The Left's Iraq Muddle

WSJ; Opinion Journal ^ | May 22, 2007 | Bob Kerrey

[PerConPat]

At this year's graduation celebration at The New School in New York, Iranian lawyer, human-rights activist and Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi delivered our commencement address. This brave woman, who has been imprisoned for her criticism of the Iranian government, had many good and wise things to say to our graduates, which earned their applause.

But one applause line troubled me. Ms. Ebadi said: "Democracy cannot be imposed with military force."

[PerConPat]

Well, it appears that Lieberman isn't the only point of light, with regard to the WOT, in the otherwise Dim witted party of defeat.

[carolinablonde]

Bob Kerrey is a Democrat that I would actually vote for but they don’t have the sense to nominate him or someone like him.

[Phantom Lord]

I will never forget the loving and compassionate liberals supporting Algore in New Hampshire pelting Sen. Kerrey with snowballs and mud and calling him a cripple for daring to run against the benighted Gore.

[Chi-townChief]

Odd conclusion but the rat has to come out.

[zendari]

5 years ago....

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_show.htm?doc_id=157426&attrib_id=7511

Once again Americans are debating whether we should go to war. Once again we are confused and ambivalent as we consider the necessity of using violent, deadly means to accomplish a peaceful objective. And once again the object of our concern is Iraq. Not since 1991, when the United States led an international coalition that included over 500,000 of our armed forces to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, has Iraq commanded so much of the world’s attention and concern.

[PerConPat]

Lieberman and Kerrey are way to the left of me; but I can at least give them credit for recognizing the debate over abortion, gun control etc. won’t mean a thing if we lose the WOT. The average Dim-wit is too interested in grabbing political control to care about the country’s security.

[bnelson44]

No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq.

Some who have been critical of this effort from the beginning have consistently based their opposition on their preference for a dictator we can control or contain at a much lower cost. From the start they said the price tag for creating an environment where democracy could take root in Iraq would be high. Those critics can go to sleep at night knowing they were right.

The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.

[PerConPat]

Yes, I particularly enjoyed this passage from the article. Only in a distracted and spoiled nation could so many fools be found to condemn actions that they would no doubt support provided their party was in power. Watching dissemblers like Hillary now twist themselves into positions designed to cover their duplicity would be very entertaining were it not for the effect of these pathetic maneuvers on the Left part of the bell curve.

[larryjohnson]

Thanks. I have a renewed respect for Kerrey after reading this.

[PerConPat]

Frankly, the article surprised me. It just goes to show, once again, that things are not always black or white.