Cheering the enemy

[Richard King]

"I have a confession: I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong," Mr. Kamiya wrote last week. "Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone: A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings."

More casualties would have been a preferred alternative to the "larger moral negative" of a victory that boosted President Bush's chances for re-election, he said.This article confirms many of my suspicions of the left about this war.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/inpolitics.htm

[gcutler]

While this is specific to the Left, the Right has proven during the CLinton administration that they can be as selfish. Looking at my local politicians during 1992-2000, Bob Barr and Newt Gingrich HYPOTHETICALLY would have prevented a cure for cancer from being released if it made the Clinton Administration look good as a result

When someone is so partisan that they can't accept a victory for the entire country that was orchestrated by the other side, they are just being selfish. But sadly this is more typical and expected in Politics and The Media (BOth Left and Right wing). But I wonder about the every day joe living his life in the US, does he hate any victory by the opponent even though it benefits everyone.

And it seems that it is the job of Party Leadership to destroy at all costs any National Beneficial but Partisan actions. And the only way to get something good done is to make it bi-partisan.

I am in no way a Bush fan, but I was hoping for a quick a victory as possible with a little resistance as possible. Do I want Bush re-elected, No, but I wouldn't want a longer/dirtier war to make bush look bad.

[John Corn]

"More casualties would have been a preferred alternative to the "larger moral negative" of a victory that boosted President Bush's chances for re-election, he said."

Do you realize how sick this is? He wanted more Americans and Iraqis to die so that he could get a liberal in the White House.

[RichW]

I opposed the war, but I find it reprehensible to wish for casualties to prove a point. After all, I have a nephew fighting over there and another in the reserves who was ready to go.

I not only voted for Bush, but actively campaigned for him in this state. But as things stand now he will not get my vote next year. I see very little of the "compassionate conservatism" that earmarked his campaign. Mr Bush, its time to address the economic needs of this country and the growing deficit. No more adventurism!

The wacky left is more than amply offset by the wicked right in this country. The extremes vilify the president of the opposite party for the very same actions their own party takes while in power. Clinton was ridiculed because the Somali warlord ( if orget his name) could not be found. He was strongly criticized for not deploying ground troops in Kosovo, even though the strategy there prevented us from incurring casualities there. Essentially Mr. Clinton germinated the Shock and Awe strategy.

George W. Bush sucessfully broguht down the Saddam Hussein regime. He did so with little loss of American lives. For that he can take ample credit. But there are many needs in this country. Lets hope for a "post-War" boom in our economy.

[mancow]

I also have nephew over there, and I support the troops and the president 100% The SOB that made comments like that should be put away some where, to be against the war is one thing, but to wish for casulites is another. its obvesly he has no relatives involed.

[RichW]

Of course, the Washington Times is about as unbiased as the sources that our dear Roger used to quote so I would take any quotes by "liberals" in their paper with a grain of salt.

Washington Times - "We shoot for the Moon!"

[Richard King]

Don't shoot the messenger. This was taken from Salon.com, a left leaning (to put it mildly) political web site.

[waydwolf]

    This is nothing new. They wish for every interracial couple to fail and break up spectacularly all on account of the white partner so they can point and show how all white people(other than them of course) are the bane of everyone who isn't white. They wish for every person who gets a tax cut to become a b*stard cross between the Grinch and Scrooge and steal from those around them in an orgiastic fit of greed. They wish for every person who exercises their Second Amendment rights to shoot someone to prove their desires for gun confiscation to be right. They wish for every happy couple to dissolve based on wife/girlfriend beating to prove men are scum. I've always known all this. Nothing new that they'd wish for people to die to prove their ramblings.

    Did no one catch that professor who openly wished for "a million Mogadishus"?

 

[RichW]

Likewise they wish to broadly paint anyone who dares to have opposed the war on any basis with the same brush used that should be used only on those with the worst intentions.

[Bogy]

Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN): “This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem.” [New York Times, 5/4/99]

I'm sure that all the Republicans were very happy when the war in Kosovo was completed successfully, fairly quickly, and with the loss of only two lives.

[lastmanstanding]

Remember, to the Far Left, Liberalism is more than a political position. It is a moral (or immoral) imperative, a code of ethics, and according to Marx, socialism is the inevitable evolutionary outcome of man that must take place so the world can become a worker's utopia.

In its pure form, Liberalism supersedes family, religion, career, and even self in importance.

Wishing for the deaths of thousands of innocents to further the Liberal cause, or at least hurt its perceived enemy IE. George Bush is perfectly reasonable.

Now that I have stirred the poop, remember that most who call themselves Liberals are blind to all this. Those who run the factions that create Liberal doctrine, and come up with catchy sayings like "Not in my name", do understand what Marxism, socialism, and leftist social evolution is all about. In their minds, the sooner the State becomes central in everyone's lives, even displacing family and religion, the sooner the worker's utopia can get rolling.

Read Marx sometime. It really helps make sense of what these folks are saying, even if they have no idea where it comes from or is trying to lead them to.

The majority of Democrats and even most Liberals really don't know how they are being used. They think they are doing good, whatever the outcome.

That's Karl Marx, not Groucho Marx, when you go to Amazon to find reading material.

[gcutler]

Originally posted by lastmanstanding
Remember, to the Far Left, Liberalism is more than a political position. It is a moral (or immoral) imperative, a code of ethics, and according to Marx, socialism is the inevitable evolutionary outcome of man that must take place so the world can become a worker's utopia...

The majority of Democrats and even most Liberals really don't know how they are being used. They think they are doing good, whatever the outcome...

Read Marx sometime. It really helps make sense of what these folks are saying, even if they have no idea where it comes from or is trying to lead them to...


By original definition, liberal and conservative are sooo twisted off their original meaning that Classical Liberals or Conservatives of the 1800s would not recognize the generalized dogma of the respective labels today. So to bring 1800s definitions and Marx into play with 2003 beliefs is just apples and oranges. So there is quite a difference between a Classical Liberal or Classical Conservative of the 1800s in Marx time and lets call todays "Neo Liberals" or "Neo Conservatives"

And there are plenty of "Neo-Liberals" who do not subscribe to Marx's Manifesto. Don't group people into easy categories just to make your point sound more accurate. The width of belief inside the Neo-Liberal camps are not as mono-dogmatic as you would have us believe, just like most "Neo-Conservatives" are NOT "Abortion Dr. Killing, Bible Thumping, Southern, Rednecks" most "Neo-Liberals" are NOT "Tree-Hugging, Money hating, Communist Soldier, NorthEastern, Pot Smoking, Vegetarians"

Cut the "Liberals/Democrats" = Pure Bad, "Conservatives/Republicans" = Pure Good, crap. I've heard that talk before and you aught to listen to yourself when you post/say it, because you sound like right wing drones no different than the Communist drones of Josef Stalin during his reign.