[NormsRevenge]

Ping

[AntiGuv]

Because they hate Bush. That's really the singular reason..

[Tax-chick]

Because Saddam Hussein (or Fidel Castro, or Mao, or Stalin) is what they'd all like to be - a person with complete control over the lives of millions. The only difference between American liberals and Uday and Qusay Hussein is opportunity.

[daviddennis]

Excellent article. Many kudos to the writer for having the guts to say the obvious.

He said it very well, in terms even an International ANSWER protester can understand.

I'd love to hear how the left reacted to this bombshell. You will note that most of his audience disagreed.

How could you possibly disagree with the destruction of the evil Iraqi regime, with total casualties comparable to a single year of Saddam's butchery?

D

[Bigg Red]

...support for democratic values and basic human rights. We on the left just have it in our bloodstream, do we not, that we are committed to democratic values...

%%

Just keep thinking, professor, and eventually you may get it right:

...support for democratic values and basic human rights. We on the left right just have it in our bloodstream, do we not, that we are committed to democratic values

The vast majority of those on the left today are morally bankrupt.

[Bluntpoint]

Because the enemy of their enemy is their friend.

That is as deep as their convictions go concerning all their values.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

"...pluralist Marxism ?"

[MEGoody]

Why did so many on the left march to save Saddam?

Because they are morally bankrupt.

[Maria S]

I'm now reading 'Off with their Heads' by Dick Morris. One chapter is about Iraq and terrorism. Basically, Morris says that Clinton wasn't interested in fighting terrorism, didn't want to get involved, and thus we have the current situation. Say what you will about Dick (the toesucker)Morris, but he presents a good observation of Clinton, I believe.

[Loose_Cannon1]

We are watching the left come apart at the seams, and no one is rejoicing as much as I am!

The outspoken critics of the War in Iraq have to come to terms with what they supported--more rapes, murders and tortures. Period. They must understand their stand against President Bush and the War in Iraq was not a principled stand, as they would like us to believe. Because their opposition, if successful, would have had REAL results-more death.

Every person, who believes in freedom and loves liberty must pronounce the War in Iraq as righteous and not soon enough. Or truly they are hypocrites.

[blanknoone]

I am amazed that the author can so clearly see into the hypocrisy of the anti-war crowd, while remaining blind to the fact that the left is NOT and NEVER WAS about "basic human rights" and "democracy."

[joesnuffy]

the left has at least one of the same philosophies as the muslims
The enemy of my enemy is my (temporary anyway) friend..

[houston1]

Perhaps they opposed it because we were being given a rotating list of reasons for justifying the war. Depending on what day of the week it was, you were liable to hear any of the following reasons:
1)Iraq was supporting Al-Qaeda (ignores the fact that Saddam was supported by the CIA for years because he kept Iraq secular and repressed muslim fundamentalism in his country)
2)Iraq was responsible for 9-11 (same as above & not proved yet)
3)WMD (not proved yet)
4)To remove a dictator & free the Iraqi people (true, but it isn't the US's job to replace every dictator in the world with a democracy)
5)"They tried to kill my daddy" (true)

I personally was never convinced that we needed to attack a country that has never attacked us first, mainly because the Bush administration couldn't seem to make up it's mind about what the justification for the war was, it seemed to change from day to day. I felt they should have come up with one solid reason and stuck with it instead of several claims, none of which was proven to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that the senate majority leader couldn't explain why we went to war either, a month after the fact, is telling.

[Paradox]

This was the result that hundreds of thousands of people marched to secure. Well, speaking for myself, comrades, there I draw the line. Not one step.

This controversy has brought to light the "honest" liberals. Those who have a certain, if sometimes flawed, logic and reasoning to their creed. Hitchens is another one. You've got to hand it to these guys, they must not have many close friends (of course, I exaggerate, I hear Hitch has tons of friends and is a great guy to hang around).

If only all leftists were of this ilk, we could get into some serious debate about the issues, instead of ducking the invective hurled our way. Truth be told, I dont know if that would ever be possible, because I suspect that many of those "rational" liberals would come over to the Right. That is exactly what happened to me.

[The Electrician]

Just think for a moment about the argument that this recent war was illegal. That something is illegal does not itself carry moral weight unless legality as such carries moral weight, and legality carries moral weight only conditionally. It depends on the particular law in question, on the system of law of which it is a part, and on the kind of social and ethical order it upholds.

In my view, this is perhaps the most crucial part of the author's argument (although it is a wonderful article that is overflowing with well-reasoned and insightful commentary - wonder why the author doesn't realize that he is a lone voice of reason in the wilderness of the left, and that his moral and logical compass aligns much better with the right or with the libertarians, and not at all with the lefties and liberals). And when it comes down to it, the left does not believe in objective truth or morality, which is why the sanity of the author's argument got such a tepid response from his audience.

[republicofdavis]

"be exploited and superexploited"

Outstanding article. But this phrase jumped out at me from the first paragraph. Is this an actual concept that the left has defined? How much more exploited than simply exploited does one have to be to be superexploited?

[Pagey]

Why did so many on the left march to save Saddam Hussein?

I'm paraphrasing from something I read in The Federalist a few years ago: "...because wanting to appear compassionate and likeable is easier than defending moral absolutes and taking a stand." That's why.