hiding it. This is the true face of the Democrat Party.
Comment by Peg C. — January 28, 2007 @ 2:29 pm - January 28, 2007
ThatGayConservative,
Well, it has taken quite a while for my eyes to stop rolling in my head after reading this line that you wrote:
” I will call for the suppression of intellectually vacuous dissent, which is all we’ve heard for the past several years.”
There seems to be some implication here that you see yourself operating on some non-vacuous level. I marvel at the type of mentality that can write the post that you do - a long, bitter, vulgar rant, without the slightest hint of any rational thought, and then try to criticize others for being vacuous.
You seem oblivious to the cardinal rule of public discourse - that your words will ALWAYS be taken more as an expression of your character than as any sort of an accurate description of your subject.
We all are at least as aware of the subjects under discussion as you are, we all have our opinions on these matters, and if any of us are going to change our minds, based on what we read here, it is only going to be as a result of an extended serious discussion of the particular points of difference, and the perception, by the one whose opinion will change, that the other point of view exhibits deeper insights, is better informed by the facts, or represents a wiser perspective.
Are you under some kind of illusion that showing off your ability to come up with psuedo-clever, vulgar insults is capable of impressing anyone? That projecting an image of a deeply angry, downright hateful persona is going to win adherents to your point of view?
I can only conclude that there is no interest on your part to persuade anyone of anything, but that your comments are nothing but performance art - and that for some reason you have this existential need to proclaim to the world the secrets of your soul, that you are, to sum it up succinctly, an ignorant jerk.
I’m not saying that that is what you really are, but you do seem obsessed with projecting that image. The first clue to this, of course, was how you began your response. When I mentioned the bases in Afghanistan, you then list all the other places where al-Q is located. What kind of an unserious response is that? I was quite explicit in discussing Afghanistan as a first step, and I went on to discuss all the cells that are located elsewhere and the type of strategy (different from the strategy in Afghanistan) that we needed to pursue in order to deal with them.
So that part of your response merely demonstrates either that you didnt actually read what I wrote, or that you willfully ignore what I actually wrote and simply were using me as some kind of foil - an excuse to get down to the serious business at hand which was to get that heaving going and to vomit up all your bile and spread it all over this page.
Should I even waste my time pointing out how absurd your comments about Afghanistan, and its back burner status, are? No, there is not enough substance to your comments to even get a toehold. Let me just repeat the basic facts. These are the people who actually murdered 3K Americans. That was 5 1/2 years ago. We, quite properly, went to war to eliminate them. They are still there. The cheif murderer is still operating, running and building his organization. They still control territory.
You worry about sending messages to the enemy, and to fence-sitters who could possibly be swayed by them? You rant about Clinton failing to respond to attacks in the nineites? Why cant you get it through your thick skull that the world sees Osama bin Laden as a man who marched into New York City and killed 3000 people and has GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT.
And you are so incredibly, blindingly stupid as to think that the sight of some American politicians, standing up to defend the processes layed out in the Constitution, is somehow more of a message of encouragment to the enemy than the continued survival of bin Laden?
The world sees what you seem incapable of seeing. That attacking America can be done without too much cost, because the American government, at least the one in power now, is more interested in using the attacks as an excuse to engage a wholly different project - a war in Iraq, of all places, than to actually deal with the perpetrators of the great crime.
You also seem to be under some kind of delusion that the president is some type of a dictator in this country - that he has some special powers to be “the decider” over and above the political process, as if the committment of American troops into combat brings with it a suspension of democracy. It is attitudes like yours that cause the more intemperate speakers on my side to dismiss all of you people as a bunch of fascists. Here is a clue for you. The president is commander in chief of the armed forces, not of the country. He is, and always remains, a public servant, an EMPLOYEE of the soverign power in this country - i.e. we the people.
We the people decide the policies of this country, and that certianly includes decisions about war and peace. We are a free people, and we will fight to the death to remain so, and we will freely express our opinions on all matters, at all times. And if you dont like it, well, then you dont like America, or the American political system. Maybe you would be happier in some regimented authoritarian system, where people know when to shut up, although remaining free to speak their mind whenever they want to, so long as they agree with the leader.
I feel I have given you more time already than your comment deserved, so I will close with a simple response to your comments about victory.
Your comments about victory seem to be entirely in the abstract, with no reference to what happens on the ground. Do you have any idea what you are talking about? What does victory in this situation involve? Are we to become complicit in the mass murder and ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis, which seems to be the ambition of significant parts of the current government? Maliki has assured Bush that he can handle the situation in Baghdad - in fact, before this surge idea arose, he was actually asking Bush to withdraw Americans from Baghdad, so that his forces could do the job. Bush, to his credit, figured out just what Maliki was talking about - and the nature of the “job” that he envisioned.
If there was any reasonable avenue ahead of us in which the use of our force could end the civil war and persuade the people to focus their energies into civil disputation rather than violence, in a governmental framework that had at least some basic resemblance to a representational system, with guarantees for equal treatment, then maybe I could support that, and even equate it with victory.
But one of the great pathologies that has overtaken the rightwing in this country is the equation of fantasies with reality. The fact that we can paint this rosy future in our dreams does not mean that it has any chance of happening on the ground. And hoo-rah chants, and references to the great power of our military doesnt make it any more realistic.
I think that you, and so many others on the right, are deeply unserious people. You may not make explicit clowns of yourself by marching in the streets behind funny puppets, but you do, endlessly, indulge yourself in fantasies rather than looking clearly at the real world, and you also seem content to engage in mindless ranting and vulgar namecalling, rather than any serious efforts to persuade. I wonder what the point is.
Comment by Tano — January 28, 2007 @ 2:50 pm - January 28, 2007
#37: I forgot to mention an instance of self-contradiction on your part. You imply that liberals value the landscape of America more than its values, but then you go on to accuse liberals of “[allowing] these immigrants [...] to establish mini-colonies where they can recreate the culture they came here to get away from.”
This is nothing new. Ethnic enclaves have existed in America since at least the late nineteenth century. For example, Chinatowns — which were clearly an “attempt to recreate the culture they came here to get away from.” What about the Yiddish-speaking faux-shtetls that arose in many U.S. cities? Not to mention the various German, Dutch, Scandinavian, Polish, etc. etc. communities that have thrived, and eventually dissipated, during our country’s history.
Did the existence of these monolingual, monocultural enclaves pose a mortal threat to America? Were/are they a nefarious manifestation of the evil bogeyman of “multiculturalism” or “political correctness” (whatever that is)?
And if so, then how do you square this your belief in the supremacy of the “mind” of America over its “body”? You say that America is a set of ideas and values, not merely a patch of real estate. So it shouldn’t matter whether there are Latino barrios “defacing” L.A. or Korean “mini-colonies” in Queens.
Incidentally, one thing most immigrant groups have in common is that they count within their ranks many enthusiastic entrepreneurs. And if that’s not an American value, I don’t know what is.
Comment by vaara — January 28, 2007 @ 3:14 pm - January 28, 2007
#47: What a complete dodge and distortion (but, what else can one expect from a lib?). The difference is, previous waves of immigrants were expected to assimilate, learn English, and accept American culture and values. To liberal-lefties today, the notion that immigrants should leave behind their culture and become a part of ours is offensive and racist.
Also, leftist policies are actually quite hostile to entrepreneurism, because heavy government regulation enacts what are known as “barriers to entry,” to keep large businesses from having to compete with new entrants. This is why small businesses are all but extinct in heavily socialized economies like Sweden. I seem to recall a certain left-wing first lady cum carpet-bagging senator cum democrat frontrunner, upon being told her health care plan would destroy small businesses as saying “I can’t be responsible for every under-capitalized business in the United States.”
Comment by V the K — January 28, 2007 @ 3:29 pm - January 28, 2007
It’s also rather difficult to make the case that liberals favor small business entrepreneurship when the libs in congress are choking small businesses with a massive minimum wage hike, opposing tax breaks to help off-set the increase, and, in the meantime, cutting out exceptions for their big business buddies at Star-Kist/Del Monte.
Comment by V the K — January 28, 2007 @ 3:33 pm - January 28, 2007
This is a most interesting thread.
The post I most agree with is V the K’s #36 and I do think Tano makes some sense.
Tano, you stated (#9, para. 9):
“Instead of embracing the notion of democracy - which rests on the notion of the people as soverign - the rightwing has consistently payed almost complete deference to the policy directions of the dear leader …”
Your implication of the North Korean regime hardly elevates you above the “incredibly stupid” (para. 1) level of which you accuse Bruce. However, you are correct about the nature of democracy and that is precisely why this is a constitutionally-limited republican form of government and not a democracy. Disagree? Read some political science and some history. You think I’m splitting hairs to score points on a conservative blog? Read on.
My single biggest gripe isn’t with liberals — it is with conservatives. Liberalism ranges from a youthful bout of mental disorder to full-scale disease and is on display as such for all to see on a daily basis. However, I find myself consistently annoyed with conservatives who refuse to refute liberalism in a direct, honest way. That is because conservatives aren’t sure who/what they/we are. We’re sure we reject liberalism, but what is it to be conservative?
Here’s a small example:
No one can logically justify continuing to support PBS/NPR with tax subsidies. When the argument is presented that in this country, we have and cherish a private media based on the traditions of free speech and free association, the only lame answer one gets from a liberal is that we spend so much on the military that the proverbial drop in the bucket for public media is negligible. Yet with a Republican President, Senate, and House, we could not bring ourselves to end them. Deathly afraid of being accused of ‘taking Big Bird away from kids’ (Clinton), the President simply cannot appear before the American people and lay out the logic of the position. That NPR/PBS is very left-of-center has nothing to do with the logic, except that we as ‘conservatives’ are the only ones willing to criticize the situation. Does anyone really believe that PBS would die if it were allowed to become a private corporation and reap the profits on sales of Tickle Me Elmo? After all, I hear advertisements on NPR and see them on PBS every time I turn it on (ADM, Ford, Bose, etc.) — I thought public broadcasting’s stated purpose was to have advertisement-free news and opinion. Gee, I guess I’m just being a bit cynical if I suspect it’s another full employment program for would-be journalists who know their views wouldn’t be welcomed in the marketplace of ideas. Think of all the other useless, unnecessary programs we taxpayers fund — are there hundreds of them? Why have they not been addressed? Has everything including domestic conservatism taken a very back seat to this war? (For those of you about to write an indignant post exclaiming that the Prez has had his hands full of more important things: bull****.)
Here’s a more macro example:
We need to avoid those foreign entanglements our Founding Fathers warned us about. This means economic (WTO), political/diplomatic (UN and others), and military (about 500,000 personnel stationed in over 100 countries across the globe). We need to take a long look at foreign aid and whether the money spent reaches those in need or merely lines the pockets of oppressors or the corrupt or both. In this cyber age, why do we need to maintain expensive embassies (I’d like to know just how much we spend on the upkeep for our beautiful downtown Paris property) except to provide targets for terrorists, illegal immigrants, and cushy jobs as quid pro quos for American political hacks? I’m all for diplomacy, encouraging peaceful resolutions to international conflicts and occasional military actions when American interests are threatened, but am I the only rightie who agrees that perhaps our overwhelming presence in the world is deeply resented by many and could be part of the cause of some our current international troubles? al-Q didn’t attack Tokyo or Paris or Berlin or Toronto. Sure, the U.S. is a symbol of power and success and a natural target, but if we are really honest with ourselves, are there positions we are taking in our complicated relationships with other nations (that we have made complicated) that encourage and in sick, twisted minds justify actions against us? Frankly, being the world’s only great superpower ain’t all that great. As for President Bush, am I the only rightie who suspects that the decision to enter Iraq was likely made as a response to the constant criticism his father received for failing to take Desert Storm to Baghdad, removing Saddam Hussein from power, and proceeding to do exactly what his son is now doing? Well, George — we didn’t elect you that much.
As for Castro, does it make sense to restore full diplomatic relations with Vietnam while treating Cuba as a pariah? Since capitalism has so utterly defeated communism, would it not be preferable for Castro to witness the defeat first-hand and to see freedom trump his island paradise, crumbling whatever power he enjoyed (he’s a multi-multi-millionaire, by the way) while he is alive, rather than giving him the satisfaction of being defiant to his grave, or does the Kennedy family (not to mention the Cuban community in Florida) have so much sway that we simply cannot dishonor JFK’s legacy? Does suggesting that we recognize the strength of basic economics to destroy tyranny make me a Castro sympathizer? Of course not!
I’m deeply troubled with the direction this country has taken and most Americans agree with me. There doesn’t seem to be an alternative to the current administration except the Democratic Party, which is no alternative. I’m hopeful that the Republicans will return to a more common sense and truly conservative and pro-American position and soon. I will be very glad when Bush is out of office.
Comment by HardHobbit — January 28, 2007 @ 3:54 pm - January 28, 2007
Hey Book’em Tano, this is actually pretty good, if some one can ignore the multiple insults and name calling…. Here are some responses to your very very serious and clear headed post…
———————————&#