Well to start with, lame-brain, the left did not demur at the interim triumph of the Iraq election.

The force wielded by democracies in self-defense has nothing to do with Iraq, as self-defence was not part of our actual rationale for being there.

The author did not watch the left's response to the Iraqi elections, he is simply projecting from the responses he saw from a few people. He asserts this representation is a valid extrapolation of a whole class he calls the left, but god only knows what he thinks that is. It is a meaningless and sardonic generality. The kind you specialize in.

"These days the postmodern left demands that government and private institutions guarantee equality of outcomes" is a meaningless sentence, since their is no center to the vaporous cloud he calls the post-modern left. The legacy of liberalism that I think of as meaningful goes back to SOcrates, and was dramatically boosted by Jefferson and Adams, but it has nothing to do with this stupid imaginary whipping boy you like to throw your half-baked generalizations at. To this nameless and formless imagining, your author then proceeds to attribute all kinds of ideas which he insists "they" hold, without specifics, ideas which are prima facie ridiculous as he names them; this is the worst sort of rhetorical chestbeating.

Whatever this guy chooses to do is his own business, but generalizing hius little upset and making arching generalities out of it is just juvenile in style and watery in reason, much like your own.

A