That extremism required that the Bush years be filled with images of CODEPINK protesting on Capitol Hill, anti-war activists clogging the streets of New York City and left-wing commentators beating their chests with the self-righteous indignation of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.But in the morally murky afterglow of the Obama years, the certainty of these secular saints has melted away.President Barack Obama bowed to his generals’ demands by tripling troops in an unending war. CODEPINK did nothing.Obama backed down on Guantanamo Bay. Anti-war protesters stayed at home.America invaded its third Muslim country in a decade. The American left meekly went along. Without the slightest hint of irony, liberals defended the president’s indefensible position by returning again to a pose of moral certainty.Democrats streamed to the floors of the House and Senate to praise the president for invading Libya. It was, after all, a moral mission that would stop the slaughter of innocent civilians. Whether protesting for peace or calling for war, these liberals once again convinced themselves of the moral superiority of their positions.While one can make the moral argument that countries can be attacked strictly on humanitarian grounds, that argument is laughable when it comes to Libya.How can the left call for the ouster of Muammar Qadhafi for the sin of killing hundreds of Libyans when it opposed the war waged against Saddam Hussein? During Saddam’s two decades in Iraq, he killed more Muslims than anyone in history and used chemical weapons against his own people and neighboring states.[snip]Katrina vanden Heuvel, one of the few liberals to take a principled stand against what America is doing in Libya, has written in The Nation that the anti-war left has been silent since Obama took office because they don’t want to hurt the president’s reelection chances.In defending Obama’s Libya offensive, they are compromising their own morals. The American left is also making it abundantly clear that it does not find all wars morally reprehensible — only those begun by Republicans.
As I am sure Scarborough knows--this kind of moral relativism is not new nor is it unique to the Left either.
When a nation chooses a military option, it must do so in a clear way, with a clear understanding of the moral, national security and global implications. I fear that this Administration is not clear on any of them.
I am also not sure whose side we are on. In domestic politics, it is a far more tenable position to be in support of a notion than to simply be opposed to a position. If you are simply opposed to something, the inevitable question will be what is your alternative or suggested solution. If you are simply anti-"something" you have nothing to offer.
I fear we are in similar situation. The President has determined that Ghaddafy must go. But that is just an anti-Ghaddafy stance--who should be in charge when Ghaddafy is gone? The President has no idea or at least he has not articulated one. But that hasn't stopped the President's cheerleaders from supporting him-despite the complete lack of a moral foundation that any of his supporters have. Like so many politicians and their supporters have done in the past, the President and his liberal/left support structure are focused simply on winning in 2012. They have made no effort to understand the long view.