Cases in False Equivalence: Tea Parties and Iraq

Via Memeorandum, Alex Knapp perfectly demonstrates the left's false equivalencies, "Tea Parties, Going Galt, Iraq, and Delicious Irony":

The folks in the blogosphere largely cheerleading the Tea Parties are the same folks in the blogosphere who cheerleaded the war in Iraq. So apparently, government intervention to the tune of $650 Billion is okay to spend when it comes to an unnecessary war that in no way advances American interests, but not okay when it comes to building bridges, cutting taxes, helping state governments meet budget shortfalls, or making sure that Americans don’t get covered in lava. Gotcha.

Check Knapp's post for more "delicious ironies" of false equivalence. But this line is classic: "At the time, I did support the Iraq invasion, which in hindsight was stupid." Stupid on Iraq, like Andrew Sullivan.

As for the "unnecessity" of Iraq? This is the left's "Big Lie, and it's an old debate, with consequences. As Arthur Borden has noted:

President Bush was right to confront Iraq. While the decision to go to war is in the past and cannot be reversed, the emerging consensus that it was a mistake is not. Unless we can revisit the debate over the invasion, and comprehend President Bush's reasons for removing Saddam Hussein, we will be unprepared to debate policy toward Iran - and potentially ill-equipped to prevent Tehran from achieving the regional domination through weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which we denied Baghdad.

Borden's book lays out this argument in detail: A Better Country: Why America Was Right to Confront Iraq.

See also, Legal Insurrection, "Confused Blogger Hates Tea Parties (Title Changed to "Instalanche Loving Blog Hates Instapundit")."

**********

UPDATE: Interestingly, I cited Andrew Sullivan above as an illustration of the left's total hypocrisy on this - you know, "I supported the war before I was against it" baloney. Well, my sixth sense must be working this morning, as Mr. Sullivan's got a post reiterating Knapp's false equivalencies:

My sense is that it is a delayed reaction in some ways to Bush, and his betrayal of conservatism. For all sorts of reasons, most of the current tea-partiers backed the GOP under Bush and Cheney, although some, to be fair, did complain about some of it. The pent-up frustrations behind conservatism's collapse under Republicans were trumped, however, by the fruits of power, partisan hatred of "the left", defensiveness over the Iraq war and torture, and, above all religious devotion to the Leader. Now that Bush has been removed, the massive damage done, and a pragmatic liberal is trying to sort out the mess in a sane, orderly fashion, they've gone nuts.

There's more at the link, and Memeorandum.

And in case you missed, see last night's post, "Andrew Sullivan: Unrepentant, Still Clinical