Steven Den Beste gives us a piece that points out that we can't know whether we're pursuing the right course of action ("right" in both senses) unless we know what our goals are. That might seem obvious but, as Steven illustrates, in practice it often isn't.
And speaking of goals, Dean Esmay writes as succinct a set of goals for a true liberal, in this day and age, as I have seen:
And what do I want? An expansion of human rights around the world, of democracy around the world, and of freedom around the world. I believe an activist, interventionist foreign policy is at this point in human history the only way to accomplish that--and that if we don't do it, far more people will die in America, in the West, and in the world in general than they will otherwise.
What's to disagree with here?
Nothing? Then why are so very many people on the other side of this? People who are supposedly "liberal".
And it's not like the other side even wants to have a debate.
Bush=Hitler, and me and Dean and all of us who support the war and the President are Brownshirts.
I don't see how you debate with someone whose opening position is that you're a Brownshirt. Especially when the debate is supposedly about how to advance freedom and democracy.
That's my goal. That's my desire. To see freedom and democracy advanced around the world. It's the only thing that can make America safe, and it's the morally right thing to do.
But of course I err. I said "the debate is supposedly about how to advance freedom and democracy", but I get the strong impression that's not what the other side wants to debate, at all.
To the Democrats: what are your goals again?