The Liberals’ Creed
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 05-27-2004 - 9:47pm |
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
Again... they don't want us being a heavy hand in the middle east. Had we tried to broker peace instead of self interest, we would be much better off. As for the religious aspect, it is incredibly sad to see how both sides look upon the other as something less because of their beliefs. Religion has been motivation for war far too many times in history. I am not saying that is Bush's motivation, but there are some in this country that see it that way. Pat Robertson and his ilk do, but of course he also found a way to blame lgbt people for 11 September.
Change policy... so that we are for peace, and the average person in the middle east will have no desire to strike out at us. Or has Switzerland been attacked?
"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."
No one is saying don't fight back. Fighting alone will *never* get you anywhere. Never. All you do is spend your life fighting. I want an end to this, and it starts by doing other things beyond the fighting. And zipping off into this side venture was a monumental booboo, perhaps the worst mistake I've ever seen a president make.
"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."
Again, fighting alone will have you fighting 1,000 years from now. I have no desire to condemn our young to this. And by the way... ongoing fighting will affect enlistment, which hurts our readiness, which will make a draft look tempting.
"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."
Right... excuses for why the president's ratings are lower than a snake. They were low before the torture reports, and have fallen further still. I've seen no evidence of over reporting.
..."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 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;..
Wasn't it a truce, or did I miss him being in custody and his followers have all surrendered?
"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?"
If Iraq was occupying the US, would you side with Iraq or those that wanted Iraq out? Perception is reality for many, and when you close a newspaper, people believe it is oppression. We have to win people over, and our policy has done the exact opposite. No matter the newspaper content, youi have to know closing it immediately looks like occupiers trying to control the country, and that ticks people off.
Yeah, my priorities are in order... the president however has no clue.
They did not, this country was given false information by zealots.
"We believe that the administration offered many different reasons but could not offer a coherent message explaining the need to go to war;"
Their tune has certainly changed before and after. Roll the tape, please.
"We believe that the administration made perfectly clear that the only reason we were going to war was because of the threat from WMDs..."
To the point where the president sounded like he was practicing his abc's.
"...We believe that there was no terrorist connection to, or threat from, Iraq."
There is a more direct connection to Iran. Shall we?
"We believe that members of Abu Nidal in Iraq would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;"
How many countries do you wish to attack? Is this one of those maps that shows "us" against "them" (them being the rest of the world?)
"We believe that al Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;"
Lesson 1: what have I been saying is the best way to stop terrorism?
"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;"
There are these camps in many countries... are we to occupy each one? And we didn't even take out the worst ones.
"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;.."
Is that an admission Clinton did something right?
Sigh. We have our own religious nuts here in this country. Most Muslims have no such desire for the world to convert... by the way, it is historically correct to say that Islamic countries over centuries were more open and tolerant of other religions than were Christian countries.
I'll counter that: If a newspaper in the US tomorrow called for civil disobedience to stop our military actions... what should be done?
Shutting down a newspaper was *dumb*. Dumb like all the other Iraqi policy so far has been. Dumb.
the entire "creed" exposes the zealotry and the hypocrisy of the left.
Pages