10/11: The World According to Liberals
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
I am a regular reader of Roger Ebert's movie reviews. I first became aware of him over 25 years ago as half of the team on Public Television's movie review program.
Ebert is a modern liberal in his sympathies and beliefs, though I don't think he is on the lunatic fringe. Two of his recent postings reveal some of the assumptions made by the American left, strongly held in spite of, or against, the evidence.
Writing about the election of Obama.
Our long national nightmare is ending. America will not soon again start a war based on lies and propaganda. We will not torture. We will restore the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of privacy, and habeas corpus. We will enter at last in the struggle against environmental disaster. Our ideas will once again be more powerful than our weapons. During the last eight years, the beacon on the hill flickered out. Now the torch will shine again.
"Nightmare"? What nightmare? Since 9/11/01 we have had no major terrorist attacks on our soil. The economy has performed well, until recently (thank you Barney Frank, Barak Obama, and Christ Dodd, you weasels). "Start a war based on lies and propaganda." I assume he means Iraq. "Start." We have been in a state of war with Iraq since its invasion of Kuwait. Saddam regularly and deliberately violated agreements made in the cease-fire. His military frequently shot at Coalition planes doing reconnaissance. Saddam plotted to assassinate Bush 41. The terms of the cease-fire mandated that he not only dismantle his weapons programs, but prove to the world he had dismantled them; instead, he played a dangerous game of evasion with weapons inspectors. "Lies and propaganda." I assume he means that no recent weapons of mass destruction were found. See above on Saddam's responsibilities for dismantling his weapons programs. We know he had such weapons, he had used them on the Kurds and Iranians. And, weapons of mass destruction were only one of the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq under Bush 43. "We will not torture." Waterboarding is unpleasant, but not inhumane torture; neither is panties on the head. "Restore the rights of freedom of speech"? How many Bush-bashing journalists, bloggers, actors/actresses, academics, were hauled into re-education camps? None. Sheer hysteria. "Freedom of privacy." So, is he thinking that privacy is absolute? Is he asserting that Americans who communicate with individuals, groups, etc. of concern should not have conversations listened in on? Is he asserting that all of us have had our privacy invaded? Is he assuming that if we cannot conduct a perfect war against radical Islam we should conduct none at all? "Habeus corpus." Is he suggesting that fighting radical Islam is a matter of law enforcement rather than war? Is he asserting that enemy combantants, who do not qualify for Geneva Convention protection, should be given U.S. Constitutional protections?
Listening to, and reading liberals, makes me feel like I've entered Bizarro World.
Ebert is a modern liberal in his sympathies and beliefs, though I don't think he is on the lunatic fringe. Two of his recent postings reveal some of the assumptions made by the American left, strongly held in spite of, or against, the evidence.
Writing about the election of Obama.
Our long national nightmare is ending. America will not soon again start a war based on lies and propaganda. We will not torture. We will restore the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of privacy, and habeas corpus. We will enter at last in the struggle against environmental disaster. Our ideas will once again be more powerful than our weapons. During the last eight years, the beacon on the hill flickered out. Now the torch will shine again.
"Nightmare"? What nightmare? Since 9/11/01 we have had no major terrorist attacks on our soil. The economy has performed well, until recently (thank you Barney Frank, Barak Obama, and Christ Dodd, you weasels). "Start a war based on lies and propaganda." I assume he means Iraq. "Start." We have been in a state of war with Iraq since its invasion of Kuwait. Saddam regularly and deliberately violated agreements made in the cease-fire. His military frequently shot at Coalition planes doing reconnaissance. Saddam plotted to assassinate Bush 41. The terms of the cease-fire mandated that he not only dismantle his weapons programs, but prove to the world he had dismantled them; instead, he played a dangerous game of evasion with weapons inspectors. "Lies and propaganda." I assume he means that no recent weapons of mass destruction were found. See above on Saddam's responsibilities for dismantling his weapons programs. We know he had such weapons, he had used them on the Kurds and Iranians. And, weapons of mass destruction were only one of the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq under Bush 43. "We will not torture." Waterboarding is unpleasant, but not inhumane torture; neither is panties on the head. "Restore the rights of freedom of speech"? How many Bush-bashing journalists, bloggers, actors/actresses, academics, were hauled into re-education camps? None. Sheer hysteria. "Freedom of privacy." So, is he thinking that privacy is absolute? Is he asserting that Americans who communicate with individuals, groups, etc. of concern should not have conversations listened in on? Is he asserting that all of us have had our privacy invaded? Is he assuming that if we cannot conduct a perfect war against radical Islam we should conduct none at all? "Habeus corpus." Is he suggesting that fighting radical Islam is a matter of law enforcement rather than war? Is he asserting that enemy combantants, who do not qualify for Geneva Convention protection, should be given U.S. Constitutional protections?
Listening to, and reading liberals, makes me feel like I've entered Bizarro World.
