"A Tale of Two Presidents"

Howard Owens blogged a great essay the other day, the conclusion of which I agree with wholeheartedly, as you surely know already, Faithful Reader. :)

.... But let's stipulate (without conceding) that the left has reasons to distrust Bush -- shouldn't a war of liberation, regardless of whatever other justifications might or might not exist for the war, be something to warm the heart of every freedom lover (and I thought, if nothing else, the left loved freedom)? Isn't it better to lift the yoke of tyranny from the backs of the Iraqi people, no matter who else may benefit, than to continue their suffering for even a day longer than we did?

Yet, look around the net, listen to the Democratic speeches -- try to find me three or four liberals, just three or four, who are congratulating and thanking Bush for liberating Iraq and promoting America's higher ideals to the world.

Why is that?

I think it all boils down to partisanship. The left, like the right-wing in the Clinton years, can't stand the idea that a politician in the opposing party is co-opting its platform. If a modern day FDR were president now, fully liberal and fully committed to promoting freedom, liberals would have been signing up to support the war in droves. Tim Robbins and Janeanne Garofalo would have been selling war bonds (as then liberal Democrat Ronald Reagan did during World War II). It's preposterous to think that merely because George Bush is president, and not some liberal Democrat, that this war is vile and illegitimate, but that is the message the left keeps pushing to the public.

I just can't understand people who put political party before national interest or international human rights. To me, there is something sinful about it. It is plainly immoral, especially in the face of tyranny.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 04/23/03 09:20:20 PM
Categorized as Political.