.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Undercover Hippie

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

Boston Globe Columnist is a typical liberal

I know we've all heard the littany of things that liberals actually believe. But its rather amazing when you get one article which expresses almost all of the whacked ideas that we think they believe but rarely express. When we do call them on it, they deny it.

Its enough to make you doubt that they really believe this stuff at all. I mean really, who hates their own government more than a dictator? Why hate your own government in the first place? Its not like we live in Somalia. I never understood that. Why did they trust the Soviets to "do the right thing" but never trusted the US Military? I never got that one either.

So, without direct evidence from their own lips that they actually believe the things they seem to believe, we doubt ourselves. If we have to judge, for instance, whether the Democratic Party supports our enemies, then just look at their voting record as a party in the Congress, and ask yourself "How would they have voted differently if they DID support our enemies?"

But, we admit to ourselves, that is specious. Just because they seem to act a certain way may indicate they believe that way, but it may also indicate that they are just contrarians. I like to call it the "Bugs Bunny Syndrome." They get so used to yelling the opposite everytime we say "Duck Season" that they forget what they're saying half the time. Then we can trip them up by switching on them. (Take the "No Child Left Behind" act as an example... all of a sudden they become spend-thrifts on education... and then realize they just yelled "Duck Season, Fire!" and try to claim that no, in fact, George Bush UNDER-funded it.)

But I digress.

I'd like to analyse some of the amazing Liberal factoids that we've long suspected, but rarely see them admit to that are catalogued for us in this amazing piece of Liberal fiction.


THE WAR IN IRAQ goes from worse to catastrophic. Hundreds of Iraqis were killed last week, as were two dozen US soldiers. Planned elections in January point less to democracy than civil war.


Well, at least MORE Iraqis were killed than Americans. That's progress isn't it?


Kidnapping has become a weapon of terror on the ground, matching the terror of US air attacks.


Isn't this amazing!?! Terrorists are likened to the US air attacks! WE are terrorists!


An American "take-back" offensive threatens to escalate the violence immeasurably. The secretary general of the United Nations pronounced the American war illegal.


So fighting a war so as to win the war (i.e. the "take-back" offensive) is going to "escalate the violence." In my limited experience, dead people are never violent. Given time, they put out a putrid odor. But I've never seen them turn violent. Except on those "Living Dead" movies.


In the United States, an uneasy electorate keeps its distance from all of this. Polls show that most Americans maintain faith in the Bush administration's handling of the war, while others greet reports of the disasters more with resignation than passionate opposition. To the mounting horror of the world, the United States of America is relentlessly bringing about the systematic destruction of a small, unthreatening nation for no good reason. Why has this not gripped the conscience of this country?


WOW! He believes that Iraq was a "small, unthreatening nation." Was the Soviet Empire a "large, unthreatening nation?" Was Hitler a "crackpot Austrian?"

He also believes that the US is "relentlessly" bringing about its "systematic destruction." He thinks our military is worse for Iraq than the murderous dictatorship of Sadam Hussein.

And these liberals want to know why we believe them to be unpatriotic?


The answer goes beyond Bush to the 60-year history of an accidental readiness to destroy the earth, a legacy with which we Americans have yet to reckon. The punitive terror bombing that marked the end of World War II hardly registered with us.


He called the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "punitive terror bombings."

No, really! He did! Go back and read it again if you have to. He really, really did!


Then we passively accepted our government's mad embrace of thermonuclear weapons. While we demonized our Soviet enemy, we hardly noticed that almost every major escalation of the arms race was initiated by our side -- a race that would still be running if Mikhail Gorbachev had not dropped out of it.


First, I guess he DOES think that the Soviet Empire was a "large, unthreatening nation." Second, the arms race being escalated by our side is what won the cold war, not Gorby's "dropping out" of it. We spent the Soviets into extinction. That was the promise of SDI. We could do it, and they knew it. They could not, and they knew that too.


In 1968, we elected Richard Nixon to end the war in Vietnam, then blithely acquiesced when he kept it going for years more.


Actually, we had Vietnam all but won. Major hostilities had all but ended. Then the Democratic controlled Congress decided to cut funding. Within months, Saigon fell. Perhaps this is what John Kerry was pining for when voted against the $87B that he voted for. ("Duck Season, FIRE!")


When Ronald Reagan made a joke of wiping out Moscow, we gathered a million strong to demand a nuclear "freeze," but then accepted the promise of "reduction," and took no offense when the promise was broken.


So, Gorby was the savior of the world, and Reagan was the personification of evil. I've always thought they believed this. Its nice to hear one of them say it clearly for once.


We did not think it odd that America's immediate response to the nonviolent fall of the Berlin Wall was an invasion of Panama.


Is THAT what we were responding to? Oh. And all this time I thought it was a corrupt drug-running dictator, threatening our national security by playing games with access to the canal. Silly me. It was the demise of communism in Europe that makes us ... invade ... somewhere ... else. Sorry, I just don't get that one.


We celebrated the first Gulf War uncritically, even though that display of unchecked American power made Iran and North Korea redouble efforts to build a nuclear weapon, while prompting Osama bin Laden's jihad.


The first Gulf War was a "display of unchecked American power?" This guy just won't let up. Do the Kuwaiti's think thats what it was? I suppose if they do, then they don't think "unchecked American power" to be a bad thing. This guy obviously does. And, so do the French, coincidentally.


The Clinton administration affirmed the permanence of American nukes as a "hedge" against unnamed fears, and we accepted it.


Quite frankly, the only reason I think Clinton was a Democrat is because he figured that Democrat women "put out" more. But, I supposed Hillary abjured him of that notion.


We shrugged when the US Senate refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, with predictable results in India and Pakistan. We bought the expansion of NATO, the abrogation of the ABM Treaty, the embrace of National Missile Defense -- all measures that inevitably pushed other nations toward defensive escalation.


So he believes that Pakistan (this is pre-9/11 mind you) was a nation which would have bound itself under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. And he believes that India, which has been invaded THREE TIMES in the last century by China (a noted holder of nuclear weapons) was arming itself because of us. Yes, I can remember all of that sabre-rattling we did against India. They must have been terrified. I'm sure it had nothing to do with Pakistan (their neighbor to the west) or China (their neighbor to the east). Yes, it was all the US's doing.


The war policy of George W. Bush -- "preventive war," unilateralism, contempt for Geneva -- breaks with tradition, but there is nothing new about the American population's refusal to face what is being done in our name. This is a sad, old story.


Yes, this is actually the fault of all of us stupid Americans. Why aren't my countrymen more smarter, like me is.


It leaves us ill-equipped to deal with a pointless, illegal war. The Bush war in Iraq, in fact, is only the latest in a chain of irresponsible acts of a warrior government, going back to the firebombing of Tokyo. In comparison to that, the fire from our helicopter gunships above the cities of Iraq this week is benign. Is that why we take no offense?


So, we're not just cold-blooded killers. We're also heartless in our rampages. We don't care that we kill people. In fact, we've done it for decades.

...but don't call a Liberal anti-American. They'll get mad ... and be really angry about it ... and pass a resolution or something.


Something deeply shameful has us in its grip. We carefully nurture a spirit of detachment toward the wars we pay for. But that means we cloak ourselves in cold indifference to the unnecessary suffering of others -- even when we cause it. We don't look at any of this directly because the consequent guilt would violate our sense of ourselves as nice people. Meaning no harm, how could we inflict such harm?


Well, that's a nice thought. At least he thinks we don't "mean" harm. But, that belies the rest of the of article.

In this political season, the momentous issue of American-sponsored death is an inch below the surface, not quite hidden -- making the election a matter of transcendent importance. George W. Bush is proud of the disgraceful history that has paralyzed the national conscience on the question of war. He does not recognize it for what it is -- an American Tragedy.


George W. Bush is proud of our history. Why aren't you? And I know its an old refrain, but if things are so bad, why not move to France? Seriously. Why not?


The American tragedy. John Kerry, by contrast, is attuned to the ethical complexity of this war narrative. We see that reflected in the complexity not only of his responses, but of his character -- and no wonder it puts people off. Kerry's problem, so far unresolved, is how to tell us what we cannot bear to know about ourselves. How to tell us the truth of our great moral squandering. The truth of what we are doing today in Iraq.


But, didn't John Kerry support the war, and even say last week (unless he's changed his position again) that he still would support it, even knowing what we know now?

And, a murderous dictator that kills, rapes and wars against his own people, and his neighbors does NOT present us with an "ethical complexity." It presents us with a target.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home