The Bizarre Priorities Of The Far Left
President Obama’s announcement that he intends to withhold the next round of releases of photographs of detainee abuses has gotten the far left, especially its shock troops in the liberal and faux moderate blogosphere, into a lather. Ignoring the President’s points about the redundancy of the photos and the practical effects of repeatedly whipping up new rounds of anti-Americanism, leftist and faux moderate bloggers maintain the same narrow anti-Bush focus that they had for the last eight years. To read the blogopshere, it is almost like the election and Inauguration Day never happened.
Purist progressives and their faux moderate sycophants are crying betrayal. But this outcry exposes a rather bizarre set of priorities. On policy, President Obama has been a progressive dream, with preparations well underway to use Democrats’ dominance of the Congress to enact health care and environmental policies that have long been the goal of progressives. But when the chips are down, the progressive blogosphere thinks continuing vengeance against the hated Bush administration is more important — Obama’s departures from that jihad outweigh his near-lockstep adherence with progressive policy goals. These bizarre priorities can also be seen in the shape of the coverage in the leftist and faux moderate blogosphere — obsessively repetitive posts bashing on Bush, Cheney, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, and disempowered Republicans generally vastly outnumber issue-oriented posts or any efforts to focus accountability on those currently in power. This focus on the past reveals not only a very strange set of priorities, but also a complete intellectual bankruptcy — promises in the faux moderate blogosphere to be equally vigorous in critiquing a Democratic administration as they were in critiquing a Republican one have been shamelessly abandoned.
President Obama is right to distance himself from the foaming lynch mobs in the leftist and faux moderate blogosphere and focus on the practical side of governing. The fact that detainees at Abu Ghraib were mistreated is already known — nothing is gained by a renewed round of pictures except to hand an additional month of recruitment bonanza to al-Qaeda and, of course, to feed the emotional indulgences of the Bush-obsessed purists who are incapable of accepting that their side won the election and thus removed from power the objects of their hatred.
“Ignoring the President’s points about the redundancy of the photos”
The redundancy about the redundancy of the photos? Obama can say whatever he wants – if it weren’t for the release of the *original* photos there would still be denial about Abu Ghraib. I think it is highly dangerous to make judgment calls about something like this. He could simply be considering the photos to be a different thing than the proceedings they are a part of – I’m not asking him to pursue investigations, I’m asking him to step off and let the inevitable happen as much as he can.
“But when the chips are down, the progressive blogosphere thinks continuing vengeance against the hated Bush administration is more important”
Could be that they want to make sure their nation remains the sort of nation that takes its potential war crimes seriously to the point that they are willing to hold “their” president just as accountable as the last one. No, wait, left-wingers like me are always partisan and never principled.
“obsessively repetitive posts bashing on Bush, Cheney, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, and disempowered Republicans generally vastly outnumber issue-oriented posts or any efforts to focus accountability on those currently in power.”
I’ve only seen complaints about Cheney and Palin – who once were very important to the GOP and who insist on sticking up their heads. But sure, they should also take Obama into consideration. I’ve actually seen them questioning him regarding the wisdom of his great undertakings and the design of said undertakings, but they are not that common.
“nothing is gained by a renewed round of pictures except to hand an additional month of recruitment bonanza to al-Qaeda”
I simply don’t think a matter like this can be prioritized – it’s not some kind of chess piece you can move around unlike the other factors. The notion that Obama will not be different enough from his predecessor could endanger Americans and US troops even more than any photos, and if the necessary steps aren’t taken to make sure justice has run its course I’ll gladly support more anti-Americanism – I can accept that Obama may be making a good decision and that the photos are a factor apart from another process Obama will not intervene in, but if the US tries to “move on” before the matter has been properly investigated I’ll consider America a dangerous and morally decrepit enemy nation.
Mr. Arvak reminds us that, while the “progressive” left has been presently criticizing Obama for not following through on a few promises pertaining to aggressive interrogations and gay rights, this criticism is a momentary interuption from the left’s malicious preoccupation with trying to marginalize and/or personally destroy its real and perceived political/cultural opponents.
For example, the left has rationalized and/or excused the character assissination campaign directed against Carrie Prejean on the grounds that she is a Christianized tool of the “reich wing” theocracy – a hypocrite, materialist, and harlot (remember: you can only be a harlot if you profess to be a Christian and you disagree with “progressive” mores; it would be “sexist” to suggest that a non-Christian woman is a harlot). In contrast, the left tosses sharply worded criticism at Obama – harumpf, harumpf! Maybe a few hard leftists even do the cyber-version of raising their voices, pretending to be outraged, blah, blah, but the difference is that they’re diffusing (or venting) their anger instead of concentrating it in the form of a laser beam. You see, Obama’s heart is really in the right place, it’s just that he has to say certain things to get elected. Now, if he were ever designated as a non-porgressive, that would change things.
A left v. left fight is like a sibling wrestling match that sometimes get a little rough and loud, but never escalates too far. As soon as they dust themselves off, though, they go back to playing mailbox baseball and bullying their real foes in the neighborhood.
I disagree with Mr. Arvak that the left’s maliciousness is focused on the past, though. It is always focused on the future – unfortunately.
“I’ll gladly support more anti-Americanism” Really? Even when it means U.S. troops will be the targets? Interesting that you use the term ‘move on’. Why is it that liberals always demand that when Democrats are the subject of interest? The soldiers guilty of those crimes are currently serving sentences. Is it really important to re-open old wounds so you can feel your side was right?
” Really? Even when it means U.S. troops will be the targets? ”
Unfortunately, if the US refuses to do the bare minimum expected of a decent country then I must consider it a dangerous enemy nation.
“Why is it that liberals always demand that when Democrats are the subject of interest? ”
I’ve said that all democrats who could be indicted by the proceedings are of no otherness to the people in the previous administration. If their acts were criminal then of what concern is their affiliation to me?
Garland: Let me get this straight, if the United States does not “properly investigate” the “matter,” you will declare yourself an enemy of the nation? Will you also be a combatant? What do you mean by “properly investigate”? Does a proper investigation have to include a big show trial on t.v.? Is it possible to do a proper investigation without causing harm to the United States? Which specific “matter” must be investigated for you to maintain your loyalties? An in-depth investigation of the Abu Ghraib incident only? Or must we publically investigate the last 8+ years of all “matters” pertaining to coercive interrogations and anti-terrorism efforts?
While we are at it, what do you consider to have been the main causes of anti-Americanism in the last 80+ years? At what point in the last 80+ years was anti-Americanism at its lowest across the world? How can we significantly reduce anti-Americanism?
“Let me get this straight, if the United States does not “properly investigate” the “matter,” you will declare yourself an enemy of the nation?”
I wouldn’t call that straight. First of all you toss quotation marks around for no reason, second of all my declaration of a hostile inclination would just be a respone to America’s declaration of hostility against me.
“Or must we publically investigate the last 8+ years of all “matters” pertaining to coercive interrogations and anti-terrorism efforts?”
There is a potential of war crimes and Reagan signed a binding treaty in 1984. This isn’t in my court, I’m just stating the obvious.
“While we are at it, what do you consider to have been the main causes of anti-Americanism in the last 80+ years?”
Difficult – a mixture of plebeian envy and hostility to anything different in Europe/Russia/the like, a sense of political threat as for left-wing anti-Americanism and abroad I guess it’s back-and-forth: America and the middle east/South America have a history of escalating hostility and mistreatment of one another.
“At what point in the last 80+ years was anti-Americanism at its lowest across the world?”
I wish I could say after WWII with any certainty but I think people have been too petty to appreciate America without limitations even then.
“How can we significantly reduce anti-Americanism?”
Don’t invade the wrong country (whose suddenly world-threatening leader you used to be pals with) and don’t break every international standard regarding conduct of invasions while doing so – consider the misgivings about the Iraq invasion as a clue to all the other substantial criticisms people have about America.
I want Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reids head on a stick.
Obama most likely knew this was happening to and now hes like oh my gawd they will be coming after ME next.
Driving the getaway car is just as guilty of bank robbery as is entering the bank.
The Democrats set outside the door with the engine running all the while cheering on the process because they hated those terrorists too.
I want the witch hunts to begin. Lets get them all including Reid, Pelosi, and most likely Obama.
Let them begin. Please. Lets finally get to the bottom of this and let the far left try to figure out what to do when half their party goes down with Bush and Cheney.
While were at it lets nail those democrats who set in on the NSA wiretap briefings, knew the so called law was being broken and DID NOTHING. Of course until it was revealed then they ran for cover.
Please lets get them too. Then we can get Reid and Pelosi and Obama for all kinds of sick perverted constitution breaking atrocities.
Please let the witch hunt begin. Lets nail them all.
/end of stupid rant and return to reality. Do the democrats really want the far left running their party? I suggest they are idiots if they do.
Garland: I used quotation marks because I was citing your actual words. Okay, technically, you wrote “properly investigated” (not “properly investigate”) and you used vague language to the effect that you would “consider” America to be a “morally decripit enemy nation.” I was asking you to clarify, and I thought it would helpful to convert your passive statement into a more active question – to make sure that I knew what you meant.
Anyway, you responded by saying, more or less, that if the matter – although I am still not sure how you are defining the boundaries of “the matter” – is not properly investigated according to your standards, then America will have declared its hostile intentions toward you. In response, then, you will (passively) “consider” America to be an enemy of some sort. Naturally, I thought that you meant an enemy to YOU. Maybe you meant that you would then consider America to be a generic enemy to other unnamed parties. Thus, America was hostile to you and became an enemy, but not your enemy. To what people does American become an enemy by not properly investigating “the matter”? Ahmadineajad? I can only hope so, but I think he’s already an enemy. Or, maybe you mean that America has made itself YOUR enemy, but the feeling is not reciprocated by you. Hmm, and I had always thought that it took two parties to have an adversarial relationship. You still have a warm spot in your heart for America, but America has declared its hostility against you?
Could the left be any more despicable in its hatred for America and our Armed Forces. In war, Shi’ite happens. There was a policy of no prisoners taken in the Pacific and Europe it was no “SS” taken prisoner- they were routinely shot after surrendering by the “best generation”. After the surrender thousands of ordinary German prisoners died in US captivity by starvation, disease and exposure. No prisoner has died in Gitmo where the average prisoner has GAINED 20 pounds. Soldiers do what soldiers do- they risk their lives for their comrades, for civilians and children and sometimes these same soldiers commit acts that are illegal. When found out they are routinely punished – but the left is so anti-military and anti-American that enough is never enough.
Just to leave hypocrisy off the table Mr. Garland. Would you also support the investigation of the current POTUS for potential war as well as other crimes? After all, his orders led the summary execution of three Somali citizens without a trial. He has also invaded a sovereign nation (Pakistan) and executed suspected terrorists without the possibility of detention or evidence gathering for a fair trial? Should William Jefferson Clinton answer for misdirected missile that destroyed a the Chinese embassy and killed Chinese citizens? This list can all the way to George Washington.
” Would you also support the investigation of the current POTUS for potential war as well as other crimes?”
Sure thing. The law was made for a reason.
“Should William Jefferson Clinton answer for misdirected missile that destroyed a the Chinese embassy and killed Chinese citizens?”
I think that this could be the case but that there must be some factoring in for proportionality, preparation etc. Depends on whether he bothered to consider the accuracy and failure ratio of the ordinance. Once again, first there are investigations into whether anything undue has taken place – I don’t know how specific the law is.
Despite what many on the left claim, the issue of aggressive interrogations being “torture” is debatable. The appropriateness of the actions taken by the Bush administration is debatable. The left simply can not make and effective case the Bush administration did not pursue aggressive interrogations in GOOD FAITH as an effort to perform its responsibilities under the constitution. Therefore the discussion is more about politics than about the law.
Folks on the left simply have to let this go. We can not afford a government where each succeeding Administration spends its resources on a legal which hunt of those previously in power. We can not criminalize political disagreement and remain a democracy.
@ Garland
It is amazing how, in the eyes of liberals, the ONLY factor that determines whether or not we are a “decent” country is bullying terrorists. Ending 2 world wars, freeing people from oppression, giving vast sums of money to Africa for aids (Bush), funding the UN even while they spread anti-Americanism, etc, etc, etc means nothing. If we slap a few people in the face after catching them on the battlefield, or pour water on their heads, then we are completely dishonorable. Keep in mind that if everyone thought like you, a lot more people would be dead. You are pacifists, and our enemies are ruthless murderers. Pretty simple equation.
We can not criminalize political disagreement and remain a democracy.
Repeat often.
Actually, I thought about that when Garland declared himself an “enemy” of the United States — it doesn’t really carry much bite, does it? I mean, a young man from a country whose military specialty is unarmed humanitarian relief mixed with being taken hostage with purist views that appear to tolerate no violence even in self-defense declaring himself an “enemy” doesn’t really carry much of a threat.
Then again, consistency is hardly Garland’s strong suit, so it is possible that his principles of tolerance and non-violence might disappear in an instant whenever he found it convenient to jettison them. Maybe he’s planning to join Hamas in order to finally go all the way with his newly militant anti-Americanism. Or maybe, just maybe, he’s all talk and just reacting emotionally yet again.
Is it really safe to assume that the same far left that champions speech codes and has so recently reversed on a dime from its previous commitment to the idea that “dissent is patriotic” really WANTS to remain a democracy?
Then again perhaps this is another one of those cases where the far left uses a term to mean its opposite, like “employee free choice” means coercing employees and denying them a right to vote, “diversity” and “tolerance” mean everyone looks different but thinks only the Politically Correct Required Thoughts, and “people’s democracy” means authoritarian dictatorship.
“Folks on the left simply have to let this go. We can not afford a government where each succeeding Administration spends its resources on a legal which hunt of those previously in power.”
I guess I have to say this again since the far right won’t let this go: Reagan signed a document in 1984 that now forces the US to investigate whether what has transpired constituted war crimes and, if so, subsequently act accordingly. I beat a guy up in front of eye-witnesses, the law comes down on me. There is enough to suggest that I may have committed a crime – there is an investigation. What you are essentially saying is that i should go free – you’re so insulated in right-wing messaging and fear-mongering that you are moving the goalposts that far.
“We can not criminalize political disagreement and remain a democracy.”
Anyone who has come to the verdict that this is something I have supported is a total nitwit. If I am willing to call it “potential war crimes” then *you* are an insulated activist for not following suit. We wait for the law to run its course, which it must (hence “potential”). Anyone not willing to do that because they’ve convinced themselves that the law must sometimes be skirted is the true partisan radical here.
“If we slap a few people in the face after catching them on the battlefield, or pour water on their heads, then we are completely dishonorable.”
The utter lack of critical thought in this sentence is one of the reasons anti-Americanism still exists. You’re going to blame old nasty UN and excuse your myriad of slights against human rights with good deeds in the past (a morally sickening rationale: “Yeah I hired a guy to beat those people up and give me a good deal on their resources. But judge, I saved those people in that burning building, no?)? Cry me an ocean, uncle Sam.
“The left simply can not make and effective case the Bush administration did not pursue aggressive interrogations in GOOD FAITH as an effort to perform its responsibilities under the constitution.”
I am willing to wait for a verdict about the legality of what transpired. I am not claiming “torture” – I call it potential war crimes. If the US isn’t mature enough to allay my reasonable concerns for the potentiality (the first basic step, which it has already signed itself to do) then I’ll consider it a nation capable of anything, and I will hope for anti-Americanism to spread.
“Keep in mind that if everyone thought like you, a lot more people would be dead.”
If I let the US get away with anything to protect me, then I deserve to die. This goes for anyone. If one person can be deemed worthy of “enhanced interrogation”, so can I. Basic frigging empathy – nothing works without it.
“a country whose military specialty is unarmed humanitarian relief”
Wonderful – you’ve gladly insulted the wholly armed Swedish troops in Afghanistan who have done more for the civilians in Afghanistan than you will ever do simply to score a petty rhetorical “point”.
“being taken hostage with purist views that appear to tolerate no violence even in self-defense”
Is there some absolute zero of veracity and intellectual value for statements equivalent to that for temperatures? If so, the one I just quoted approached it.
“it is possible that his principles of tolerance and non-violence might disappear in an instant whenever he found it convenient to jettison them”
Whatever, Freud. All I know is that I recognize moral perversion when I see it – and Reagan has forced the US to do *exactly* what *I* want it to do or be ranked among barbarians. Hurts, doesn’t it?
“Maybe he’s planning to join Hamas in order to finally go all the way with his newly militant anti-Americanism.”
No, but I am willing to consider America a nation hostile to me and the security and well-being of its population of no concern to me. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but if the US doesn’t investigate properly (like Reagan decided it must) then the next terrorist attack on it will simply be a case of one morally decrepit and dangerous entity attacking another. Would still indefensible, of course. America had a lot of good will after 9/11. It squandered it hopelessly but it has a chance to actually do the right thing (the way we all must do the right thing as individuals in order to have a society) and act as a damn grownup. That is, do what *I* tell it to do. Smiley face!
I’m actually in agreement that at the very least, there should be an impartial (of the Patrick Fitzgerald variety perhaps) investigation. However, if I understand it correctly, the CAT follows the current laws of the country to which it applies. If waterboarding (or other tactics) were not laws here at the time, all you can then do is investigate.
Now Pelosi is pleading….I was mislead. Its those evil CIA guys.
There was an earthquake. A flood. My tux didn’t come back from the cleaners. I had a flat tire. I ran outta gass…..it wasnt my FAULT!!!
Imagine Jake Elwood looking up from the microphone with one eye to see if the audience is buying it….
Yeah the Blues Democrats in action.
“I’m actually in agreement that at the very least, there should be an impartial (of the Patrick Fitzgerald variety perhaps) investigation.”
Merritt you fool! This is just a way for the far superleft to “criminalize policy differences” and instigate a mega-communist “witch hunt”!
“Now Pelosi is pleading….I was mislead. Its those evil CIA guys.
There was an earthquake. A flood. My tux didn’t come back from the cleaners. I had a flat tire. I ran outta gass…..it wasnt my FAULT!!!”
Now it appears ex-senator Graham also claims that he was misled by the CIA. I don’t trust Pelosi but this helps the credibility of her claim.
Now it appears ex-senator Graham also claims that he was misled by the CIA. I don’t trust Pelosi but this helps the credibility of her claim.
No. Left and right are scrambling for cover and they are calling each other to get their stories straight.
A republican might be gung ho till it somes to lynching them for being a bit too gung ho. When the lynch mob comes….you dont need a waterboard, you just need a good story in America. The press will buy Graham’s story because they dont want their darling far left leader to go down so Graham is a genius for latching on to Pelosi’s story.
@Doomed
So Graham is willing to sacrifice his integrity for Pelosi? I’ll put my money on the CIA. They will release enough evidence to show that Pelosi was in. She’ll survive, but the witch hunt will have to end. Graham will be dinged – it will be his Colin Powell at the UN moment.