G

I do found it laughable that the Republican party is being protrayed as more accepting of diverse opinions than the Democrats. When you have a party that is out of power, it’s nearly impossible to have a consistent philosophy or approach. Thus you have a lot of infighting. The Republicans have been more tolerant of dissent in their ranks because there has been no dissent. When Bush was riding high, Republicans were terrified of breaking ranks with him. Now that he’s in a weakened state, there’s suddenly a lot more division in the party. And if you think there’s tolerance, look at how Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell and Harriet Meiers were treated.

It seems clear that the current Republican strategy calls for a drumbeat of commentary on the problems within the Democratic Party. It’s amazing the number of pieces I read these days from conservative commentators bemoaning the problems with the Democrats. And some even say they’re commenting because it makes them sad, since a vital two party system is essential to our country, as if the Democrats should keep fulfilling their role of the token opposition. Poor Democrats, nearly dried up and blown away. Whatever shall we do? You can practically hear them snickering behind their hands, wondering if the rubes will buy this one. You’d almost think all those poll numbers had been reversed, and it was actually the Republicans all of the voters seem to favor.

And for the record, in my memory the term “chickenhawk” was originally applied to the Richard Perles and Paul Wolfowitzes of the world, who relished talking tough and challenging other people’s courage without ever having put themselves on the line personally. And I think that’s a legitimate criticism. The later use of the term, to suggest that anyone who supports the war is obligated to join the military, is demagoguery, and I hate it whenever I see opponents of the war resorting to it. It’s a double edged sword that will be used against us in the future.

“I have learned that the people who most need dictionaries, spell-checkers, and critical thought will stubbornly refuse them, whilst continuing to assault others with poorly-constructed, self-preserving, hate-mongering nonsense. I have learned that innocent people will be killed and others will suffer in a hellish world because of such people.”

Unhinged. Thanks, Justin.

Rob -

I’m not nuts.

Let me explain what I mean by Repubs being the “big tent” party. When I disagree with those on the right, it’s just a disagreement – nothing hateful. You may not get that same treatment from the same people? I don’t know.

I don’t see the Dems being any better on gay marriage than the Republicans. They’re all panderers. I believe that in a couple of generations (hopefully sooner) gay marriage will be a reality. I know my future children will never understand homophobia.

I will fight the Right on abortion. I have a problem with parts of the abortion debate. For instance, I believe it is killing something, but I believe it’s the woman’s burden and hers alone.

If you are going to ban someone, I think you should have the stones to add a comment saying which admin did it.

Monica: If you think the Republican big tent includes pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, you are nuts.

Kreiz: I am grown, thank you. I an adult who happens to be sick to my stomach of senseless war, killing, and the cheerleaders of violent, state-sponsored aggression.

If you think being grown-up means sending poor people off to “defend freedom” by killing other poor people, while your own aristocratic government profits from war, whittles away at your rights and freedom, and mocks those whose blood has paid for your it, then … I’m afraid I don’t meet your “grown-up” standard.

Your found me then. That would make you, what, the Grown-Up Police?

Monica:

Yes, I am angry, but I am willing to concede that you have shown greater forebearance in expressing your perspective.

I apologize if I have seemed arrogant or condescending. I feel that war, when it can be avoided, should be avoided at all costs. I myself consider unjustifiable war the pinnacle of arrogance.

I do not believe that the Iraq war (i.e. occupation and invasion) was necessary or justified. It is clear – as even the most hawk-ish policy-makers have stated – that this war CANNOT be won militarily. It is clear to me that the military approach has been tragic, foolhardy, and has produced severely negative effects.

Seething with anger is unattractive, but so is indifference to suffering and loss of life. If you do not have family or friends in the military – as I do – who rightfully expect you to care about their sacrifice, if you have no family or people close to you afflicted with war disabilities, if you have never been to a military funeral or visited a person whose former life has been snuffed out by war, then you may not be able to perceive a responsibility to see that no one suffers needlessly from war: no american, no iraqi, no ONE.

Conventional wars are in our past. There will be no end to this war, no declaration, no truce, and no treaties. If you want some corroboration of this fact, consider France’s conflict with Algeria, consider the intervention required to stop Afganistan from executing a converted Christian, consider the Kurdish oppression of free press, consider the democratically-elected Hamas party in Palestine. There are many, many historical examples to demonstrate that conflicts in the Middle East are far more complex and challenging than the simple-minded war models that we have constructed for them.

The effort to militarily “democratize” the Middle East is pure vanity, with a costly pricetag, to be paid in lives and gold. Even architects of this folly (Fukuyama, Kristol, etc … former PNAC) now disavow it.

While I applaud you for gracefully holding your own in this discussion, I hope that you consider my points as well: (1) Democrats are no more *or* less tolerant of ideas contrary to their platform than Republicans, (2) War beliefs and attitudes are as strongly-held on the left as they are on the right, and (3) The invasion and occupation of Iraq was a pre-emptive act that has cost Americans dearly, has detracted from rather than enhanced world peace, and will continue to plague our nation and the world for at least another full lifetime.

As a conciliatory statement, I should say that I fully agree that arrogance is unattractive. This is something we can both take with us from this discussion. Thank you for that.

First of all, you don’t disgust me.

You apparently believe I need to defend all of Bush’s and Rumsfeld’s actions because I’m pro-war. You’re making a huge assumption that I think they’ve done everything right, and I don’t.

No, that isn’t my definition of “chickenhawk”. The chickenhawk debate has been going around the internet for a while now. It pretty much means what you implied earlier – that a person is not allowed to support a war unless they themselves join the military.

Regarding me never being interested in the ‘other side of the political aisle’ (thanks for the spelling tip!) – you’re making assumptions about my political history and you really shouldn’t. I try to look at topics from all angles. I’m hardly a closed minded person. I vote for the candidate, not the party.

I don’t know what statement it is you feel like I need to defend. That I’m pro-war? Is that it? And what do you mean I’m “preoccupied with the preservation of your (my) own thin skin”? Also – I’m not sure if you’re saying that I’m a hate monger (since apparently I need a dictionary) or that Bush is one.

Finally, you ask what I’ve learned. Well, from you I’ve learned that there are some anti-war peeps that will seethe with anger at me and make it very clear that I disgust them and that I’m a lesser person than them – both morally and intellectually – because I believe something different than they believe.

I know this isn’t unique to you or to any political party, but I find it to be an unattractive characteristic all the same.