Digby sez:
This argument is utter nonsense.
1. The "Not in our Name" petition, if it is real, does not indicate any solidarity with fundamentalist Islam. It is a general disagreement with American foreign policy.
2.) None other than Super Lefty George W. Bush has waxed romantically on many occasions about being a "good and loyal friend of Islam."
3.) The underlying premise of his post is completely fallacious. As with the Right's conflation of liberalism with John Walker Lindh's conversion to fundamentalist Islam, Reynolds has made a serious error in logic.
If a Liberal is defined by his belief in equality for women and minorities, universal suffrage, civil rights, religious pluralism etc then it is entirely illogical that they would support fundamentalist Islam with it's contrary belief system.
This does not mean, of course, that because they oppose everything Islamic theocracy stands for that they must automatically support military action against it.
There are other options for dealing with the threat of terrorism, and whether or not you believe those options are efficacious does not negate their existence nor does it mean that those who support those options must then be assumed to love fundamentalist Islam. That one has a tolerance for the overall religion itself is merely All American religious pluralism.
Finally, and most importantly, the post in question posits that because the Christian fundamentalists have joined with Islamic fundamentalists in taking a position to halt the expansion of rights for women, children and gays, the the Lefties will have to make a choice between their good Islamic friends their great Christian enemies. This is the heart of the argument and it is sophistry.
The basis of Liberal philosophy is the expansion of human rights. To believe that Lefties would hesitate for a moment to condemn this propsed UN action, no matter who is sponsoring it but particularly because of a specious claim of love and affection for Islamic theocracy, is well..stupid.
Let's be clear. Liberals believe in human rights. They do not support repression of women, children or gays. Thinking people will not confuse them with others who do support those things no matter how hard someone tries to create a confluence of illogical conclusions.
I say - Glenn gets a *bit* of a pass on Digby's argument because he said "lefty" and not liberal, but nonetheless.
