2012 May 22 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2009/09/20/then-and-now/
0
0
Then and now
Sep 20
 › 

This is a follow-up to my earlier post, “the far left’s new obsession: Afghanistan.” American Power’s Donald Douglas was kind enough to link to my article. He wrote about the growing opposition to the Iraq War among leftist activists earlier this month as well – be sure to read it.

In his post of today, Donald quotes Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Back when the Iraq War was the number one opportunity to surrender for liberals, she said that “our bill calls for the redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq so that we can focus more fully on the real war on terror, which is in Afghanistan.”

Perhaps the above is the real scandal here. It shows how incredibly hypocritical liberals were and are when it comes to war. They may pretend they support defensive wars, but in actuality they do not. They are not pacifists as such, they only seem to believe that the West can never attack / strike back at its enemies.

And that’s precisely why we can’t take any of their concerns about the war in Afghanistan – whether they are reasonable or not – serious.

  1. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #102268
    Doomed The far left has ALWAYS been against the war. The Democrats latched on to the coattails of the far left angry antiwar crowd and rode it to victory in 2006, 2008. NOW THAT THEY....are in power and got what they want they are asking the far left to be patient...we will eventually be out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I have said 1000 times that come 2012 we will still be in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nothing much will change except now that the democrats are in power and car bombs are blowing up in Baghdad its all good now with the press because Democrats KILL PEOPLE WITH but compassion....they dont really mean it. As Walter Cronkite once said.......I think that being liberal, in the true sense, is being nondoctrinaire, nondogmatic, noncomitted to a cause —- but examining each case on its merits. Being left of center is another thing; it's a political position. I think most newspapermen by definition have to be liberal; if they're not liberal, by my definition of it, then they can hardly be good newspapermen. (1973)