That’s what those wonderful election-stealing, trigger-happy Republicans would have you believe. Of course some of us think for ourselves and don’t despise those in the world that are different. Certainly I can’t complain about the capture of such an awful human being as Hussein, but that still does not legitimize a war based upon lies. I’ve decided to lay off the whole conspiracy theory route questioning how one of the most elusive dictators managed to be meekly captured as Herr Bush II begins his re-election campaign, but I do see that right-wingers are already slapping each other on the back for asking rather pointless and vapid questions in an attempt to trip up those darn “American haters”. NZ Bear is attempting to solicit a clear cut case of hypocrisy from liberals by challenging their anti-war stance with a question that lacks any relevance to the issues at hand. Of course his fellow right-wingers fail to recognize this flaw as it would shatter the supposed support this statement should create. Before I go any further let me emphatically state that I was against the war, I am against our current involvement in Iraq, and I absolutely do not want Saddam Hussein to return to power.
The problem with most Republicans is that they view everything as black and white. You are either with us, or against us. You either support us, or you are the enemy. This is clearly shown by how regularly they vote along party lines no matter what the issue at hand. In a nut shell, that is why it is so difficult for Democrats to defeat them. Since Democrats tend to be more liberal, they vote based upon issues – a sure-fire way to divide any large group. I’m not saying that Republicans don’t care about the issues, merely that they understand that getting into power is the first step and policy making comes afterward. The reason I bring this out is that so many conservatives are under the false impression that people who spoke out against the war or agreed with the countless other countries that refused to support us were actually favoring an Iraq still led by Hussein. What they fail to recognize is that protesting the war was exactly that – PROTESTING THE WAR!
I am happy that Saddam is now not only out of power, but in custody where he can be tried and, most likely, punished for his crimes. This event was a longtime coming and I feel that, even if it has no real purpose right now, it will serve as a symbolic (possibly even moral or spiritual) victory for the Iraqi people. And I say this without an ounce of hypocrisy, because my opposition to the war was one against the method laid out by our supposed leader that had nothing to do with saving an oppressed people or liberating such a tragic land. I am a pacifist, but even I would hardly have balked if there had been an ounce of humanitarian nature in our efforts. If for one moment I felt that this war were truly above oil, revenge, and political agendas I might just put aside the farce of an election and say that Bush ain’t such a bad guy. But instead I am forced to recognize that this country bulled it’s way past clearer thinking nations and acted in the best interests of its politicians, ignoring those of its people and the rest of the world.
I must thank Captain Ed (after possibly misusing him earlier in this post – sorry) for directing me towards Shock and Awe and Kynn’s well stated response to NZ Bear. While I may not agree with him completely on the cost issue 
he clearly speaks for this cause more aptly than I ever could.
Ugh, I hate these political posts – they make me feel so dirty. I’ll have to get back to something less… argumentative soon.
Well, you understand that Republicans have the same opinion about Democratic voting habits. The difference you’re seeing now is that Republicans have an incumbent President eligible for re-election, so there are no primary battles to fight (yet). In 2000, we had our bickering going on for months, and (assuming Bush is re-elected in 2004) both parties will have it going on in 2008.
You’re right in that the question was a bit snarky, but to debate a bit about your title, I wasn’t arguing that the ends justified the means. I think that the war was justified anyway, based on many reasons which I won’t fill your comments section with, so Saddam’s capture — to me — was a good result from an acceptable process. Philosophically, and in strict legal terms, if you felt that the war was illegal, Saddam’s capture is also illegal and he should be released. That was the question, although it wasn’t terribly well written. Mea culpa.
Anyway, thanks for the hat-tip at the end; Kynn is an excellent blogger and I was happy to link and promote her response, even though I don’t agree with it.
What I’m most afraid of is the possibility that this will be just the distraction that Bush needs. There are too many issues remaining with the insurgency in Iraq, bin Laden still on the loose, a large portion of the international community miffed at us, not to mention the bevy of domestic issues like veterans’ benefits, healthcare, the economy, etc.
There’s too much work yet to be done for this administration to get this country back to where we were a few years back. I know 9/11 changed a lot of things, and conspiracy theories aside, you can’t blame Bush for that (although his response to the incident is another matter.) But we can’t keep pointing to 9/11 as an excuse for everything. It’s been 2 years and there are new problems now that have nothing to do with the war on terrorism.
I’m hoping that when election time comes, people don’t just look past a national loss of over a half a trillion dollars, a few million jobs, the laws passed to grant the government “emergency powers,” the cuts to veterans and active military service men and women’s pay, the diminished/diminishing international support (which we had in spades after 9/11) and simply say, “but he (Bush) fought the war on terror, and caught Saddam!”
p.s. sorry this is so long… I’ll copy it to my LJ as a seperate post if you want to remove it here
Ed, thanks for the comments, and I have to admit that my post was far more vitriolic than intended as a lot of the comments on NZ Bear’s site really ticked me off. My opening line (along with the title) didn’t come out quite right as I know that Republicans, etc. did support the war so justification was not needed. What I meant to say was that they are trying to pin that mentality on the liberals by more or less saying you must agree with the war or disagree with the capture of Saddam. I say there are more options than that.
The question itself (while I understand it’s merits) really is nothing more than an attempt to trap liberals. Even in a strict legal sense, Saddam’s future should not be the focus in this debate. The real question is that of Bush’s position. If the war were determined to be illegal, we should be questioning our President’s role and whether or not he should be facing criminal charges. As far as Hussein goes, if the people truly wanted him back, then fine, put him back in power. But that’s not the case, and even with an illegal war I see no precedent to force a dictator back on his citizens after he was deposed.
Anywho, thanks again for your comments and thanks for pointing me (and others) towards Kynn. Even if I don’t agree with people, I’d rather read a well-written and valid commentary from the likes of you guys than some of the schmucks on the Internet
.
Mark, no way is that comment being deleted from here
. You should definitely follow the link to Kynn’s post at the end, he brings up a lot of those same issues. They’re all valid concerns, and should be central to these political debates – not the capture of an already powerless former dictator.
Hey, cool. I was more worried about taking up too much space than anything, since my comment turned out longer than I thought it world. I’ll definitely check out some of the links on Ed’s site, especially Kynn’s. That’ll have to wait for later in the week though, when I have more time for a good thorough reading.