Hat tip to Dave Johnson at
Seeing the Forest for
this Altercation article: (click through for links)
I don't understand why the DLC thinks its job is to continue to attack liberals, here, much less to do so, as Atrios, points out here, by putting words in the mouth of people who did not say them, but merely hosted them. . . .
But really, what is the point of an organization with the words "Democratic" in its name that obsesses over attacking liberals, and then does so on the basis of false accusation?
What I want to focus on is what can only be presumed to be the official DLC position on Bush's Iraq war, from Blueprint Magazine, Liberal's War:
Here's a novel idea: The war on terror should be, above all, a liberal's war.
Novel idea is one way of putting it.
Let's examine Peter Ross Range's article point by point:
Think about it: The jihadist campaign is not some generic explosion of terrorism, but rather a calculated attack on all that liberals hold dear: tolerance, diversity, women's rights, the fundamental freedoms and protections of democracy, even trade unionism. In short, liberal values. That's why the liberal left makes a profound mistake if it concedes this war to George W. Bush and the right.
Yes Peter, let's think about what you just said. Liberals would certainly agree that terrorism is is bad whether it is committed by reactionary Muslims, white Christians like Timothy McVey or the IRA. What we question is what if anything Bush's war in Iraq has to do with any of the fundamental freedoms and values we believe in. Range continues with another non-sequitur:
If it weren't already obvious that liberals should be leading exponents of the war on terror -- rather than only its sharpest critics -- then the London terror attacks should have had a clarifying effect. By striking one of the most liberal-minded cities in the world, the jihadists showed their disdain for the place where more Muslims have found greater refuge from the failings of their own societies, politically and economically, than anywhere else. Nowhere else do they experience greater freedom of speech -- including the right to use their mosques to incite violence against non-Muslims.
Bush's Iraq war was the provocative proximate cause of of the London bombings. I'm still waiting for an explanation of how Bush's Iraq war will prevent future terrorist attacks in London or America.
All these freedoms are clearly bad stuff in the jihadists' playbook, so they used their own freedom to try to take away that of others.
Have Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and Muslim fanatics taken away our freedoms, or has George Bush?
Nobody said it better than London Mayor Ken ("Red Ken") Livingstone, a leading leftist. Though openly critical of Tony Blair for his support of the war in Iraq, Livingstone was eloquent and unequivocal about the terrorists. Pointing out that London had been chosen for the 2012 Olympic Games partly because 300 languages are spoken in his city, Livingstone said the jihadists' "cowardly attack" was aimed not "against the mighty or the powerful, it was aimed at ordinary working-class Londoners. Black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindus and Jews, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, class, religion whatever."
Did I miss the part where Red Ken explained how Bush's Iraq war will prevent future bombings in London?
Here's where Range finally gets around to the inevitable and ill considered shot at Bush's war opponents:
If only we could hear such moral clarity from our own party's left! Instead, we heard from Daily Kos, the ur-liberal ur-blogger, whose blog included a cheer for, among others, outcast Labourite George Galloway, who blamed the attacks on Blair's Iraq policy -- and was roundly denounced by virtually all British politicians. "See, Democrats? That's how it's done," lectured the blogger ignorantly. Likewise, Matt Yglesias, an articulate liberal voice at The American Prospect, who belittled Marshall Wittmann's call for moral clarity as a phrase never used "unironically" anymore. No wonder Democrats are perceived to have a values problem.[Editor's Note: As Alter makes clear in his full post, Range is quoting a diarist at dkos and putting his words in Markos' mouth.]
I missed the moral clarity that explained any connection whatsoever between Bush's Iraq war and preventing future terrorist attacks on London or anywhere else. I missed the moral clarity that explains how Bush's Iraq war upholds moral values. I missed the moral clarity that explains how talking tough about terrorism and doing absolutely nothing about it is a successful policy that liberals should cheer. In the next paragraph, Range explains that moral clarity is all about image:
My liberal friends are quick to point out that the left's chief grievance is with the war in Iraq, not the war on terror. But what does it do for the image of the Democratic Party -- not to mention the thinking of rank and file Democrats -- when some of our most skilled commentators use a moment of unambiguous terror to first find fault with an American policy (unseating Saddam Hussein) rather than first condemning the terrorists? It's both morally wrong and politically dumb. These musings in the left-wing blogosphere may be read regularly by only a few thousand people, but they seep into the intellectual bloodstream of the Democratic Party. They once again place Democrats on the wrong side of the ultimate issue of our time: winning the war on terror.
I'm sure Range is going to get around to explaining with moral clarity how Bush's Iraq war will "win" the GWOT and why Democrats should support Bush. Surely Range wouldn't go to all this trouble just to take a gratuitous swipe at Markos?
Democrats should learn from Red Ken. Though he has questionable views on some other topics, the mayor seemed to know there are moments when there is only one right response. And then there was the inestimable Tony Blair. Once again, the British prime minister got it right. He understands that winning this war requires working it from both ends -- quashing the terrorists remorselessly while ameliorating terrorism's root causes. Blair pointed out that on the day of the London bombings, he was working to reduce poverty in Africa and protect the global environment. How many poor people was bin Laden helping that day?
I guess I was wrong. Range thinks Tony Blair is wonderful because he was in Africa on the day of the London bombing. Range asks "How many poor people was bin Laden helping that day?" Range does not ask "How many poor people was Bush helping that day?"
Range also does not bother to explain how Bush's Iraq war is "quashing the terrorists remorselessly" or "ameliorating terrorism's root causes." I guess moral clarity does not include something as ridiculous as actual results. Image is the only thing that matters. Democrats just have to project a tougher image.
Perhaps most wrongheaded of all were those who used the bombings to call for an immediate, or imminent, withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. They do the liberal cause a disservice. Those who hated the war the most should be the strongest supporters of helping Iraqis get on their feet, politically and economically. And those who believe that the daily carnage in Iraq is mainly directed against the American presence in the country are simply not reading the numbers: Vastly more Iraqis are being killed than Americans. The insurgent cause is against the establishment of Iraqi democracy, not the presence of U.S. bases or troops. Just listen to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the main insurgent leader. He announced on Jan. 22 that "we have declared bitter war against the principle of democracy. ... Those who vote ... are infidels. ... If a Muslim apostatizes from Islam to heresy, he should be killed ..."
There it is again. Range does not explain how anything Bush is doing in Iraq is "helping Iraqis get on their feet, politically and economically." Practical results do not matter. Whether or not Iraqis want our help does not matter. Can't liberals see that Iraqis don't mind the presence of U.S. bases or troops?
What more do progressives need to know?
For starters, what is Bush's military objective in Iraq? What is the DLC military objective in Iraq?
You don't achieve political goals with military force. The military is good at two things - breaking things and killing people. If the DLC does not have a clear cut military objective that can be achieved by breaking things and killing people, there is no point in American troops being in Iraq.
For kickers, how many more American and Iraqi lives is the DLC willing to spend to achieve . . . well, I guess they want to improve their political image. How many American and Iraqi lives is that worth?
Here's something else I would like to know. How is Bush's Iraq war making us safer at home? Is there any way we could spend $5 billion per month making Americans safer at home?
I've got one more question. Is Peter Ross Range a paid editor for Blueprint, or is he a volunteer college student working on his B.S. in Political Science?
