In Lefty world, it matters not what’s being done; the only thing that matters is whether a Leftist does it

Back in 2004, when George Bush was president, Michael Moore compared al Qaeda terrorists to American Minutemen:

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.

Moore’s shallow brain and inadequate education left him incapable of distinguishing between people who fight for individual liberty and people who fight for world domination and mass slavery.  He’ll root for sadistic murderers as long as they’re anti-capitalists.  He has no sympathy for people like Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Wesley Batalona, Scott Helvenston, Jerry Zovko, or Michael Teague.

Back then, Moore was not alone.  You’ll recall that he spoke for a vociferous, angry, and large percentage of Americans who vigorously opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — wars that Bush began with both Congressional and NATO approval — because we were a big mean bully harming innocent Iraqi women and children as part of our sadistic and delusional war against some amorphous “terror” thangy.  Buoyed up by a tide of anti-War righteousness, Britain’s left-wing Lancet, once a respectable medical publication, posited that Americans had killed 650,000 Iraqi civilians, a report that was quickly debunked.

The debunking, of course, didn’t stop the antiwar uproar that had Americans taking to the streets with great regularity denouncing Bush as a Hitler-esque war criminal, and calling American troops baby killers.  Underpinning all of this antiwar fervor was the Lefts’ contention that terrorists were not a problem, that we just needed to show them a little understanding, and that Bush was grossly overreacting by taking the battle to the terrorists themselves.

Fast forward to 2012.  Stories are starting to appear in the U.S. press saying that Obama’s drone attacks — each of which he allegedly approves personally, after carefully selecting the target he wants dead — are killing and wounding thousands of civilians, including women and children, in Pakistan:

U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have killed far more people than the United States has acknowledged, have traumatized innocent residents and largely been ineffective, according to a new study released Tuesday.

The study by Stanford Law School and New York University’s School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of “high-level” targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low — about 2%.

[snip]

“TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 – 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 – 881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 – 1,362 individuals,” according to the Stanford/NYU study.

Based on interviews with witnesses, victims and experts, the report accuses the CIA of “double-striking” a target, moments after the initial hit, thereby killing first responders.

Did I mention that we’re not at war with Pakistan?  Indeed, it’s nominally still an ally of ours in the war against Islamic terrorists.  That hasn’t stopped Obama.  What’s worse is, that aside from a few Leftists who are unwilling to tolerate any sort of American actions against terrorists (which is a principled stand, even if often a foolish one), Progressives, Democrats, and other people on the Left are not only quiet about this, they think it’s a good thing.

On my Facebook page, I did I quick post drawing people’s attention to these drone strikes, and highlighting the huge number of collateral deaths occurring, not just on Obama’s watch, but under his direct orders.  The responses I received from my liberal friends surprised me.  Really surprised me.  I will not quote them verbatim, because I haven’t asked for permission to do so (and won’t ask), but I can accurately summarize them as follows, simply by rephrasing people’s actual words:

What can we do?  We can’t negotiate with Al Qaeda and the Taliban.  If they’re hiding among civilians, innocent people are going to get killed, but that fact alone can’t stop us from going after the bad guys.  I hate that this killing is happening, but better that their kids die from drone strikes, than that our American children die in terrorist attacks.  I’m totally liberal, but I’m a pragmatist when it comes to the fact that Obama is doing a job that needs to be done, and everyone who criticizes him is a whiner who hates him.

So, to recap:  Al Qaeda kills 2,996 Americans, and boasts about it.  George Bush gets credible information that Saddam Hussein is seeking to build a nuclear weapon, and that he is funding, sponsoring, training, etc., Al Qaeda terrorists.  Bush also gets credible information that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan is doing the same, except for the nuclear weapon part.  Only much later do we learn that Hussein’s nuclear weapons program may not have been as advanced as originally thought, with the misinformation in large part originating with Hussein himself, as he tried to portray himself as a regional strong man.  Armed with this information, Bush is able to create a coalition of many nations and to get Congressional approval to wage war against nations that host and aid Al Qaeda.

The argument from conservatives was and is that (1) al Qaeda declared war on us; (2) because it has no nation of its own, the only thing we can do is attack it in those countries that willingly and generously support it; and (3) if al Qaeda chooses to use innocents as shields that proves how depraved al Qaeda is, but cannot stop us in our righteous fights against true evil doers.  Incidentally, this is also the same argument that Israel and her supporters make:  Israel has repeatedly made concessions in order to get peace; Palestinians have made it plain that their sole goal is Israel’s destruction; and the high numbers of fatalities amongst women and children occur because Palestinians are evil enough to use innocents as their shields.

Throughout the Bush years, that argument was unpersuasive to the Left.  Now that we have a Leftist president, though, one who personally picks the day’s target in an allied country, and who supports a policy that inevitably kills innocents who are not even in a combat zone, everything is suddenly hunky-dorey.  It’s all good because Obama is doing it.

I find this sickening.  It bespeaks a moral vacuum that has no boundaries.  Leftists are incapable of clearing away the ideological brush and focusing on core moral issues.  The only core moral issue is Leftism.  You’re either for it or you’re against it.  If a conservative does things, they’re bad; if a Leftist does things that are infinitely worse, and illegal, they’re fully justified.  Just sickening.

 

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Charles Martel

    There is a point where we reach a great divide, where two sides can no longer even parallel each other. It’s obvious to almost every conservative who visits and comments on blogs like this that we and the left have come to occupy alternate moral universes.
     
    I suppose that we certainly enjoy an intellectual advantage in that we are familiar with the left’s arguments and philosophical bases while it is content to build fantastical straw men of our beliefs over which it can score easy victories.
     
    However, given the sorry state of education and the media, the sophistication of our arguments is unlikely to win the day. I’ve seen too many episodes of “Jay Walking,” watched too many videos of Whoopi Goldberg types spewing saliva like manic Sylvesters, and spoken to too many recent college grads to believe that we can reason successfully with people who run from serious thought the way a rat sprints to a hole in the molding when you turn the kitchen light on. (Not that I’m advocating we cease reasoning; just cautioning that it has little mojo left.)
     
    How would the left, led by such intellectual heavyweights as Warren, Krugman, Dowd, Jarrett, Maddow, etc.,  figure out how to control tens of millions of ornery, fed-up Murkins if they decided to commit massive acts of civil disobedience? If a few Occupy thugs can tie up entire cities, goodness knows what a few million people with actual skills and purpose could do. 
     
    But, if worse comes to worst, we are better armed than the left. Even a rabid leftist cannot make a straw man out of 100 million armed civilians. Nor can the left’s ready supply of gangbangers and Black Panther thugs outgun and out-think civilian men and women who have been trained in the armed forces or know how to band together to fight for something more than dope, turf, and ho’s (ask the Korean shopkeepers in Los Angeles about that.)

  • Ron19

    I’ve learned that I cannot reason with someone who does not want to be reasonable my way.

    So sometimes I comment on what someone says not so much to win them over, but to let other people know that there is more than one side of an issue.

    If I stick to describing a rebuttal to one point of an issue, I can control myself better than if I rebut the person instead.    

  • Pingback: Court Eunuchs of MSM won’t tell us, so thank you, BBC!()

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    This is less than 1% of the evil amongst the alliance of the Left. Don’t be surprised when people realize what’s in the other 99%.

  • Danny Lemieux

    All wars will have collateral damage. We can’t avoid war, but civilized nations have tried over the years centuries to minimize that damage.

    Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing how much true collateral damage has been caused by the drone warfare program because we don’t have a press that is willing to investigate.

    One of the things that amazed me about the Iraqi shock-and-awe bombing program was the care that had been taken to minimize civilian casualties. Far more Iraqi civilians were killed by Iraqi and Al Qaeda terrorists than by Americans. Today, I have no idea what goes through Obama’s head as he personally reviews every proposed drone strike before giving it his thumbs up or thumbs down, because (again), the press shows no interest in this.

    I personally believe that most Liberals just don’t think about the drone program, because the press has given them absolution for not having to think about it. It’s like abortion – they don’t think about the moral issue of abortion because it is out of sight, out of mind. If these people were show a drone strike with the body pieces of a family with children or where shown or the refuse bin of an abortuary after a good day’s work, maybe…just maybe…there would be an inkling of awareness of the moral issues at stake.

    Nevertheless, I agree with you, Book. So many people on the Left have no moral core. They are empty. There is only a fierce, utopian ideology bred from all the accumulated entitlements, envies, appetites and angers of their deep discontents. For the soul of this country, we really need another religious awakening to show people how to keep their worst personal excesses in check.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    The thing about Obama and the Left is that they have a toast whenever they can stomp on people weaker than they are, whether they are Americans they hate or strangers they despise of a foreign culture.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    People who need to be shown the consequences of evil for them to modify their behavior, aren’t moral agents, but cogs and slaves. Which is exactly what they were hired to be. And there’s not much point in sacrificing the lives of moral agents to save slaves fighting to protect their masters and to keep other slaves locked in the box. They must be excised from existence, for anything to be accomplished. For they no longer have a choice and would refuse to make one even if given free will to choose who they will side with, the Light or the Darkness. Much can be said for exterminating ant colonies. It would be nice for communication, co-existence and mutual alliances to be had, but in the absence of moral agency, extermination is the best practical outcome.

    Many bench table philosophers talk about free will and the government this or religion that. To me, it’s pretty simple. If I pretend I don’t have a choice, this sharp katana in my hand can slice through my arm, legs, and ears. Then I will have the result of what happens when I think my will doesn’t matter, one way or another. Until you apply painful, and permanent, consequences to the enemy, the enemy will have no reason to choose another path, even assuming they had a choice to begin with. So far they think they are the Ultimate Good and torturing their enemies, you, will bring about their Ideal Utopia.