[lit-ideas] Re: Nuclear Responsibility and Iran
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 12:41:19 -0600
LH:
>>Can you say, "heck no, D'Souza? I want with all my heart for America, even if
>>it is led by Bush whom I do not like, to win a glorious victory in Iraq. I
>>want Iraq to become a successful democratic nation, even though I might have
>>doubts that it will. I do not want American driven out prematurely from
>>Iraq. I want the majority in Iraq, the 80% that comprise the Shiites and the
>>Kurds to defeat the Sunni die-hards. I do not want the former Sunni
>>Baathists who have been augmented by Al Quaeda volunteers to defeat the
>>Shiites and Kurds."<<
Can you say, "Heck no, President Bush. I want with all my heart for America to
be a beacon of justice and liberty and peacefulness to the world, an example of
magnanimity and openness to all peoples. I will not support your pre-emptive
wars no matter how much you might think they advance your foreign policy
designs. I want Iraq to be treated as any other sovereign nation should be
treated, and therefore I cannot support your invasion of that country when
there was no threat to our nation by it. I want peace and cooperation in Iraq
among the sectarian parties, but I recognize that only they themselves can
bring that about, your war has only exacerbated their internal conflicts. I
stand before you, Mr. President, and I say to you and to the world that I will
not be party to this illegal, unjust, immoral war. A war that threatens all
that I've been taught to believe about America."
Mike Geary
Memphis
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 12:56 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Nuclear Responsibility and Iran
Mike:
You are the first I've heard of the Lit-Ideas Leftists, Radical Leftists that
is, who could say, "that people can disagree with you radically and still be
just as patriotic and devoted to the welfare of this country as you believe
yourself to be. People can be fiercely opposed to the policies of this
Administration and work in opposition to them and still be every bit as
pro-American as you believe yourself to be." I congratulate you, but then I
wonder about what you mean by "pro-American." There may still be a problem.
Is it the same thing that I mean, I wonder? Dinesh D'Souza has an interesting
theory about that [from his The Enemy at Home, The Cultural Left and its
responsibility for 9/11]. He makes a statement like yours, namely that
Liberals (apologies to Robert, but that is the term D'Souza uses) are loyal and
patriotic, but their America is different from that of Conservatives.
Conservatives are loyal to what American was and is. Liberals are loyal to
what they hope America will become. Here are a few quotes from D'Souza's book
that I agree with. Let's see how Conservative Lawrence and Leftist Mike stand
on these issues: :
Page 59: "The mystery is that liberals seem to oppose virtually every aspect
of Bush's war, both on the domestic and the foreign front, without offering any
comprehensive strategy of their own. Rather, liberals seem increasingly united
in a political effort to restrict the scope of the fight against the foreign
fore that has indicated unprecedented harm on the United States. Opposition to
Bush's war on terrorism is now a central feature of American liberalism. We
are left with a profound paradox: today on the world scene, it is conservatives
who are fighting to undermine illiberal forces and secure liberal values in the
Muslim world. American fundamentalists are the ones who are most eager to go
after Islamic fundamentalists, and American liberals are the ones who are most
eager to stop them."
"One half of the country believes that Bush is crusading against the Evil One
while the other half believes that Bush is the Evil One. And this is only part
of the chasm that has opened up between liberals and conservatives. The real
divide is over the meaning of America itself."
Page 233: "On September 19, 2001, leading figures on the left published an ad
in the New York Times under the banner headline 'Not in our name.' The ad
condemned Bush's war on terror as a 'war without limit.' The signers of the ad
were an interesting mix of cultural leftists and foreign policy activists. The
list included authors Edward Said and Howard Zinn, novelists Kurt Vonnegut and
Toni Morrison, playwright and gay rights activist Tony Kushner, civil rights
leaders Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, feminists Gloria Steinem, Barbara
Ehrenreich, and Kathy Pollitt, former Vietnam War Protesters Jane Fonda and Tom
Hayden, movie directors Spike Lee and Oliver Stone, actors Susan Sarandon,
Martin Sheen, and Danny Glover, death row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal, and
Democratic congressman Jim McDermott. The activists group MoveOn.org
circulated a petition to its supporters warning that if America invaded
Afghanistan, 'we become the terrorists we oppose.' The left, by its own count,
organized more than a hundred demonstrations across the country to stop the
United States from overthrowing the Taliban regime.
"If the left had gotten its way, Bush would never have invaded Afghanistan
and the Taliban would still be in power. Islamic radicals would still be in
control of two states, Iran and Afghanistan. Al Quaeda would still have an
official state sponsor, so that its future attacks could be more effectively
planned, funded, and executed. One can see why bin Laden might be pleasantly
surprised to find, in the very nation he attacked, a group of people seeking to
minimize the prospect of retaliation and to keep his Taliban supporters in
power. If he was furious about rulers in the Muslim world who inexplicably
promoted America's cause, bin Laden could be expected to be exhilarated to see
a group in America -- secular infidels no less -- who surprisingly promoted the
Islamic fundamentalist cause."
Page 235: "The left's position on Iraq has been clear form the outset:
prevent Bush from getting into the war, and if this proves unsuccessful, then
make sure that he loses the war.. . Social scientist Nicholas De Genova argues
that in Iraq and elsewhere, 'The only true heroes are those who find ways that
help defeat the U.S. military.'"
We can discuss any of these items if you like Mike, but let me ask just focus
on page 235. Do you disagree with D'Souza's analysis? Can you say, "heck no,
D'Souza? I want with all my heart for America, even if it is led by Bush whom I
do not like, to win a glorious victory in Iraq. I want Iraq to become a
successful democratic nation, even though I might have doubts that it will. I
do not want American driven out prematurely from Iraq. I want the majority in
Iraq, the 80% that comprise the Shiites and the Kurds to defeat the Sunni
die-hards. I do not want the former Sunni Baathists who have been augmented by
Al Quaeda volunteers to defeat the Shiites and Kurds."
Lawrence
> ------------Original Message------------
> From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wed, Mar-7-2007 9:34 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Nuclear Responsibility and Iran
>
> LH:
> >>Someone recently said on Lit-Ideas, not Andreas or Irene in this
> case, he
> >>thought Bush a greater danger than -- I can't recall whom he compared
> him
> >>to, but perhaps Ahmadinejad.<<
>
> You're probably thinking of me. On 2/23 I wrote: "Bush could certainly
> be
> an exemplary man personally, but as President I think he's a very
> dangerous
> man to America and the world, and I think that, not because of what is
> reported about him, but because of his policies." Then on 3/2 I wrote:
> "My
> culture, I believe, is in more real danger of being destroyed by George
> W.
> Bush & Co. than by a hypothetical bunch of Muslims or those few
> Islamists
> who just want to live alone in the 7th Century."
>
> You wrote:
> >>Such a view is beyond the pale. It crosses beyond the point of the
> loyal
> >>opposition and moves over to the enemy -- <<
>
> If I'm right and these are the quotes you're thinking of, then I'm
> sorry you
> feel that way, but I think your response is absurd. I believe that the
>
> policies of the Bush Administration are doing far greater damage to our
>
> culture, our society, our country, our way of life, our Civilization --
>
> whatever "big" word you like most -- than al Qaeda or
> radical-fundamentalist-militant Islamist terrorists ever dreamed of
> being
> able to do. If you don't see that, then I'm sorry for you. The
> terrorists
> are a police problem -- a serious problem, I'll grant you, but are they
>
> nothing compared to the threat that the Bush Administrations' policies
> are
> doing to this country, to its Constitution, to its economy, to its
> moral
> values and to our standing in the world.
>
>
> >>This is not someone saying, "of couse we should protect American
> National
> >>Interests and fight America's enemies, but I don't think Bush is
> doing it
> >>quite right.<<
>
>
> Of course it's saying that and saying a lot more. Can't you read?
> Bush is
> not only not "doing it quite right" -- he is doing it tragically wrong
> --
> his policies are inflicting greater damage on this country than
> anything the
> terrorists have or can hope to do to us. I want the terrorists
> stopped,
> yes, that's imperative, but I want Bush's policies stopped just as
> much.
> Opposing the policies of a grossly incompetent Administration is
> support of
> America . In fact, from my perspective, it could be argued that it's
> unpatriotic to support the policies of this Administration which have
> unwittingly served only to support the goals and ambitions of the
> terrorists. How in God's name can you read that as support of the
> terrorists?
>
> I accept that you believe the threat of terrorists is a lot more
> serious
> than I do. I also accept that you still believe in the efficacy of
> this
> Administration's policies in dealing with that threat. What you can't
> seem
> to get your mind around is that people can disagree with you radically
> and
> still be just as patriotic and devoted to the welfare of this country
> as you
> believe yourself to be. People can be fiercely opposed to the policies
> of
> this Administration and work in opposition to them and still be every
> bit as
> pro-American as you believe yourself to be.
>
> Mike Geary
> Memphis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
Other related posts:
