| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
To ask this, I want to set aside the related question of, what does the Left care about more than their own political power.
Setting aside their interest in political power, what does the Left care about at all?
They don’t care about bringing democracy to other nations. Efforts to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq received no encouragement or approval from the Left.
They don’t care about people suffering from tyranny and oppression. Efforts to free the people of Afghanistan and Iraq from terrible tyranny received no encouragement or approval from the Left.
They don’t seem to care about the rights of women in other countries.
They don’t seem to care about Israel.
If the question is asked just like this, attached to no other subjects, can the answer really be that the Left cares about nothing?
I’m going to head over to the leading Liberal web site, the Daily Kos, later today, and see if I can find any posts that express a wish for the well-being of any people anywhere. This may be interesting. Stay tuned.
#2Totally serious, Stephen. Can you tell us what the Left cares about?
Vik,
The Left cares about many of the same things the Right cares about. It cares about people getting a good meal, a steady job and a decent education. It cares about equal opportunities, equal pay for equal work and equal standing before the law. It cares about the basic freedoms on which our nation was founded, about the liberties with which our leaders have been entrusted to protect, and about the rights as enumerated in our ancient documents. It cares that people around the globe have a chance to enjoy these same opportunities and freedoms, if not as Americans, then at least as citizens of their own nations and, ultimately, as citizens of the world.
Really, who wouldn't care about these things?
stephen
#4It cares about people getting a good meal, a steady job and a decent education. It cares about equal opportunities, equal pay for equal work and equal standing before the law. It cares about the basic freedoms on which our nation was founded, about the liberties with which our leaders have been entrusted to protect, and about the rights as enumerated in our ancient documents. It cares that people around the globe have a chance to enjoy these same opportunities and freedoms, if not as Americans, then at least as citizens of their own nations and, ultimately, as citizens of the world.
That's what they say, but in practice, in the case of the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Left doesn't seem to have much real interest in those things.
That's the point I was making in this post.
Vik,
The Left is less the guargantuan bogeyman its opponents make it out to be. While the Left has its zealots in certain issues, like the environment, multiculturalism and abortion, most of it is made up by reasonable people who care passionately but not to the point of extremism. There are even many on the Left who are pro-war when war is necessary.
My wife, who is very Leftist, and I, who is moderately Leftist, both agree that Afganistan was a tyranny needing overthrown. It should have come sooner, but Clinton never made the move. We also agree on Iraq - back in 1991 when George H.W. Bush had Hussein on the ropes, he should have gone forward. (It was, in fact, a war I would have been involved in had I not been permanently disqualified for service.)
The problem many on the Left - my wife and I included - have with George W. Bush's drive into Iraq is the way in which he went about it. Unlike bin Laden and the Taliban who tolerated, even harbored him, Hussein was not a direct threat to American soil. Bush tried to make this case, but in the eyes of many on the Left, he failed. He tried claiming the massive numbers of WMDs possessed by Hussein (which he didn't have, ultimately), he tried tying Hussein and bin Laden together (their contacts proved brief and hostile at best), he tried showing the imminent peril our interests were (not even a hint of a mushroom cloud as troops arrived and sat in nearby Kuwait).
For many on the Left, it's fairly telling how well he succeeded in making his case by the numbers of countries he got behind him on Afganistan, and how many he got to back him in Iraq.
The result is that the majority of the Left sees Mr. Bush as an opportunist and a warmonger. Yes, it's good many Iraqis are trying to develop a democracy. I, and many other Leftists, hope for the best now that we are there. It's how we got there Leftists are bitterly angry about, and many Americans seem to want to give the President a free pass, i.e. in this case might made right. Afterall, if Mr. Bush felt so strongly about spreading democracy and freedom everywhere as we entered Iraq, where was he before 9/11? (Terrorism was with us, with the world, long before bin Laden became a household name.) Where is he now when there are barbarians pounding at the gates? Where is the man who originally started America on this road? The Left has yet to see bin Laden's head dangle from a pike.
Kos does seem to represent many on the Left. And the Kos community still is angry about a lot of things. I won't excuse Kos - let alone fathom Kos - nor would I want the Kos community to think I speak for them. I speak for myself, one Leftist among many, who's had more on his mind than day-to-day politics. But neither Kos nor Leftist zealots speak for the entire Left anymore than Rush Limbaugh or the zealots on the Right speak for the entire Right. You do a disservice to us on the Left who are a bit more reasonable in our stances than our zealots make us appear. Then again, after years of listening to Lee Atwater, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and the others, we've come to expect such caricatures of our persons.
stephen
#6My wife, who is very Leftist, and I, who is moderately Leftist, both agree that Afganistan was a tyranny needing overthrown. It should have come sooner, but Clinton never made the move. We also agree on Iraq - back in 1991 when George H.W. Bush had Hussein on the ropes, he should have gone forward. (It was, in fact, a war I would have been involved in had I not been permanently disqualified for service.)
Bush did not have Hussein on the ropes, the International Coalition did, Iraq was for the taking but it was decided among the Coalition not to remove Hussein from power. Instead the UN tried a diplomatic solution and ended up sitting on its hands for a decade and lost much credibilty by not enforcing its own resolutions. The UN's handling of Hussein was "Bad Parenting 101". The Iraqi invasion was not about WMD's, it was about one member of the UN asking the UN if it was going to walk the walk if it talked the talk (post 9/11). Bush gave Hussein ample time to comply with the many UN Security Resolutions (most expired) and demands of the International Community. Hussein chose not to. What is the point of having resolutions if they mean nothing.
As for Afghanistan, there are many regimes that need to be removed from power for the betterment of their people, the US Government is not in that business. If it was, we could have already cleaned up much of the world since the end of the cold war (like Cuba). It just so happened that bin Laden was hanging out in Afganistan and we are going after him. As much as I would love to see bin Laden's head on a pike, I would much rather see him tried and convicted by a court of laws.
Afterall, if Mr. Bush felt so strongly about spreading democracy and freedom everywhere as we entered Iraq, where was he before 9/11? (Terrorism was with us, with the world, long before bin Laden became a household name.)
What date did Bush enter office? Maybe Bush had a foreign policy plan and 9/11 accelerated and/or changed it.
Remember on 9/11 the Terrorists brought a gun to what was a knife fight. 9/11 changed the world.
Kos does seem to represent many on the Left. And the Kos community still is angry about a lot of things. I won?t excuse Kos - let alone fathom Kos - nor would I want the Kos community to think I speak for them. I speak for myself, one Leftist among many, who?s had more on his mind than day-to-day politics. But neither Kos nor Leftist zealots speak for the entire Left anymore than Rush Limbaugh or the zealots on the Right speak for the entire Right. You do a disservice to us on the Left who are a bit more reasonable in our stances than our zealots make us appear. Then again, after years of listening to Lee Atwater, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and the others, we?ve come to expect such caricatures of our persons.
I have come to expect similiar caricatures from the left of being a "knuckle dragging, pick up driving, Bogey man in the sky believing, women/black/gay/euro hating, scared, insecure man with an American flag pin on my hat and the latest Nascar results on my mind".
By the way, I am a conservative, I am not a Republican.
David,
Bush did not have Hussein on the ropes, the International Coalition did, Iraq was for the taking but it was decided among the Coalition not to remove Hussein from power. Instead the UN tried a diplomatic solution and ended up sitting on its hands for a decade and lost much credibilty by not enforcing its own resolutions. The UN?s handling of Hussein was ?Bad Parenting 101?.
The Coalition was led by the US, and could have made the case to run Hussein down if it wished. However, the leadership at the time had no desire to do so, because they feared having to occupy Baghdad and to rule Iraq. The alternative would have been an uprising by the Iraqi people to be rid of their brutal dictator; they tried this option, but with no support from the US, the rebellion quickly collapsed, and Hussein was left in power.
The Iraqi invasion was not about WMD?s, it was about one member of the UN asking the UN if it was going to walk the walk if it talked the talk (post 9/11). Bush gave Hussein ample time to comply with the many UN Security Resolutions (most expired) and demands of the International Community. Hussein chose not to. What is the point of having resolutions if they mean nothing.
If the war was merely about forcing Hussein to conform to UN resolutions, then the US should have allowed the UN weapons inspectors to do their jobs or, barring that, to build pressure on the UN to enforce those resolutions. Moreover, the US leadership should have justified the war to the American people in just those terms: "We go to war to enforce the UN resolutions. That is the only reason for this war." I do not recall this being the stategy the President used to convince the American electorate to support the war.
As for Afghanistan, there are many regimes that need to be removed from power for the betterment of their people, the US Government is not in that business. If it was, we could have already cleaned up much of the world since the end of the cold war (like Cuba). It just so happened that bin Laden was hanging out in Afganistan and we are going after him. As much as I would love to see bin Laden?s head on a pike, I would much rather see him tried and convicted by a court of laws.
So would most people. In fact, just about anyone would like to know where bin Laden is, so he can be tried and, eventually, executed. Could Bush not have commited our 100k+ troops to exactly this purpose, rather than run down Hussein? Remember, bin Laden is the man behind 911, not Hussein, and we still have not caught up with this criminal.
As for removing regimes: listen, if the electorate is going to swallow the line that we are invading Iraq in an effort to spread freedom and democracy, then, as you say, we'd better start learning to walk the walk if we're going to talk the talk. Hussein's regime was but one example; there are dozens of others. Just recently the King of Nepal placed his nation's democracy on suspension, yet there was barely a blip on the "freedom and democracy" radar. There are much more egregious examples of anti-democracy in the world, but the President seems very, almost connivingly, selective about where to put American power down. His speeches will ring hollow if he doesn't insist on putting much the same effort he's put into Iraq into other nations around the world.
(part ii below - broke it up because of the 5000 character limit)
9/11 changed the world.
So did the Oklahoma City bombing. So did the first bombing of the World Trade Center. So did the bombing of our marines in Beiruit. Terrorism has been around a long time, and the US has had many, many opportunities to deal with it. Bush did take a step in dealing with it when he went after bin Laden, but truth be told, he seems to have given up on that front. Or, at the very least, he didn't seem interested in putting a total American effort into finding the murderer.
I have come to expect similiar caricatures from the left of being a ?knuckle dragging, pick up driving, Bogey man in the sky believing, women/black/gay/euro hating, scared, insecure man with an American flag pin on my hat and the latest Nascar results on my mind?.
So we all have caricatures. Thing is, I came to this forum to show that not all Lefties are as loonie or as hateful as "the Left" is made out to be. People on the Left do care about many things, and sometimes people on the Left care to some rather implausible extremes.
Another point you seem to miss is - I and others on the Left do care to see democracy flourish in Iraq. We broke it, we bought it, as Powell once said. Heck, I am thrilled the elections in Iraq went off so well (I am more thrilled that the Afghans go the same opportunity - I've had friends from Afganistan, and am glad to see things are improving for them.)
So what is there to argue about here, besides the fact I think Bush was wrong in his approach to the war in Iraq? Should the President get a free pass on this because Hussein was toppled? Not one bit: if Clinton (or Kerry, or whatever Liberal you want to name) had done the same thing in the same circumstance, I would have been against him, too. This is not specifically about the man, it is about the ideas and the circumstances. And because Bush dragged us in for the wrong reasons (wrong from my POV, mind you), he gets the anger, and the resulting vitriol, he deserves.
He also deserves praise for the one opportunity he's brought to Iraq - the opportunity for the Iraqis to govern themselves however they wish. And should he stick around to see things through, he also deserves praise for making sure the Iraqis could develop a democracy. We will have to see about that; four years is a long time. I am expecting the US to be there at least another decade, more likely two, if they want to see things through to the end.
stephen
#9The Coalition was led by the US, and could have made the case to run Hussein down if it wished. However, the leadership at the time had no desire to do so, because they feared having to occupy Baghdad and to rule Iraq.
There was a huge international outcry at the time, as the Coalition armies neared Iraq, saying 'Bush is going to go beyond the bounds of what the U.N. voted on! The U.N. didn't authorize going into Iraq. Bush is going to go beyond what he's permitted to do and go into Iraq!' Bush 1 bowed to this international pressure and did not overstep the bounds of what the U.N. had authorized.
Now many of the same people who demanded at the time that Bush 1 stay out of Iraq, excoriate him for doing so.
#10Uprising was a disaster. If I was a Kurd I would be pissed.
Coalition was lead militarily by the US, the UN Security Council and General Assembly were in charge.
The US did pressure the UN and the Security Council throughout the 1990's.
The US is not in the business of righting the wrongs of the world. The US is in the business of seeing to its own interests.
Read what was actually said/done about UN mandates, not what was interpreted and spun.
From your previous posts, you are an intelligent individual. I find it curious that you believe that WMD's primary reason.
WMD's became the argument of the opponents for the war, not the actual basis of the war. It was Hussein who had to prove he did not have them. "give the inspectors enough time..........11 years"
bin Laden is not the end all be all of terrorism. We only have so many assets at our disposal. It is easy to monday morning quarter back decisions.
Big Picture:
A stable, democratic Arab or Persian Country in the Middle East is a good thing for the world.
#11I was agreeing with you on the caricature issue.
Oklahoma was a domestic crime. 9/11 is on a different scale. It was international. Comparing Oklahoma to 9/11 is like comparing the sarin gassing in Tokyo to 9/11. I think you are reaching.
On democracy in Iraq and the left. I didn't miss that point. I think you are making assumptions on my positions in defense of your positions that are not being assailed.
#12Read you history on post WWII western Europe and the Reconstruction of the South post Civil War. This isn't mankinds first rodeo on getting a society back on its feet.
Hopefully, mistakes made in the past will be applied. As for a decade or so. You could be right, who knows. That neighborhood of the world is crying for help. Just because our media doesn't report it doesn't mean the people aren't wanting freedom.
#13My wife, who is very Leftist, and I, who is moderately Leftist, both agree that Afganistan was a tyranny needing overthrown. It should have come sooner, but Clinton never made the move. We also agree on Iraq - back in 1991 when George H.W. Bush had Hussein on the ropes, he should have gone forward. (It was, in fact, a war I would have been involved in had I not been permanently disqualified for service.)
I'm very glad that we agree on this.
The problem many on the Left - my wife and I included - have with George W. Bush?s drive into Iraq is the way in which he went about it. Unlike bin Laden and the Taliban who tolerated, even harbored him, Hussein was not a direct threat to American soil. Bush tried to make this case, but in the eyes of many on the Left, he failed.
Are you saying that GWB was right to go into Iraq, but he didn't make a good case for doing so, and therefore you oppose him?
Vik,
There is no need to oppose Bush on the issue of going there now. We are there, we better get used to it. Even if we had elected Kerry president, we would still need to be there. End of story.
(It's the same case if a corporation hires a CEO who sends the company down the hole - you can fire the old, and hire the new, but the problems confronting the new CEO still will be there.)
The question is, in the future, is this how we, the people of the US, want to conduct ourselves? What of the rest of the world? Is Bush's example of invading a country for badly-supported reasons something we want the rest of the world to follow?
We disagree on the reasons Bush went to war. I don't think either of us will change our minds on this. But the questions before us, the ones I asked above, still loom in the air. Conservatives can state, as David did, "The US is not in the business of righting the wrongs of the world. The US is in the business of seeing to its own interests." The trouble is, the trouble has been for quite some time, that everything the world does affects the US now. Everything. Barring a breakdown in the world monetary system, in communication systems and in trade systems, there is little to stop the actions of one country that won't eventually affect the US. We have been down this road before: today the US Congress conveniently ignores the Commerce Clause because anything a person does, even if it does not cross state lines, can affect anything outside that person's range. (What justification is there for a Federal law against the pot smoker who grows for his own use only?)
In other words - Is there no reason we cannot use to justify invasion of any country we do not like?
In my opinion, Bush has lowered the standard. A direct threat is no longer needed - if we even think another country poses a threat, we have the right, the obligation, to invade. Trouble is, Bush's justification now is the justification any country can and will use, and the US has little to say about it. Afterall, sauce for the goose...
I expect someone, some people, some nation to do a number on another person or people all in the name of the pre-emptive strike. And Bush's name, along with the good name of the entire US, will be used to justify their brutality. Why am I angry? Do you need ask?
stephen
David,
From your previous posts, you are an intelligent individual. I find it curious that you believe that WMD?s primary reason.
Well, truth be told, I don't believe WMDs were the reason behind the invasion. However, I also don't believe he went there to spread freedom and democracy; were this the case, there were other countries he could have immediately attended to. In fact, he could have made it a campaign promise, rather than promising no nation-building. WMDs, and the perceived immediate threat of Hussein, were a convenient excuse, and the fear caused by 911 heightened people's other fears. It worked.
Does this mean we should now excuse Bush's dishonesty?
bin Laden is not the end all be all of terrorism. We only have so many assets at our disposal. It is easy to monday morning quarter back decisions.
Agreed. Why people on the Right now wish to excuse Bush's invasion with an appeal to spreading freedom and democracy is curious. They helped to arm the man, they helped to keep him in power, they turned a blind eye while he was gassing either his people or his neighbors - now they are concerned about Iraqis' freedom and democratization? It's a fine piece of Monday morning quarterbacking if ever there was one.
Big Picture:
A stable, democratic Arab or Persian Country in the Middle East is a good thing for the world.
Agreed. However, what is the definition of "a stable, democratic" nation we are working with? Israel is in the Middle East, as is Egypt and Turkey, and so far as I know they are stable. Are we talking the Arabian Peninsula only? Then we have a ways to go. Are conservatives, is the Right, prepared to go to war with Saudi Arabia if need be? If not, what are we going to do about that? Afterall, if any nation is proving to be a thorn in our collective sides, it's Saudi Arabia - not because of their oil, but because of their export of the seeds of hatred.
It's a fine thing to talk about these ideals, but unless we are prepared to walk that road, we should focus on other pressing matters.
stephen
Friends,
I hope I am proving valuable to your notion of the Left. While there are topics on which we don't or won't agree, we can at least be gentlemen (and ladies, if ladies are reading) about it. Many of us on the Left don't speak up anymore than people on the Right speak up - as I said before, I am more concerned with other issues than day-to-day politicking. Perhaps that needs to change.
stephen
#17In my opinion, Bush has lowered the standard. A direct threat is no longer needed - if we even think another country poses a threat, we have the right, the obligation, to invade.
If we wait for a direct threat, we'll get nuked. The terrorists don't let us know in advance when they're planning to blow up the World Trade Center or to nuke us.
Trouble is, Bush's justification now is the justification any country can and will use, and the US has little to say about it. Afterall, sauce for the goose'
I expect someone, some people, some nation to do a number on another person or people all in the name of the pre-emptive strike. And Bush's name, along with the good name of the entire US, will be used to justify their brutality. Why am I angry? Do you need ask?
I totally understand why you're angry, and it seems to me the rightful target of your anger is the terrorists, rather than GWB. By their policy of sneak attacks, they are the ones who are making it necessary for us to defend ourselves by taking preemptive action in selected cases.
#18I hope I am proving valuable to your notion of the Left.
Definitely. It's very important for those of different opinions to exchange views.
Vik,
If we wait for a direct threat, we?ll get nuked. The terrorists don?t let us know in advance when they?re planning to blow up the World Trade Center or to nuke us.
You won't hear me disagree. On the other hand, if this is the course we take, we as a people must prepare for the long road ahead. What is the President, what is the national leadership, doing to prepare us? Have we yet taken the plank out of our own eye so we may see splinters in our enemies' eyes?
stephen
Vik,
I totally understand why you?re angry, and it seems to me the rightful target of your anger is the terrorists, rather than GWB...
My anger is at the terrorists, and at Mr. Bush for misleading people. One cannot justifiably be angry at both? I guess what I am not understanding is - why is Bush being given a free pass? Why can we be angry at the terrorists, but we must shut up at, we must agree with, whatever the President of the United States should do if he does anything? Does the fact he is elected give him free rein on everything? Is it the war itself? What exactly?
I am curious: if Al Gore had won the Presidency, and Mr. Gore had opted to invade Iraq, and Mr. Gore had used the same justifications for going to war, would the same folks scourging the Left on this issue give Mr. Gore the same leeway they have given Bush up to now? I have already stated, as a Leftist, I would have been equally angry at Clinton, Kerry, etc., for such (what I perceive) shodding justification for going to war. What does the Right have to say?
I ask these because I do not think you understand, as you state above, why I, or any other Leftist, may be angry. If you did, I think, you wouldn't have made such a comment, or believed that I couldn't be angry at both parties for very different reasons.
stephen
#21I just wonder how you can support GWB's actions, and still be angry at him. It sounds like you feel he's accomplishing good things.
If he didn't make his case for doing them well enough, that's a reasonable criticism, but it doesn't seem like much of a big deal.
Do you feel he "lied" about the WMDs? You might argue he was wrong about them, but I don't see how anyone can say he lied, since many people, Democrat and Republican, voiced the exact same beliefs about WMDs in Iraq, and the intelligence agencies of several nations did as well.
Vik,
I just wonder how you can support GWB?s actions, and still be angry at him. It sounds like you feel he?s accomplishing good things.
Bush is accomplishing things both good and bad. The issues with Iraq are still in the air. As for anger with him regarding taking us into war, I would say it's more, for myself, a "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice... can't get fooled again" sort of thing.
It's a healthy anger, the type that prods you to keep the opponent's feet to the fire.
If he didn?t make his case for doing them well enough, that?s a reasonable criticism, but it doesn?t seem like much of a big deal.
If dragging people into a war is not a big deal, so be it. Then again, Bush has hidden the truth on a number of things, e.g., the cost of the Medicare drug benefit, the cost of being in Iraq, and so on. I am beginning to think it's part of his character.
Do you feel he ?lied? about the WMDs? You might argue he was wrong about them, but I don?t see how anyone can say he lied, since many people, Democrat and Republican, voiced the exact same beliefs about WMDs in Iraq, and the intelligence agencies of several nations did as well.
Did he outright lie? Probably not. Did he either ignore evidence that inconvenienced his desires or purposefully not pursue evidence that would have undermined his justifications? I think the case may be made, and in that sense, yes, he lied. At the very least, it seems to me, he shirked his duty of inquiry, and was more moved by the heat of the moment than the cool temperament of reason.
Of course, since we'll have to wait until long after he's out of office to see the various notes between the officials in power, I cannot give a definitive yea or nay.
stephen
Vik,
Thanks for the opportunity to write. Seeing as this thread has died off, this Left winger (who apparently is old and wishes to see life return to the late 60's and early 70's will be off. Take care.
stephen
#24Stephen, thanks so much for your comments. I hope to see additional comments from you here in the future.
Vik,
Is this a serious question, or a question asked merely to make a point among your readers?
stephen