Sunday, December 08, 2002

There is an interesting article in this morning's New York Times Magazine, detailing some of the reasons why there is no real liberal opposition to the proposed war in Iraq.  A gentleman named Paul Berman had this to say: "The only possible way to oppose totalitarianism is with an alternative system, which is that of a liberal society...(We're) going into a very complex and long war disarmed, in which our most important assets have been stripped away from us, which are our ideals and our ideas. (Bush is) sending us into a war with one arm tied behind our back." I agree with this statement, wholeheartedly.  Since September 11th, we have abdicated certain freedoms without so much as a whimper - free speech (remember Rumsfeld's comments regarding vocal criticism of the administration's policies as 'unpatriotic'), due process, rights of the accused, state privacy rights, and on and on.  When, on one hand, the Bush administration behaves in this manner toward its' own constituency, and then, on the other, waxes compassionate on the subject of freeing the poor, beleagured Iraqi citizenry from the clutches of an evil, totalitarian dictator - well, I experience a bit of cognitive dissonance. I'm not conflating Bush and Hussein, mind you.  Simply commenting on the fact that the Bush administration has not, in my mind, definitively stated the case for a war in Iraq based solely on national interest, much less from the perspective of a larger moral imperative.   2:11:44 PM