Tuesday, May 08, 2007

In Sympathy for the Devil - Liberals, Democrats and the War on Terror

Ever since World War II, the left has shamelessly demonstrated its willingness to fight Conservative Democrats, Liberals and Republicans over the USSR or Islamic Terrorism. Liberals have in turn worked hard to demonstrate the same thing since the Nixon Administration.

If liberals had directed a fraction of the vigor they have employed over the past 6 years fighting Bush against Islamic terrorism-- the war would have been won by now, at least on the cultural front. Instead they have spent whatever foreign affairs capital they have promoting and defending the terrorists from Syria to Gaza to Gitmo to Abu Ghaib. More tears have poured from their eyes over an Iraqi with women's underwear on his head than for all the victims of September 11th combined. Certainly more rage. You can reliably open the paper these days and expect to see columns and op-eds promoting any Islamic terrorist-- no matter how evil or monstrous.

Last week I opened the paper to find a university professor proclaiming that the United States made a grievous error in backing the Ethiopian effort to expel the UIC from Somalia-- which had busied itself in such entertainment as beheading any Somali watching soccer matches-- arguing that the UIC had brought stability to Somalia. The interviewer of course nodded along.

When the Catmeat Sheikh, Sheikh Hilaly was interviewed by the Sydney Morning Herald, he was given an understanding and friendly forum to spew his hatred and bigotry dressed up in euphemisms explaining his Holocaust denial by saying; "I, like many researchers in the world, shy off the number of innocent victims that had been estimated at six million." No non-Muslim Holocaust denier would have been allowed to get away with that or given a photo op in a barbecue-- but even Holocaust denial can be justified so long as it comes from a Muslim terrorist.

This however has long since become par for the course. The nation's and the west's liberal cultural elites are only capable of seeing Republican enemies. Had Clinton and the Democrats dedicated a fraction of the effort they employed against the "militia threat" and the threat of right wing radio talk hosts against the budding Islamic terrorism that had already bombed the World Trade Center under Clinton's tenure-- 9/11 might never have happened. Instead they chose to continue a political war, to brand their political opposition as terrorists working to overthrow America and to employ law enforcement against them.

The shameful image of Border Patrol officers armed with automatic weapons settling a custody dispute against Cuban immigrants on behalf of Castro-- gives the lie to the Democratic party's pretensions at being civil libertarians. At Waco and Ruby Ridge and a dozen other places, the Clinton Administration demonstrated it could be ruthless and toss any pretense of moderation or civil rights out the window-- so long as the targets were affiliated or could be made to appear to be affiliated with the right.

Let there also be no pretense that the Democrats are not capable of fighting wars, based on little to no evidence, and without congressional approval. In Yugoslavia, Clinton fought an illegal war based on lies. He bombed civilian areas, including hospitals and civilian fuel oil depots and the Chinese Embassy. And the press cheered. They cheered even harder when the thugs and murderers of the KLA-- Al Queda's allies were armed and backed by the United States.

Once in Yugoslavia they ethnically cleansed towns, destroyed churches and began running drugs and trafficking in women. The thousands of civilians bombed by Clinton so the KLA could take power were swept under the rug. The phony genocide that never happened which Clinton used to justify the NATO invasion of Yugoslavia was swept under the rug. The deliberate bombing of the Chinese embassy was swept under the rug. The same media which reports on every anti-war protest when it comes to Iraq-- studiously ignored those same anti-war protesters when they were protesting the war in Yugoslavia.

We know then that Liberals and Democrats are fully capable of throwing civil rights out the window and abusing Federal power to pursue suspects and entire groups. We know they're capable of launching and fighting an illegal war that leaves a country in ruins while they walk away cheerfully whistling. We know all this because they did it as recently as a decade ago.

What we also know is that they won't act against Islamic terrorists-- not because they can't, but because they won't. Not because their lofty principles prevent them-- but because fighting Islamic terrorism is contrary to their desires, their politics and their worldview. If the utter uselessness and downright collaboration of Democrats and Liberals with Islamic terrorists stemmed from pacifism or a failure of nerve or idealism-- it would still make them unfit for government but it wouldn't make them treasonous. The demonstrated fact that they are capable of taking action-- but choose not to, is what does.

Let it be clear then what the Democratic opposition to the War on Terror is NOT about-- in order to understand what it indeed is about.

* It is not about freedom of the press - When Clinton fought his war in Yugoslavia, the press cheered it every step of the way, covered up the failures as best as they could and declared victory.

* It is not about legislation that impinges on civil liberties - From the DMCA to the CDA (which would have censored the internet), the CDA2 (when CDA1 was struck down by the Supreme Court) to the Carnivore backdoor on servers to roving wiretaps and deportations based on secret evidence, the Clinton Administration passed more legislation that impinges on civil liberties than the whole ridiculous ballyhooed Patriot Act.

* It is not about fighting a war without congressional approval or about fighting a war that severely impacts civilians or anything to do with fighting a war - Clinton did it and the Democratic party nodded its head and approved.

* It is not about using law enforcement to deprive people of their civil liberties - Clinton did it over and over again. It is not about invading their privacy. Clinton did it over and over again. It is not about sensitivity to minority groups, sending in Border Patrol agents against a Latino family to settle a custody dispute is about as sensitive as an episode of South Park.

Strip away all these justifications and you emerge with the simple truth. The Liberal and Democratic opposition to fighting a War against Islamic Terrorism is not rooted in any moral or civic objection. That leaves only one real possibility. Sympathy and support for the terrorists themselves. And for their aims.


Yobeeone said...

A journalist in the States used to have to be a card carrying communist. That hasn't changed much, has it. Still commies, but they don't have to have the card these days.

Keli Ata said...

Not all journalists, but I'd say a fair number of editors. Yep. Definitely.

Anonymous said...

A complete and utterly nonsensical editorial.

First of all I'd like to make one correction, Ruby Ridge ocurred under Bush senior.

As for deliberately bombing the Chinese embassy, this lunatic writer is no different than the moonbat leftists who think 9/11 was a conspiracy of our own government.

The anti-war protests during the Kosovo bombing were widely reported, and I find it amusing and ironic that the writer would laud those anti-war demonstrators who are much further to the left than the Democrats he condemns.

I don't disagree with the entire piece, as I think the Kosovo war was wrong, and indeed we did empower the islamists there. However I don't think it's because the Democrats actually are on the side of muslim terrorists as he simplistically put it. And what of the numerous Republicans who do business with the terrorist-supporting saudis, does he consider those GOPers treasonous? Oh and BTW, many GOPers also were in favor of the Kosovo bombing campaign and are in favor of an independent Kosovo.

Sultan Knish said...

the difference is we did bomb the chinese embassy and the bogus excuse about the maps not being up to date was senseless because the only thing formerly at that location was a park

I'm not saying there might not have been justification to bomb the embassy but we did bomb it and we bombed it deliberately to take out very specific targets and send a message

the anti-war protests-- were for the most part not reported and when they were the tone usually differed dramatically from the positive uncritical praise they receive today

I don't laud that crowd-- but they were consistent at least, while the liberals weren't

...and yes I consider those GOP'ers treasonous... did I ever claim they were a party of saints and that I support them uncritically? said...

Anonymous said:
"I don't disagree with the entire piece, as I think the Kosovo war was wrong, and indeed we did empower the islamists there. However I don't think it's because the Democrats actually are on the side of muslim terrorists as he simplistically put it."


Here is a quote from Representative Tom Lantos(D), Chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee on April 17, 2007, as sponsor of of bill HR 36 supporting an indpendendent Albanian Kosova:

"Just a reminder to the predominantly Muslim-led government[s] in this world that here is yet another example that the United States leads the way for the creation of a predominantly Muslim country in the very heart of Europe. This should be noted by both responsible leaders of Islamic governments, such as Indonesia, and also for jihadists of all color and hue. The United States' principles are universal, and in this instance, the United States stands foursquare for the creation of an overwhelmingly Muslim country in the very heart of Europe.

I am a born & bred American and that quote sent a chill up my spine. How a bout you?

Why are we creating Muslim countries in Europe -- or anywhere?

Post a Comment