Posted on 06/14/2004 8:49:31 AM PDT by oompa-loompa
This weekend I was at a friends party and found myself in a calm debate over the war and PResident Bush. I was speaking with a person who called herself "a screaming left-wing moderate" (as if). She was talking about having been to anti-war demonstrations in Washington DC. I told her that I thought debate and opposition was fine and patriotic up until the first shot is fired but once the war is on- debate is ineffective and can only serve to weaken morale and strengthen the resolve of the enemy.
She went on to ask me a very odd question and as prepared as I was to handle "WMD, no al Queada connection and war for oil" arguments- I must admit I had to stammer when she asked me this-"If Kerry wins in November, and we are still at war in the middle east, will conservatives keep quiet and blindly support him unitl the troops come home?" She smuggly added, "...The way you are asking the left to support Bush just because we are at war." I have to admit it is the first time I have had to think about the possiblity.
My question- "If Kerry wins and we are still at war, are we obliged to give him quiet support until our troops are out of danger?"
Look at Kosovo, many conservatives questioned our involvement. Once the war started, there were not a bunch of conservatives screaming about 'where are the mass graves' or 'Clinton lied, people died' or kept debating the issue on any grounds. Once the war started, conservatives did unite behind not only our troops but our mission. Many may have felt it was misguided, but once involved are there to win. Liberals today cheer when our troops die and cheer the prison scandal.
I have a friend who knows a guy who wanted to know if you asked her if she would disparage a President Kerry were he to use U.S. forces in the middle east.
I would have asked her a return question. Would she still be protesting the war?
Now the left argues that they are supporting our troops by fighting to get them home. Well, I have three responses to that. First, I don't believe that claim: they aren't doing it for the troops, they're doing it for other reasons; A.N.S.W.E.R. doesn't give a damn about our troops and they know it. Secondly, the best way to speed up the return of our troops is to help them win faster. And thirdly, refer to my previous paragraph.
So if we find Kerry overruling the requests of his generals for more troops or equipment, I think we can damn well shout from the rooftops without being accused of not supporting our troops. But if it is clear that Kerry is doing his best to insure that our boys succeed in prosecuting the conflict itself---because, as he has said, we're already there, so we need to finish the job---then yes I think we need to keep our mouths shut about it.
Her premise is wrong.
What makes her characterize that anyone is 'blindly' supporting anyone. Does she think those who support the war are 'blind?' And that those who oppose can see? Why? For what reasons?
Does she normally think people who agree with her can see, while those that disagree are ncessarily blind? And why?
Ask better questions to her to pick at the implicit assumptions in her position.
In any case, disagreeing with a war is one thing, but the hysterics, deceit, and . A good example would be the way the Republican party acted during Clinton's military endeavors. While criticism was there, it was usually civil, and there were nowhere near the amount of remarks from mainstream Republican leadership resembling the shrill and demeaning remarks of Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, etc.
So the answer is that nobody is asking anybody to be blind. There is an expectation of civility, lack of hysterics, and decorum that our side (largely) adheres to. Then ask her what about Democrats makes this style less appealing or less possible? After all, democrats raise the level of rhetoric in this time much higher than Republicans ever did (and to be sure, some republicans were shrill, but the party leadership never called Clinton 'stupid' or was demeaning in other ways.
Disagreement is legit, of course. What makes a large number democrats so shrill and alienating, when the large number of Republicans tastefully avoid incendiary rhetoric?
Kerry will pull out as soon as possible. Iraq will not descend into "chaos". It will become an Islamic extremist state and all of its contracts for reconstruction and weapons purchase will go to the French.
This will be called a foreign policy success, re-establishing America on the moral high ground globally. In the meantime, the Chinese will sign an agreement with Iraq for unlimited oil access.
Looks as if you got your "in put" all right.
"The question assumes a great deal of unthinking, blind Dubya-worship, which invalidates the question."
You hit the nail on the head. The elitist "screaming leftists" consider the unwashed to not posess the ability to think for themselves and they consider us blindly following GWB becuase he is a Republican. Its the best example of irony that I can think of.
and LBJ during Vietnam.
Shut up and stand behind oompa-loompa.
IMHO, it's largely a matter of degree. Blocking city streets, disrupting opponents' meetings, Kennedy's lies and harangues, endless investigations for political purposes, to name a few leftwing antics, are out of bounds. Reasoned debate based on facts is generally welcomed and, in the end, helpful. For instance, the complaint about many soldiers not having body armor was utterly appropriate. It was also handled in what was, overall, an even handed calm manner. Examine your own reactions to what you consider legitimate and well presented complaints from the left and how you've reacted to the more reasoned and factual criticisms. At least to me, it's the shrill histrionics, name calling and lies that are inappropriate and gives support to the terrorists. P.S. Her use of the word, "blindly", in the question about following Kerry made it a bit of a trick question.
Bush has been bashed on this forum as well as supported.
Iraq's timing and issues are debated here as heatedly as elsewhere. But here, leftist media lies don't color the debate.
The "up until the first shot is fired" is a lousy standard. Conservatives haven't called for such a thing.
The Dixie Chicks got in trouble for their comments because they were made to a foreign audience and made for blatant self-interest. There are conservatives that question the various aspects of war policy at home and stand united when discussing it abroad.
Likewise, it is possible to support the military, and its legally adopted mission while holding personal views, carefully and factually expressed, with full approval of all thinking citizens.
The left hasn't made their critique in that manner.
Instead they lie (bin Laden family plane didn't exit as Moore shows in his movie), make up motives and interpretations (Clark alleged Rice didn't know who al Qeada was despite her speech a year earlier about them) and falsely attribute motives (Bush making war for oil money when it was really the French and UN functionaries that were after oil money in their actions).
There is no conundrum here. If Kerry tries to put the US Military under UN or international control, as he desired decades ago in quotations well known, I will bash him, as I would Bush, if the same thing was done by Bush.
You are not very good at this.
You answer this question with the question:
"Will you support Kerry if he follows this course?"
When she answers "of course I will" you then ask
"So why aren't you supporting Bush? You just said you would support the same course of action if it is Kerry doing it."
The left is not interested in reasoning. Counter punch, my man, counter punch...
Fess up, you're the one who posed that question at the party, right?
It will be politics as usual...no matter which way the tables turn. Conservatives are just as capable of screaming as liberals.
Just occurred to me... the Left's antiwar slogan is "No Blood for Oil", yet nobody spilled more blood for control of oil than Saddam Hussein...
I think you use the term 'a lot' loosely. Certainly there were those on internet forums that stated such positions, but you would be hard pressed to find many GOPers in the House and Senate who made derogatory statements about the war once it started. The Democrats beat this anti-American drum daily and very loudly. There is a huge difference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.