Am I that liberal that I don't see his comments about the war as being out of line? For those that haven't heard them, here is a general overview:
-After the elections, the Americans should withdraw some (12,000) troops from Iraq with the rest to come out by 2006.
-The American presence in Iraq is doing more to hurt the cause of establishing a deomcracy in Iraq than helping because many Iraqis view Americans as occupiers rather than liberators.
-The president acted irresponsibly by entering the United States into a messy occupation when many knowledgable people believed that Iraq would not be a 'cakewalk' like Afghanistan.
-The president deceived Americans by portraying Iraq as more of a threat than it was with implied links to Al Quaeda (sp?) and weapons of mass destruction.
-The elections in Iraq will be illigitimate and ill-timed since it is likely that large numbers in that country will not vote.
-The president went to war in part for political gain and exploited being a 'war-time president' throughout the election.
Those are the basic points that have conservatives going batty. I must say that I strongly disagree with the last bullet point. I believe that Bush went to war because he felt it was the best way to ensure America's long term security. Now, I think (and thought at the time) that he was dead wrong in that belief, but I find it silly that people paint the President as this evil person looking to risk American lives for oil profits or political re-election.
As far as the other five points go, I agree with Kennedy. I understand that many hawkish neo-conservatives are going to have a vastly different opinion. That's what intelligent debate is all about. What bothers me is that conservatives are jumping all over him and other liberals by calling them un-American and suggesting that comments like these hurt the cause of ensuring that the result in Iraq aids America's security.
I guess my main problem here is that I feel like conservatives have reached the point where they can only tolerate moderate criticism without calling names and attacking one's character. For example, when O'Reilly thinks along similar lines in asking that congress not approve another $80 million for two more years of occupation in Iraq, that is a legitimate point of contention. When Kennedy says that we aught to make a quicker assesment and start withdrawing some troops now, somehow he's crossed a line and qualifies as an enemy of America. Kennedy and O'Reilly are essentially agreeing that American policy in Iraq in its current state is failing yet because O'Reilly takes a slightly more moderate approach, he is spared from attack.
This will come as no surprise to many who have seen me post about this before, but in many ways I blame Fox News, conservative talk radio and the rest of the right wing media (bloggers, book publishers, think tanks, etc.). They just absolutely use outrage for sustenance so they must rile up conservatives into a lather over reasonable comments like Kennedy's to continue to draw an audience. Conservative commentary has a place in the news, but it has just become overwhelming. In fact, I'd hypothesize that the majority of conservatives get their news from commentators rather than journalists. That is a serious problem. When people receive strong bias along with the initial report of a news event, it is going to affect their ability to separate truth from opinion.
So here's my respectful request to conservatives: open your minds to other media outlets. If you engross yourself in the right wing media it can only lead to isolation and intolerance in the long run. In my opinion the intolerant reaction of many conservatives to Kennedy's comments is proof of that.
-After the elections, the Americans should withdraw some (12,000) troops from Iraq with the rest to come out by 2006.
-The American presence in Iraq is doing more to hurt the cause of establishing a deomcracy in Iraq than helping because many Iraqis view Americans as occupiers rather than liberators.
-The president acted irresponsibly by entering the United States into a messy occupation when many knowledgable people believed that Iraq would not be a 'cakewalk' like Afghanistan.
-The president deceived Americans by portraying Iraq as more of a threat than it was with implied links to Al Quaeda (sp?) and weapons of mass destruction.
-The elections in Iraq will be illigitimate and ill-timed since it is likely that large numbers in that country will not vote.
-The president went to war in part for political gain and exploited being a 'war-time president' throughout the election.
Those are the basic points that have conservatives going batty. I must say that I strongly disagree with the last bullet point. I believe that Bush went to war because he felt it was the best way to ensure America's long term security. Now, I think (and thought at the time) that he was dead wrong in that belief, but I find it silly that people paint the President as this evil person looking to risk American lives for oil profits or political re-election.
As far as the other five points go, I agree with Kennedy. I understand that many hawkish neo-conservatives are going to have a vastly different opinion. That's what intelligent debate is all about. What bothers me is that conservatives are jumping all over him and other liberals by calling them un-American and suggesting that comments like these hurt the cause of ensuring that the result in Iraq aids America's security.
I guess my main problem here is that I feel like conservatives have reached the point where they can only tolerate moderate criticism without calling names and attacking one's character. For example, when O'Reilly thinks along similar lines in asking that congress not approve another $80 million for two more years of occupation in Iraq, that is a legitimate point of contention. When Kennedy says that we aught to make a quicker assesment and start withdrawing some troops now, somehow he's crossed a line and qualifies as an enemy of America. Kennedy and O'Reilly are essentially agreeing that American policy in Iraq in its current state is failing yet because O'Reilly takes a slightly more moderate approach, he is spared from attack.
This will come as no surprise to many who have seen me post about this before, but in many ways I blame Fox News, conservative talk radio and the rest of the right wing media (bloggers, book publishers, think tanks, etc.). They just absolutely use outrage for sustenance so they must rile up conservatives into a lather over reasonable comments like Kennedy's to continue to draw an audience. Conservative commentary has a place in the news, but it has just become overwhelming. In fact, I'd hypothesize that the majority of conservatives get their news from commentators rather than journalists. That is a serious problem. When people receive strong bias along with the initial report of a news event, it is going to affect their ability to separate truth from opinion.
So here's my respectful request to conservatives: open your minds to other media outlets. If you engross yourself in the right wing media it can only lead to isolation and intolerance in the long run. In my opinion the intolerant reaction of many conservatives to Kennedy's comments is proof of that.
