posted on April 1, 2003 03:47:13 AM new
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030401-32833666.htm
April 1, 2003
Why do Dems oppose war?
Bob Beckel
I have been a card-carrying liberal Democrat all my life, and proud of it. I've always believed that one of the great foundation blocks of liberalism is that we are committed to helping those who cannot help themselves. From Selma, Ala., to Capetown, South Africa, liberals have been at the forefront of the war against racism. From the picking fields of Florida, to support for Mothers of the Missing, liberals have waged war against the oppression of children.
For these reasons, I find it so baffling that so many of my fellow liberals oppose the war against, arguably, the most vicious dictator since Hitler. In case you missed it friends, the Sunday before the war began was the 10th anniversary of Saddam Hussein's nervegasing of 5,000 Iraqi civilians in Halabja. Have we forgotten the horrific pictures of distorted bodies in piles? Have we forgotten in that human tyre were the bodies of hundreds of little babies? If so, read the reports out of Basra of Saddam Hussein's secret security force putting guns to the heads of little children to force their fathers to fight, or reports of suspected coalition collaborators having their tongues cut out and left to bleed to death in public parks as a warning to others? Or reports after the last Gulf War of Hussein's thugs rounding up accused spies and forcing them to drink gas in front of their families and then lighting them on fire?
Since our just opposition to the war in Southeast Asia, we liberals have supported wars to liberate oppressed people from the Balkans to Haiti. Despite the conservative revisionism that Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War all by himself, we should remember that the spark of that fire came from Lech Walesa and the Solidarity Union supported financially by the U.S. labor movement with money and people.
I agree with my liberal friends that the so-called adults running this war have looked more like graduate students doing war gaming for their thesis. As for diplomacy, let's just say it could not have been handled in a more hamhanded way. The only positive was that maybe now the elites in this country will realize that the French are not our friends and have not been since we liberated their sorry butts in World War II.
But, there is no turning back now. I, for one, am not worried that this war will rip apart U.S.-European alliances. They will come back and if the French don't, all the better. I don"t believe the Arab world will rise up en masse against the United States and unleash a firestorm of new terrorist attacks. True, the Iraqi people have not yet embraced their liberation, but why should they? For 30 years, they have been brainwashed with hatred for the United States. That does not go away overnight. And let's remember that as they face foreign news cameras saying Saddam is loved, they have Saddam's thugs behind them with AK 47s.
Having had several painful discussions with some of my closest friends, many of whom I've worked with for 30 years, I come away with the crux of the problem with their argument against this war. They all agree that Saddam Hussein is evil, but believe that thousands of Iraqi civilians will be killed by our troops and bombs. I don't know how many civilians have already died or surely will in the weeks ahead, not to mention our own troops.
There is only one certainty in this whole miserable situation. If Hussein is left in power, thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians will be killed.
If Saddam Hussein's thugs will torture little children and then kill their parents right in front of them, with 200,000 U.S. and British troops occupying vast parts of his country, can you imagine what this evil man will do if we withdraw?
Backing down would be to sign the death warrants of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. That's not a signature this liberal wants anything to do with, and with respect to my fellow liberals, you shouldn't either.
Bob Beckel was a deputy secretary of State in the Carter administration, national campaign manager for Walter Mondale and a political analyst and columnist. He is currently writing a book on politics.
[ edited by ebayauctionguy on Apr 1, 2003 03:48 AM ]
posted on April 1, 2003 04:09:45 AM new
Very good commentary. The Democratic Party has changed, greatly, over the last couple years.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
posted on April 1, 2003 08:22:11 AM new
The Democratic Party is divided in regards to this war. Look at the trouble they had reaching agreement on the 'support our troops' vote.
Now that we've started the war, some democrats do agree with Mr. Beckle's 'take' on the Iraq issue. I only wish there were more who could see it this way. Democrats like Mr. Beckle are able to separate their dislike of Bush from their strong support of their country and it's history.
I applaud him.
---
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 2, 2003 07:14:45 AM new
"In case you missed it friends, the Sunday before the war began was the 10th anniversary of Saddam Hussein's nervegasing of 5,000 Iraqi civilians in Halabja"
Well why don't you tell me why in the Hell USA kept sending the stuff to sadam after that event.
Were those responsible Dumb or Evil????
Or
Was the dellivery ship going to fast and couldn't be stoped within the next month or so.
Or Were those supliers just to damn 'honourable' and meant to fullfill the contract because it had already been paid for.
Am I missing something here.
Sounds like divide and conquer to me.
