Skip to main content

View Diary: The Good Fight: Peter Beinart Responds (221 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  1991 Iraq War (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peterbernard209

    This wasn't really central to Beinart's argument, but it kinda jumped out at me:

    Is this because liberals are furious about Iraq? Of course. But it was fury at Vietnam that led Democrats, disastrously, to overwhelmingly oppose the Gulf War in 1991. Just because Bush (and to some extent, pro-war liberals like me) got us into this mess doesn't mean that liberals can't hurt ourselves badly if we react to it the wrong way. And there is some evidence that we are.

    I can understand why someone would say it was wrong to oppose the 91 Gulf War, but why was it "disastrous"? Democrats went on to do fine in the following election, if I remember correctly.

    •  because (0+ / 0-)

      Because he is a liar looking to confuse you into doing what PNAC wants you to do-- which is not for the good of the American people or the Democratic Party. Don't let guys like Beinart call themselves liberal. There is no such thing as a liberal hawk. Those are republican liars calling themselves liberals so they can go on tv and say, "Look even liberals support the president."

    •  It's more important than you think (0+ / 0-)

      Don't forget that Beinart uses this 1991 vote together with the 2002 vote to explain that there were few Democrats who voted "correctly" on both occasions.  Supposedly this helps to explain why it's no so bad that Beinart got it wrong the second time.  If Beinart can define the mistake of not supporting the 1991 war as "disastrous," it will be the foil to the criticism he and other self-professed "liberal hawks" are receiving (however well-deserved).  It's purely self-serving.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site