Michele, over at A Small Victory, has a pretty damned good post up today.
The comment thread that follows the post is standard stuff, with some liberals feeling insulted that Michele painted with such a wide brush against "the left" despite a disclaimer explaining what she means when she says "the left."
I think it's easier to just say "The Angry Left," because that pretty much sums up those on the far left who hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, HATE Bush.
As Michele points out, there's a palpable glee that seems to radiate from the Angry Left when news of a soldier dying in Iraq hits the wire, or when a series of bombs rips apart trains in Spain. Every tragedy that happens in the world simply HAS to be tied to Bush and his misguided foreign policy becasue, you know, Bush is EVIL.
Think I'm exaggerating? Consider this little bit of enthusiastic hand rubbing by Hesiod, a card carrying member of the moonbat Angry Left brigade.
It will be interesting to see how the warfloggers spin this one. Just after 9/11 and in the run up to the Iraq war, every act of terrorism, even the DC area sniper, was pinned on "Arabic," or "Muslim" extremists.
Now, when such a designation might be very uncomfortable for their position politically and morally, I believe they'll automatically take Spain's word for it that this was an ETA attack, and minimize any possible link to Al Qaeda.
I, for one, am not uncomfortable thinking that the Spain bombings were orchestrated by Al Queda. If anything, it would underscore, yet again, that the WORLD is at war with TERRORISM, but I can see where Hesiod is going with this.
In Hesiod's tiny little mind, if the Spain bombings are linked to Muslim extremists, it will be proof that we're LOSING the war on terror. See? They're still attacking us! We're losing! Bush is losing! And, what's more, they're attacking SPAIN, a member of the coalition of the williing! Whoa be it to our allies!
There's no reasoning with this kind of thinking, if you can really even call it thinking in the traditional sense. For Hesiod and his ilk, it's always about how wrong everything is, and then, after spittle-flecked tut-tutting and and nutball wrong "I told you sos," he never offers up anything constructive. He's more than happy to tell the world what he thinks is broken, but he sure as hell isn't about to say how he would go about fixing things. Well, except for getting Bush out of office. That, apparently, will fix everything.
Or, we could journey on over to see what Atrios has to say, which usually isn't as ape-shit crazy as Hesiod, but is pretty nuts all the same. What is his response to something as horrible as the Spain bombings? Well, appeasement, of course.
That said, the primer should make it clear - the Basques have been fighting for their existence for as long as the Celtic Irish, to whom they are thought to be linguistically related (as well as the Georgians of Russia) have been. It doesn't make this right, but perhaps someone should start listening.
Yup, once the bodies are all buried, we should get right down to the serious business of "listening." That's a humdinger of a response policy Atrios has got going there. Under that reasoning, the next time someone robs a convenience store and shoots the clerk, we should stop and ask how much money the robber really needs and send them on their way.
Such is the thinking of many in the far left. Everything wrong with the world can be solved with heavy doses of listening and being sympathetic to all causes. So long as everyone is being listened to and their grievances are being aired, then all is right with world. Or, as James Lileks so aptly put it, it's all about adhering to the PROCESS.
As the strongest nation in the world, we are apparently required to do what the weakest ones want, lest we waste their most precious commodity: sympathy. It's a common theme for those who value process over results and admire impotent international institutions whose primary output is thick, creamy paper stamped with interesting signatures and lovely official seals.
These people would rather the United Nations spend five years "engaging" Iran on its nuclear weapons program, even if the end result is a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv. Better that than a unilateral pre-emptive strike, which would destabilize the international order that let Iran build a bomb in the first place. Better the process fail than the process be ignored.
Exactly. In the wake of terrorist attacks, we're apparently supposed to look forever and always to the U.N., forgetting, of course, that the U.N., with all its deliberating and failures over the years, shares plenty of blame for the current state of international terrorism.
But, what do I know? It's Friday, and the magazine staff is going on a movie day in about half an hour, and we're going to see Mystic River. I hope the theater isn't bombed, because that would really suck.
UPDATE: Whoops. I guess James Lileks already pretty much said everything I said here and, of course, as is usually the case, he says it all better. I suppose there are worse things than to be buzzing on Lileks' brain wave.
Posted by Ryan at March 12, 2004 12:08 PM
Stumble It!
