Will The Real Democrats Please Stand Up?

[Bonnie]

If there are any left..........

www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5237&R=C4221...

You'd think it owuld be a great time to be a small-L liberal: human freedom is on the march in such unlikely places as Iraq, Afghanistan, and even among the Palestinians. The President of the United States can't seem to go five minutes without praising the virtues of liberty, and realpolitikers have been banished to the policy wilderness. Liberal principles have never before been so proudly proclaimed in framing U.S. foreign and security policy.

The only problem for liberals, of course, is that the architect of all this is named George W. Bush, and this poses a consoderable conundrum. It's been instructive to watch the shifts of opinion at The New Republic, long flagship of responsible foreign policy liberalism in the Democratic Party. Originally strongly supportive of the invasion of Iraq, the magazine's writers have become increasingly disenchanted as the interest-based arguments for the war--Iraq's presumed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction--have collapsed............more

 

[Huckleburry]

First, liberalism is not a political term but rather an economic one and because I would rather not sully the good name of the later, I will abstain from applying liberalism to politics. The correct term is idealism and I am not an idealist.
No one is going to like to hear this because at this point, everyone has their own truth in their mind about the war and that is unlikely to change.
I opposed the war in Iraq. I opposed it in the beginning, I opposed it during the brunt of the fighting, and (though I am pleased with the election) I oppose it today. I oppose it for two reasons.
First, the evidence in support of the WMD's did not exist and not surprisingly, we did not find any. Choosing to believe that the intelligence community provided false information (even though all of the evidence suggests that they provided accurate information but, in the administrations point of view, incorrect information) is a personal choice that has been made by many on this board. I for one am always wary when the propaganda machine goes to work.
Second, Iraq did not have links to Al-Quida. Examine the literature, examine the fundamental ideologies of both organizations they were not compatible regimes. Just because two regimes are unjust does not mean they are compatible. Russia under Stalin and Germany under Hitler is an appropriate example of this concept.
The two primary reasons for going to war are now debunked, except that we are no longer fighting to protect ourselves from WMD's or terror. We are now fighting for "freedom" and "democracy" now we are fighting for white picket fences and apple pie, for the rights of the Iraqi people. I say hogwash, the Americans concerned with Kerry's propensity for oscillation should have looked no further than the rhetoric of the man they so faithfully supported. Any President with the audacity to bring the American people to war under false pretences is at best a criminal and at worst a truly evil person, either way they are unfit to rule so great a nation. I am truly happy that the Iraqi people got the chance to vote, however, I would be perfectly willing to leave them in the clutches of a tyrant than to have America's trust shattered, image degraded, and name genuinely disliked by the rest of the world. Those who view world opinion as insignificant justify their position using the same argument as the isolationists of WWI. They would do well to study recent history.
Comparing Bush to Truman is silly. While the latter believed cronyism to be a crime of treason and rebuilt Europe thoughtfully and thoroughly, the former embraces such a concept with open arms and continues to demonstrate his love for his compatriots at the expense of Americans, Iraqis and the rest of the world. If we are fighting an ideological war based on freedom and democracy then why are we not also supporting the free market system, which supports such a system? In my view it is because Bush is not fighting a war for freedom and democracy if that were the case then he would have said that when he first wanted to invade Iraq.
Finally, those who believe real politik is dead are sorely mistaken. This is not a conflict of ideologies (though it has been sold as such) it is a conflict for economic gain and military strength. Why else would the US military be building permanent bases in Iraq (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0930/p17s02-cogn.html) and why else would US forces be so vigilant in their protection of the Iraqi oil installations. It may not be so noble a goal but this war is about expanding US military and economic power, not making the "world safe for democracy".
Bonnie you asked if the real Democrats would please stand up, they already have and for their trouble they had their mic's cut and their patriotism called into question. Not because they were not being patriots but rather because they were being patriots, asking hard questions to which Brit Hume, Bill O'Reilly G.W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, or Dick Cheney had no answer. Rather that group of thieves responded with propaganda and half-truths. Washington once hoped that his words "may now and then recur to moderate the fury of the party spirit, to warn against the mischief’s of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism" it would seem that such a modest hope has been shattered.
Cheers
Huck

 

[rtwngAvngr]

ANd the islamofascists are all about increasing their economic power and military control. Who's side are you on, Huck?

Read this before you decide.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/

 

[Merlin1047]

First, liberalism is not a political term but rather an economic one

Well, you started out dead wrong with that statement and went downhill from there.

I did get a giggle when I got out the old unabridged and found this definition of "liberal" as it applies to politics - "favorable to individual liberty, social reform and the removal of economic restraints". Now isn't that a hoot? Seems that Webster's is in dire need of some updating.

Let's take it one at a time. "Favorable to individual liberty". What crap. Libs only favor individual liberty when it suits them. Witness the attempts to squash Rush Limbaugh, how about the rabid disdain for the Fox news network, let's not even mention the speech codes rampant on our college campuses - all imposed by LIBERALS.

Next comes "favorable . . . to social reform". Now that's even funnier. Libs don't want any reform. They want to continue the same tired old garbage they have foisted on us for decades. Handout programs which create ever more dependency, affirmative action programs which institutionalize racism, and burying their heads in the sand to claim that there is no crisis in social security.

And the biggest hoot of all "favorable to . . . the removal of economic restraints". Hell, libs are the biggest anti-business fanatics on the planet. They view anyone who makes money as having stolen it from the poor. They view anyone with an income as someone to be fleeced in order to "re-distribute" wealth as libs see fit.

And then you come along with your tired whine. The same old song we've heard from lib dingbats for the last three years. Somehow Clinton and Gore were telling the gospel truth when they relied on intelligence data to make the case against Saddam, yet when GW uses that SAME data to base his decision to attack, you two-faced hypocrites start screaming "He lied, he lied!" That crap was stupid when it first started, and time has done nothing to improve the credibilty of that ridiculous assertion and frankly I'm getting pretty sick of hearing you pathetic whiners trot that lie out.

I'm not even going to bother to address the substance of your post. First, it's been done to death and second I'd be talking to a rock. Trying to reason with a lib is pretty much like throwing a rope around a mountain and trying to drag it somewhere.

 

[manu1959]

And the biggest hoot of all "favorable to . . . the removal of economic restraints". Hell, libs are the biggest anti-business fanatics on the planet. They view anyone who makes money as having stolen it from the poor. They view anyone with an income as someone to be fleeced in order to "re-distribute" wealth as libs see fit.

dead on!.....particullary your comment above.... it is so damn ironic when you take into account how rich pelosi, feinstein, kerry and kenedy are....

ever notice how the guility always accuse others?

 

[acludem]

For those of you who failed political science 101 (and that appears to be many of you), the word "Liberal" as a political science term is someone who favors the easing of economic restraints, favorable to individual liberty and political reform. The term "conservative" in political science terms is someone who is pro-business, pro-free trade, and generally opposes social reform and tends to have less of a problem with government regulation of personal behavior. The word "Liberal" in American politics is often used to refer to people who support some government regulation of business. Liberal everywhere else on the planet means exactly what Webster defined to mean. Most American conservatives oppose globalization and free trade. The terms are applied differently in the academic sense and in American political sense.

acludem

 

[rtwngAvngr]

For those of you who failed political science 101 (and that appears to be many of you), the word "Liberal" as a political science term is someone who favors the easing of economic restraints, favorable to individual liberty and political reform. The term "conservative" in political science terms is someone who is pro-business, pro-free trade, and generally opposes social reform and tends to have less of a problem with government regulation of personal behavior. The word "Liberal" in American politics is often used to refer to people who support some government regulation of business. Liberal everywhere else on the planet means exactly what Webster defined to mean. Most American conservatives oppose globalization and free trade. The terms are applied differently in the academic sense and in American political sense.

acludem

These old definitions don't apply. Bogging the conversation down with tangential term definitions is not a good arguing strategy.

 

[Annie]

For those of you who failed political science 101 (and that appears to be many of you), the word "Liberal" as a political science term is someone who favors the easing of economic restraints, favorable to individual liberty and political reform. The term "conservative" in political science terms is someone who is pro-business, pro-free trade, and generally opposes social reform and tends to have less of a problem with government regulation of personal behavior. The word "Liberal" in American politics is often used to refer to people who support some government regulation of business. Liberal everywhere else on the planet means exactly what Webster defined to mean. Most American conservatives oppose globalization and free trade. The terms are applied differently in the academic sense and in American political sense.

acludem

I didn't fail pol. sci. 101, got degreed in the subject. 3.87 on 4.0. U of I. Also sociology and history. So you can drop the condescension. Thank you.

Both 'liberal' and 'conservative' have meant different things at different times. We are again in 'different times.'

 

[musicman]

Wow, acludem - you appear to have drawn back a bloody stump!

Want me to call a medic or something?

 

[Bonnie]

I didn't fail pol. sci. 101, got degreed in the subject. 3.87 on 4.0. U of I. Also sociology and history. So you can drop the condescension. Thank you.

Both 'liberal' and 'conservative' have meant different things at different times. We are again in 'different times.'

Thank You Kathianne well stated! Interesting times we are living in.
In the former Soviet Union many referred to the Communists as the Conservatives, and those that wanted freedom as Liberals or progressives.

I find it interesting that in this country those that are liberal and are considered by themselves to be "broad minded, are the ones who regularly want more and more restrictions on everything here, and no freedom for others in totalitarian governments. While the Conservatives are seen by liberals to want less freedom for everyone?

 

[Avatar4321]

Thank You Kathianne well stated! Interesting times we are living in.
In the former Soviet Union many referred to the Communists as the Conservatives, and those that wanted freedom as Liberals or progressives.

I find it interesting that in this country those that are liberal and are considered by themselves to be "broad minded, are the ones who regularly want more and more restrictions on everything here, and no freedom for others in totalitarian governments. While the Conservatives are seen by liberals to want less freedom for everyone?

I dont think its really that big of a shock that its that way. Those who are conservative are trying to protect the traditions of this nation. Which is freedom. Those who are liberals want to free themselves from the laws of the constitution to do whatever they want. ironically as they attempt to destroy the checks and balances of the Constitution they destroy the freedom they claim to want.

 

[manu1959]

Most American conservatives oppose globalization and free trade.
acludem

as a liberal then in support of outsourcing and free trade and as an aclu member i am sure you would you be ok with me closing my production department here in california and outsourcing the whole thing to india

good to know

 

[hylandrdet]

If there are any left..........

www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5237&R=C4221...

You'd think it owuld be a great time to be a small-L liberal: human freedom is on the march in such unlikely places as Iraq, Afghanistan, and even among the Palestinians. The President of the United States can't seem to go five minutes without praising the virtues of liberty, and realpolitikers have been banished to the policy wilderness. Liberal principles have never before been so proudly proclaimed in framing U.S. foreign and security policy.

The only problem for liberals, of course, is that the architect of all this is named George W. Bush, and this poses a consoderable conundrum. It's been instructive to watch the shifts of opinion at The New Republic, long flagship of responsible foreign policy liberalism in the Democratic Party. Originally strongly supportive of the invasion of Iraq, the magazine's writers have become increasingly disenchanted as the interest-based arguments for the war--Iraq's presumed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction--have collapsed............more

Five problems with your theory of how great GW is.

1. Unless GW ordered the assassination of Yassar Arafat, GW didn't bring the Palestinians to the peace table.

2. As of this moment, the Iraqi insurgents have stepped up their terrorist efforts. The election "honeymoon" is over there.

3. Afghanistan, despite establishing a democratic government, have yet to address women's rights issues.

4. Iranian and N. Korean nukes. Did the war on Iraq buy these two nations time? Will we have to beg China to settle this issue?

5. How about that Euro? Why do I have a feeling that europe has declared economic war on our dollar?

Bonnie, sorry! But before you add GW to Mt Rushmore, he needs to tie up a few loose ends.

 

[Annie]

Five problems with your theory of how great GW is.

1. Unless GW ordered the assassination of Yassar Arafat, GW didn't bring the Palestinians to the peace table.

I'm not Bonnie, and I await her response to you, but in the meantime, I will jump in here:

He refused to deal with Arafat, without certain preconditions being me; Arafat failed, thus no meetings. This set the stage for what is now happening.

2. As of this moment, the Iraqi insurgents have stepped up their terrorist efforts. The election "honeymoon" is over there.

Perhaps, more likely they are trying to create confusion before the vote results, but you seem incapable of thinking this way.

3. Afghanistan, despite establishing a democratic government, have yet to address women's rights issues.

Well they did let them vote, which we've only had for about 80 years. Considering where they were 4 years ago, I think you are complaining much more than them.

4. Iranian and N. Korean nukes. Did the war on Iraq buy these two nations time? Will we have to beg China to settle this issue?

If China could get it settled, I think the administration would say, "Thank you!" NK wants 'bi-lateral' talks, not going to happen after Clinton disaster. Also see Arafat above. China has already agreed to talk to NK about the 6 way talk resumption, time will tell what Dear Leader wants to do.

As far as Iran, I do believe the EU three are trying to work the diplomatic angle. US is considering referring back to Security Council and 'no options' are off the table.

5. How about that Euro? Why do I have a feeling that europe has declared economic war on our dollar?

Again this may be, but it seems Europe had declared war on the US positions for many things a long time ago. Again, time will tell where this will all lead.

 

[Bonnie]

Five problems with your theory of how great GW is.

1. Unless GW ordered the assassination of Yassar Arafat, GW didn't bring the Palestinians to the peace table.

George didn't have to order such drastic means to get rid of Arafat, he did himself in as all tyrants eventually do, however he did not cowtow to Arafat as Clinton and Albright did, and I seem to remember Hillary's little love affair with Yassi boy sparked a few troubles for her.

2. As of this moment, the Iraqi insurgents have stepped up their terrorist efforts. The election "honeymoon" is over there.

Big shock there, the elections were not about ending the insurgency, let's see how many times has Bush and Rice, and gang said the elections will spark more attacks, but the important thing was for Iraqis to vote freely, and inspite of the threat of getting shot at and blown up sixty % of Iraqis still voted, women included...........One man wheeled his ninety year old mother 20 miles in a wheel barrel to vote. So the real triumph was Bush understanding how important freedom is for ..yes even Iraqis..And having the guts to do something about it and make it happen.

3. Afghanistan, despite establishing a democratic government, have yet to address women's rights issues

.
Still a work in progress, although it must be nice for women there to be able to walk the streets without worrying about getting their heads chopped off for exposing their faces............

4. Iranian and N. Korean nukes. Did the war on Iraq buy these two nations time? Will we have to beg China to settle this issue?

China is having limited success in talks right now with Korea, Our drones are taking picutures of Iran's nukes to establish the case for war should that be necessary, will you liberals support military action if need be?? I won't hold my breath

5. How about that Euro? Why do I have a feeling that europe has declared economic war on our dollar?

I think Kathianne answered this one for you better than I could have

Bonnie, sorry! But before you add GW to Mt Rushmore, he needs to tie up a few loose ends.

No one is suggesting adding GW to Mt Rushmore, however those men who are up there were not perfect either just men willing to do what it took inspite of their critics. Loose ends are a fact of life not a sign of bad leadership.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

For those of you who failed political science 101 (and that appears to be many of you), the word "Liberal" as a political science term is someone who favors the easing of economic restraints, favorable to individual liberty and political reform. The term "conservative" in political science terms is someone who is pro-business, pro-free trade, and generally opposes social reform and tends to have less of a problem with government regulation of personal behavior. The word "Liberal" in American politics is often used to refer to people who support some government regulation of business. Liberal everywhere else on the planet means exactly what Webster defined to mean. Most American conservatives oppose globalization and free trade. The terms are applied differently in the academic sense and in American political sense.

acludem

You don't have to go to college to learn about politics. First-hand, self education is the best learning tool. I can make up my own mind instead of having some pansy-ass, thai-sipping, neo-hippie Liberal professor, TELL me how to think a certain way. Most of those courses are a waste of time because they practically tell you how to think, as opposed to thinking for yourself.

dumbass.