Freedom ≠GOP Talking Points
Well, geez. Let me say before I comment that I like this guy and agree with most of his priorities. We used to go to the Universalist Church downtown– he did their equivalent of baptism for our son. And I respect the intent of what he’s trying to do here:
Minister hears call to help the troops
(May 19, 2007) — The people of the First Universalist Church of Rochester will say goodbye to their minister this weekend, sending him off with a mixture of pride and worry, for he may be going off to war.
He’s going into the army to be a chaplain. God bless him, the troops need all the emotional/psychological support they can get in the situation they’ve been put in. That’s reason enough.
Unitarian Universalists tend to the left politically, and it’s safe to say that a majority of the congregation at First Universalist opposes the war in Iraq.
Uh, yeah, there’s an understatement. But at the same time, they’re compassionate people, and understand what it REALLY means to “support the troops”, so I could see them being ok with this.
But then he goes off track:
Tyger has had mixed feelings about the war in the past, but now feels it is vital to help bring security to the region.
Ugh. Others have shown how the Iraq war has actually de-stabilized the region and increased the amount of terrorism world-wide, so I won’t go into it here.
And this final quote from him really got me going:
Religious liberals need to be very cognizant of the fact that our freedom doesn’t come for free. It requires people to stand up.
Arrrrrrgh! This, from the guy who gave a kick-ass sermon about how the Bible has been misused to support things like homophobia. I love him, but honestly, he should know better than to parrot empty right-wing talking points!
It’s like my wife said, “Saying that we’re fighting in Iraq for our freedoms makes as much sense as saying ‘If you eat a peanut butter sandwich, it’ll improve your car’s fuel efficiency.’”
Related posts:
It appears that you are suggesting that anyone who thinks it makes sense to confront al-Qaeda in Iraq is mouthing GOP talking points. You ought to have a little more tolerance of opposing viewpoints.
Just for the heck of it, take a look at this op-ed by former Democrat Senator Bob Kerrey. He seems to think that there are a couple of valid reasons to succeed in Iraq. Surely you don’t think he’s a GOP dupe. Here’s the link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010107
I think you’ll find that the progressive community doesn’t much care for the former Senator when it comes to Iraq.
Furthermore, we’re not really fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. We’re fighting Shiite Militias and the Sunni Insurgency. Mostly the insurgency, in fact.
The reason BTP is upset is that the same people who have bumper stickers that say “Freedom isn’t free” tend to be those that buy into GOP propaganda. I agree with you. Freedom isn’t free. We have to guard our freedom by opposing those who would take it away. We should, for example, vehemently oppose anyone who would abridge our ancient and inalienable right to Habeus Corpus.
It’s just that “Freedom isn’t Free” is loaded language. While the phrase in a vacuum is innocuous, it comes with a lot of poisonous propaganda and lies as baggage. That’s why.
Sahar’s comments are spot on. GOP Dupe? I don’t know. Frankly I don’t really care. His logic is flawed. Kerrey says
Well, suppose Canada and Mexico banned together with for arguments sake - Cuba to overthrow the US health system and impose one of their own on the US. Cuba supplies the Doctors, Canada supplies the “plan” and Mexico, well just wants to join the fun.
The premise that Saddam was in danger of being overthrown is false. Hence the logic that flows would be false. Whatever the legal phrase is for fruit for the poisoned tree and all that.
I actually agree with this quote - though I suspect it is out of context.
Silence, lack of criticism, and lack of dissent are not Democratic virtues. They are Totalitarian virtues.
Where do you want to be?
So the progressive community doesn’t think much of Bob Kerrey. Does that mean, ipso facto, that he’s wrong? I guess he’s the latest Democrat who is not anti-war enough to remain in the fold.
You guys on the left are really going to the extremes on excommunicating anyone who isn’t orthodox. Lieberman, Kerrey, (soon even Hillary?) on Iraq; the elder Bob Casey on abortion, apparently apostates all.
Was there nothing in what Kerrey wrote that rang true to you? Have all of us become so fixed in our views that we are completely beyond persuasion?
Kerrey was not suggesting that Saddam was in danger of overthrow. He was pointing out that based upon previous positions taken by leading Democrats on things like intervention in Bosnia and regarding same on Darfur, those same Democrats would be likely to advocate intervention in Iraq if such a scenario arose.
His point is that much of the basis for opposition to the war appears to be political posturing rather than consistent adherence to principle. It seems to him (and to me) that a person who enthusiastically advocated intervention in Bosnia (or future intervention in Darfur) is something of a hypocrite or opportunist if that same person claims there was (or is now) no basis for intervention in or remaining in Iraq.
Intellectually, it does seem to make sense that if you want to save darfur, you should logically support “saving Iraq”. However, this charge of hypocrisy is wrong on three counts.
First of all, we didn’t just depose Saddam. We stayed in Iraq and occupied it.
Secondly, there’s a big difference between intervening in Yugoslavia/Kosovo and Iraq. Yugoslavia, for example, already had functioning governmental subunits. While it was in a civil war, the war was orderly in the sense of two distinct geographical areas duking it out, one for each faction. Thus, as you saw, we intervened in Bosnia, stabilized it or whatever, and the governments of each faction had enough control to stop fighting. In Iraq, it was clearly predicted that Sunni/Shiia violence would quickly unravel the country.
Thirdly, the opportunity cost for intervening in Bosnia/Yugoslavia was much less than for Iraq. The “cost” of time, blood, treasure, and instability was less than the benefits of intervention in Bosnia, but greater than the benefits of Iraq.
If you accuse progressives of being hypocrites because of Bosnia, we can accuse conservatives/Republicans for being hypocrites as well. A Republican congress chose to “cut and run” from Somalia. A Republican congress opposed foreign intervention at the time. The Republican presidential candidate endorsed a humble, noninterventionist foreign policy.
Lastly, I don’t think you understand how much incompetence is a factor. George Bush and his administration are incompetents who ruin everything they touch. Not only were* they incompetent in regards to Iraq, they were* corrupt, valued loyalty over competence, and simply messed everything up.
We oppose the war because its a failure, presided over by a confederacy of dunces.
Damn.
What Sayhar said….
Me I’ll just respond to the
“You guys on the left are really going to the extremes on excommunicating anyone who isn’t orthodox. Lieberman, Kerrey, (soon even Hillary?) on Iraq; the elder Bob Casey on abortion, apparently apostates all.”
This sentence says the left isn’t orthodox. So what is orthodox?
Lieberman excommunicated himself. He ran as an independent after he lost a Democratic primary. Yeah 7 years ago he was the Dem VP nominee but frankly that was an attempt to show that Gore wasn’t Bill Clinton and to distance Gore from Clinton by nominating Clinton’s harshest or one of the harshest critics.
Kerrey - I read the op/ed and don’t agree. Am I read to excommunicate him? I don’t know that much about him frankly. I disagree with his logic in the article.
So, have you read General Odoms OP/ed in the Washington Post? The longer we stay the bigger the mess. Unfortunately we are in Iraq and the question is how long we stay there.
Oh - Kerrey and Japan and Germany building Democracy? Unlike Iraq they both had a democratic basis to work from. Oh there was the Soviet Union and a different set of circumstances so it is an unfair comparison.
* (Footnote)
were = are.