Friday, July 15, 2005

Lucidity From The Left?

There are a few liberals who do have the common sense to understand what we’re up against in the War on Terror. Don’t misunderstand, they do not like George W. Bush, but they at least have the presence of mind to keep their dislike of the President separate from their intelligence. In other words, unlike so many in the Left today, there are a few who are informed regarding the War on Terror, and understand that it has to be fought. Tony Blair is the first one who comes to mind, but there are more:

Blair may be a rare figure on the left – but he is hardly alone, as has now been demonstrated by Thomas Cushman, Professor of Sociology at Wellesley and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Human Rights. Cushman has edited "A Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq," a collection of essays by two dozen liberal/left thinkers, all of whom, Cushman writes, represent “what might be called a third view. The basic elements of this perspective are a strong liberal commitment to human rights, solidarity with the oppressed, and a firm stand against fascism, totalitarianism and tyranny.”

In other words, they’re a little more consistent in their views, and do not completely abandon what they’ve always said they believed in order to damage the President.

Among the best-known of the contributors is Christopher Hitchens, a self-described socialist, who two years ago chided the mainstream media for “not doing their job” regarding the “innumerable links” between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

Oh, and they’re STILL saying there was no connection…right up to the Halls of Congress. Nancy Pelosi, that bastion of intelligence, said that very thing after Bush’s speech at Fort Bragg. Shouldn’t these people have to take some kind of test before being elevated to a leadership position?

Hitchens' support for the liberation of Iraqis has not prevented him from criticizing Bush. Indeed, he writes, he could “not easily name a mistake the Bush administration has failed to make.”

The same may be said of Paul Berman, author of Terror and Liberalism, and another of the contributors to Cushman's anthology. Berman has called Bush “an unusually repulsive politician.” But he does not indulge in the “Bush-lied-people-died” brand of polemics.

On the contrary, he observes that while stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction were not found in Iraq after Saddam was toppled (as the major intelligence services expected), “astonishing progress was made in tracking down weapons programs and trafficking in Libya, Iran, Dubai and Pakistan. Some eople will go on insisting that sudden progress on these matters has nothing to do with Iraq, and the dominoes tumbled simultaneously by sheer coincidence - but some people will believe anything."

Strange how our media keeps ignoring all that, isn’t it? I do find it odd, though, that these people agree with what Bush is doing, but can’t stand the man himself. Go figure.

In a similar vein, Adam Michnik, a leading force in Poland's Solidarity trade union movement, says that “in the conflict between totalitarian regimes and democracy, you must not hesitate to declare which side you are on.”
Unfortunately, the Democrats in our country are making it quite clear which side they are on, and it ain’t ours. It’s whatever side they think will damage the President the most.

Ann Clwyd, a British Labor MP, writes: “We should have dealt with Saddam sooner. But now that he has been removed, we need to commit ourselves to working with the Iraqi people, to build a new society, based on the ideals of democracy and human rights. And we need to stay the course to enable them to succeed.”

Makes sense, right? So how come this kind of rational thinking completely eludes most Democrats in our country? Could it be because they are incapable of thinking rationally when it comes to Bush?