A liberal Columnist Speaks Out

The majority of electronic voting machines support Bush. The exit polls support Kerry.

I'm with ya David. I hope Iraq turns out for the best.

The majority of electronic voting machines support Bush. The exit polls support Kerry.

I'm with ya David. I hope Iraq turns out for the best, but I will always consider the Bush administration to be a crooked criminal enterprise and I hope they get what's coming to them.

Indeed. But most people won't get this until it's far too late --oh wait --it already is.

I find it interesting that while some here obviously and gleefully admit identifying with the first half of the article for whatever reason, there appears to be real outrage and denial that there might be any logic to the second half.

It seems that in these forums backing down, admitting even the possibility that one is acting/thinking ideologically, or might have misthought something is tantamount to an admission of the Self as a moron, an idiot, an evil person or some other negative self-portrayal - especially on any political issue.

Personally, I am not an activist, a straight-ticket voter or even very politically involved. With the plethora of issues the arise in each election, I can deal with and make a somewhat intelligent decision on maybe a half-dozen local and 1-2 national issues or election-races. The rest, well, I won't talk about how I decide to vote on those.

I will say this though. With both veterans and conscientitous objectors in my family, with as many Democrats as Republicans in the same family, my perspective on all of the Bush-Iraq threads I have seen here is that they've been pretty pointless. This article was posted to test that theory out and the responses confirm it for me.

The columnist, a known liberal was attacked as being paid off.
Bush was accused of being behind the bribe.
The Administration was again portrayed as unethical and megalomaniacal.
And posters (including myself in this post if you choose to see it that way) continue to paint themselves as above it all and acting/posting from a position of TRUTH and ABSOLUTE BELIEF that is somehow not ideologic.
None of the three major questions raised in the article are really dealt with... in fact, they seem to be deliberately avoided discussion-wise or responded to with stock answers.

This is really a sad thread. Sorry for adding to the pointless drivel.

BY MARK BROWN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Let's pick up where I left off: It is highly unlikely that I will be voting Republican for president in 2008, no matter what happens in Iraq.

But my suggestion to the contrary was the only statement made in Tuesday's column, "What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?", that I didn't sincerely mean.

I feel the need to offer that clarification because those who read this space regularly are familiar with my tendency toward sarcasm, but Tuesday's column reached a whole other level of readers out there in cyberspace who have never seen a Mark Brown column but took a surprisingly strong interest in my reaction to the Iraq elections.

For most of the day, their e-mails have been rolling in here at a rate of about four per minute -- which comes to 240 per hour. While that has tapered off as day turns to night, my new e-mail alert is still clicking every minute.

'You are an idiot'




I consider this mostly a nuisance because the bulk of the correspondence is from out-of-towners who don't buy the Chicago Sun-Times, in effect, drowning out the voice of the Chicago readers who pay for the privilege of letting me know how irritating they find my views.

I'll never find time to read all this mail, the mixed tenor of which can be judged from the subject headings: "The Dumbest Column Ever Written," "Your intellectual honesty an inspiration," "You are an idiot," "A profile in courage," "Craven sell-out," "You're totally right," "How naive can you be?" and "Hats off to you!" But I promise to try to print a batch later this week.

The reaction certainly has made for a most unusual day, the strangest part coming when I heard from family and friends that Rush Limbaugh was quoting from the column and remarking favorably about it.

Regular readers will find it shocking that I even have family or friends who listen to Limbaugh, but as the governor of Illinois can tell you, there is no accounting for family, and I have too few friends to let politics get in the way.

Premise of war was still faulty




As you might guess, Limbaugh is not one of my heroes, and it pains me to give him succor. I lean more toward Molly Ivins, who no doubt would have taken my Tuesday column and carved it to shreds while keeping a sense of humor about it, had she taken any notice at all.

So the attention makes me more than a little uncomfortable, and I'm still trying to figure out what to make of it as I fend off interview requests from bi-coastal radio talk show hosts and Fox News. And sure, I left out some important points such as the faulty premise on which the war was sold -- the old weapons of mass destruction.

This is no time for further waffling, however, so I stand behind what I wrote, the gist of which, if you're wondering what the fuss is about, was that the sight of Iraqis embracing their right to vote forced me to re-examine my views on the war and to seriously consider the possibility that President Bush will succeed with his Iraq strategy and was right to take us to war.

If you read the column, you'd know I didn't totally flip-flop, but I opened that door, which is apparently so unusual these days that it merited attention from Rush and the Drudge Report and an entire world that I rarely visit, as well as inspiring fellow liberals to want to drum me out of the corps.

Politics' sad state of affairs




I'm glad I wrote the column, though, even if I'm wrong, because it helped bring into focus something else that I've been wanting to say for a long time, which is that it's a sad state of affairs in our politics when people are so locked into being in one camp or the other that they can't review the evidence as it presents itself and adjust their thinking accordingly.

How else can you explain some local columnist with liberal intentions drawing so much interest just because he wondered aloud that maybe he had been wrong and that the other side had been right?

I don't ever want to be one of those columnists -- or commentators -- who just take all the information they receive and hammer it into their pre-conceived notion of the truth.

If I did, I'd do radio.

Oh, I totally agree with that. The difference I am pointing out is that many liberals have sided with the terrorists and are furthering their agenda Hiro. Could the terrorists have ever found better spokesmen?

What they are doing is all in the name of hating and destroying President Bush. I am of the opinion that if given the choice, many would rather we loose the war in a devastating fashion and have President Bush impeached instead of us winning the war and President Bush being remembered in history as one of the greatest Presidents ever.

Why not put aside all of the crap about who, what, when, where and why the war was started? Why not get behind our troops and President and show some unity to the terrorists? Why not make it harder, not easier for the terrorists to win? Why not? I will tell you why, it is simply in the name of hating President Bush and the willingness to do ANYTHING, even siding with the terrorists, to bring him down. And that is disgusting.

The difference I am pointing out is that many liberals have sided with the terrorists and are furthering their agenda Hiro.

Isn't it ironic that there are those who see personal attacks where there are none and then belittle (directly and indirectly) those who point out that no such attack existed?.

I like blue. That doesn't mean that I said I dislike people who prefer pink over blue, that people who like pink are ignorant of the value of blue in comparison to pink, or anything about my sexuality or anyone else's. It means I like blue.

As KB posted the entire article Brown wrote today... I will only highlight the important point he reiterates from his first day.

<< I stand behind what I wrote...the sight of Iraqis embracing their right to vote forced me to re-examine my views on the war and to seriously consider the possibility that President Bush will succeed with his Iraq strategy and was right to take us to war.

If you read the column, you'd know I didn't totally flip-flop, but I opened that door, which is apparently so unusual ...snip...

I'm glad I wrote the column, though, even if I'm wrong, because it helped bring into focus something else that I've been wanting to say for a long time, which is that it's a sad state of affairs in our politics when people are so locked into being in one camp or the other that they can't review the evidence as it presents itself and adjust their thinking accordingly.>>

And that, my friends, is about as well-said as anything I have ever read. There's no defiance. There's no apology. There is a simple explanation and an admission that something may have moved him to "untrench" and rethink. I'd never heard of the guy before to be honest, but I have a lot of respect for these two columns.

Note: I added the italics for emphasis.

Ahem… neither was Hitler’s Germany.

And how would you like it to watch your brothers murdered like dogs and your women raped by Saddam and his thugs? How would you feel if 10,000 of your neighbors were GASSED, men, women, children, animals, everything. How would you feel about us taking Saddam down then?

The Iraqi people have spoken with their votes last Sunday. Nuff said!

I thought you were smarter than that David. 90%!!! That is ridiculous.

Where is the proof? Exactly what have the dems done to fight terrorism? How have they made our country safer for our children? What have they done besides ANYTHING to slander President Bush? You can’t see the forest because all of those trees are in your way David.

Was that anecdote necessary to your point --or was it what I called it? A bullying tactic.

That I included that he laughed has been taken by you to mean a deliberate insult... you are suggesting you are telepathic and know my motivation for inclusion of that fact.

One does not to be a telepath to see that as an insult. I was insulted whether you meant it or not. Perhaps you can enlighten me why you felt it necessary to your point. Then maybe we can all share in the laughter.

Even if you didn't mean it as such --rather than attacking me for being hurt by it, as you have been --why don't you apologize for posting it -- whether you meant it to hurt me or not?

Are you so wedded to the idea of tearing me down that you can't get that I was honestly hurt by your post?

Kendra,

Whether or not I agree with your political platform, you have produced some of the most insightful and thought provoking posts on this forum. Do not let yourself be affected by the slight jabs of the few as the many are intrigued and forced to question their own ideologies as a result of your posts. I thank you for the time and energy you put into every comment and rebuttal. I know that isn't worth much but you really do compel me to put a bit of forethought into my own arguments.

It's worth a great deal. I think you're one of the most intelligent "posters" I've read on this board or others

Kendra, I second what Isis said - your posts are clear, insightful and often have a nice twisted humor to them that I greatly appreciate.

Consider this a third and a nod to Isis. I have gained considerable respect for these posters especially after engaging Isis in a totally civil debate a few weeks back ! *looks woefully at his Republican card*

One does not to be a telepath to see ...an insult. I was insulted whether you meant it or not. ... --why don't you apologize for posting it -- whether you meant it to hurt me or not?

Are you so wedded to the idea of tearing me down that you can't get that I was honestly hurt by your post?