January 4, 2006


Today's anti-anti-terrorists assume nefarious intentions of the U.S. government, while clamoring to protect the rights of enemy agents (Linda Chavez, 1/04/06, Jewish World Review)

The current hysteria over the president's authorization of some domestic intercepts by the National Security Agency reminds me of similar reaction by liberals to the Cold War. Instead of recognizing communism as a clear and present danger to freedom and liberty here and abroad, many liberals decided the real threat to those values came from anti-communism itself.

Anti-anti-communism became the defining characteristic of American liberals, who have never fully recovered their credibility with the American people when it comes to protecting the nation. The inheritors of that liberal tradition might today be defined as anti-anti-terrorists. Whatever the government does to try to protect us from the threat of Islamic terrorists is immediately suspect. Instead of focusing on the real threat posed by an actual enemy, liberals today are more worried about imagined threats to civil liberties posed by the efforts to counteract terrorism. [...]

Like liberal anti-anti-communists of the Cold War era, today's anti-anti-terrorists assume nefarious intentions of the U.S. government, while clamoring to protect the rights of enemy agents operating in our country.

From Sacco & Vanzetti to Alger Hiss to Jose Padilla, they just never tire of siding with the enemy.

Ramsey Clark Exposes the Left's Agenda (Robert Spencer, Jan 4, 2006, Human Events)

The Big Lie has been exposed again: While the Left preens as the champion of the oppressed, the defender of the weak, and the advocate of liberty, one of its most venerable contemporary exponents, Ramsey Clark, has become the foremost apologist for a blood-spattered dictator. Has Clark betrayed the Left? By no means. He has just revealed yet again that behind the rhetoric of love and peace is a thinly-concealed taste for the boot on the face and the shackles on the mind -- tools so favored by the regimes most beloved of the international Left, from Stalin’s Russia to Mao’s China to Saddam’s Iraq. [...]

It has become habitual for all too many Leftists to embrace anyone who is opposed to the United States, and commonplace for Leftists to espouse the totalitarian agenda (and a totalitarian intolerance for dissent that manifests itself today in many ways in the Leftist-controlled mainstream of the America media and academic spheres) in search of the earthly utopia for which they long. Yet the Islamic jihad aims not to establish a just and equitable society in which the state will wither away, but one in which life is hard, punishments are draconian, and mercy is absent -- but of course, that is just the kind of society that Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot constructed, to paroxysms of ecstasy from Leftists.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 4, 2006 12:00 AM

Leftists don't embrace everyone who opposes America; no, I will not let you get away with another daily attempt at equating protest with terrorism.
Just like the Right doesn't embrace every idiot who hates terrorism, the people whom you would like to call the Left do not embrace using the unnecessarily violent means as an end of ending the selfsame violence.
Just like they don't like Bush, they don't like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or the terrorists. I know its really cool to act like they do, but I have yet to meet one person who agrees with the politics of any of those mentioned.

Posted by: Grog at January 5, 2006 12:44 AM

[T]he Left [does] not embrace using the unnecessarily violent means as an end of ending the selfsame violence.

What's the "necessary" level of violence ?

So far, ~6,000 Americans dead, and possibly ~120,000 Afghanis and Iraqis...

Seems pretty bloodless to me, for a regional paradigm shift.
How many millions of Japanese did we have to kill, to make them rethink the value of creating an Empire through military conquest ?

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at January 5, 2006 7:39 AM


The dead of Hiroshima beg to differ.

"The growing hysteria of the administration's posture on Cambodia seems to me to reflect a determined refusal to consider what the fall of
the existing government in Phnom Penh would actually mean.... We should be able to see that the kind of government which would
succeed Lon Nol's forces would most likely be a government ... run by some of the best-educated, most able intellectuals in Cambodia."
-Senator George McGovern

Posted by: oj at January 5, 2006 7:51 AM

And so it proved.

Posted by: joe shropshire at January 5, 2006 1:33 PM