I’ve been trying to think of an analogy that would encapsulate my perception of Democrats on foreign-policy. and I think I have one.…
Person A is being stabbed by Person B. Person C strolls by and says, “Hey, at least he’s not Person D, they would be shooting you and look! Person B’s blade is getting marginally smaller, so it’s not so bad.”
In other words, Democrats have set up this false choice between choosing bellicosity and slightly less bellicosity, to paraphrase Tom Woods.
Not a perfect analogy, sure, but I will never understand the hypocrisy. And even worse, the rationalizing.
My general operating mode when discussing issues with people of differing ideologies is that they, too, are operating on good faith and just trying to do the right thing. Generally I hold this to be the case.
When it comes to this particular issue, I don’t buy Democrats for a fucking second that they wouldn’t be ripping Bush a new one if he was going off the exact same playbook. Or a McCain or a Romney. (Unless you’re one of those types, like a hawk, that supports war regardless. I’ll give you points for consistency, but we have a different discussion to have.)
It makes the discussions and bridging gaps in ideology much more difficult when you’re not operating from that basic foundation of trust in the others’ good faith.
Milam's Musings 