For years and years I was labeled, harassed, attacked, and otherwise been the object of hatred. They called me a “NEOCON.” Why? Well, many opponents of success in Iraq said they called me “NEOCON” because I supported America’s effort to succeed in Iraq. They said that it was impossible to succeed; to stay in Iraq until it was secure and stable enough to ensure that a 3rd invasion wouldn’t be necessary after leaving.
Last night, it came to me: I am no longer a NEOCON. Today, I am a liberal. I am an Obama fan.
No! For real! Please, stop laughing…you might be one too.
Obama may have opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2002 because of political expediency (his primary campaign contributor in Chicago told him, “You damn well better oppose this thing” before his first big campaign speech on the subject). He may have opposed success in Iraq 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and in 2008, but in 2009-after being elected-my desired outcome in Iraq was embraced by President-elect Obama: to stay in Iraq until it is secure and stable enough to ensure that a 3rd invasion won’t be necessary. My preferred Iraq policy became the liberal Iraq policy. The policy hasn’t changed-only the face on it, and with that change of faces came a change of endorsement: from neonazicon repukes to kinder, gentler, more-caring, and more intellectual liberals. Since that change…no one opposes success in Iraq anymore.
Torture? I’ve never been a fan of torture. It’s an awful thing, and that should go without saying. However, if 50,000 lives can be saved by putting a guy in a box with a caterpillar, well, at that point my objections become less vocal/more silent. It turns out…my position is the exact same as the Democrats’! Speaker Pelosi, and almost two dozen members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees were briefed on the “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques,” and no one really objected. They were in the same frame of mind as me: it’s awful, but…if everything else has been tried, and it’ll save tens or hundreds of thousands of lives, then I bow to the sin of omission and say nothing. Guess I’m a liberal on that one too.
Iran? Gosh, it’s terrible that the Iranians are killing American soldiers, Iraqis, and Afghans, and the idea of them making nuclear bomb factories scares me, but I totally favor talking to them first; if for no other reason than to say we tried, to appease those who think that talks always work, and to unite the nation and the world against their intractability. Sad to say, but I also think the military option has to remain on the table. When Bush said that, and when I supported it…I was a “NEOCON.” Now, Obama says we have to keep the military option open, and…I’m no longer a warmonger, but a supporter of a liberal President. WOOHOO!
Spending? I agree that there’s too much govt spending, that cuts need to be made, that we need a return to pay-as-you-go spending, an end to deficit spending, a fix for Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid reform, and a massive govt effort to switch to renewable energy sources. Now, Democrats took Congress in 2006 based on these promises, and I support them. I voted for a Democrat-candidates for both the House and Senate in 2006. 3yrs later we have a President who (despite pushing a $3.8 TRILLION budget w a $2TRILLION deficit) has pledged the same things. I guess those are liberal ideas…though, I’m not sure what happened to them. Am I more liberal than the Democrats in Congress on spending?
Wanna bailout US automakers and hand over their control to the unions? Yeah, I’m for that. ‘Course, I’m for it because the unions will take the dying companies, kill them completely, which will kill union power, and thus kill “organized labor” control over the Democratic Party, but I am for it. Whatever my motivation, I embrace this liberal policy.
Wanna bailout banks? Sure. Go ahead. I’m for it. Let’s face it, if ever there was an entity that needs money…it’s banks (think about that for a moment).
Today, I’m a liberal Democrat.
See author page
There is only one fly in your UAW suicide theory. As long as the Democrats and/or RINOs have a say in the matter, they will never have to face bankruptcy squarely. There will always be another TARP or somesuch to bail them out at the taxpayer’s expense.
Nope. No fly. The “let’s just borrow money” well is going to dry up starting at 2:30 today when Dems are told that Social Security revenue is down 90% because of their Great Recession. From that moment onwards…the Feds will have to borrow just to pay back SS. Not gonna be a lot of bailout opportunity left. For example, in OH and MI, the unions were pushed to approve GM and Chrysler bankruptcy cuts so they could stay in business. Once approved, both companies closed their plants. GM is talking about leaving MI (possibly moving out of the country), and the unions and the Democrats they bought….got OWND/PWND/USED/ABUSED/left high and dry. No amount of bailout can help em, and no credit for bailouts will be left after the next TARP trillion and the “Stimulus II” trillion (to say nothing of SS and Obama’s infinite wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan, Pakistan, Mexico, etc.).
Thou shalt reap what thou hast sown
*clap, clap*
My one befuddlement: Why is this filed under “humor”? This is a serious blogging epiphanic moment of acute analytical illumination.
Word, it’s because you can either laugh or cry at the reality of it, and I choose to laugh. The irony, of course, is that for the war to have been avoided Saddam would have had to have been deterred from blocking UN inspectors, from preparing his WMD programs for “breakout capability” (as the UN described it in 2005), and to have stopped working with Al Queda groups. The only way to deter Saddam was to threaten him, and instead of uniting in demands and threats and an effort to deter or force Saddam into complying…the left chose to undermine deterrence by protesting against the threat of force.
No threat of force=no deterrence=no compliance=only 1 option….invade
THEN, after the invasion, after the UN mandated the Coalition occupation in 5/03…Obama and others opposed the effort to succeed in Iraq, and now they embrace it. There are innumberable quotes from terrorists, AQI, AQ, UBL himself all saying, ‘listen to the Democrats’ ‘give up,’ etc., and once they got power…the Democrats and opponents of the war (invasion and occupation) fell silent.
Now we’re supposed to support the effort to succeed for no other reason than Democrats are in control/responsible. It’s partisanship before patriotism, but…now they’re forced to be patriotic and support the effort to succeed. Hell, if you say you DON’T want Obama to succeed…you’re railed against as unpatriotic (see also Rush Limbaugh).
laugh or cry at the irony, hypocrisy, and shallowness of the left. I choose to laugh because maybe-just maybe, it’s not that I’ve become a liberal, but that they’re becoming “NEOCONs”.
Okay, for some reason, I can’t log in…
I did want to say that while I do agree in a way, the label “liberal Democrat” still makes me die a little inside…
Leah, and anyone else having problems logging in please email and ill send you a new temp password. This is a result of that recent hack, lots of user accounts got nuked.
Leah, I almost NEVER EVER use the term “liberal” let alone “liberal Democrat.” Today…I just couldn’t find a way to avoid it.
I avoid that like stepping in Dog Crap.