I'd consider myself a liberal for liberation. My blog http://dubitoks.tripod.com is probably the best source to find out about my opinions. (It is a new blog, too.)

Thanks for the link to Brian, I had not seen his blog before, and enjoyed it.

I had to read it more slowly. I thought Vodkapundit wrote "liberal for libation."

Ooh, that's bad, but I'm posting it anyway.

Cute our Carol is plugging his little blog thanks to being a 'liberal for liberation' too.

Regardless that the expression is an oxymoron for morons to begin with.

You just added me to your blogroll yesterday (thanks!) but I'll mention that I have been a liberal for liberation even before 9/11 and the Bush administration :-)

Jonesey, what are you smoking and I can I have some?

(on second thought, maybe not)

Jones, no offense, but are you thick or something? One can be a liberal and still find Saddam to be an odious, brutal, evil man deserving of removal by force. Sounds like you've dipped into the Well of the Party Line one too many times.

There's nothing oxymoronic regarding her statement at all... what's funny is that you call it an "oxymoron for morons." Since YOU find it to be an oxymoron, guess what, tiger - you're a moron. Moving along.

Most encouraging from Carol's blog is this line:

I like to believe I think for myself. I see some pro and con in each party's platform.

There's hope yet. :) Ignore the peanut gallery and keep on keeping on.

not sure if it counts, as i've never considered myself particularly liberal, per se. i do have this closet philia for postmodernity and think it can teach all of us a thing or two, though. i suppose that passes as liberal in most circles.

Can I be a social liberal and a constitutional conservative? Does this make it permissable to post on this thread?

re: above
I guess this makes me an "Andrew Sullivan lberal" or an "Andrew Sullivan conservative" depending on with whom you are speaking.

Do "liberals for liberation" support the liberation of several peoples who have been terrorized by their governments (Algeria, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Sudan)? Or just the liberation of the Iraqi people?
And do they think that military force to remove those governments from power is the correct route to accomplish said liberation?

Come to think of it, how do "conservatives for liberation" feel on these questions?

I am curious because the Iraq situation -- and possible North Korea situation -- catches Bush's attention due to the potential threat to the U.S., not the human rights problem. If we prioritized by human rights violation, North Korea would be higher on our list, and the other nations I mentioned above, plus several more, would be on our radar, which they currently are not.

Everyone thinks I'm a Republican. Fact is, on domestic policy, I'm really very liberal. It's just that my stance on foreign policy and defense line up so well with the GOP. I'm in the weird position of supporting Bush for doing very well overseas, while at the same time I'm terrified of his domestic agenda.

PG:

You may be correct if the reason the Administration is intervening is based on human rights violations. However, that is not the case. Rather, the reason Iraq is targeted is because it is the biggest threat to our national security. That is why it is at the top of the list.

I am a liberal for liberation. I voted for Ralph Nader for president in 1996 and 2000. And I'm to the right of Bush on this war.

If I were president, Saddam would be dead, Iraq would be free, and Kim Jong Il would be hiding under his desk in Pyongyang.

See my blog and recently published articles here.

Another Liberal for Liberation, but in true liberal tradition, I'd like to keep it a little fuzzy about which countries and when I want to liberate them from the long list of potential liberatees PG provided. For Iraq, February 14th seems like an auspicious day to begin the Liberation. For America, election day 2004 seems about right to liberate our children from the crushing tax burden Bush is arranging for them. With that uplifting thought in mind, I'm printing up some "Free George Bush" placards for next year. This idea of liberating is just too powerful to pass up.

Count me in. I even like paying taxes. But we either fight them here or fight them there, and it's better off there! If it were up to me, I'd stop taking aerial photos of all this sh*t and just start blowing it to smithereens. Human shields? That's life sometimes.

There are two kinds of liberals. Hawks and peace niks. There's this kind and there's this kind. A liberal for liberation, which I am, would generally be the former kind.

Yo Stephen Green,

I'm a Harry Truman liberal, and I'm all for knocking off Saddam, and liberating the Iraqi people from their long nightmare.

I'm a liberal for liberation. I used to respect 'liberals' but now I see that they're more concerned with looking concerned than with actually solving any problems. God forbid we have to make an effort, or a sacrifice, or anyone is unhappy when we do what is best for America as a whole. I'm an idealist, I love Kennedy, and I love the principles our country is founded on. Modern 'liberals' use all of the thing I take to heart as tools to get what they desire. That is not responsible. Time for the 'liberals' and 'idealists' to put their money where their mouth is. You believe in life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Well how about you sacrifice a little of your own to help others out. That's why I'm a conservative, at least they're honest about the whys of what they do and say. More than I can say for the democrats.

Count me in.

I'm a pro-war liberal--or, perhaps more accurately, I'm an anti-peace-camp liberal. I don't really want war, but it seems to me the only real option. The main factors motivating the peace camp are a pathological hatred of Bush and an almost religious commitment to the idea that America can't do anything right, both of which result in intellectually dishonest posturing. I am frustrated that people who claim to be committed to human rights, the spread of freedom and equality, and democracy can be opposed to deposing an odious dictator.

The part that worries me is what happens after the invasion. Will the hawks be willing to commit the tremendous resources required to foster an authentic democracy in Iraq?

Read more at toomuchtext.blogspot.com.

I'm a hawk on terrorism and Israel.

I'm pro-union, pro-choice, for progressive taxation, affirmative action, and gays in the military.

Guess that makes me a liberal for liberation.

It isn't my site, but I think the Armchair Analyst qualifies as a Liberal for Liberation. Worth a look.