Constructive gadfly
Published on November 18, 2005 By stevendedalus In Politics

To a fault, the extreme conservatives and liberals think they can have everything even though the nation is more or less centrist. For a Creationist to insist that Earth is but 6,000 years old is in clear defiance of anthropology, geology and physics observations and is as bad as saying the world is flat — Thomas Friedman notwithstanding. Nonetheless, liberals should not denigrate but calmly resist any legislation that tries to incorporate such thinking into public school curricula. Moreover, the left should lobby local schools to offer comparative religions and philosophies in high school.

Liberals maintaining that Roe v. Wade is sacrosanct and the sole criterion for choosing nominees to the Supreme Court is self-defeating: they play into the hands of the right by agreeing that this single issue is the only one worthy of consideration and as bad as guns and God determining election results. Liberals should prepare for the worst that a woman’s right to choose is doomed, and if so, pressure for state legislation that a woman’s right to privacy is no less than a man’s and state abortion laws for or against, be stricken from the books.

The controversial national motto of “In God We Trust” should not be allowed to be treated lightly by conservatives attempting to cheapen it by commercially billing it across the land. At the same time liberals should not protest its appearance on currency and learn to live with it as historical existence. Nor should liberals permit the label that atheists are all left wingers, which is simply not the case. Liberals do not care that “under God” is an existential fact of the Pledge even though they would blandly prefer “under egalitarian principles.”

Conservatives’ trumpeting to be against the war in Iraq is to be against supporting our troops is an extremist view devoutly to be quashed; however, it is their right and should be countered with “to support the troops is to save their lives by bringing them home and that the 2,000 plus did not die in vain, but died nobly during the commitment of defending their country, regardless of the politics.” Moreover, “bringing home the troops” is not cut and run but rather a new strategy of cautious withdrawal.

 If we continue to let prevail the fringe groups as though representing the majority, we shall lose our democracy. Further, this is also a lesson for moderate Iraqis to take charge of their own destiny.

 

Copyright © 2005 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: November 18, 2005.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Nov 18, 2005

I give you a 50-50. Homerun on the Abortion and a strike out on the Troops.  You can be against why we went to war, but the fact is we did, and half the democrats supported it.  But to now jump up and say we must cut and run, which means the sacrafice of the 2000 was for nothing, means you do not support the troops of their mission.

Dont believe conservatives when they say that.  Ask the troops.  WHo better to know how they FEEL than themselves?

on Nov 18, 2005
however, it is their right and should be countered with “to support the troops is to save their lives by bringing them home and that the 2,000 plus did not die in vain, but died nobly during the commitment of defending their country, regardless of the politics.” Moreover, “bringing home the troops” is not cut and run but rather a new strategy of cautious withdrawal.


Once again completely disregarding the fact that what's done is done and we should not be know as a country who doesn't finish what it starts because that will be branded on those soldiers that you want home so bad. I guess people like you only have a heart for those who are Americans. Like I said before I would like to see your reaction when someone makes a promise to help you out with something only to leave you hanging with excuses. I'm sure you are not new to that and I bet my life that it boiled you. Probably to the point of losing friendships over it.

There is no such thing as a "cautious withdrawal", we will be branded as the nation who supposedly promised to help the Iraqis only to leave them alone and in ruins. If anything this would create even more hatred towards the US and lose the trust we have left from those who still trust us.

To leave Iraq as is is to sell a broken car to your best friend without telling him it's broken and then refuse to give him his money back. More like betrayal than "cautious withdrawal" to me.
on Nov 18, 2005
To leave Iraq as is is to sell a broken car to your best friend without telling him it's broken and then refuse to give him his money back.


This is easy to say when you have no personal stake in the outcome. To those who would oppose a withdrawal from Iraq: If it's so important to you, why aren't you there?

So many talk the talk, but refuse to walk the walk.
on Nov 18, 2005
Single-issue politics is always self-defeating. Life just ain't that simple.

I'm not as worried about the future of the republic, though. Those on the extremes always out-passion the centrists and will always dominate the public debate - it's just the nature of the beast. There are enough big kids out there to sort it out.

As for the "support the troops" issue, it's not really about "supporting the troops" any more. America made a commitment to the nation of Iraq, not to the Democratic Party, and America must see that commitment through. The consequences of arbitrarily declaring "victory" & vacating the region are staggering to contemplate. I can't envision anything that would embolden the zealots in places like Iran any more. To leave them with the lesson that America can always be "outlasted," regardless of how we choose to characterize & justify it to ourselves, would be irresponsible in the extreme. We aren't talking about a group of committed Communists whose only objective is unification and control of a single, small nation - to believe or pretend that this is "just Bush's Viet Nam" is at best dangerous and at worst nearly insane.

Thanks for your reasoned and courteous contributions here, even if we disagree on some things.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Nov 18, 2005
I have a quick question about mission. Was our mission to liberate the Iraqi people by deposing Saddam Hussein? Or was it the above AND to install a stable, democratic government?

I'm asking about open, explicit goals, not implied ones, or those made after the fact. This isn't meant to be contentious, I just want to know, and couldn't really find anything useful by searching google, mainly just propaganda newsletters.
on Nov 18, 2005
America made a commitment to the nation of Iraq, not to the Democratic Party, and America must see that commitment through.

Amen and Amen.
on Nov 18, 2005
I'm asking about open, explicit goals,
The initiative at the outset was to make the UN "relevant" by shaming it into going back to Iraq to search for WMD. The congressional vote did in fact succeed, but the administration wasn't interested because it wanted Saddam removed. Bush succeeded. The rest that followed has been by the seat of Bush's pants. 
on Nov 18, 2005

This is easy to say when you have no personal stake in the outcome.
Hi, Texaii, you're so right--like Cheney and his five exemptions during Vietnam.

Like I said before I would like to see your reaction when someone makes a promise to help you out with something only to leave you hanging with excuses.
That's precisely what's happening in our cool commitment to the troops: it is Bush who is not supporting them, leaving them to swing in the dusty wind.

on Nov 19, 2005
Hi, Texaii, you're so right--like Cheney and his five exemptions during Vietnam.


At least he did it "legally" unlike ex-president Bill "draft dodger" Clinton.
on Nov 19, 2005
Steven, I agree with you, but disagree... ;~D
on Nov 19, 2005
Isn't it kind of a groovy thing to imagine that the struggle between the eternal extremes, the political yin and yang as it were, is what creates the middle ground to begin with?
on Nov 19, 2005
To leave Iraq as is is to sell a broken car to your best friend without telling him it's broken and then refuse to give him his money back.


This is easy to say when you have no personal stake in the outcome. To those who would oppose a withdrawal from Iraq: If it's so important to you, why aren't you there?

So many talk the talk, but refuse to walk the walk.



I have "been there", Tex....

I was in Basic Training when "Black Hawk Down" happened....we were told to "be ready".....I went into the military 13 years ago knowing that I could be called upon to fight a war, and maybe, just maybe, not come back home still breathing.

I believe we need to stay until the job is done. I posted the other day a letter (email) from the local paper, from a local soldier who is over there. He says he is PROUD to be there.....does that sound like someone who wants to cut and run? It doesn't to me....

I know that your husband is in the military (not sure if he is over there or not, or is going to be going). I hate to hear about our soldiers dying....but when there are soldiers re-enlisting...and volunteering to go BACK over there....i just don't accept the argument that to support the troops is to bring them home at all costs.

We as a country (maybe not we as individuals) made a promise...a promise to the Iraqis that we would stay and help....if we just up and leave because 2000+ soldiers have died....we might as well send a gold-bordered invitation to any nation or terrorist organization to just come on over...kill some ppl, cause we will turn tail and run.
on Nov 19, 2005

Isn't it kind of a groovy thing

Groovy thing? Uh, huh!

on Nov 19, 2005
This is easy to say when you have no personal stake in the outcome. To those who would oppose a withdrawal from Iraq: If it's so important to you, why aren't you there?

So many talk the talk, but refuse to walk the walk.


Exactly. Walk a mile in our shoes....spend a year in our lives and THEN see if you want to make the same statement.
on Nov 19, 2005
have "been there", Tex....

I was in Basic Training when "Black Hawk Down" happened....we were told to "be ready".....I went into the military 13 years ago knowing that I could be called upon to fight a war, and maybe, just maybe, not come back home still breathing.


Are you still in service? If not, why not?

I dare ANYONE who talks so glibly about needing to stay and finish the job to live the kind of life my husband and I have lived over the past 3 years, and to be faced with the kind of future we're now being faced with and STILL have the same opinion about this shithole we have created for ourselves.

As usual it's all mouth and no trousers.
2 Pages1 2