Liberal's War

[rtwngAvngr]

This article is referenced in another thread, but it's so awesome it deserves it's own thread.


This is from the DLC website! Amazing!

(mods, please consider leaving this in it's entirety against policy, cuz it's so damn awesome)

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=253452

DLC | Blueprint Magazine | July 22, 2005
Liberal's War
By Peter Ross Range
Table of Contents
Here's a novel idea: The war on terror should be, above all, a liberal's war.

Think about it: The jihadist campaign is not some generic explosion of terrorism, but rather a calculated attack on all that liberals hold dear: tolerance, diversity, women's rights, the fundamental freedoms and protections of democracy, even trade unionism. In short, liberal values. That's why the liberal left makes a profound mistake if it concedes this war to George W. Bush and the right.

If it weren't already obvious that liberals should be leading exponents of the war on terror -- rather than only its sharpest critics -- then the London terror attacks should have had a clarifying effect. By striking one of the most liberal-minded cities in the world, the jihadists showed their disdain for the place where more Muslims have found greater refuge from the failings of their own societies, politically and economically, than anywhere else. Nowhere else do they experience greater freedom of speech -- including the right to use their mosques to incite violence against non-Muslims.

All these freedoms are clearly bad stuff in the jihadists' playbook, so they used their own freedom to try to take away that of others.

Nobody said it better than London Mayor Ken ("Red Ken") Livingstone, a leading leftist. Though openly critical of Tony Blair for his support of the war in Iraq, Livingstone was eloquent and unequivocal about the terrorists. Pointing out that London had been chosen for the 2012 Olympic Games partly because 300 languages are spoken in his city, Livingstone said the jihadists' "cowardly attack" was aimed not "against the mighty or the powerful, it was aimed at ordinary working-class Londoners. Black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindus and Jews, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, class, religion whatever."

If only we could hear such moral clarity from our own party's left! Instead, we heard from Daily Kos, the ur-liberal ur-blogger, whose blog included a cheer for, among others, outcast Labourite George Galloway, who blamed the attacks on Blair's Iraq policy -- and was roundly denounced by virtually all British politicians. "See, Democrats? That's how it's done," lectured the blogger ignorantly. Likewise, Matt Yglesias, an articulate liberal voice at The American Prospect, who belittled Marshall Wittmann's call for moral clarity as a phrase never used "unironically" anymore. No wonder Democrats are perceived to have a values problem.

My liberal friends are quick to point out that the left's chief grievance is with the war in Iraq, not the war on terror. But what does it do for the image of the Democratic Party -- not to mention the thinking of rank and file Democrats -- when some of our most skilled commentators use a moment of unambiguous terror to first find fault with an American policy (unseating Saddam Hussein) rather than first condemning the terrorists? It's both morally wrong and politically dumb. These musings in the left-wing blogosphere may be read regularly by only a few thousand people, but they seep into the intellectual bloodstream of the Democratic Party. They once again place Democrats on the wrong side of the ultimate issue of our time: winning the war on terror.

Democrats should learn from Red Ken. Though he has questionable views on some other topics, the mayor seemed to know there are moments when there is only one right response. And then there was the inestimable Tony Blair. Once again, the British prime minister got it right. He understands that winning this war requires working it from both ends -- quashing the terrorists remorselessly while ameliorating terrorism's root causes. Blair pointed out that on the day of the London bombings, he was working to reduce poverty in Africa and protect the global environment. How many poor people was bin Laden helping that day?

Perhaps most wrongheaded of all were those who used the bombings to call for an immediate, or imminent, withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. They do the liberal cause a disservice. Those who hated the war the most should be the strongest supporters of helping Iraqis get on their feet, politically and economically. And those who believe that the daily carnage in Iraq is mainly directed against the American presence in the country are simply not reading the numbers: Vastly more Iraqis are being killed than Americans. The insurgent cause is against the establishment of Iraqi democracy, not the presence of U.S. bases or troops. Just listen to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the main insurgent leader. He announced on Jan. 22 that "we have declared bitter war against the principle of democracy. ... Those who vote ... are infidels. ... If a Muslim apostatizes from Islam to heresy, he should be killed ..."

What more do progressives need to know?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

My jaw is still somewhere on my living room floor.

 

[-Cp]

 

[ScreamingEagle]

My jaw is still somewhere on my living room floor.

Don't be too impressed. Liberals must condemn terrorism at home or else they are politically dead. They want to have it both ways.

The article trumps up Mayor Livingstone who is really just another Neville Chamberlaine. This big hero of theirs actually defends suicide bombers.

http://www.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/Government/London_Mayor_Defends_Suicide_Bombers_32513.html

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1122085380775

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Don't be too impressed. Liberals must condemn terrorism at home or else they are politically dead. They want to have it both ways.

The article trumps up Mayor Livingstone who is really just another Neville Chamberlaine. This big hero of theirs actually defends suicide bombers.

http://www.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/Government/London_Mayor_Defends_Suicide_Bombers_32513.html

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1122085380775

I know this article is just for the public record. I'm certain that in day to day interviews, speeches and policy decisions, they will still be clueless. Time will tell.