TheHeretic
Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007 From: California, USA Status: offline
|
Great post, Firm. The decision, by so many on the left, to make hatred of President Bush the most important value was what pushed me firmly onto the right side of the argument. I ran across the text of a speech by Senator Joe Lieberman that I found very interesting. In particular, President Bush defined the nature of this new conflict in quintessentially liberal terms—as a struggle for freedom against tyranny. Like the Cold War, he described the war on terror as ultimately “between two fundamentally different visions of humanity.” On the one side of this struggle are the Islamist extremists who “promise paradise, but deliver a life of public beheadings and repression of women and suicide bombings.” And on the other side, “are huge numbers of moderate men and women…” in the Muslim world, who believe that “every life has dignity and value that no power on Earth can take away.” That is why, to defeat radical Islam, President Bush has repeatedly argued that we must simultaneously fight—and fight hard—to uproot their networks, while offering our own, more powerful vision of the future, based on the universal values of freedom and justice and opportunity. In this regard, the Bush administration’s post-9/11 ideological conversion confronted Democrats with an awkward choice. Should we welcome the President’s foreign policy flip-flop? Or should Democrats match it with a flip-flop of our own? I think we all know how that one worked out. The full text of the speech is here I'm gonna read the rest of the thread now. I think I already know what I'll find.
_____________________________
If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced. That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.
|