Darth Rove vs. Liberals
The most despicable person in American politics is at it again.
Now, I don't know what liberals Darth Karl has been playing with, but I believe that every liberal I know supported military action against the Taliban, even--and I want to emphasize this--two full-blown pacifists. (How can they be pacifists, then? Well, I've tried to get answers from them on that one...) There are, of course, some misguided few who oppose all military action, no matter what the circumstances, and those few are mostly liberals--but we all know that you can't let the fringe represent the mainstream of a party. In the main, we liberals were behind the President on that one.
In fact, I distinctly remember driving to Charlottesville with two of my friends/colleagues, both of whom are basically liberal (one quite so, one reluctantly so) during the air campaign against the Taliban. It had been going on for quite some time at that point, and I'd been uneasy about it. I'm no military planner, of course, and it wasn't going to be my ass on the line, but it just seemed like the wrong approach to me. The Taliban were not exactly a formidable fighting force, and I really thought that what we needed was a fast, overwhelming, crushing action against them. A little preliminary bombing, then the 82nd and the 101st and the Marines and the armored cav stomping the sh*t out of them. I knew that less preliminary bombing would mean more American casualties, but we could always argue for one more day or week of bombing on such grounds. In that case, I thought it was important to make a point: give safe harbor to our attackers, and we kill you. Fast. No screwing around.
Anyway, on that car trip, this point came up, and we all admitted that that's what we'd been thinking--at first reluctantly, and then energetically. If anything, we thought that the administration had been too timid in its response in Afghanistan.
Then, of course, when they decided to put in too few troops, take out troops before Tora Bora, let bin Laden get away, and shift our forces away from the fight against al Qaeda and into a completely irrelevant and unrelated battle in Iraq...well, those were actions supported by conservatives, not by liberals.
I think that an important point here is that liberals in general strongly supported action against those who harbored our attackers--the Taliban in Afghanistan--but opposed actions against an unrelated country. Conservatives, on the other hand, have an unfortunate tendency to be overly eager to use military force. So, here's what happened: when the use of force was rational, liberals and conservatives both endorsed it; when it was irrational, liberals opposed it and conservatives supported it. So what's that tell us?
The most despicable person in American politics is at it again.
Now, I don't know what liberals Darth Karl has been playing with, but I believe that every liberal I know supported military action against the Taliban, even--and I want to emphasize this--two full-blown pacifists. (How can they be pacifists, then? Well, I've tried to get answers from them on that one...) There are, of course, some misguided few who oppose all military action, no matter what the circumstances, and those few are mostly liberals--but we all know that you can't let the fringe represent the mainstream of a party. In the main, we liberals were behind the President on that one.
In fact, I distinctly remember driving to Charlottesville with two of my friends/colleagues, both of whom are basically liberal (one quite so, one reluctantly so) during the air campaign against the Taliban. It had been going on for quite some time at that point, and I'd been uneasy about it. I'm no military planner, of course, and it wasn't going to be my ass on the line, but it just seemed like the wrong approach to me. The Taliban were not exactly a formidable fighting force, and I really thought that what we needed was a fast, overwhelming, crushing action against them. A little preliminary bombing, then the 82nd and the 101st and the Marines and the armored cav stomping the sh*t out of them. I knew that less preliminary bombing would mean more American casualties, but we could always argue for one more day or week of bombing on such grounds. In that case, I thought it was important to make a point: give safe harbor to our attackers, and we kill you. Fast. No screwing around.
Anyway, on that car trip, this point came up, and we all admitted that that's what we'd been thinking--at first reluctantly, and then energetically. If anything, we thought that the administration had been too timid in its response in Afghanistan.
Then, of course, when they decided to put in too few troops, take out troops before Tora Bora, let bin Laden get away, and shift our forces away from the fight against al Qaeda and into a completely irrelevant and unrelated battle in Iraq...well, those were actions supported by conservatives, not by liberals.
I think that an important point here is that liberals in general strongly supported action against those who harbored our attackers--the Taliban in Afghanistan--but opposed actions against an unrelated country. Conservatives, on the other hand, have an unfortunate tendency to be overly eager to use military force. So, here's what happened: when the use of force was rational, liberals and conservatives both endorsed it; when it was irrational, liberals opposed it and conservatives supported it. So what's that tell us?
posted by Winston Smith at
7:05 AM
5 Comments:
I think your Star Wars analogy is apt.
If Darth Karl is a Sith, then the Winston Smiths of the world (the intellectuals who try to stay above the partisan political fray) are the Jedi. A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack.
The Sith are insatiable power seekers who draw strength from legions of Clones designed for obedience, and taking orders without question.
In the end the Sith end up destroying themselves. Unfortunately not before destroying the Jedi and the Republic and countless Systems.
"Always two there are. No more, no less. A master and an apprentice."
"But which one [is Karl], the master or the apprentice?"
"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."
Rove plays the Dr. Phil card. These people will stop at nothing.
Can we send Dr. Phil to Iraq? I mean, it won't do anybody there any good, but I think America would benefit from his absence.
VKW
Um. Sorry. Most of the total pacifists I know are Christian -- specifically Bretheren and Quakers.
Of course, the evangelical freaks probably think that they are liberals and not the Right kinds of Christians ....
Winston,
From an admittedly small statistical sample, I'd say you are right. I know only one liberal who was wholeheartedly against the Afghanistan invasion. He is a Quaker. Now there are plenty of others, but they really are fringers. They were a small minority even at Howard Dean meetups in Seattle(!)
That's what I call fringe.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home