Liberal Hypocrisy, Part V

As my regular readers know, I have written a series of posts on the never-ending hypocrisy of modern day liberalism. In fact, when asked for their political affiliation, many democrats just cut to the chase and check the box labeled “Hypocrit.” It saves time and is, indeed, synonymous.

I actually predicted the latest spate of hypocrisy several days before it began to rear its ugly head. After Secretary of State Kerry’s sabre rattling speech on Syria (which followed President Obama’s sabre rattling speech, which followed President Obama’s other sabre rattling speech), I made the following prediction. I said that, if we take military action against Syria, the liberals, particularly the media lap dogs, would leap to the president’s defense. “Oh my God, the atrocities,” they would say, “It is fully justified to attack a despot who uses chemical weapons on his own people.”

Uh, wait, hold the phone. I recall another dictator whose use of chemical weapons on his own people was well-documented. His name was Sadam Hussein. You may not remember him because he’s now, well, dead. Dead because President George W. Bush saw the atrocities he committed and killed him. That, according to the liberal elites, was a terrible mistake. A war we never should have started. A war President Bush clearly started because Sadam threatened his daddy.

In this post, I am not addressing the advisability of either the Iraq war or the pending Obama war in Syria. These are complex questions better left to another blog. I’m writing only about consistency vs. hypocrisy.

Guess what? The first bomb hasn’t been dropped on Syria and my prediction has already rung true. The Obama sycophants over at the New York Times have prewired their unconditional support for the war that hasn’t even started yet with their op-ed piece on Tuesday titled Bomb Syria, Even if It Is Illegal.

Pathetic, but completely predictable.

Advertisements

About Bruce Robertson

Bruce Robertson is an amateur writer and professional provocateur
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Liberal Hypocrisy, Part V

  1. A few things to say about this. First, I am a card-carrying hypocrite – I mean Democrat. With that out of the way, I’ll point out that, if I’m not mistaken, it was not Bush who killed Osama, but rather that president whose name is so similar to Osama’s. Furthermore, I don’t think the currently-ending war in Iraq was in direct response to Saddam’s gassing of the Kurds, an event to which you refer. The Halabja Massacre, as I think it is called, took place in 1988. So there was a pretty big time lag before GWB took us into Iraq, in 2002 (or was it 2001). My impression is that we went into Iraq in response to the tragic events of 9/11, events which really originated out of Afghanistan. So, we hypocrites who opposed the invasion of Iraq were not commenting one way or the other on the gassing of the Kurds. We were opposing the invasion of Iraq – granted, a pretty shitty place – as a proxy for the taking of Osama.

    The US has been very cozy with lots of horrible dictators (see Hussein, Saddam) for a variety of reasons. There are always reasons for taking such a position, and other reasons for opposing it. I don’t think either party has a monopoly on hypocrisy; there is plenty to go around. You are undoubtedly right that the media on the left would tend to support a Democrat in an action where a Republican would be opposed in the same action. Same with the media on the right. I’m glad you pointed it out, because we all should be somewhat sceptical of ALL media coverage. I think Noam Chomsky would completely agree with that part of your post.

    One thing that is certain is that it is impossibly hard to be the one to make geopolitical decisions in an amazingly complicated world. I’m glad I’m not the president. Come to think of it, cousin, I think we can agree on that – you are probably equally glad.

    • Mike Stehman says:

      Daniel,

      Nobody said Bush killed Osama… READ FIRST, and THEN post your liberal views!

      • OK, guys, let’s keep the tone positive. Mike – you’re absolutely right that Cousin Dan (I admit that every time I say or type “Cousin Dan” I say it in my head in the intonation used by Forest Gump when he said “Lieutenant Dan”) misread my post. And, while Dan is, by his own admission (though I suspect tongue in cheek) a hypocritical liberal, he is THE loyal opposition to my blog posts. If we chase him away, my words might be accepted as gospel by all and that’s probably not a good thing.

    • First, I think another loyal reader pointed out your certainly honest mistake on killing Osama vs. killing Saddam. Your boy, Obama, did the former. GWB, the latter. Since it was Saddam who used chemical weapons on his own people, not Osama, I think that’s the more relevant comparable. The time lag between those attacks and the U.S. attack on Iraq is not relevant to my point. The liberals in the media either support bombing despots who gas their own people or they don’t. When Bush did it, they did not. I have predicted that when Obama does it, they will. The early Op-Ed piece I referenced in the NYT supports my prediction. Watch, there will be a lot more.

      Your point on U.S. support for horrible dictators is a very interesting one. One that I’ve been mulling for many weeks and my good friend, Rob, has written me some interesting e-mails on. I concede that I started the Iraq war with the mentality that trying to bring democracy to the middle east was a good idea and Iraq could be the toehold. Rob would argue that, save Israel, the institutions, infrastructure, groundwork, and culture required for anything that even remotely resembles democracry are so glaringly absent in the middle east that there’s no chance for success. If that’s true, and I’m not yet ready to give up on that dream, then riding the least horrible of the horrible dictator horses is probably a good strategy. Historically, the House of Assad was quite friendly to the U.S. Obama has blown that up. If we end up with democracy in Syria someday, that will look like a good decision, much as blowing up Saddam has shown some signs of positive outcome in Iraq. If we end up with a horrible dictator who now hates us, it will turn out to be a not so good decision.

  2. One other thing: the op-ed in the NY Times (“Bomb Syria…”) was not even by a regular columnist. It was representing one person’s point of view, not the paper’s. Today’s editorial, which DOES represent the paper’s point of view, is headlined “More Answers Needed on Syria.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s