Reply #9: Goody -- a resident DLCer!

[IrateCitizen]

I am deeply disturbed at some posts that seem to apologize for insurgents and suicide bombers merely using the rationale that they are fighting as liberators. Nothing EVER excuses deliberate acts to kill innocent civilians, for whatever political ideology or belief. Palestinian suicide bombers and Iraq insurgents that behead hostages are not immune from this. Reciprocally, American soldiers are not either.

I don't see anything apologetic or celebratory here about the violence in Iraq. Rather, I see a line of thought grounded in realism -- the realism that when you open up Pandora's box and stage an invasion and occupation of a country, such violence is to be accepted. Such has always been the case throughout history, and it will always be the case. People don't take kindly to occupation by a foreign power. As I recall, the "official" line of the DLC was that they supported the invasion of Iraq, if not in precisely the manner in which it was handled. I'm sorry, but you don't support such an action and then suddenly cry foul when things don't go your way.

Fighting for liberation or against oppression is NEVER justification for committing terrorist acts.

Terror begets terror. Violence begets violence. Once again, this is a simple FACT that is borne out throughout history. Except in specific instances that were largely propelled by the personality of a few players (i.e. Gandhi and the Indian independence movement, MLK and the civil rights movement), resistance will inevitably turn violent, especially in the face of a violent occupying power.

There shouldn't be a double standard for anyone.

You're absolutely correct. The US, if it were to abide by this simple rule, would immediately withdraw from Iraq and begin to pay reparations. While we're at it, we'd pay reparations to the black community and remaining Native American tribes as well. But, sadly, history is littered with examples of glaring double standards. The double standard you're decrying here is quite insignificant in the greater view of history.

I support the DLC's position and resent the unwarranted attacks by many members of DU on the DLC. DLC is not "Republican lite" or "fascist" merely because you disagree with some of their stances.

The DLC is quite complicit in moving the Democratic Party to the "center" and abandoning traditional constituencies. It advances corporatist policies and eschews the populism that forged the New Deal and Great Society. It embraces a belligerent foreign policy dedicated to maintaining an American hegemony that no longer exists. Hell, one of its prime members -- Will Marshall -- was a signatory to the Project for the New American Century.

You are not a liberal if you aren't tolerant of those that differ in your political ideology or beliefs.

There's nothing liberal about the DLC. Al From and Bruce Reed would be the first to tell you. As for tolerance, I absolutely embrace the right of DLCers to believe what they want to believe. However, since I view their beliefs as destructive for the Democratic Party, and the nation, I will also not cease in denouncing their "rightward drift" of the Democratic Party. We already have one pro-corporate party in the US. The Democrats were successful when they were able to present themselves as "pro-people". The DLC does not realize this.