"Because I'm a Realist"-Why the Left Will Now Defend War

After the new administration bombed Pakistan less than a week in office, the news was met with a resounding "meh," from the political left. It was neither reported, nor did the president do much to talk about the action that killed some civilians, including children.

Myself, I emailed MoveOn and Credo, asking them where the outrage was, where the mass emails were, and I received...form letters.

In asking different friends of mine about this issue I've been met with the usual answer that we can't expect the state to not use military violence against poorer, defenseless lands. In fact, I had one person claim that the area bombed wasn't even technically Pakistan, that it was just a chunk of desert, as if murdering kids is all right as long as it's not in an actual country. Hmm.

One of the more unsettling comments came from a woman I know. She claimed that she was not an idealist, but a realist. She claimed the president prefers diplomatic choices and that he has a "hard" job filled with "difficult" decisions. Basically, the murder of children appears justifiable as long as the president doesn't do it as much as the last guy.

War is not so bad as long as a Republican isn't waging it.

Let's put things in a different light. Suppose you have children and must choose a babysitter. Both are child molesters. One molests ten kids a week. The other molests one a year, and already met his quota.

Will you be an "idealist" and choose neither? Or will you be a "realist" and choose number 2?

The same woman, when asked where the outrage was over the new president's decision to continue America's military violence, sadly replied that, "People can't be outraged all the time."

The 53 million people who voted for the new president appear to be sinking back into slumber.

The murder and torture will continue as usual, but now the left can sleep like babies knowing they won a glorified pissing contest.