Monday, March 02, 2009

The Illogic Of Lefties

Can we question at least this one guy's patriotism?

So I repeat - damn right I wanted the Iraq war to fail.

Not because I hate our country or hate the troops but for the exact opposite reason - because I love my country and I value the lives of the people sworn to protect it. If you opposed the war, I bet you feel the same way.


Ranks right up there with the mythical "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

15 comments:

allen (in Michigan) said...

The first thing that occurred to me was Rush Limbaugh's statement that he wants President Obama to fail.

The fairly hysterical flutter that statement caused on the left may be evolving into trying to appropriate the sentiment, that sort of directness having been viewed, I think, as insufficiently sophisticated for lefties.

Mia Zagora said...

If that guy's a patriot, I'm a GLBT liberal environmentalist Marxist.

What a jackass he is!

Ronnie said...

This might be the most ironic post I've seen yet. Many people, this person probably included, saw the Iraq war as a perfect example of people supposedly destroying the village in order to save it.

The whole point of the article was that wanting failure when policies you disagree with are being implemented could be a logical way to possibly prevent their continued use. Whether it be Rush saying he wants Obama to fail due to the use of flawed economic policy or this guy wanting the war to fail for flawed diplomatic policy. I personally believe both are in the wrong for their disregard for what is best for the country, but the point was if your going to back up Rush for wanting Obama to fail then you have to respect someone's want of the Iraq war to fail for the same flawed ideological reasoning. So you can question his patriotism as much as you want, but if you give Rush the pass your missing the hypocrisy.

Darren said...

No, Ronnie, I'm missing nothing. The guy is twisting words to justify his opinion.

Hoping we don't become a socialist state, hoping our government doesn't become even more intrusive in the lives of individuals, has nothing to do with hoping we lose a war. You can try the "I love my country but I hope we lose" argument, but it doesn't work. Loving your country is like loving your spouse or your kids. No one says, "I love my spouse but hope he/she gets into a car accident so they'll finally drive more safely."

Ronnie said...

My whole point is both of them are wrong, and if your going to criticize this guy for it you need to do the same to Rush. Rush wants a result that will harm America, just like this guy does, both of them arguing that if their respective ideological opposite in fact worked the ramifications would be terrible. The truth is if we win the war and Obama managed to fix the economy America would be better for it, and to hope for failure isn't patriotic. You can pretend it's a different issue, that what Rush said was completely different, but really read what Rush said and try arguing that his "I hope he fails" was patriotic.

Darren said...

Ronnie, you're conflating success of the President with success of the nation. I, too, hope Obama's socialist plans fail, because if they're implemented the nation will fail. Doesn't mean I wish bad things for the US.

And if you want to hold Limbaugh and the President to the same standards of behavior, I'll ask you to hold Maher and Stewart and Colbert to those same standards--ah, but you didn't. Notice, too, that President Bush never stooped to attacking those entertainers.

Ronnie said...

If Obama successfully helped the country through means that you ideologically disagree with, he didn't help the country?

President Bush couldn't have cared less about Jon Stewart since Jon Stewart has a 10th of the audience and most of them are younger. I could probably do a list of a 100 ways Rush and Stewart are different but I'll just do a few. One thinks they lead their respective party, the other thinks it's sad that people actually listen to what they to say. One uses his position of influence to try and change the direction of the nation, the other specifically has stated he's an entertainer who at one time aired directly after Crank-Yankers. One speaks at party events, the other one does terrible Oscar hosting. My point is one takes themselves seriously, the other one laughs at the fact that people take him seriously. When Jon Stewart becomes a spokesmen for his respective party, using his influence to actively change the country, then you can hold him to more than an entertainer's standards.

I'm not saying one has to want the President to succeed in all things, but when the President is working on actively fixing our country's problems you can't say you want him to fail just because you disagree with the method any more than the other guy can say he wants us to fail in Iraq since he doesn't believe in the method of war.

Donalbain said...

The Iraq war was not about defending Americans, or protecting the American economy.

Darren said...

And that's where we disagree, Ron. I don't think the Obama's "fixes" will "help" the country. I don't think socialism is good at all for freedom.

Darren said...

Donalbain, it wasn't about milkshakes, either. What's your point?

Preemptive strikes are sometimes necessary. (Godwin alert! Godwin alert!) I'll bet we all wish someone would have stopped the remilitarization of the Rheinland.

Donalbain said...

The Iraq war was NOT in any sense necessary. Saddam Hussein was contained. He was no threat whatsoever to the USA, or any of her allies.

Darren said...

That's an opinion I do not share.

Donalbain said...

Really? Then please show the threat that Iraq posed to the USA or her allies in 2001.

Saddam was not even to control IRAQ, let alone external countries.

Darren said...

Nope, not playing that game with you. You can sit back and think attacking Iraq was a bad thing if you want to--I won't feed the trolls on this one.

allen (in Michigan) said...

Haven't we been down this road before?

The Iraq war was a direct and legal result of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. The hostilities that ejected his military from Kuwait were brought to an end by a peace agreement which was conditional on a whole range of requirements on the part of Saddam Hussein.

Hussein abrogated the agreement within two weeks of signing it and continued to abrogate the agreement continuously thereafter. The United States, as a signatory to that agreement, was on firm legal footing in resuming hostilities at any time after those abrogations.

The fact that it took twelve years before the agreement was enforced is immaterial. The enforcement of the agreement could have occurred twelve minutes after the first transgression and probably should have but Hussein rolled the dice and bet we wouldn't enforce the agreement. He was right for twelve years and then he was wrong.