A place for me to pour out my rants without clogging the inboxes of my friends and family. Also a place to give info on myself and Mary, our family news and events.
An opinion piece.....
Published on November 21, 2005 By Rightwinger In Politics
Why does the Left, that entity which claims to so admire things like freedom of speech, the press, thought and things like Human Rights, why do they always seem to embrace the totalitarians and tyrants? The dictatorships and despots?
Why do they, these arbiters of unfettered personal expression, always find ways to explain away their favorite tinpot Hitler's oppressive indescretions and apologize for their abuses?

I've seen these questions debated again and again here on JU; why do the dictatorships get a pass, while the democracies, the ones they SHOULD be supporting, always seem to come under their fire?
Like when they do things such as impose sanctions against dictators and their nations, and especially when they increase their building of arms to stand against the oppression symbolized by the totalitarians. Instead of working to free the oppressed, it seems the liberals are more than happy to let their favorite tyrants go merrily about their business unmolested.

For example, as Jimmy Carter spent four years coddling the Soviets and schmoosing Fidel Castro, all the while ignoring, and even lending tacit support to, Leftist stirrings in Central Amercia and Africa, democracy lost ground the world over. We got weaker by the day.
Ronald Reagan went into office and, eight years later, against the warning cries and apologizing of Democrats in the House and Senate, and that of liberal elements among our "allies" (all of whom would have been much more than content with some level of peaceful co-existence with the USSR), had virtually ended forty years of Cold War, advancing the frontiers of democracy everywhere.
Leftwing elements the world over decried his policies as fascist, militaristic and oppressive. This, even as he funded the upgrading of Voice of America and Radio Liberty and supported and nutured the fledgling, suppressed Solidarity movement in Poland to the chagrin of the Polish government, the USSR and the "Democratic" Republic of Germany (East Germany).
And what of his aid to the beseiged Mujahedeen in Afghanistan? Those people, he backed against direct Soviet aggression.
Where were the cries of "militarists!" and "oppressors!" from demonstrators outside Soviet and Eastern Bloc nation's embassies?

The Bush 41 Administration attacked Iraq to the derisive cries of the Left, who kept imagining, or perhaps wistfully envisioning, another Vietnam quagmire. Instead, sadly for them, the war was over in 100 days; their blustering, beloved tyrant Saddam's tail was tucked firmly between his legs until January 1993, when Slick Willy the (Barely) Closet(ed) Socialist came into office and let America be pushed all over the place by the UN and their anti-American mafia of grafters and rabid Internationalists.
He spent the next eight years squandering or frittering away America's newfound, rightly-claimed status as Sole Superpower.

Then came Bush 42 and 9-11....liberals the world over, though "saddened" by the great loss of life, understood completely how the Islamics could come to hate us for our arrogance and riches, and to strike us so coldly and callously. Some of the more pure-biled lefty America-lasters even cheered.
In 2002, it became clear, as it had for about a decade, that Saddam just may have been dabbling in a WMD program. Senators and members Congress from both sides agreed, again, as they had for about a decade, that the intelligence data was well-represented, and that something must be done. Soon.
So, off to war we went.
As time progressed, however, it became apparent that the sought-for WMDs were not presenting themselves as promised; so, like the sore-loser, cowardly weasels they are, the Democrats started carping against the Bush Administration, forgetting the data they all agreed on as being correct, in a thinly-disguised effort at payback for "stealing" the election from their robocandidate, Aldroid Gore.
And, true to form, the Left always finds ways to excuse Saddam for his behavior, and to apologize to everyone for and explain away, ignore or gloss over, the rape rooms, torture chambers, the mass graves, the multiple, opulent, czarist palaces....etc, while at the same time berating the US for it's "poor behavior" and "torture"; like giving terrorist prisoners "pink bellies" (slapping their bellies until they become pink.....like the bully in 3rd grade did to you).
What's next? Decrying the noogies and swirlies inflicted on the poor prisoners? What about pants-ing? Would that be considered torture, too?
Nothing the US is doing in Iraq is right or good, especially the toppling of a tyrant and the attempted installation of a free, democratic government. Who wants that, right?
Not the Democrats; they want:

1. Bush to be impeached. Why? Because; they don't like him.
2. The US to lose in Iraq; mainly so we can be embarrassed, and if all goes well, maybe a strong man can take control again, and lord his will over the entire country. That they can understand and support, after all. "Of the People, by the People"?.....too messy.

Why do they do this? Why do they love dictators?

I think I know; I think we all do......

The Left loves Big Government.

What represents the purest, most unalloyed form of Big Government than an omnipresent dictatorship, one which holds all the cards and controls and manages the very lives of the people it rules, even down to what can and can't be purchased or owned?
Dictatorships (especially Socialists) own everything, and decide who gets what and when. This is an ideal which appeals very much to the Socialist in every Democrat/liberal.
Unfortunately, since many of them serving in the House and Senate now were radicals and long-haired hippie demonstrators in the 60s, this ideal is very attractive to them.

Also, a dictatorship doesn't have to stand for opposition to its tenets from dissidents and naysayers who point out its faults, as the Left has to in the Democracies.
The nitpickers and faultfinders in a dictatorship are jailed or killed outright for their opinions, rather than debated and/or tolerated. Wouldn't the Clintons and Kerry have loved to do either to such complainers and troublemakers Limbaugh and Hannity, Coulter and Sowell? You betchya they would.
Freedom of expression is wonderful, so long as you're not the target, and with its ongoing implosion, the Democratic party has been the bullseye for many a sharply-thrown dart from the Right.


So, That's why I think the Left loves its tyrants. You're free to disagree, however.....after all, Communism is dead.
Thanks for that, Mr. Reagan.

Comments (Page 1)
5 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Nov 21, 2005
Sorry...that should have been "Bush 43"...my bad.
on Nov 21, 2005
I've seen these questions debated again and again here on JU; why do the dictatorships get a pass, while the democracies, the ones they SHOULD be supporting, always seem to come under their fire?


Well, dictatorships are dictatorships, there's just no arguing with those people. However, a democracy allows us the freedom to disagree. Right? So, sometimes, we do.

on Nov 21, 2005
Communism is dead? Hmmm...I had no clue. You better not tell China!
on Nov 21, 2005
Hmmm...I had no clue. You better not tell China!


And also Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam.
on Nov 21, 2005
Communism is dead? Hmmm...I had no clue. You better not tell China!


And also Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam.


Okay, Soviet Communism...Leninism. You know, the one that was supposed to take over the world with revolution after revolution? Ash heap of history....kiss it good bye.
Maoism is a different animal, though, and of late, the Chinese have made changes to their system (to keep it competitive with the Capitalist West) that Mao wouldn't like if he climbed out of his glass box tomorrow.
on Nov 21, 2005
It's really not much different than the left's take on the whole "good/bad" thing in the first place.

Claim to be a "good" person and they will do all they can to "prove" that you're not. Any infraction of what they consider "good" will do. Look at Bill Bennett, he compiled a series of books called, "The Book of Virtues". Nowhere in the book did he claim to be more virtuous than anyone else, he was merely pointing out that parents used to tell stories that had a morale to them. He then went on to reprint many of those stories.

Then someone found out that he liked to gamble. He didn't abondon kids for his gambling habit. He didn't gamble away his family's mortgage or food money, he merely took part in a form of entertainment... but he was branded that worst of lefty brands... "a hypocrite".

If you claim to be bad, you are encouraged to be as bad as you wanna be... but if you claim to be good... watch out, they'll find something on you!
on Nov 21, 2005
It's really not much different than the left's take on the whole "good/bad" thing in the first place.


I really don't think behavior like that is exclusive to the left. Both sides have been guilty of digging up dirt on people that didn't deserve it.
on Nov 21, 2005
davad70 and Ubob:

I just wanted to thank you both for pretty much ignoring the whole body of my post, just so you could biff me on one little misworded sentence at the end. Thank you very, very much for showing the rest of us how the Left works its magic.

PT2k:

"The Book of Virtues". Nowhere in the book did he claim to be more virtuous than anyone else, he was merely pointing out that parents used to tell stories that had a morale to them. He then went on to reprint many of those stories.

Then someone found out that he liked to gamble.


I had something like this happen to m here a while back; I wrote an article about how liberalism has eaten, and is eating, away at the moral fiber that used to be such a strong and vital part of our culture.
Then, a short while later, I wrote what was intended to be a mildly humorous article about how I found Angelina Jolie and Sandra Bullock both scorchingly hot, and how I asked my my wife if she'd let me have sex with them if ever they came knocking at our door with that request. She told me yes, but only if they BOTH came at the exact SAME TIME. I agreed. Hey, a chance at a 3-way with those two...WHOOHOO!

Well, you'd have thought I was just the worst, most two-faced person and hypocritical jerk who ever lived. This was because, in my previous article, I had set myself up as the "arbiter of morality"---that's a direct quote (which I hadn't, anyway), in the eyes of several Lefties on here. Funny how that works, huh?

Thanks for posting. All of you.
on Nov 21, 2005
this is so wrong, i really don't know where to start.

how about a list of dictators who came to power or were propped up for years by america's right wing?

spain-franco
iran-reva pelavi
iraq-helped destabilize government enabling hussein to take power, provided hussein with weapons and intelligence
cuba-batista
congo-mobutu
greece-colonels
chile-pinochet
nicaragua-somoza
cambodia-pol pot
taiwan-chaing
el salvador-duarte
guatemala-montt

my fingers are getting tired and i havent scratched the surface.
on Nov 21, 2005
Well, dictatorships are dictatorships, there's just no arguing with those people. However, a democracy allows us the freedom to disagree. Right? So, sometimes, we do.
--UBob

Sorry, I meant to address this earlier.

Yes, dictatorships are dictatorships. But that position fails to speak to the fact that dictatorships are oppressors, which is something the Left claims to dislike. Besides, those dictatorships I mentioned had embassies or consulates in democratic countries, but no Lefties seemed willing to go over there and chant angrily and wave signs. No, that behavior, for some reason, was reserved for the US embassies.
Why?

Because the Left loves and supports dictatorships. Always has, always will.
on Nov 21, 2005
I just wanted to thank you both for pretty much ignoring the whole body of my post, just so you could biff me on one little misworded sentence at the end. Thank you very, very much for showing the rest of us how the Left works its magic.


Oh I didn't ignore the rest of the article, I read the whole thing. There are a lot of things you have in there that I don't agree with, but I didn't want to argue about it. But just to show that I didn't just pick on the last sentence; What democrats are calling for Bush to be impeached? People love to talk about the "implosion" of the democrats, while the GOP has been stumbling over each other on a daily basis for a while now. I know you guys don't like polls around here too much, but if you take a look at them you'll see the GOP losing ground to the democrats at a very alarming rate.
on Nov 21, 2005
just wanted to thank you both for pretty much ignoring the whole body of my post, just so you could biff me on one little misworded sentence at the end. Thank you very, very much for showing the rest of us how the Left works its magic


You seemed to have conveniently missed my first post:

Well, dictatorships are dictatorships, there's just no arguing with those people. However, a democracy allows us the freedom to disagree. Right? So, sometimes, we do.



Thanks for showing the rest of us how the right works.
on Nov 21, 2005
spain-franco


Anti-Communist

iran-reva pelavi


Anti-Communist

iraq-helped destabilize government enabling hussein to take power, provided hussein with weapons and intelligence


Anti-Communist

cuba-batista


Anti-Communist

congo-mobutu


Anti-Communist

greece-colonels


Anti-Communists

chile-pinochet


Anti-Communist

nicaragua-somoza


Anti-Communist



cambodia-pol pot


We supported the efforts of Cambodia against Vietnam. Not Pol Pot specifically.


taiwan-chaing


Anti-Communist

el salvador-duarte


Anti-Communist

guatemala-montt


Anti-Communist(?)

Carter did do some little, ineffectual flailing against Communist insurgencies in Central America, but by and large he ignored it.

In the Cold War, the democracies took allies wherever they could find them. This included backing and installing pro-American strongmen...dictators.
Unlike the Soviets, who ruled their satellites directly and with an iron fist made of tanks and guns, we had to use a little finesse here and there.
on Nov 21, 2005
You seemed to have conveniently missed my first post:


See post #10

while the GOP has been stumbling over each other on a daily basis for a while now.
-davad70

Not for as long, or as ridiculously, as the party of the Jackass.

Are you telling me there are Democrats who WOULDN'T love to see Bush impeached? You must be the only one.....
on Nov 21, 2005
I hate dictatorships. I would love it if every nation on earth was a perfect democracy. I just wish it was as easy for the powers that be to remove them as it was for them to install them.

There seems to be less loss of civilian life putting them in power than when removing them.
5 Pages1 2 3  Last