Why do Dems oppose war?

The Washington Times ^ | Bob Beckel

[FairOpinion]

I have been a card-carrying liberal Democrat all my life, and proud of it. I've always believed that one of the great foundation blocks of liberalism is that we are committed to helping those who cannot help themselves. From Selma, Ala., to Capetown, South Africa, liberals have been at the forefront of the war against racism. From the picking fields of Florida, to support for Mothers of the Missing, liberals have waged war against the oppression of children.

[FairOpinion]

Note, this was written by a self proclaimed liberal Democrat, and he is bringing up some good points.

The only answer to the question he raises, is that the opponents of war are NOT liberals, but a bunch of America hating leftists, calling themselves liberals.

[MEG33]

He got his usual licks in about Bush but he's right on about the war.

[kcvl]

Bob Beckel, a political analyst who managed Walter Mondale's 1984 presidential campaign, paid a woman $300 per hour tovisit his home on June 27 and 29. Days later, he found a note on his car and a message on his answering machine demanding money and threatening to release evidence of the woman's visits to his family and the media, according to a search warrant filed Aug. 26 in Alexandria Circuit Court.

[frosty snowman]

The Dems oppose it because they are envious that Bush is running the war instead of their guy. If the war happened under a democrat administration it would be touted as a victory for human rights, and the media would be playing right along.

[sadimgnik]

Bob Beckel, a political analyst who managed Walter Mondale's 1984 presidential campaign, paid a woman $300 per hour tovisit his home on June 27 and 29. Days later, he found a note on his car and a message on his answering machine demanding money and threatening to release evidence of the woman's visits to his family and the media, according to a search warrant filed Aug. 26 in Alexandria Circuit Court.

---

and your point is?

Sadim

[Roscoe]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/beckel1.html

[kcvl]

I wasn't making a point. DUH! Just an FYI for anyone interested which obviously you weren't so ignore it.

[sonofatpatcher2]

"They're Democrats, Jim."

[kcvl]

ROFLOL!

[sadimgnik]

The Dems oppose it because they are envious that Bush is running the war instead of their guy. If the war happened under a democrat administration it would be touted as a victory for human rights, and the media would be playing right along.

---

Hmmm. Perhaps.

And perhaps Republicans would be opposing it, as 'Klinton trying to divert attention from (name your cause celebre here)"

Unfortunately, this war has become a political battlefield .. but it was always going to be one.

Regards

Sadim

Oh, and in case I am accused of hypocrisy, I again spell out my position: I am a liberal who opposes your president and my prime minister .. but who supports war on Saddam Hussein (mostly for the reasons outlined in the article above).

I fear we are fighting the right war, for the wrong reasons ... but the net result will still be the removal of an evil dictator who needs removing.

[Roscoe]

Her pimp was named Abdullah Hamid. Hmmmm.

[nopardons]

Why, as a LIBERAL, are you on a CONSERVATIVE forum ?

You aren't an American and the bloody hell, with your opinion of my president !

[FairOpinion]

"I fear we are fighting the right war, for the wrong reasons ... "
---

We are fighting this war for MANY reasons, but the bottom line is fight it now and win, or fight it later, after many more people died ( in Iraq and perhaps in the US and elsewhere).

Even as a liberal, you can't be oblivious to Saddam's atrocities.

[truth_seeker]

"I fear we are fighting the right war, for the wrong reasons ... but the net result will still be the removal of an evil dictator who needs removing."

What are the "right" reasons, for you? (I'm simply asking-not making a smart comeback)

[frosty snowman]

Okay, I agree with you it is always political. Just pointing out that the rationale given by Democrats would be different, and the media reaction would be VERY different. Anyway, that is a 'what if' scenario and is purely hypothetical at this point.

[Radix]

Why do Dems oppose war?

I think they are afraid that we might win.

[driftless]

Fair enough. Welcome to the forum.

[sadimgnik]

The right reasons? Because Saddam is a dictator who oppresses his people .. who thoroughly deserves his moniker, "the butcher of baghdad".

The wrong reasons? Some sort of wooly-headed warm-and-fuzzy revenger for September 11 - when there appears to be no logical nexus between the two events.

NB: I'm not saying we shouldn't hunt down and kill all those responsible for September 11 - or Bali.

We should. Coldly, methodically, and until the vermin are all exterminated.

But THIS war ... the one against Saddam Hussein ... is muddying those waters, and making the job harder.

Sadim

[LiberationIT]

Many Liberals oppose the war because the only significant input to the development of their political philosophy came from listening to Beatles, PP&M and Dylan tunes. Critical, objective thought was not then, and is not now, a tool they successfully use.

[Roscoe]

But THIS war ... the one against Saddam Hussein ... is muddying those waters, and making the job harder.

Our enemies will learn to fear us. The lessons have begun.

[sadimgnik]

Why am I posting to a CONSERVATIVE forum? For the same reason I've been here since 2000.

I am liberal ... and that requires me, IMNSHO, to consider all viewpoints. (*)

While I shake my head at some of the more froot-loop-extremist points raised by some denizens here, I find myself challenged by some of the more rational posters, and find myself adding their perspectives to my store of ideas.

Regards

Sadim
(*) I genuinely believe that true liberals must consider all viewpoints. Those with close minds aren't liberals (or conservatives, or libertarians) - they are sufferers of arrested development.

[nopardons]

tsk, tsk, tsk ... typical solophistic drivel; not to mention personal attacks.

You've been here for a while, yet post lefty propaganda ( Bush is fighting this war for the " wrong " reasons ) and imply that you have an " open mind " and " consider " all points of view " ? LOL

[Roscoe]

He thinks he's slumming.

[nopardons]

He does NOT " think "; he's incapable of that act.

[sadimgnik]

Ummm .. perhaps you can point to the personal attack you refer to?

I'm serious - I admit I have posted in anger on a couple of occasions .. but I (generally) try to be amenable. (*)

As for sophistry - fair enough, if you want to think that being willing to accept other points of view is the mark of a sophist, I'll adopt that description with pride.

And yes, I know that's perilously close to a 'personal attack' - so sue me.

Oh ... and finally, you'll note I said "consider" all popints of view. I suspect I actually adopt fewer that 10 percent of the arguments put forward - but I genuinely do consider the more rational ones, even if only to reject them.


Regards

Sadim
(*) At this point, should I start singing singing Kumbaya, and asking "Why can't we all just get along"? :-)

[Roscoe]

Sorry. He feels he's slumming among the "denizens" here.

[nopardons]

You personally attacked vast numbers of FREEPERS; if not all of us. You Bushbashed. You KNOW that you made a personal attack, in your reply to me; however, as a good little Liberal, you wear it with " pride ".

You admit that you " consider " ( sophistry and solophistic; not to mention hubristic ) a wee bit of the posts, but dismiss it, out of hand , sneeringly, smarmily, and pompously. Open minded ? Your mind is so bloody open, all of your brains, long ago, fell out. Yes, that IS a personal attack ! Sooooooooo , what are you going to do about it mate ?

Get lost !

[nopardons]

Exactly so ! Poor baby, he's out of his depth. Perchance he is a masochist. : -)

[Mark17]

I genuinely believe that true liberals must consider all viewpoints.

Democrats don't. They are very closed minded and intolerant.

[nopardons]

Just as this Aussie Liberal is.

[Ophiucus]

a bunch of America hating leftists, calling themselves liberals.

Is there a difference anymore?

It's not an off the cuff wisecrack. I remarked to a friend during a discussion that in WWII, there were still Democrats that supported this country and the Constitution. Since then, the Left has become closer to the Communist Left and less like the Classic Liberal ( as Jeffersonian democracy is often referred). The Democratic party has mounted a long range, long running attack against all remaining Constitutional guarantees - like freedom to bear arms, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, press, a constitutionally restrained federal government - fought against a free-market, agaisnt capitalism, and has fought to institute a socialist state.

Where are these members of the Left that still ascribe to any of the princibles of the Founders?

I don't think they remain. The Leftism of Communism and Socialism, antithematic to our constitutional democracy, have taken over the American left during this century.

[Roscoe]

ShrubCanDoNoWrong.com

As surely as a dog returns to its vomit, out it comes.

[sadimgnik]

Democrats don't. They are very closed minded and intolerant.

---

I fear you may be (at least partly) correct. I've been booted from DU on more than one occassion for expressing classic 'liberal' views - and I no longer discuss politics with some of my Labor-Party-Supporting colleagues.

But I _have_ to believe that there are enough people of goodwill on all sides to make our society work.

It is an article of faith with me that we need to provide a beacon, to show those in dictatorships that freedom works.

Sadim

[nopardons]

I've been here far longer than YOU have been ! This is a CONSERVATIVE forum; primarily for AMERICANS ; neither of which you are. It has NEVER been all that " civil " a plave, as you've noted ; however, we tend to join together and oppose ALL Liberals.

You joined during our presidential primary season. Yes, the various factions were at each others' throats.The worst , of the rabid thrashers were banned. Once President Bush was elected president,all but the most fanatic fringers, have backed him. This doesn't mean that all of us agree 100% with everything OUR president does / says. OTOH, no bloody Aussie has any " right " to Bushbash; especially NOT here ! The owners of this site, by-theby, dear, do NOT take kindly to Bushbashing. FR has changed, sonce I joined. It's been invaded by trash, like you.

Like any Liberal, you're sorry, sorry that you've been caught and called out. And yes, yes indeedy, the problem, such as it is, is ALL your's. ; ^ )

[nopardons]

Precisely so. But, what can one expect from a Liberal ?

[nopardons]

So, DU doesn't want you ? NEITHER DO WE !

[sadimgnik]

sigh.

The reference to 'Shrub' was an attempt at humour ... as was my reference earlier in this thread to 'Klinton'.

But look, if you want me to be satan incarnate, feel free to project to your heart's content.

Sadim

[Boot Hill]

Bob Beckel says:   "I've always believed that one of the great foundation blocks of liberalism is that we are committed to helping those who cannot help themselves."

Bob Beckel, you're a flipping idiot.

Our primary purpose in Iraq doesn't have a damn thing to do with "helping those who cannot help themselves", nor is to free the Iraqi people from "the most vicious dictator since Hitler". It is a war on terrorism and this campaign in Iraq has only one primary goal and that is to rid America of one more state sponsor of terrorism.

For 25 years, America has turned the other cheek and "given peace a chance" and all we got for our efforts were dozens of acts of war upon this country, culminating with the infamy of September 11.

Make no mistake, this is a war on terrorism, no matter whether it is called Al Qaida, Hizbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad or PLO. And the single most important fact to understand about Middle Eastern terrorism is that 100% of it is state sponsored. There is simply no viable alternative to conquering those terrorist sponsoring states.

If the ideas of leftist fools like Bob Beckel ever gain respectability in this country and this war changes to one of "feel good" strategy that subordinates the fight against terrorism to "helping people", "freeing people" or "nation building", then this war is lost and with it too, America.

--Boot Hill

[Oldeconomybuyer]

...and he is bringing up some good points...

Agreed. But what he fails to admit is why so many of his liberal democrat friends are against the liberation of Iraq. It's because a republican is in the White House and partisan politics trumps national security.

[laredo44]

The wrong reasons? Some sort of wooly-headed warm-and-fuzzy revenger for September 11 - when there appears to be no logical nexus between the two events.

The stated reason for our actions is a war on global terrorism, admittedly precipitated by the 9/11 attacks. There needn't be a nexus between Iraq and the attacks on America to justify this war, merely between Iraq and international terrorism.

[sonofatpatcher2]

Damnit, Old, as I said in post 8
"They're Democrats!"

[Leisler]

You are not a liberal. You are a socialist. You believe that the state is paramount and that rights, liberties and privileges are dispensed by the state, for it's needs and wants.

Lastly, to answer Beckels question in a class way familiar to any Marxist loser, the reason is that the left, the Democrats, don't serve in the military. Just as you don't find them in manufacturing, construction, fishing, engineering and less and less in medicine. I won't mention business and finance. This is because the leftists are not the "doers" of society. They are a symbol manipulating parasitical class that exist off the excess wealth and have entranced themselves by the state's taxing powers to live off the labor of the productive.
.

[cgk]

And to think you missed out on this one.

[PMCarey]

Make no mistake, this is a war on terrorism, no matter whether it is called Al Qaida, Hizbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad or PLO. And the single most important fact to understand about Middle Eastern terrorism is that 100% of it is state sponsored. There is simply no viable alternative to conquering those terrorist sponsoring states.

Boot Hill gets it.

[KeyWest]

Forget the rants that you cannot be on FR because you are a liberal. Any rational person is welcome, especially a well thought out argument defending your views.

Still not sure why we allow libertarians :)

[sadimgnik]

Still not sure why we allow libertarians :)

---

What .. here on FR, or in general? :-)

And thanks, BTW.

As an aside, Boot Hill said something in his post that I'm gonna have to ruminate on. Hmmm.

Regards

Sadim.

[RWG]

Despite the conservative revisionism that Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War all by himsel...I did not pay much attention to political events in the 80s but at one point after Reagan left office I did watch a documentary that in fact cataloged how Reagan did defeat the evil empire virtually all by himself. It happened when he met gorby in iceland and outfoxed him on point after point until the wall came tumbling down. Without his strength of person there would still be the evil empire to this day. Reagan did defeat the evil empire and almost by himself.

[John Felix]

Your moniker tells it all. In reverse King Midas would take gold and turn it into the worthless. A true socialist's approach.

[weikel]

The only answer to the question he raises, is that the opponents of war are NOT liberals, but a bunch of America hating leftists, calling themselves liberals.

Is there a diffrence?