This attack parody aimed at Joe Lieberman, "Joe and Dub's Fabulous Wedding," trots out a slew of anti-gay stereotypes to demean its target. Sample lyrics: "pansies up and down the aisle," "their Fairy Tale wedding," "afterwards there was dancing, possibly more prancing" - plus the Village People! It's featured at the Huffington Post, the same "progressive" site that showed Lieberman in blackface. (But hey, they can't be bigots; they're on the left!).
Here's hoping Lieberman, now running as an independent, and trounces Lamont in November.
Avee comments: "The oh-so-smug and morally superior left is quick to reach for anti-gay and even anti-black tropes (Condi Rice as Aunt Jemima)." Quite so.
From Ilya Shapiro at TCS Daily:
Lamont adviser Jesse Jackson said in an op-ed in the Chicago Sun-Times Monday that "A loss for Lieberman would be a win for progressives." Jackson went on to fault his party's putative Vice-President ... for "embracing key elements of the conservative agenda," including questioning certain excesses of affirmative action and supporting cuts in capital gains taxes that have ushered in a new class of investors.
Such arguments expose the nasty truth at the heart of the modern "Party of Jefferson": You have to embrace the entire Democratic catechism (abortion on demand, racial preferences, etc.) or risk banishment from this "party of inclusion."
And James Pinkerton writes, on "heretics" and "infidels":
Lieberman had not only to be defeated, but to be crushed and vilified. Which he was. Lieberman supporter Lanny Davis detailed in the pages of The Wall Street Journal all "the hate and vitriol of bloggers on the liberal side of the aisle" that poured down on his candidate, including scurrilous anti-Semitism.... So far, at least, the "infidels" in this particular Demo-drama, aka the Republicans, can sit back and enjoy the heretic-burning show.
Meanwhile, the gay left's John Aravosis of blog America believes the imminent threat of mass murder by Islamofascists is just a great big pro-Republican, anti-Lamont conspiracy:
And isn't it queer that the emergency is declared within a day of Republican party leader Ken Mehlman launching an all-out offensive against Democrats following Joe Lieberman's loss in Connecticut, an offensive in which Mehlman, the White House and Republican operatives are claiming that Democrats no longer care about national security or the war on terror.
No, this is not a parody.
56 Comments for “Thinly Veiled Bigotry.”
posted by Antaeusz on
Oh, don’t be such a stick-in-the-mud! The clip clearly objected to Gay couples being denied marriage – and besides, “the internets” have long sported facts and rumors about such characters as Jake Gannon, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld (on AndrewSullivan no less!) and William Kristol.
That said, I’m very glad that Lamont took down the Hound-Dog.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Why does being “professionally offended” pass as meaningful political dialogue these days?
The Republicrat/Demopublican political dialogue seems to be:
Republicrat: “How dare you attack me? You hate America!”
Demopublican: “How dare you question my patriotism you sexist? I am offended by that assertion!”
Republicrat: “How dare you call me sexist? My wife is offended by that assertion, you moral lightweight?”
Demopublican: “You dare question my morality, you thrice-divorced racist? I am SOOOOO OFFENDED!”
Republicrat: “How dare you attack my private life, you lily-livered pinko? I am more offended than YOU’LL EVER BE!”
Demopublican: “Pinko? My father fought communism, you Nazi!”
Republicrat: “Nazi? I’m not even going to touch that tar-baby, you hateful bitch!”
Demopublican: “‘Bitch,’ eh? Sexist! And ‘tar baby’ is racist! You’re so offensive!”
And on and on it goes. When both the Demopublicans and Republicrats are offensive. . . to common sense.
posted by Bobby on
There’s plenty of homophobia and anti-semitism and racism on the left.
The reason it’s an issue is that people on the left claim to be tolerant, accepting and open minded.
People on the right make no such claims.
posted by kittynboi on
I think it’s pretty annoying that you’re using this veneer of being offended at the apparent homophobia here just to support Lieberman, which is clearly the only reason you posted this at all.
I don’t think there’s any chance of him winning as an independent either.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Lieberman’s decision to run as an independant seems a rather sad, ego-driven ending to the political saga of a decent man. Nothing is quite a ridiculous as a last hurrah.
posted by Alex on
People on the right make no such claims.
And live up to it, too. I’d rather someone speak their prejudice openly than hide it behind a PC veneer. Hopefully, though, poeple on the are making efforts improve instead of just being comfortable with existing prejudices.
posted by Avee on
The issue, dear Daily Kos readers, is that the oh-so-smug and morally superior left is quick to reach for the anti-gay and even anti-black tropes (Condi Rice as Aunt Jemima). And you think that’s just fine and the rest of us are suddenly too sensitive!
posted by Randy R. on
Hey, I’m gay and I’m not offended at the ad. Take a joke already! Sheesh — you people are strange — you complain when liberals make fun of gays, and then defend conservatives who are actually trying to strip gays of their rights. Frankly, I’d rather have more silliness and my rights, then no silliness and no rights…..
And thank goodness Lamont won. His anti-war stance is now squarely in the mainstream of 60% of all Americans.
posted by Bobby on
“And live up to it, too. I’d rather someone speak their prejudice openly than hide it behind a PC veneer. Hopefully, though, poeple on the are making efforts improve instead of just being comfortable with existing prejudices.”
—It depends. For example. Am I prejudiced against blacks? No. Am I prejudiced against affirmative action? Yes! So according to the left, I must be prejudiced agaisn’t blacks. That’s the game the left plays, if you don’t support X, you must be against y.
If “making efforts to improve” means accepting affirmative action, no deal. We on the right and sick and tired of being told how we must thing.
For the most part, my rightwing comrades are a tolerant bunch, they don’t care what you’re doing as long as you don’t impose it on them.
I’m respected at most rightwing sites. It’s the left who asks “how can you be gay and republican?”
If republicans ever have a question, is “how can you be gay at all?” But most of them already know why I’m gay, and they accept it.
And the ones who don’t respect me, screw them. Unlike liberals, I’m not interested in creating a world where everyone loves and respects each other. That’s silly idealism, good for pot smokers in their 20s.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Steve, there is virtually no possibility that your desire to see Lieberman defeat Lamont in November is motivated by a silly attack parody, any more than you can honestly believe that leftists are any worse on this score than their counterparts on the right. I too am sick of double standards regarding this sort of thing, but your penchant for responding to it with partisan glee is a non sequitur.
One reason I am troubled by Lieberman, aside from his endless religious grandstanding and his assertion that the First Amendment protects freedom of religions but not freed FROM religion, is that he voted on the side of Dr. Frist and Company in the Terry Schiavo matter.
On balance, I liked Lieberman the best of the Democratic presidential candidates in 2004. Like him, I initially supported the 2003 Iraqi war. Unlike him, I have changed my mind substantially in view of the arrogance and incompetence of Bush’s conduct of the war, not to mention King George’s contempt for the constitution and persistence in supporting torture. Lieberman at the last minute started emphasizing his criticisms of Bush, but I have watched Lieberman many times in speeches and interviews, and he has been an eager cheerleader long past the time when other moderate Democrats who are not simplistically anti-war found their critical voice. Now he says screw you to his own party. Contemptible.
posted by Mark on
“Unlike him, I have changed my mind substantially in view of the arrogance and incompetence of Bush’s conduct of the war, not to mention King George’s contempt for the constitution and persistence in supporting torture.”
But not because the pretext of the war (Saddam as a threat to the United States with stockpiles of WMD) was false?
posted by Mark on
Exactly what sort of “libertarian” supports one of the worst statists in the country? Mr. Miller’s politics baffle me.
posted by Jorge on
I think after they zoomed in on that kiss Bush planted on Lieberman’s cheek some months back, the gay jokes are fair game (famous last words) and can probably be done in good taste. Most importantly, this is an issue that is a loser for Lieberman among the target audience: Democrats.
I’m not going to look at the ad. If it was in bad taste, they’ll get scorched for it.
Wish Lieberman had won, though.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””One reason I am troubled by Lieberman, aside from his endless religious grandstanding and his assertion that the First Amendment protects freedom of religions but not freed FROM religion, “”””
I also dislike this aspect of him, AND his cozyness to the Tipper Gore and Bill Bennett culture warriors of the world.
posted by Robb Pearson on
Stephen.
Amen. Amen. And AMEN!
ROBB PEARSON
posted by Robb Pearson on
In all seriousness, while political Conservatives by and large have a tendency to come out against gay Americans in terms of policy, I have witnessed (and have even been victim of) more social bigotry and slurs from Democrats. It’s a dichotomy I’ve yet to fully comprehend.
ROBB PEARSON
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Mark wrote, “But not because the pretext of the war (Saddam as a threat to the United States with stockpiles of WMD) was false?”
Yes, that too.
posted by Randy R. on
And of course, we know that more social bigotry and slurs come from Democrats because Democrats always wear t-shirts that identify themselves as such whenever they do their gay bashing.
Perhaps if you lived in the south, you would find almost no Democrats or liberals, while also finding a culture that pretty much hates you openly for being gay. There, you will find most everyone is against gays in policy, and engage in slurs and bigotry. Sometimes, it all depends on where you live….
Thank goodness Lieberman lost: Lamont is in the mainstream of American thought on the Terry Shiavo incident
posted by Antaeusz on
Gee, Robb Pearson, you wouldn’t be a charter member of the AMEN CORNER, now would you? LOL
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I don’t know what’s funnier — the right’s embracing of political correctness in order to further their “man” in the race, or the naive belief by lefties that having Lamont in the Senate instead of Lieberman will make the slightest bit of difference in the political process.
The game is rigged — as long as the Republicrat monopoly is maintained, it doesn’t matter which “party” is in power. . . government gets bigger and more intrusive, taxes go up, spending goes up and misadventures go on at home and abroad. The only thing that changes are the media outlets which defend and condemn the various activities of whichever Tweedledee/Tweedledum is in power.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
NL, you are spouting ideological boilerplate. Anyone who thinks that we would have gotten this degree of constitutional and other recklessness from a President Gore is deluding himself. One doesn’t have to be a big admirer of the Democrats to recognize that the GOP as currently configured and operating is an order of magnitude worse. A correction by the voters is sorely needed. It will not lead to paradise, but I do not expect paradise from politics.
posted by Bobby on
“Perhaps if you lived in the south, you would find almost no Democrats or liberals, while also finding a culture that pretty much hates you openly for being gay.”
—Have you lived in the South? I have. And I’ve found more homophobes in liberal Michigan and liberal South Florida than I did during my one year in Texas.
I’m sick of yankee gays like you bitching about the South without ever having lived there. Maybe YOU should take care of your own backyard before telling us to cut the grass.
Maybe if someday you learn the difference between violent homophobia and free speech, you won’t be complaining too much about the south.
posted by Randy R. on
Bobby, if you don’t consider Virginia “the South”, then you are right: I don’t know anything about it. But I suspect most Virginians would disagree quite strongly with you, and would argue that it is indeed a proud member of the Confederacy. So please do not make assumptions about where I live or work, or anything else, okay?
And I can gar-ON-tee that there is a lot of open and sometimes even violent anti-gay people in that Commonwealth. By conservatives.
Being an active member of Equality Virginia, personally knowing many of the directors and other people working hard to make Virginia a civil place for gay people, And it’s tough, very tough. When legislators won’t even meet with you and call you a sodomite, when they try to pass laws that would stripe gay people of the right to marry, the right to live together, the right to adopt, even the right to vote, then you know something about ‘southern discrimination.’ One woman was denied a judgeship simply because she was a lesbian. Now, not all those laws passed, or even got out of committee, but they were proposed and had strong backing from — hold your breath, Bobby, — conservative homophobes. And they openly drew the dagger that killed that woman’s chance of sitting on the bench.
So do I know the difference between violent homophobia and free speech? Sure do. Violent homophobia is when a gay couple’s house is spray painted “fag’ and every tree is uprooted, as just happened last week to a Virginia couple. That is not free speech.
Do I pass your test?
So let’s make amends. Can we agree that there are homophobes in all parts of the country, north, south, east and west? And that there are homophobes who are liberal and homophobes who are conservative? I never argued otherwise. But for YOU to argue that there are more homophobes who are liberal or in the north needs more support that a bald assertion or mere anecdote.
And perhaps you might want to take a moment to remember Billy Jack Gaither.
Oh no. You can’t. Because those nice southerners would never DO such a thing to such a nice gay man!
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Anyone who thinks that we would have gotten this degree of constitutional and other recklessness from a President Gore is deluding himself.
No he’s not.
The Clinton administration, which included an active Gore, created many of the precedents now being used by Bush to undermine the constitution.
Even on gay issues, it’s Clinton Democrats who signed, endorsed and campaigned on the DOMA — the law which bans all civil partnerships, civil unions and gay marriages from federal recognition.
The ideological boilerplate is the constant spouting of talking points about how “the Dems would be less bad,” when the reality is that the Democrats and Republicans worked closely together to create the existing morass in Iraq, the existing anti-gay climate, the present tax and spending problems, the growth of government, etc.
posted by J.P. on
Mark asks Exactly what sort of "libertarian" supports one of the worst statists in the country? Don’t know that Steve has ever said he’s a libertarian, and IGF is not a libertarian site. But if the choice is between a centrist, strong-on-defense, understands-Islamfascism-is-the-enemy Democrat and an ultra-far-left, MoveOn.Org, Daily Kos Democrat who is eager to push the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton political program, then I must ask of Mark, "what kind of libertarian would not support Lieberman?
posted by etjb on
The Clinton administration prised over a great economy and was the first president to treat gay rights issues seriously.
He supported both the ENDA and the HCPA, and the judges he appointed to the USSC helped to rule on LvsT.
The Federal DOMA was pushed onto the floor by then Presidential candidate Bob Dole (1996).
Likewise in 2000, Al Gore and George W. Bush were very different on gay rights issues.
posted by etjb on
It is funny so see a gay conservative whine about the ‘big bad left’ while spinning the news.
If this is THE Jesse Jackson then he would not be attacking “his” party’s Vice President, when the White House is run by Republicans. It is possible that he was speaking of the DNC vice chairman or even the VP candidate back in 2004.
“questioning certain excesses of affirmative action.”
What ‘excesses’ would they be and who decides what is an AA excess or not?
“supporting cuts in capital gains taxes that have ushered in a new class of investors.”
Again, more from the eternal spin cycle of a silly mind.
“Such arguments expose the nasty truth at the heart of the modern “Party of Jefferson.”
The modern Democratic Party would be the party of Jackson, but Jefferson.
“You have to embrace the entire Democratic catechism”
(1) Liberman is hardly being banished from the Democratic Party. Much of the establishment openly supports him.
(2) He lost fair and square in a primary election. He ran a pretty inept campaign with a sense of entitlement. In America, the party leadership really can’t (without a lot of effort) banish an otherwise qualified citizen. Yet, we can effectively ban independent and minor party candidates…
Liberman put too many of his eggs into the basket of a war and a president that are widely unpopular. He does not have to give up being a ‘centrist’ to win. To win he needs to prove that (a) he is smarter the the Bush Administration and (b) has a plan to achieve victory in Iraq.
Frankly, I lost respect for the man waaay back in 1993/94 when he jumped on the anti-video game banwagon.
posted by Bobby on
“But I suspect most Virginians would disagree quite strongly with you,”
—They would disagree with my sexual orientation, not my politics. In fact, my politics makes them more likely to tolerate, even accept my sexual orientation.
“would argue that it is indeed a proud member of the Confederacy.”
—So is Texas, Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia… Yes, they have the right to be proud of their heritage. To you it was about slavery, to them it was about state’s rights.
” So please do not make assumptions about where I live or work, or anything else, okay?”
—Don’t make assumptions about the south, southeners, the confederacy, or anything not directly related to you.
“And I can gar-ON-tee that there is a lot of open and sometimes even violent anti-gay people in that Commonwealth.”
—Even though my shrink told me that most gay bashing incidents happen in LA, New York and San Francisco? You’re stereotyping.
“When legislators won’t even meet with you and call you a sodomite, when they try to pass laws that would stripe gay people of the right to marry, the right to live together, the right to adopt, even the right to vote, then you know something about ‘southern discrimination.'”
—Yeah well, politics is a dirty business, no matter where you go. In California they call you a “racist” if you mention putting the national guard on the border. Don’t make yourself a victim, there’s plenty of lobbyist that get treated like crap.
“One woman was denied a judgeship simply because she was a lesbian.”
—Maybe she was a liberal lesbian. So what? Confirmation of judges is not an easy matter. Ask Raj, I’m sure he can tell you the nightmares a candidate for judgeship has to endure. Some judges are asked questions about the death penalty, and if they disagree with it, they don’t get appointed.
“Sure do. Violent homophobia is when a gay couple’s house is spray painted “fag’ and every tree is uprooted, as just happened last week to a Virginia couple. That is not free speech.”
—Not it’s not, it’s vandalism and there are laws to prosecute that. And if the homeowner had caught the vandal in the act, it would have been tresspassing and he would have had the right to shoot him or arrest him. That’s how you deal with hate crimes.
“So let’s make amends. Can we agree that there are homophobes in all parts of the country, north, south, east and west?”
—Agreed.
“And that there are homophobes who are liberal and homophobes who are conservative?”
—Agreed.
“I never argued otherwise. But for YOU to argue that there are more homophobes who are liberal or in the north needs more support that a bald assertion or mere anecdote.”
—No, my argument is that homophobia from the left is often ignored or denied. It’s only now that the gay community is waking up and demanding that leftwing homophobic reaggae artists not be allowed to perform. That I support.
“And perhaps you might want to take a moment to remember Billy Jack Gaither.”
—I do. I also remember he was killed by a friend, a friend he brought many times to gay bars, a friend he tried to seduce. That doesn’t justify the crime, not at all, but it explains the stupidity of some gays. I feel sorry for him, but what happen to him could have happened in New York.
“Oh no. You can’t. Because those nice southerners would never DO such a thing to such a nice gay man!”
—What about the crime against Araujo? The transgendered teen in San Francisco?
What about those 2 San Francisco lesbians that got killed when a homophobe set them pitbull on them?
Or the boy that was dropped of a bridge in Maine, 1981?
Maybe southeners aren’t always nice, but neither are yankees.
The truth is that anyone 15 to 25 has the potential of becoming a gay basher. It is our responsability as gays to be prepared to face them.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
centrist, strong-on-defense, understands-Islamfascism-is-the-enemy Democrat and an ultra-far-left, MoveOn.Org, Daily Kos Democrat who is eager to push the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton political program, then I must ask of Mark, “what kind of libertarian would not support Lieberman?”
Given that sort of choice, most libertarians would either support the Libertarian candidate or not vote at all.
posted by CLS on
I find anyone applauding Lieberman odd. But then I support civil liberties, economic freedom and a non-interventionist foreign policy. And Uncle Joe was bad on all those things. I was glad to see him go. I hope he stays gone. Lamont is better on the war and probably will be better on social freedom.
posted by etjb on
“understands-Islamfascism-is-the-enemy Democrat”
Well, thanks to our regime change in Iraq, the Islamfascists are now running the government and the streets.
posted by Bobby on
Lamont is an anti-semite, it’s ok for most gays not to care about that, it’s not their issue, but I will do whatever I can to badmouth that bastard.
I never agreed with Liberman’s gun banning philosophy, but he is an independent thinker who doesn’t bend over for the left, while Lamont is nothing more than an opportunist that’s using the anti-war sentiment to further his agenda.
posted by J.P. on
CLS claims, “Lamont is better on the war…”
Only if you believe appeasment/surrender is an effective strategy against facism! Which is, of course, the Daily Kos/Lamont party line.
posted by kittynboi on
I don’t approve of Liebermans gun banning philosophy either, but I am more troubled by his music and videogame banning philosophy.
posted by dalea on
\\’what kind of libertarian would not support Lieberman?\\’
The kind that favors a noninterventionist foreign policy. Unlike the global busy body policy advocated by almost all conservative and moderate politicians. Which is why people like us generally are very favorable to the left on this issue. Check out Justin Raimando\\’s Antiwar.com to see what honest libertarian analysis looks like.
posted by SillyGirl on
Support Lieberman? You’ve got to be kidding. Crying about supposed homophobia and racism on the left is just an excuse to prop up your losing candidate. Go join the Log Cabin Republicans and be done with it. Leave the rest of us alone.
posted by Bobby on
” but I am more troubled by his music and videogame banning philosophy.”
—Good point, a philosophy shared by Hillary Clinton.
Luckily, the first amendment protects violent video games and hateful “music.” So most politicians speaking about this are just posturing. As long as the material comes with ratings, there’s little opponents can do.
Besides, there’s plenty of “South Park Republicans” who will stand up for offensive speech 🙂
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Only if you believe appeasment/surrender is an effective strategy against facism!
Iraq made gays illegal under Saddam Hussein and imprisoned them. But now “free” Iraq has American-trained Iraqi troops, with American manufactured and paid for weapons, using American ammunition to execute Iraqi gays on the street in cold blood. When confronted with this, the Pentagon says it’s “aware of the issue” but has “more important priorities” and isn’t going to bring it up with the “free Iraqi government.”
Iraq was not a great place for women under Saddam — though it was freer for them than many other Arab countries. The new constitution of “free Iraq” makes them second class citizens and takes away rights from them. It has the full endorsement of the Bush administration and “free Iraq” right-wingers.
Afghanistan under the Taliban was horrible to homosexuals, so we were told by the pro-invasion forces. We invaded, and thankfully five years later, homosexuality is no longer punishable by death with a wall toppling on you — it’s now punishable by death by firing squad.
Gay people from all around the world flee to America to seek asylum from regimes which torture, rape and murder them; perform forceable gender change surgery on them, and perform other horrendous violations of their civil rights. The Bush administration, “fighting for freedom,” has not only tightened the asylum rules to make it horrendous for gays seeking asylum here, but also has gone through case dockets where gays were granted asylum and overturned over 90% of the applications — sending gay men back to Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jamaica to face torture and death.
So please, please, please spare me the nauseating fake-o “surrender to facism” verbal diarrhea from the right wing. The Republians are happily shipping off thousands to facism to die, arming and funding other facists, and generally are great with Islamofacism so long as it’s the neoconservatives who are writing the check, and not Tehran.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””Good point, a philosophy shared by Hillary Clinton.””””
One of the reasons I’m worried about the idea of her running. But I have a feeling you thought you were taking a shot at me. I’m sure you think I support Hillary Clinton, and I’m also sure I’ve never given any real indication that I do.
So you’re just making a fool of yourself.
Again.
“”””Besides, there’s plenty of “South Park Republicans” who will stand up for offensive speech :)””””
Yeah, all five of them.
posted by dalea on
For Bobby and others, a link and statement from an actual Libertarian thinker:
http://antiwar.com/who.php
MISSION
This site is devoted to the cause of non-interventionism and is read by libertarians, pacifists, leftists, “greens,” and independents alike, as well as many on the Right who agree with our opposition to imperialism. Our initial project was to fight for the case of non-intervention in the Balkans under the Clinton presidency and continued with the case against the campaigns in Haiti, Kosovo and the bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan. Our politics are libertarian: our opposition to war is rooted in Randolph Bourne’s concept that “War is the health of the State.” With every war, America has made a “great leap” into statism, and as Bourne emphasizes: ” . . . it is during war that one best understands the nature of that institution [the State].” At its core, that “nature” includes the ever-increasing threat to individual liberty and the centralization of political power.
Antiwar.com is one project of our parent foundation the “Randolph Bourne Institute.” It is a program that provides a sounding board of interest to all who are concerned about US foreign policy and its implications.
In 1952, Garet Garrett, one of the last of the Old Right “isolationists,” said it well:
“Between government in the republican meaning, that is, Constitutional, representative, limited government, on the one hand, and Empire on the other hand, there is mortal enmity. Either one must forbid the other or one will destroy the other.”
This is the perception that informs our activism, and inspires our dedication. Non-interventionism abroad is a corollary to non-interventionism at home. Randolph Bourne echoes this sentiment: “We cannot crusade against war without implicitly crusading against the State.” Since opposition to war is at the heart of our philosophy, and single-issue politics is the only avenue open to us, Antiwar.com embodies the politics of the possible.
Our dedication to libertarian principles, inspired in large part by the works and example of the late Murray N. Rothbard, is reflected on this site. While openly acknowledging that we have an agenda, the editors take seriously our purely journalistic mission, which is to get past the media filters and reveal the truth about America’s foreign policy. Citing a wide variety of sources without fear or favor, and presenting our own views in the regular columns of various contributors, we clearly differentiate between fact and opinion, and let our readers know which is which.
The pressing need for “citizen experts” is the reason we set up Antiwar.com. In this process, the site evolved very quickly into an online magazine and research tool designed to keep the American people and the world informed about the overseas plans of the American government. The history of our site and of American foreign policy demonstrates the demand for such experts.
The founders of Antiwar.com were active in the Libertarian Party during the 1970s; in 1983, we founded the Libertarian Republican Organizing Committee, to work as a libertarian caucus within the GOP. Today, we are seeking to challenge the traditional politics of “Left” and “Right.” At present, none of the existing parties or activist groups offers an effective vehicle for principled libertarian politics. Yet, even in the absence of a party of liberty, we cannot abstain from the struggle. We strive to lead the non-interventionist cause and the peace movements that many respected institutions have forgotten.
Forged in the experience of the first Balkan war, Antiwar.com has become the Internet newspaper of record for a growing international movement, the central locus of opposition to a new imperialism that masks its ambitions in the rhetoric of “human rights,” “humanitarianism,” “freedom from terror” and “global democracy.” The totalitarian liberals and social democrats of the West have unilaterally and arrogantly abolished national sovereignty and openly seek to overthrow all who would oppose their bid for global hegemony. They have made enemies of the patriots of all countries, and it is time for those enemies to unite – or perish alone.
Antiwar.com represents the true pro-America side of the foreign policy debate. With our focus on a less centralized government and freedom at home, we consider ourselves the true American patriots. “America first!” regards the traditions of a republican government and non-interventionism as paramount to freedom – a concept that helped forge the foundation of this nation.
THE FUTURE
Antiwar.com is already fighting the next information war: we are dedicated to the proposition that they (war hawks and our leaders) are not going to be allowed to get away with it, unopposed and unchallenged. The War Party is well-organized, well-financed, and very focused. They know what they want: a renewal of the Cold War, increased military spending, and a globalist mission that would project American power from the Middle East to the Korean peninsula and all points in between. And they know how to get it: mobilizing special interest groups and key corporate allies in a propaganda war designed to win the hearts if not the minds of the American people. The antiwar forces, on the other hand, are not so well-positioned: everyone is for peace, in theory at least, but there is no one group of Americans especially disposed to work for it, outside of small religious groups such as the Quakers and the Catholic Worker movement.
Lacking a centrally-coordinated leadership, without financial resources of any significance, and incredibly diverse, the organized opposition to the first Balkan war was unfocused and of limited effectiveness. Currently, the antiwar movement against a war on Iraq is considered anti-American and left-wing. However, we are changing this perception by leading the cause of the patriotic peace movement, which understands the true costs of war. Unfortunately, the organizations pushing for actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and other areas around the world are stronger and even more focused. Antiwar.com is an integral part of the movement against these groups and for peace by disseminating accurate news and commentary.
Antiwar.com is dedicated to building an awareness to the globalist and interventionist forces that would enslave us all in a New World Order on which the sun never sets. But we can’t do it without you. Tell your friends about Antiwar.com, spread the word and also help us do our job by bringing items to our attention. We are always looking for material, and we welcome your suggestions, whether of links or in the form of original articles submitted to the editors.
Antiwar.com is a ward of the nonprofit Randolph Bourne Institute.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Raimondo has certainly gotten a fire in his belly the last few years, and good for him. He has the moral high ground — and he knows it.
posted by Randy on
Actually, as a habitual reader of Americablog, John Aravosis does NOT think that mass murder by terrorists is some Republican conspiracy.
You know, I am really sick and tired of conservatives who think that any criticism of the war in Iraq, or the George Bush and the neocons is somehow also a statement that they want to ‘cut and run’, that they don’t believe terrorists are a threat, or some such extremism. I am really surprised that you would even imply that.
No! What John Aravosis has said REPEATEDLY, and many on the left, is that terrorism IS indeed a real threat, but that Bush & Co. have screwed up the fight. Iraq was never the ‘central front’ on terrorism, at least until AFTER the invasion.
The fact is that Aravosis is right, and your snide post proves it again: As soon as Lamont won, the right wing noise machine, along with Lieberman, started equated Democrats as against the war on terror.
Do you really REALLY think that people on the left — Aravosis, me, people who voted for Lamont, really think that terrorism isn’t a problem, or that it isn’t worth fighting against, or that there are not security problems in the world that need to be handled?
If you do, than you truly have bought the line from Bush’s speech a while ago — you are either with us or against us.
Too bad 60% of Americans are against you. But, you know, if would be nice if we could have an actual dialogue about the best way to combat terrorism without people like you saying smearing those who disagree with you.
posted by Bobby on
Yeah, I’ve been to anti-war.com, it should be called anti-israel.com because they only offer the palestinean/terrorist/hezbolla point of view.
They’re as useless as the Quakers who always get a military exception and let other people do their fighting. Bunch of “All you need is love” goddamm hippies.
“””””Good point, a philosophy shared by Hillary Clinton.””””
One of the reasons I’m worried about the idea of her running. But I have a feeling you thought you were taking a shot at me.
—-Kittinboi, if I wanted to take a shot at you, I would have taken it.
“I’m sure you think I support Hillary Clinton, and I’m also sure I’ve never given any real indication that I do.
So you’re just making a fool of yourself.
Again.”
—Now that’s a shot against me. First of all, I was making the point that Lieberman isn’t so radical if Hillary agrees with him.
Secondly, your support for Lamont shows that you’re willing to sacrifice your conservative principles (and I know you have some) for a radical leftwinger, just because Lamont is a crybaby against war.
“If you want peace, prepare for war.” Italian proverb.
It seems everywhere I look there’s anti-war people, in the media, stupid cartoons, letters to the editor. What’s the matter with you people?
Learn from Tibet! They were a pacifist nation with an outdated military and the Chinese invaded them. Nations that don’t fight, fall.
You should see the movie Red Dawn, unless we have a strong military with plenty of actual combat training, we’re doomed.
posted by kittynboi on
“””” Bunch of “All you need is love” goddamm hippies.””””
When someone starts whining about hippies, then you know we’re nearing the finish line of that race to the bottom.
“”””Now that’s a shot against me. First of all, I was making the point that Lieberman isn’t so radical if Hillary agrees with him.””””
I consider all ban-happy christers, and their fellow travelers in judaism and islam, to be radicals.
“”””Secondly, your support for Lamont shows that you’re willing to sacrifice your conservative principles (and I know you have some) for a radical leftwinger, just because Lamont is a crybaby against war.””””
I’m more against Lieberman than I’m for Lamont. Part of me thinks Lieberman deserved to loose just for his extreme arrogance and disdain for the first amendment in most all its forms.
Lieberman is just a posturing blowhard, and losing him is hardly a blow against your precious war. The only crybabies are the right wingers who go in to connipotion fits at anyone who isn’t behind your war 110%.
“”””It seems everywhere I look there’s anti-war people, in the media, stupid cartoons, letters to the editor. What’s the matter with you people?””””
We all have our own opinions and don’t instantly fall in line with what you think when you throw a tantrum. That’s apparently whats wrong with us.
“”””Learn from Tibet! They were a pacifist nation with an outdated military and the Chinese invaded them. Nations that don’t fight, fall.””””
Well, since I’m not a pacifist and never advocated abolishing the military entirely (nor do I recall even suggesting we redcude its size at all, at least on this forum.) I don’t think this particular point holds a lot of relevance to me.
I’m not a pacifist now, and I never have been, and I don’t expect I never will be.
Does your head hurt to consider that someone who isn’t a pacifist ALSO doesn’t support the iraq war?
As for Red Dawn; I don’t think a film featuring Patrick Swayze fighting communists is the best place to look for when you want political advice.
Besides, if that worked, then I would already be pro-war from my rather alrge G.I. Joe collection. But like I said, I don’t look to popular entertainment to determine my politics for me.
posted by Bobby on
When someone starts whining about hippies, then you know we’re nearing the finish line of that race to the bottom.
—–I’m 31. Then again, I suppose that’s too old for a twink chaser like yourself. And read a fucking dictionary, there’s no such thing as a “boi.” It’s a perversion of the English language, probably invented by pot smoking skateboard asshole punks. And if you actually were under 18, you’d be a “boy,” with a “y.”
I’m more against Lieberman than I’m for Lamont. Part of me thinks Lieberman deserved to loose just for his extreme arrogance and disdain for the first amendment in most all its forms.
—Disdain for the first amendment? Now you’re making stuff up.
The only crybabies are the right wingers who go in to connipotion fits at anyone who isn’t behind your war 110%.
—Yeah? Well at least we bother to mention all the good things that are happening in Iraq, not just the bad news like your precious New York Times. The “journalists” don’t care about Americans building schools in Iraq, only bombs and corpses seem to interest them.
We all have our own opinions and don’t instantly fall in line with what you think when you throw a tantrum. That’s apparently whats wrong with us.
—No, what’s wrong with people like you is that you’re becoming like Europeans. Europeans are ashamed of their imperialistic past, so they bend over backwards for people who hate their guts. Leftwing-“Americans” also hate being the best country in the world, they hate flag wavers and anyone who doesn’t consider himself to be a global citizen.
“Well, since I’m not a pacifist and never advocated abolishing the military entirely (nor do I recall even suggesting we redcude its size at all, at least on this forum.) I don’t think this particular point holds a lot of relevance to me.”
—You’re not a pacifist? Gee, maybe I shouldn’t judge you by the company you keep. Show your colors and start attacking the peacenicks then.
“Does your head hurt to consider that someone who isn’t a pacifist ALSO doesn’t support the iraq war?”
—You’re just a contrarian. If I say black, you say white.
“As for Red Dawn; I don’t think a film featuring Patrick Swayze fighting communists is the best place to look for when you want political advice.”
—It’s a fascinating premise, first they kick NATO out of Europe, then there’s a coup in Russia, then Mexico elects a leftist president, and they join forces with Cubans in a very organized invasion. It’s a patriotic film of a time when soldiers were called soldiers and not “peacekeepers.”
Where did you say you lived? LA? San Francisco? No wonder you’re confused.
“Besides, if that worked, then I would already be pro-war from my rather alrge G.I. Joe collection. But like I said, I don’t look to popular entertainment to determine my politics for me.”
—It was an example, nothing more. I look at many sources for inspiration. That movie has more value than anything Al Gore and Bill Clinton ever wrote, or any un-America crap written at salon.com, anti-war.com, newsweek.com, etc.
posted by Br. Katana of Reasoned Discussion on
Passifism is a poor philosophy, to my mind. Neither does a “hawk” mindset (war is always the answer) serve us well. Afaghanistan was, to everyone I’ve heard from, a “just war.” One that necessary to the defense of the US.
Do you really REALLY think that people on the left — Aravosis, me, people who voted for Lamont, really think that terrorism isn’t a problem, or that it isn’t worth fighting against, or that there are not security problems in the world that need to be handled?
I honestly believe they do. It isn’t just rhetoric on the part of the right wing. It is more important to demonize the opposition. To do that effectively they must be utterly convinced that their way is the only way. (Make no mistake, the Left Wing does it’s fair share of demonizing of the Right, too…)
posted by kittynboi on
“”””‘m 31. Then again, I suppose that’s too old for a twink chaser like yourself. And read a fucking dictionary, there’s no such thing as a “boi.” It’s a perversion of the English language, probably invented by pot smoking skateboard asshole punks. And if you actually were under 18, you’d be a “boy,” with a “y.”””””
If you’re 31 then you’re too young to remember the actual hippies in the 60s. Not only that but you’re only 5-6 years older than I am. So when I was born you would have only been around 5, I guess. So yes, you were certainly around to stand for conservative principles when those vile hippies were out there ruining the fabric of America.
“”””—Disdain for the first amendment? Now you’re making stuff up.””””
Perhaps you forgot about his friendliness to theocrats like Bennett and Falwell, and his constant campaigns against popular entertainment.
“”””Yeah? Well at least we bother to mention all the good things that are happening in Iraq, not just the bad news like your precious New York Times. The “journalists” don’t care about Americans building schools in Iraq, only bombs and corpses seem to interest them.””””
Find one post on here where I quoted the New York Times.
“”””No, what’s wrong with people like you is that you’re becoming like Europeans. Europeans are ashamed of their imperialistic past, so they bend over backwards for people who hate their guts. Leftwing-“Americans” also hate being the best country in the world, they hate flag wavers and anyone who doesn’t consider himself to be a global citizen.””””
I’m not like Europeans because I hate multiculturalism, and I’m not a “global citizen.” I don’t consider myself a citizen of anything.
“”””You’re not a pacifist? Gee, maybe I shouldn’t judge you by the company you keep. Show your colors and start attacking the peacenicks then.””””
What company? You mean the people on this forum? Other than that, you don’t know what company I keep.
“”””You’re just a contrarian. If I say black, you say white.””””
No Christopher Hitchens jokes.
“”””It’s a fascinating premise, first they kick NATO out of Europe, then there’s a coup in Russia, then Mexico elects a leftist president, and they join forces with Cubans in a very organized invasion. It’s a patriotic film of a time when soldiers were called soldiers and not “peacekeepers.”””””
Mexico and Cuba, huh? Well, I guess the fifth columnists from within would probably be a big problem; no patriotic flag wavers could get their cuban sandwiches OR get their lanws mowed, and the overgrown lawns would provide perfect hiding spots for commie troops sneaking up on all American homes.
“”Where did you say you lived? LA? San Francisco? No wonder you’re confused.””
Florida.
“”””It was an example, nothing more. I look at many sources for inspiration. That movie has more value than anything Al Gore and Bill Clinton ever wrote, or any un-America crap written at salon.com, anti-war.com, newsweek.com, etc.””””
I don’t go to Newsweek or Anti-War.com, and only occasionally to Salon, to marvel in disgust at their odious race to mediocrity.
What was it about my last post that set you off so much? Twink chaser? Don’t twinks need love too?
You have a pretty big chip on your shoulder Bobby. Better watch out for those invading commie mexicans coming across the border, or that chip might even be a corn chip with salsa.
posted by Randy on
Well, then. I guess the 60% of Americans that are against the war in Iraq really just want to coddle the terrorists, right?
It sure is easier to think that people on the left, like me and those who voted for Lamont, are just a bunch of idiots who want to coddle terrorists than to actually wonder what the problem is. Do you think that it might be that we just don’t think the war is handled properly? That there are far better ways to fight the war on terrorism than to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? That maybe — just maybe – the war on terror from arab extremists might be better fought if the military didn’t keep firing it’s best qualified linguists? That our soldiers would be happier with actual armor rather than the tin foil plating the army puts on its vehicles?
Nope. Just easier to say we hate America.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
John Aravosis does NOT think that mass murder by terrorists is some Republican conspiracy.
However, to be fair, he happily dismissed the widespread reports of theocratic murder of gays and lesbians by the Iranian government, reported by Iranian activists, because they went against the left-wingthe 60% of Americans that are against the war in Iraq really just want to coddle the terrorists, right agenda of Scott Long, the token gay guy at Human Rights Watch.
I’ve long thought that on issues where gay rights clash significantly with the political aims of the left wing (and the Democratic party), you’ll find Aravosis happily singing the Dem party tune (and playing house homo). Now, that’s not unusual in the political realm, but he and his supporters should be less disingenuous about their activities. For instance, to support an anti-gay candidate like Kerry or Hillary Clinton, and then blast others as “self-loathing homosexuals” for their own support of anti-gay candidates. . . or condemn the premiere Iranian gay rights group as “unknown and unfamiliar with conditions in Iran” because they go against the received wisdom of the liberal left. . . that’s just transparent.
the 60% of Americans that are against the war in Iraq really just want to coddle the terrorists, right
Oh, of course, they’ve been turned lily-livered by the librul media.
Now that the terr’ists see that wiretapping of Verizon mobile phones is being curtailed, they feel emboldened to plant more IEDs in Iraq to kill our troops. The fact that the NSA is reading every e-mail in America is the only thing keeping us from being murdered en masse!
posted by Randy on
Aravosis did dismiss the widespread reports of theocratic murder of gays in Iran, but he did not do so happily, nor casually. As a journalist, he will not print or at least back something without some substantiation. He has made it clear that Iran is not friendly to gays, but as to mass murder, you need more than rumors — you need facts and those facts need to be checked for veracity. Unfortunately, facts from Iran, and the necessary checks, are difficult if not impossible to come by from Iran. Therefore, he could not report it as factual. he did report on the rumors, but until there is something more, those are just rumors. Any respectable journalist would do the same.
The trouble is that we are so used to dis-respectable journalists nowadays, that we have a low standard of what can be proven.
And Aravosis had given hell to the democrats throughout most of his postings. He gave hell to Kerry throughout his campaign on gay issues and many others, but in the end supported him for prez because — what, he would support George Bush? Hillary is supportive on all gay issues except for gay marriage. That’s a hell of a lot better than most republican candidates for senate! Given a choice between a terrible choice and an imperfect one, you pick the imperfect one.
But yes, he does defend dems, and is quite a liberal. And, like me, he might even support an anti-gay dem over a pro-gay republican. Why? Because we have the political intelligence that gay supportive republicans have zero influence in a republican-controlled congress (see Kolbe, Chaffee, Dukakis and so on) and that only by having a democratic controlled congress will ENDA, and a change in DADT ever come to out of committee. And you get a democratic controlled congress by voting for democrats, even the ones who are against gay rights, because then we at least have a hope of getting our rights voted on.
Someday, everyone will learn how to play chess.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Aravosis did dismiss the widespread reports of theocratic murder of gays in Iran, but he did not do so happily, nor casually. As a journalist, he will not print or at least back something without some substantiation.
Aravosis didn’t dismiss them “seriously or unhappily.” He dismissed them without a second thought.
As for his claim to be a journalist, give me a break! Doug Ireland, who reported extensively on Iran’s anti-gay pogrom, is a journalist. Aravosis is a partisan hack who joins forces with folks like Mike Rogers to gay-bait conservative Republicans who disagree on some policy issue with him.
like me, he might even support an anti-gay dem over a pro-gay republican. Why? Because we have the political intelligence that gay supportive republicans have zero influence in a republican-controlled congress
You and similar folk aren’t as clever as you think. . . Democratic administrations and Congresses don’t deliver pro-gay results any more than Republican ones do. It was a Democratic congress which delivered Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, a Democratic vote which helped push through the DOMA, and a Democratic president who signed it (and campaigned on it).
Why not just come clean and admit that you find issues of socialism to be more important than gay issues? It’s rather obvious.
Someday, everyone will learn how to play chess.
Unfortunately, being a pawn of the Democratic party isn’t playing chess — it’s getting rooked.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Aravosis had given hell to the democrats throughout most of his postings. He gave hell to Kerry throughout his campaign on gay issues and many others
“Giving hell” isn’t a surly couple of blog postings snapping at The Party before falling back into line. Giving hell is demanding politicians earn one’s vote — and reporting honestly on the political positions of every individual.
It’s also reporting on news (such as Iran’s anti-gay pogrom) which is inconvenient to the political cause in an honest, open and straightforward manner. There’s nothing particularly wrong with being partisan, as long as that partisanship is acknowledged — there’s a lot wrong with blasting critiques of one’s partisanship as unfair and claiming that one is a neutral, unbiased journalist.
I think the record of “Democratic party gay leaders” in influencing the Democratic party’s position on gays speaks for itself. From Maine to Montana, Democrats are becoming increasingly anti-gay and increasingly arrogant in their presumption that they “own” the gay vote.
posted by randy on
Um, NE LIB, look — if you have read any of my posts here on this forum, you will see that gay issues are at least as important to me as any social issues, and often more. (Sure, I sorta think the war in Iraq stinks, but I’m in good company on that one).
And of course the Dem handed us a defeat in DOMA. But considering the fact that at the time there was no place in the US where gays could get married, at the time he was hardly a retreat for gay rights. Even today, with only one state allowing gay marriage, DOMA has virtually no role to play in law or politics, since any state can refuse to recognize a Mass marriage regardless of DOMA!. DADT resulted not because Clinton wanted to make life difficult, but because he purposely made it the very first thing to do in office to allow gays to serve openly in the military. At the time it was considered a compromise with the powerful military senators who wanted all gays rooted out of the military.
That said — undert he current republican leadership, bills such as ENDA (the employement nondiscrimination act) and others are held up in committee. They won’t even let the full congress vote on these issues.
Will it be better under the dems? I don’t know — that’s why I was careful to say that in a dem congress we at least have the hope that these things will get out of committee and up for a vote, and maybe even passed into law. Then they have to be signed into law by Bush. Will that happend? I really don’t know. All I know is that under the Repubs, it certainly will not, but under the Dems it might. Guess which I’m voting for?
And if that somehow shows that I am more concerned about social issues that gay issues, then — well, I don’t know what to say because it’s so bizarre you might as well say that it proves I eat green cheese.
As for Iran, just what exactly is the Democratic view on it that I am falling in line for? As far as I know, every where I read, everyone is condemning Iran for its human rights abuses, it’s belligerent leaders and so on. I don’t see anyone standing up FOR Iran, so I don’t see how I or Aravosis could possibly be worried about the dem line on this.
By the way, my roommate is gay and was born and raised in Iran. His most recent visit was two years ago, and he was detained for two weeks for no reason at all, and was scared shitless. According to him, they don’t gun down the gays, because it’s too messy. (all that blood, and bullets cost money) They just catch you and hang you.
Are you happy now?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
considering the fact that at the time there was no place in the US where gays could get married, at the time he was hardly a retreat for gay rights
Actually, it was a response to the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruling, which likely would have resulted in gay marriage 8 years earlier than Massachusetts, had not Demopublicans linked hands with their Republicrat “opposition” to “join together to save family values.”
bills such as ENDA (the employement nondiscrimination act) and others are held up in committee
A good thing, since ENDA is meaningless, window-dressing statist dreck which doesn’t impact the lives of average gay people (except to open up workplaces to accusations of frivolous claims every time someone complains of homophobic treatment on the job).
under the Repubs, it certainly will not, but under the Dems it might
Under the Dems, it didn’t either.
You’re holding out false hope.
As for Iran, just what exactly is the Democratic view on it that I am falling in line for? As far as I know, every where I read, everyone is condemning Iran for its human rights abuses, it’s belligerent leaders and so on
The far-left Democratic party “net roots” (run by straight folks) stated that individuals condemning Iran for the executions of the two gay teens last year were “assisting the White House in its push for war.” Further, their useful idiots in the partisan media declared that there’s really nothing we can do so we should leave it up to the experts (i.e. them) and just shut up about it.
There’s nothing the “Democrats” hate more than actual grass roots democracy. Just look at how they recoiled in terror over the Dean phenomenon and the Lamont phenomenon more recently. Democratic “leaders” assume the people are stupid sheep who need to be watched and herded into the proper direction, and they unleash volleys of fury at people (such as Peter Tatchell and Doug Ireland) who dare to deign to bring up real, grassroots issues.
Ditto for the ENDA/marriage thing. Self-appointed Democratic “gay leadership” told us that ENDA was the most important thing we could possibly hope for. After talking about gay marriage to deaf ears with the “leadership” for aeons, everyday gay people finally took their cases to court and with the help of non-aligned groups like GLAD, won big victories.
The response from the “leadership?” Hand-wringing over how it would “hurt the alliance with the Democratic Party,” demands that gay people abandon their own personal priorities for some “shared commitment to social justice” (i.e. the Democratic platform) and active attacks on people who are doing what needs to be done for the benefit of their own families. Not cool.
my roommate is gay and was born and raised in Iran. His most recent visit was two years ago, and he was detained for two weeks for no reason at all, and was scared shitless. According to him, they don’t gun down the gays, because it’s too messy. (all that blood, and bullets cost money) They just catch you and hang you.
Well, Scott Long, extremely American liberal-Democrat house homo at Human Rights Watch, would probably accuse your roomie of “cultural imperialism” for “imputing a Western gay identity on the homosexuals of Iran,” tell him that he really isn’t much of an expert like Scott, and tell him that any further discussion or protest of the situation is supporting Bush’s push for war in Iran. At least judging from the blasts of invective which Long aimed at Iranian gay refugees, OutRage! in the UK, and Doug Ireland in the USA.
Are you happy now?
I won’t be happy until you, me and everyone else is free of government bureaucrats attempting to control our most intimate decisions.
posted by ed to libertarian on
“Iraq made gays illegal under Saddam Hussein and imprisoned them.”
Um no. From information we can gather, the law was silent about homosexuality until the last few years of the regime circa 2001 or 2002.
It is possible, that homosexuality became a capital crime, but its offical legal status now is something of a legal debate.
Many Iraqi gay exiles talk about how the regime was fairly tolerate of homosexuality until the mid-1990’s.
In the Middle East, oppression and injustice tends to come in degrees with no real good or bad guys.
The legal status of homosexuality in Afghanistan is even harder to determine, because their are different reports from the government and the courts on the matter. (death vs. prison).
Basically the Bush Administration been the biggest boast to Islamofascsim in Iraq.
posted by Bobby on
Right, Iraq was a gay paradise.
Ok boys, compare and contrast.
In a homophobic democracy, you can sue, organize, protest, and create change even if it takes a long time. That’s what happened in Europe, America, Colombia and Brazil, among other countries.
In a dictatorship, you’re at the mercy of the government. I doubt Saddam tolerated open homosexuality, and just because there wasn’t an especific law, the same situation applies in Egypt (a de-facto dictatorship) where gays are often rounded up on debauchery charges.