Are any of the liberals here on the BBS willing to admit this? I have a confession: I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong. Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone: A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings. Some of this is merely the result of pettiness -- ignoble resentment, partisan hackdom, the desire to be proved right and to prove the likes of Rumsfeld wrong, irritation with the sanitizing, myth-making American media. That part of it I feel guilty about, and disavow. But some of it is something trickier: It's a kind of moral bet-hedging, based on a pessimism not easy to discount, in which one's head and one's heart are at odds. Many antiwar commentators have argued that once the war started, even those who oppose it must now wish for the quickest, least bloody victory followed by the maximum possible liberation of the Iraqi people. But there is one argument against this: What if you are convinced that an easy victory will ultimately result in a larger moral negative -- four more years of Bush, for example, with attendant disastrous policies, or the betrayal of the Palestinians to eternal occupation, or more imperialist meddling in the Middle East or elsewhere? Wishing for things to go wrong is the logical corollary of the postulate that the better things go for Bush, the worse they will go for America and the rest of the world. It is based on the belief that every apparent good will turn into its opposite. If this is true, then it would be better for bad things to happen to Bush. But who knows for sure that it is true? Perhaps pro-war leftist Christopher Hitchens was right when he spoke of the "cunning of history" -- perhaps the genius of Historical Progress chose Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz to be its unlikely instruments. Dialectical pessimism is the dirty little secret of the antiwar camp -- dirty because there is something distasteful about wishing for bad outcomes when the future on which those wishes are based is unknown.
Conservatives is this you, "I wish Iraq really had a large stockpile of WMD" "I wish Saddam really gave Bin Laden like a billion dollars and it was traceable"
This post confirms what I already believed. It takes a small, selfish man to put their own wishes to look smart in front of this great country's interests. It's a classic example of the consistency priciple of psychology gone awry.
Actually, I would say that the desire to be right is very human, conservative or liberal. Specifically, if you feel that a victory in Iraq will lead to significant problems down the road, it's perfectly natural to half-wish that the U.S. won't win. You could just as easily argue that certain conservatives were "glad" when 9-11 occurred because it allowed them the opportunity to pursue their foreign policies. Is it something to be proud of? No, but it's hardly a dirty "secret." Having said that, most people come to their senses and are glad of a positive outcome, even if it means they were "wrong" in their initial opinion. I didn't support the war with Iraq, but I am very glad that it did not turn into a bloody quagmire. The attempt by the article (and Freak) to imply that only liberals feel this way is pretty lame.
Since I'm a BBS liberal who was for the war, I guess I can't answer, but I wouldn't be surprised if this was true for some people, nor could I really criticize it (except for hoping of loss of life...that's sick). Many people on all sides of the political spectrum want various things to go wrong in order to justify their position or make the opposition look bad enough for you to win back control. I'm sure there were numerous conservatives or Clinton-bashers who were estatic that Bill Clinton engaged in oral sex in the Oval Office, because it validated their position that Clinton was a scumbag on a bigger level. I understand the feelings and position, even if I don't abide by it. I've always felt that if people believed in things different than me, or implemented policy that I disagreed with, and it happened to make this country a better place, then I'm fine with it, to an extent. For example, if tax breaks for the rich lead to more people off the welfare rolls and more poor people into decent jobs, then I'm happy, even if the method used to achieve the similar goal wasn't what I envisioned. However, when you start going against the basic tenents of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution, that's where I have problems.
Honestly, the author sounds more like an anarchist than a liberal. Actually, liberals, if you see them as opposing the war and Bush (hey, isn't that the rule of thumb nowadays: anti-war = anti-Bush & anti-America), should have been rooting for a quick resolution to this conflict. A prolonged war only proves the contention about the dangers of the Middle East, the need for military action in the region, and more spending, more spending, more spending on defense. A quick resolution, however, spares American lives, saves $$ on defense, and brings attention back to Bush's real challenge, jump-starting the American economy. Regardless of what happens in Iraq, history shows that if the economy is broke, the incumbent president is SOL come Election Day. Just ask George Sr.
The economy is certainly important, but other important issues like national defense can override it, regardless of your hypothesis proven w/ a sample of 1. Also, Sr's problem was not just the economy, but that he didn't seem to 'get it'. He kept claiming that it was fine while people were out of work, so the claim that he was an wealthy, elitist, out-of-touch, career Washingtonian had resonance.
very true...one of the worst campaigns i've ever seen...he truly didn't seem to have the heart for it...i voted against him.
#1, I am liberal in most respects, and no TheFreak, that story is not me. #2, Mr. Clutch, contrary to your asinine belief system, those you wingnuts classify as "liberals" do not have a strong distaste for the USA....just a strong distaste for the Neocon "attack anyone we please for any reason we choose, crap on the Constitution, make our Grandchildren pay for our deficit spending" version of the USA your ilk are so fond of.
It all comes down to what you believe, in my opinion. If you honestly believe what Bush is doing, then great. Its your right to do so. My only request is that you investigate what facts you can, and form an educated opinion on the matter and above all, support our troops if nothing else. I try to step completely outside the box and look at this situation. I never understood why we never went all the way into Baghdad after the first Gulf War. I never understood why we allowed a tyrant to stay in power. I do understand that we cannot just go around and oust dictators we don't like, but in the case of the first Gulf War, we had the opportunity to fight a just war and, imo, to get rid of Saddam. I believe the answer is that we caved into the mis-guided left and the mis-guided pro-Arab world, though I understand that that is only my opinion, even though I believe that my opinion is the right opinion. In the case of this war, I stepped outside of the box again. I think we we are right again in this instance, even though I personally don't know if Iraq has WMD, and I personally don't know whether Iraq had anything to do with 9-11, training terrorists, etc. The thing for me is that I believe what the administration tells me in this instance. I believe that our president is doing the right thing. I met the guy when he was campaigning for the presidency, and he came across to me as an honest and genuine person who honestly wanted to make America and the world a better place for all of us. I [u}believe[/u] the reports that I've read that support the war. I believe that the UN allowed 99% of this mess to snowball into the largest-possible mess. I believe that we are doing the right thing for America, the Arab world, and the planet earth. Everybody wants to be right. I'm not nearly eloquent enough to speculate and weigh every argument for or against this war. Sure, I can argue points well-enough to change a mind or two, and I have enough of an understanding of the situation to have supported the war from day one. But I also honestly believe that there is an element of people in this country and across the world, of which the author of the above article is a member, that resent our power and what this country stands for. I honestly believe that there is a further element of people who simply hate our president so much that they will take any stand against our country, no matter how ridiculous, so long as it makes George Bush look bad. And that makes me so very, very sad. I'm glad that George Bush is our president now. I believe he is the best man for the job. And I didn't even vote for him. The Republican Party did the worst possible damage to my opinion of them with the way they handled the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. I was so angry with them spending millions upon millions of dollars to investigate whether Bill Clinton got a blow job. That case had the entire world laughing at us, and to this day I am angry at the Right. Call him a bad man for Whitewater. Call him a bad man for building nuke factories in N. Korea. Call him a bad man for giving information to the Chinese. Call him a bad man for losing the "football." Call him a bad man for losing the codes to the football. Call him a bad man when he was playing golf and "unavailable" to give the order to cap Osama. Call him a bad man for sexually harassing Paula Jones. Investigate him for all of that. Impeach him for all of that if you've got the evidence to back it up. Investigate the hell out of all of it. The Right had all that on him and what do they do? They waste my time and money investigating and impeaching him for getting his dick sucked in the Oval Office. I don't want to ge this thread off-track by talking about Clinton....I did want to respond to RM95, partly to vent and partly to express that I'm not quite the Republican-lover that he might think I am.
I'm with Tex. Mr. Clutch conveniently leaves out the premise expressed in the article that success by Bush and crew will likely embolden them in areas many would prefer they were humbled. I'll admit to sharing that sentiment. I would like to see Bush humbled by small failures, yes, but not in such a way that might result in loss of life (war) or loss of jobs (economy). We who are so disturbed by the directions the Bush admin are taking this country, at home and abroad, find ourselves in a difficult position (much as the other side did during the Clinton years): as opponents of unnecessary death and destruction, we hope for a quick resolution to a war we opposed while we worry that such resolution will lead to other wars we might oppose. As opponents of the ill effects of trickle down economics, we hope for a better economic situation for the middle and lower classes while we, yes, hope that Bush's tax cuts and deficit spending bit him in the ass so we won't have more of the same. I hated Giuliani when I lived in New York, but I have no problem admitting I feel safer when I walk NY streets now. Can Republicans say the same of Clinton's elimination of the deficit?
I said some. It is pretty obvious that some liberals really don't like the US. I listen to the type of stuff said on 90.1 and the more extremist publications and it's pretty obvious.
Sorry for the strong language here, but: Liar. You and others here take criticism of US policies as a hatred of America, completely discounting the possibility that criticism of bad policy is born of a love of this country and a desire to see it fulfill its promise. I have heard criticism of Bush equated to anti-American sentiment so often I can't stop puking. We can disagree on the right direction for this country, on various issues, but it is the position of the right wing these days that any dissent comes from a hatred of this country. Nothing about our current politics pisses me off more than this.
Lynus, you and I think alike. Although I am a conservative, I also try very hard to "look outside the box" at every issue. I have never and will never blindly follow any political party or specific leader. It just so happens that most of my beliefs are shared by the Republican party as well as Dubbya but that's not to say that I agree with 100% of what they stand for. I was for the war in Iraq, but not because it was or is "Bush's war". I believe it was the right thing to do and I would feel the exact same way if it was President Gore in the same circumstances. If Gore were in the White House and all things were the same as now, I wonder how many liberals would be against the war...and yes, how many conservatives would be against it.
How incredibly naive are you to believe that Clinton is responsible for the "elimination of the deficit"? This is just an incredible display of economic amateurism. Clinton is one of 270,000,000 participants in the economy. He is no more powerful than Alan Greenspan (Republican), his economic advisors, the banking community on Wall Street, the entire services sector, the entire manufacturing sector, members of the House, members of the Senate, and the rest of American and foreign consumers. Robert Rubin implemented the policy of retiring debt in an effort to put downward pressure on long-term interest rates. This correlation is now in question, as budget deficits and hence increasing debt levels in today's economic environment have *not* put upward pressure on interest rates. In fact the exact opposite is true -- this is the lowest interest rate environment in 40 YEARS. The economic success enjoyed during the Clinton years was the result of an exploding stock market, which provided access to capital, capital investment and greater productivity. This stock market bubble burst under Clinton's watch as well (March 2000), and we are now feeling the economic impact of his failed policy. Don't confuse the pure coincidence in the timing of a rise in the stock market and Clinton's tenure with sound economic policy by the Clinton team.
