The Liberals’ Creed

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
The Liberals’ Creed
457
Thu, 05-27-2004 - 9:47pm
Kirkuk, Iraq—For all the talk about a widening religiosity gap between the right and the left, sentiment from the left indicates a certain religious fervor about the war in Iraq. A string of recent letters and articles from those of a more liberal persuasion suggest that they choose to ignore or simply do not believe information which is inconsistent with their basic tenets. Theirs is a policy of faith, and here is their creed.

We believe in the United Nations, and Kofi Annan, the maker of international legitimacy.

We believe that the UN inspections worked.

We believe that SCUD missiles fired at U.S. troops minutes after the war began don’t change anything;

We believe that 3 liters of sarin gas used against U.S. troops doesn’t change anything;

We believe that finding evidence of mustard gas doesn’t change anything.

We believe that the war in Iraq conducted by a Republican president was unjustified because it lacked UN approval;

We believe that the "military action" in Kosovo conducted by a Democratic president was justified without UN approval.

We believe that the Iraq war was unilateral.

We believe that the participation of Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand, United Kingdom, and Ukraine does not change the fact that the war was unilateral;

We believe that multilateralism can only be achieved with the participation of France and Germany;

We believe in multilateralism.

We believe that this war was motivated by greed and oil;

We believe that when France, Germany, and Russia opposed the war, they were motivated by principle, and not by sweetheart oil deals or Oil-For-Food kickbacks;

We believe that US oil prices are too high, and that the administration failed in its responsibility to do something about it.

We believe that the U.S. may only legitimately use force for humanitarian ends in one place if it does so in all places where aid might be needed;

We believe that the U.S. may not quell threats in places where the cost is relatively low unless it is willing to use force in places like North Korea, where the cost in lives would likely be very high;

We believe that a humanitarian action is only truly humanitarian if there are no strategic interests to muddle the altruism.

We believe that President Bush lied.

We believe that Prime Minister Blair lied.

We believe that when Hillary Clinton and Dick Gephardt voted for the war based on the same intelligence relied upon by Bush and Blair, they made reasonable decisions based on the intelligence available at the time.

We believe that the administration did not make the case for war;

We believe that the administration offered many different reasons but could not offer a coherent message explaining the need to go to war;

We believe that the administration made perfectly clear that the only reason we were going to war was because of the threat from WMDs.

We believe that there were no WMDs.

We believe that finding sarin gas is 14th page news;

We believe that if the sarin gas is old, then it really isn’t a WMD we were looking for;

We believe that it wasn’t really sarin gas;

We believe that sarin gas isn’t necessarily a WMD.

We believe that there was no terrorist connection to, or threat from, Iraq.

We believe that members of Abu Nidal in Iraq would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;

We believe that al Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;

We believe that Saddam’s terrorist training camp at Salman Pak—complete with a Boeing 707 plane used for hijacking drills—did not exist or posed no real threat;

We believe that it was merely a coincidence that the pharmaceutical factory bombed by President Clinton in Sudan was using al Qaeda funds and a uniquely Iraqi formula to produce VX gas;

We believe that we are responsible for bringing terror on ourselves.

We believe that the prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib is widespread and is probably the tip of the iceberg;

We believe that Abu Ghraib proves that the America’s occupation is no different than Saddam’s tyranny;

We believe that any attempt to suggest that there is a moral difference between a regime which systematically killed 300,000 people and tortured countless others and a regime which punished the acts of Abu Ghraib is illegitimate.

We believe that soldiers deliberately target women and children;

We believe that the soldiers abuse and kill Iraqis because they are racists;

We support our troops.

We believe that no one should question our statement that we "support our troops;"

We believe that the best thing that could happen for this country would be for Bush to lose in November;

We believe that the best way for Bush to lose in November is for the Iraq effort to go poorly, even if that means that more Iraqis and troops will die;

We believe that most of the troops are minorities and the poor;

We believe that when the word "heroes" is used to describe our troops, it should always be enclosed in scare quotes.

We believe in quagmire.

We believe that when fringe Iraqi groups attack hard targets and are soundly defeated with relatively low Coalition casualties, that this is inescapable evidence of crisis;

We believe that Iraq is Bush’s Vietnam.

We believe that Vietnam is the lens through which all wars should be viewed.

We believe that soldiers in Vietnam were baby killers;

We believe that John Kerry is a hero for his service in Vietnam.

We believe that because John Kerry is a hero, he necessarily has the national security expertise necessary to be commander-in-chief.

We believe that any attempt to question his national security expertise based on his voting record, including his decision to vote against a supplemental bill used to buy the soldiers body armor, is an unfair attack on the patriotism of a hero, who by virtue of this honorific has the expertise to be commander-in-chief.

We believe in the trinity: NPR, CNN, and the New York Times. We believe in Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and all the DNC, and we look for President Clinton yet to come. Amen.


by: Robert Alt



Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2004
Fri, 06-04-2004 - 8:56am
You think Libya did that because of Bush? Oh no, they did it becuase after how many years being sanctioned Khadafi figured it was time to let his people have a chance. This had nothing to do with Bush or his "War on Terror". It would have happened sooner or later regardless of who the President was.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Fri, 06-04-2004 - 8:57am
Guess what, the terrorists are not ticked at us because we fight back. The terrorists want us dead because we do not worship in the same way that they do. If we don't fight back, easier for them to mass murder us. Terrorists were being created every day before this President got serious about it. It was just easier for them. Their training camps, leadership, and countries who harbored and supported them remained intact while we arrested and tried each individual terrorist. This didn't work as evidenced in the attacks of September 11, 2001. They have proven that they are ticked at us no matter what we do. It is a matter of fight back or die. This president chose to fight back. His detractors, I assume, would rather see mass death on our soil, or they naively believe that it won't happen even though its been PROVEN that it will.

This president's approvals are not "lower than a snake". This is wishful thinking. They are lower than they have been due to the overreporting of Abu Garib but they are still tied with his opponent. Even with the scores of bad press the president has received lately, Mr. Kerry can't seem to pull ahead. Thank God for that.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2004
Fri, 06-04-2004 - 8:59am
Sorry, when I hear helicopters, I can not determine their color! ;-) The point is Osama the true threat is nohwere to be found, and I doubt he will be. Sadaam was never a threat. The U.S. cant even get Afghan under control, what makes it think it will Iraq?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2004
Fri, 06-04-2004 - 9:07am


Strong? Bush is not strong, our military is. Bush has nothing to do with that. They were here before Bush and they will be here after Bush. Decisive? You really beleive that? For a man who cant even decide if he made any mistakes or not, doesnt sound too decisive to me. You only hear the finished product, unless you are lucky enough to hear what goes on behind closed doors. Tenacious? I will give him that, all he has going for him, is this "war". He does not want to face the real problems within his country. So if he keeps forcing the issue on war, it will deflect from the other problems he wont fix.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Fri, 06-04-2004 - 9:09am
They certainly did know who Al Sadr was before the war and were watching out for him. He has now been successfully put down.

You say, "Of course, killing off Iraqis, closing their newspapers, and tortuting prisoners are examples of democracy in action. We sure set fine examples"

There are limits to freedom of speech here in America. You can't yell fire in a crowded building, or do anything with your speech that will endanger the lives of other people. For an example, say a religous right-wing newspaper actively called to arms their readership for the murder of abortion doctors? Would you support their freedom of speech? Why then do you seem to support the freedom of speech of Iraqi newspapers who actively call to arms for it's readership to murder Americans? Are your priorities in order?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2004
Fri, 06-04-2004 - 9:14am


Wrong. That maybe why America fights, but not them. They are fighting us because of our foreign policies. You wouldnt like another country's force here telling you how to do things, and that is why Osama started with the U.S. The U.S. was in Saudi that was all to that. Before that, Osama loved the U.S. They gave him all this ammunition, training, and insight to fight off the Russians. This is not the "Cold War Era" where everyone's thinking is Communist want to control the world. Osama does not wish to control the world, but it seems America does at any cost.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Fri, 06-04-2004 - 9:14am
Strong enough to handle all the Bush-bashing without backing down...
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2004
Fri, 06-04-2004 - 9:16am
Oh please, he knew and EVERY President knows that there will bashing against them, it is normal. What President has backed away?
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Fri, 06-04-2004 - 9:19am
You need to research this a bit, Sondra wins. Osama is not into politics. He is a religous fanatic. He has never loved the West. They have declared a holy war against us because we do not follow their fanatic muslim religion. This war will continue until all non fanatic Muslims are dead as far as they are concerned.

For us, it's either fight back or die in mass numbers. Their goal is for us to die in mass numbers. Our goal is to wipe out their leadership, training camps, and do what it takes to make sure that there are no countries harboring them.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Fri, 06-04-2004 - 9:23am
And it was a HUGE coincidence that he came clean IMMEDIATELY after we invaded Iraq (after he messed his pants)...

Pages