Could I Have Found A Rational Liberal?

A few days ago on another blog, I encountered an Aussie fellow who, I'm sure, felt he was being perfectly reasonable in his assessment of Iraq and America – and he was, as liberals go. The problem was, in his response, he had ignored everything I had just said, and I know it made perfect sense because I wrote it.

But here's something he can't ignore, can he? I mean, it's Bob Kerrey who's writing today in the Wall Street Journal, and saying not only everything I had said, but expanding on it. Not only that, but it's as if Mr. Kerrey is writing specifically to our little Dingo with this…

The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.

Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn't you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would..

But Mr. Kerrey is just warming up…

"American liberals need to face these truths…: what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power."

WOW! Right between the eyes!

Mr. Kerrey continues…

"American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy."

It's positively Liebermanesque!?!

I'll conclude with this because there are none so blind as liberals who will not see:

"The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically 'yes.'"

Now I expect it will be forever before we find another liberal who's this rational, but isn't it refreshing that we found one? And remember, it's the K-Man with two R's and two Es, and one leg, not the Clown Prince of Massachusetts.

Oh heck, here's one last Kerrey quote especially for my friend downunder. Perhaps it will make sense if you read it upside down?

"We must not allow terrorist sanctuaries to develop any place on earth. Whether these fighters are finding refuge in Syria, Iran, Pakistan or elsewhere, we cannot afford diplomatic or political excuses to prevent us from using military force to eliminate them."

Call it "America on walkabout." 

Mr. Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska and member of the 9/11 Commission, is president of The New School.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

About tedwest

A longtime veteran of comedy and political forums, I decided that I needed a more restful venue because... well... I finally hate everybody. Except my wife that is... and my ex-wife.. and... no, that's about it. I lead about as simple a life as one can, preferring activities that include anything that doesn't involve going out and seeing YOU! And I particularly enjoy what I call "Get the Bitch" movies on Lifetime. You know the ones where the intended victim finally does something so incredibly stupid that she forfeits her right to live, and from that moment on you're rooting for the stalker. Of course, it rarely works out the way you want, but when it does, the feeling you get is... well, there's nothing else like it, other than, maybe, eating chocolate chip cookies. Oh, and I'm proudly anti-wildlife, both foreign and domestic, and anti-environment - especially foreign environments. I think Howard Stern put it best when he said, "If fifty percent of the population died tomorrow, I can live with that." And I feel the same about the other fifty percent, so together, we've pretty much got it all covered.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Could I Have Found A Rational Liberal?

  1. Schomer says:

    What a great article. Thanks for posting this.

  2. I would think the answer for the Iraq-is-the-battlefield would be a no, because I'm not entirely sure that Iraq is full of terrorists. That would be because I separate insurgents from terrorists. I personally don't think they're the same thing.

  3. TedWest says:

    OK, do me a favor, will ya? First, I'll delete your comment, Then you have that Aussie guy come here and post the exact thing you just said, and see what happens.
    On a completely unrelated matter, my wife told me today that I should stop talking to people because I have no tact. I told her she was an obnoxious ho for saying that.
    But in my heart, I know she's right, and I will let her know by putting something in her heart at the proper time.
    Anyway… "not entirely sure that Iraq is full of terrorists"
    1) Is it that the insurgents are different from the terrorists who are blowing themselves up in markets and mosques, or am I in a Catch-22 because they weren't terrorists before they blew up, and now they're gone, which means they're only terrorists for a split second, so technically, there are NO terrorists in Iraq?
    B) You got a better battlefield? You know, where the terrorists take longer to explode?
    Then again, maybe it's just that you say "insurgents," I say "tomahtos?"

  4. Why would you delete my comment? It was quite rational….There are terrorists in Iraq. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization, and they have a base in Iraq. Along with affiliates in Indonesia, the Philippines, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.However, are all those who blow themselves up to kill Americans members of AlQaeda?Are all those who take part in the massacres and bombings in Iraq all terrorists, or simply people who are sick of democracy, American-style?Oh, and the guy who commented (the Ninja guy) was a Malaysian in Aussie.

  5. lollerkeet says:

    "We must not allow terrorist sanctuaries to develop any place on earth.
    Whether these fighters are finding refuge in Syria, Iran, Pakistan or
    elsewhere, we cannot afford diplomatic or political excuses to prevent
    us from using military force to eliminate them."If you believe this, read this article. It is by a William S. Lind, conservative* U.S. military theorist who has been almost spot on on his predictions concerning Iraq since before the invasion.* Very conservative – his last article is entitled Death by Multicultralism. While I do not agree with his politics, his military understanding has that 'revolutionary when you read it, commonsense afterwards' impact that makes any writer worth his weight in gold. Van Creveld has similar opinions but his politics are much closer to mine.

  6. lollerkeet says:

    How's this for basic definitions:Terrorist – attacks civiliansInsurgent – attacks military/policeSoldier – attacks military/policeI think what Aput was talking about was the difference between foreigners drawn in to attack the MNF-I for ideological reasons and locals attacking them to try to get them to leave.If you don't think people have a right to attack soldiers occupying their country, you would probably do collaborate were your country invaded.

  7. TedWest says:

    That explains it then.
    First, I had no intention of deleting your comment, I was clumsily making the point that if someone else had said what you did, my reaction would have been different.
    I even understand your point(s), and I blame Bush for not crushing the opposition and imposing a constitution – an American style one of course, long ago – which would have rendered moot many arguments along the lines of those you've detailed.
    Now, there is simply no need to make the distinctions you have since anyone who takes up arms against us should be neutralized.
    And maybe I should mention that you may be at a disadvantage if you are unaware that a just released poll of American Muslims in which twenty percent believe the suicide bombings against civilians to "defend Islam" is acceptable at least on some rare occasions.
    The problem, over and above the obvious, is that Islam needs no defense, since it isn't under attack.
    Another poll point is that thirty percent either had favorable views or no opinion regarding al Qaeda.
    And at least as troublesome is that sixty percent of American Muslims believe that 9/11 had no Arab involvement.
    So in light of all that, I'm assuming you can see that your points are rather tangential in comparison?

  8. TedWest says:

    I perused the commentary to which you so kindly referred us, and I fail to see what relevance it has to Mr. Kerrey's comment, unless your point is that it's just too tough to locate and destroy said sanctuaries, so the hell with it.
    In addition, the learned Mr. Lind seems to offer no solution nor even advice for dealing with the problem he has no meticulously detailed. In which case, we thank him for his input, and we will give it all due consideration as we press the hunt.
    More important, I am not interested in misguided attempts at objectivity, especially if one is an American.
    And I'm especially troubled by the following:
    "people have a right to attack soldiers occupying their country"
    We are not merely occupying a country, we are the greatest country in the history of the world sacrificing as no one else would in an attempt to bring order and civility to primitives and peace and prosperity to a region, all for the ultimate benefit of the entire planet..
    Furthermore, Mr Kerrey made many irrefutable points such that if one disagrees, there's something wrong with one – which is already apparent if one is unable to grasp that multiculturalism is ruining America.

  9. Snowy says:

    You do not need to use insulting terms such as "litttle dingo" to reinforce your argument. I can tell you that is guaranteed to to get you offside with Aussies. This is not the way that civilised people engage in meaningful debate. They attack the argument, and not the person. I know that thought is wasted on you, but in the interests of humanity, I still feel obliged to try,Just how will you know that the "war against terrorists" in Iraq has been won? It seems to have escaped your notice that thousands of innocent Iraqis are being killed as a direct result of your invasion of Iraq. It isn't surprising that they would want to take retribution against the invaders who they see as being responsible for those deaths. Or that they would want to run their country as THEY see fit, rather than you. I know it that it is convenient for you to label anyone as "terrorists" who happen to think that they have a right to survive on this earth, just like you do. So why shouldn't they think the same way about you? You just have bigger weapons than others. I have news for you. That isn't enough. You can't kill everyone. How do you tell the difference between Iraqis avenging the trashing of their country and the killing of thousands of their people, and Al Qaeda? The truth is that you can't. Worse, you don't care. Every Iraqi that you kill results in instant recruits for Al Qaeda. So, don't you think that it is time that you got over the primitive mentality that so long as you are killing someone, the safer you will be? And isn't it time that you got over your bully mentality and realise that other people have a right to live as well as you do?You can't kill everyone who disgagrees with you, you know. I know you'd like to

  10. dox^2 says:

    Great article.

  11. TedWest says:

    Great comment!

  12. lollerkeet says:

    Wow. It just occured to me that you are trying to be funny.

  13. X says:

    That is Ted's Schtick. And despite how he waves it he still doesn't speak softly.Serious or not, I somewhat agree with Kerrey's comments.This argument for an immediate pullout of Iraq makes little sense to me. I am embarrassed that I thought the Democrats were going to push for changes in Iraq as opposed to a complete cease of occupation. I must admit that Ted and Dox were right and I was wrong. It IS just politics as usual – regardless of the stakes.It is strange that to be against entering the war, and against the way the war is waged, one has to be for an immediate pullout. Totally makes no sense.

  14. Snowy says:

    First it was WMD; then it was regime change; and now it is Al Qaeda. Of course they are all just excuses for the real reason which is oil. So, "fighting terrorism" should keep you in Iraq indefinitely, because there is no way that it can ever be shown that the battle has been won. Meanwhile the killing will just keep going on and on. Just so you can further pollute the planet. Sleep well.

  15. HV says:

    "Just so you can further pollute the planet"

    With that statement would it be safe to assume that you live in a tent, grow your own food, and hike everywhere you go?

    But on the flip side, Iraqi's are getting tired of the death and destruction, caused by their own co-religionists, and are doing somthing about it.
    What are they doing you ask?
    Helping the U.S. and Iraqi forces get rid of the terrorists.
    The Anbar Awakening

  16. Snowy says:

    Ah yes, the Weekly Standard. Now there's an unbiased neocon publication devoted to the truth. Perhaps you should read the words of an unfortunate woman who, unlike your armchair generals of the weekly Standard, actually lives in what's left of Baghdad. And you wonder why so many Iraqis are now "terrorists". And isn't it strange that not one of the 9/11 terrorists was an Iraqi? Most were actually Saudis. You sure Dubya got the right country? After all, he's not too bright. Oh that's right, He's good buddies with the Saudi royal family who have no elections, no democracy, and rule by vicious Sharia law. And have lots of lovely oil that you have access to. No concern about establishing "freedom" there though. Any thoughts on that?

  17. TedWest says:

    I told you to pick one very narrow point. I did that for a reason – because while Bush may not be too bright, you make him look like the Mr. Mensa.
    And Hen! Nice to see you again. Seriously. I still don't know what you're saying, and I loved the backhanded compliment, but I'm glad we finally agree on something. I believe it's that Snowplowed is an idiot, am I close?
    Now, Snowblind, you're trying my patience if for no other reason than WMDs were never why we invaded Iraq. I can't help it that all these years later, the fools you hang with still fervently believe they were – and I'd be willing to bet the farm that you're the smartest in your group, which while that doesn't say much for you, I know, it does say something about Australians.

  18. Snowy says:

    So, I'm trying your patience, TedWest? Good. And no, this fool never believed that WMD were the reason for the invasion of Iraq. That's only what your idiot Conservative President and our idiot Conservative Prime Minister told us. And I have learnt to NEVER believe what a conservative says. This fool always believed that it was oil. I still believe that, so please don't insult my intelligence by persisting with your "fighting terrorists" BS.Conservatives usually resort to personal insults and bluster when confronted with reasoned debate. I'm pleased to see that you have done nothing to alter my prejudice in that regard.

  19. X says:

    Agreed on something? Well only in that you said I was wrong about the Democratic party's plans for Iraq. I was. But just to get back into disagreeing with you, no, I said nothing about Snowy's idiocy. Although, on a pedantic note, I am happy to see that you are actually using the word correctly this time.You like back handed compliments? Great! I'll try to deliver back handed compliments more often. I may despise your ad hominem arguments, but sometimes even when they are directed at me I find they are worth a laugh.

  20. TedWest says:

    Great, we understand each other!
    If I were you, forget conservatives, I wouldn't trust anything anyone says. That's because you've shown no evidence in our short exchange that you understand anything.
    But here's the bigger problem. I know that lot's of people enjoy this sort of back-and-forth we've had, but I don't happen to be among their number. In fact, what I said about your trying my patience was intentionally misleading, since it should have been readily apparent to you that I have no patience whatsoever.
    Now you've had ample opportunity to say something that indicated some small measure of comprehension on your part and you've failed utterly, so I guess something from you that exhibited even rudimentary intelligence is out of the question.
    So with all that by the wayside, I would accept something from you regarding Iraq and/or the war on terror that was merely fundamentally accurate.
    Failing that, you've now completed your stint here, and I suggest you do what Hen alluded to – read me for whatever you get out of it, and leave the comments to your superiors, who, amazingly, include even Matthue and John.
    Which reminds me, if there are any leftist idiots named Mark and Luke reading this, please make your presence known so that we might complete the team and get started on the Liberal Testament
    And Hen, I'll take laughs any way I can get 'm, so I want to express my appreciation for your comment, and I assure you that I am fully aware of my ongoing obligations to loyal readers like yourself.
    And Snowblower…

  21. I would say those American Muslims are idiots, because there's no teaching justifying suicide, no matter if you're a Shiite or a Sunni.

  22. Snowy says:

    Heh, heh, heh. More insults. You really can't get past that can you, TedWest. But I'm getting tired of this too. I really do have better things to do than try to educate conservatives. Now there's a nice oxymoron! I'll leave you to your ranting and raving, and whatever else you do to amuse yourself. I really didn't expect you to cave so quickly, though. I suppose I really should have known that when the bluster ran out, you really had nothing to fall back on. Your sort never do.So, I'm off to try something a bit more challenging than debating conservatives. Hunting cows with a shotgun, perhaps.

  23. TedWest says:

    Sorry you're in the middle of this, because I don't want you to accidental become lumped in with respect to comments I might make to and about liberals.
    On the other hand, I don't need any advice regarding how to deal with these subhumans. I assure you, I'm being as charitable as I possibly can be.
    I'm sure you've read more than once that I do not engage in discussions with anyone who has demonstrated that they should have a guardian making their decisions for them. Yes, I understand that they know not what they do – and lack.
    But there are plenty of people, such as yourself, who are willing to be friendly and accommodating and make allowances for their mental shortcomings – and there are very few people who are willing to hold them accountable for their failings.
    So how does one do that, anyway? Well, it's another Catch-22, because you can't. You can't make them to focus, and you can't demand they be rational. As I see it, all I can do is to make their visits as unpleasant as possible.
    I remain willing to engage anyone who gives any indication that he's sensible, reasonable, and logical, and I remain the sole judge of who those people are because I am one of the few who are qualified to determine that.
    Take our own relationship. When I realized I had been too quick in my assessment of you, I caught myself and apologized. For your part, you were kind enough to accept that. And even though I feel some of your views and opinions are misguided, I think I understand why you hold them. I have no doubt that you think a number of my positions are even more misguided, and yet we get along because, at least from where I sit, I feel I could approach you if I really wanted to do so and argue my case, and that you would do me the courtesy of fairly considering my comments.
    That's not the case with Mz. Australia. Her opening comments were idiotic, and she's gone downhill from there, this despite my specific instructions on how to approach me in order to receive fair consideration. She made no effort, and my biggest regret is that I wasted too much time before implementing my all insults, all the time policy, and even then, I restrained myself.
    Or take the nut case with the dopey UID who asked us to consider one Mr. Lind's sanctuary assessments. So I did. That was fair and decent of me, wouldn't you say? But then I noted that Mr. Lind offered no advice on how to deal with his warning, and so I asked our visiting chump to elaborate on behalf of the esteemed Mr. Lind.
    Well, do you recall reading any such elaboration? Because he's been back. He even posted a insipid comment. Yet not a word of clarification about the very topic to which he'd directed me.
    Such indignities I've had to endure and you want me to chill? What do you take me for, a Muslim?

  24. Ninja says:

    You've got an attraction to being flame bait, haven't you? I mean, what do you expect people to say when you write something as asinine as follows:
    We are not merely occupying a country, we are the greatest country in the history of the world sacrificing as no one else would in an attempt to bring order and civility to primitives and peace and prosperity to a region, all for the ultimate benefit of the entire planet..
    Furthermore, Mr Kerrey made many irrefutable points such that if one disagrees, there's something wrong with one – which is already apparent if one is unable to grasp that multiculturalism is ruining America.
    Methinks you're actually a sad middle-aged public servant stuck in a dead-end job with nowhere and nobody else to share your narrow world views. You were probably room mates with that other idiot, McVeigh, at some point in time. Only he had the cojones to act out his frustrations. You, on the other hand, are all tip and no iceberg in blog land.
    Do the world a favour and stay within your real and imagined borders.

  25. TedWest says:

    I realize that the truth hurts, numbnuts, but facts are facts, and America is not only the greatest country in history, but #2 (an unfortunate designation to be sure), Australia, is such a distant second as to be in a different race.
    But if it's any consolation, I did find this interesting…
    "You were probably room mates with that other idiot"
    "Room mates?" And you're calling other people idiots? Yours is a clear example of what that study established some years back – that real idiots think they are actually smarter than smart people.
    Why your mistake is even worse than Hen inserting a hyphen between "back" and "handed."
    Although I concede his error may ultimately be worse because I don't think he's even an Aussie.
    Well, enjoy your illusion. Although it's probably why Australia is #2, don't you think?!?

  26. Schomer says:

    Oil = National/World security. Reason enough to act, IMO. But there were already so many other reasons… broken UN resolutions, supporting terrorists, use of chemical weapons, invading other countries, shooting at our planes in no-fly zones…UK: 45,000 troops.Australia: 2,000 troops.The UK is #2 in my book.Snowy, Iraq is not about 9/11 – never was. And show me when and where the Saudis have done anything like Saddam, to prove your point.

  27. lollerkeet says:

    …broken UN resolutions supporting terrorists, use of chemical weapons, invading other countries…Ummm… I can think of a few other nations which meet this criteria…

  28. Snowy says:

    Schomer, the invasion of Iraq was the best recruitment weapon Al Qaeda could have asked for, so it is extremely debatable whether your Oil = National Security argument holds true. But the other price you pay is the worldwide loss of goodwill gained by the U.S. after 9/11. Instead, other countries are now asking, "Can we expect to be invaded also if the U.S. thinks it is in its best interests to do so?" Now it may not concern you that the U.S. is now thought of as the world's bully, even among former friends. If it doesn't, then you really shouldn't be surprised at the rise of Al Qaeda. I could comment on the U.S.'s hypocrisy that Saddam's many failings were of no consequence when it suited them, but I won't. My Saudi comment was made in the context of RedneckTed's argument that the invasion of Iraq was justified in the name of the so-called war on terror. I suppose this will result in another torrent of insults. That's what passes for reasoned debate with him. Oh well, such is life…

  29. TedWest says:

    Snowbound, how many ways do I have to tell you that I don't "debate" morons, much less you?
    Now you and Lollipop take it elsewhere, because I don't want you two disgracing yourselves on my sight any further.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s