Hooray for Consistency

I've noticed a rather odd discrepancy in liberal rhetoric lately. On one hand, the left seems absolutely determined to create the impression that we've lost the War on Terror if we don't retain the moral high ground, which of course means that our troops can't employ tactics even vaguely resembling torture or humiliation lest they sink to the enemy's level. For example, take this statement by Mike Luckovich:

if we want to succeed in iraq, we have to remember that our most powerful weapon, greater than any bomb we could drop, is our moral authority. with the Bush administration ignoring the geneva conventions and deciding that in some instances, torture is acceptable, abu ghraib and gitmo resulted. we have dealt a severe blow to our efforts to win the hearts and minds of iraqis and of those in the greater mideast. this is in part why the insurgency has grown so strong and made it much harder to positively transform the middle east.

Incidentally, I'm still trying to figure out why the left has such a weird obsession with bombs. But that's an entirely separate topic.

The point is that this sentiment has been echoed by many on the left. Evidently, the only way to truly win a conflict is to use your "moral authority." I always thought that the point of a war was to, you know, kill the enemy, but that's probably one of those barbaric redneck beliefs that only ignorant repukes like myself can hold onto. Or something.

However, when trying to deal with purely political domestic conflicts, liberals will often insist that the only way to win is to match the hatred and anger that supposedly spew from the right on a daily basis, because anything less would make them come across as weak and cause them to lose more elections. A few good examples of this have appeared on the Democratic Underground lately, and thanks to DUmmie FUnnies, we can take a look at them:

Listen to me, Democrats! Never defend. Never explain. Attack, attack, attack! When a right-winger accuses you of something, back up, reframe, ignore the charges, just ATTACK. How hard can this be? Ann Coulter doesn’t waste her time defending herself against our accusations. Neither does Rush Limbaugh. They launch their attacks and the terms of the debate are set from there, and once again, as liberals, we are bringing knives to a gun fight.

... it will force them to deal with issues if we beat them at their own game. I've been saying this for years. The dittoheads and others out there like them who can not think critically only think and believe what the person who screams the loudest says. I agree with the original poster, this is the way to fight back. People won't even remember most of what is alleged but they will remember how confident, strong and uncowardly the screamer appears...We need to do some name calling, screaming, scratching, and bitchin!

Making nice is for the party that refuses to win. America is too dumbed down and has the hots for hate. It's the hand we are playing, so lets play already!

Under normal condition, civil discourse would be appropriate... However, these are not "normal times". We have an opposition that aims to knock you down and grind their boot in your face. We must fight back accordingly.

Obviously, since these are from separate sources, I can't really use the discrepancy as direct evidence of hypocrisy. However, based on the fact that a number of liberals would probably agree with Luckovich and the DUmbasses, I have to ask why nobody else is pointing out the inconsistency.

Apparently, when dealing with terrorists whose only belief in life is "the infidels must die," it's necessary to retain the moral high ground in order to show innocent civilians that we're truly a force for good...but when it comes to simple disagreement over political issues, anything goes! Don't even bother making rational arguments, because the sheeple are too stupid for that! They only recognize strength, so attack, attack, attack, and never bother to explain why you're doing it!

This post rambled a bit, but still...does anyone else find it weird that they don't at least juxtapose these beliefs at some point and apply the "anything goes" rationale to people who are dedicated to the annihilation of non-Muslims?