Whyizzit?

The national media abounds with debates over Iraq, global warming, abortion and the death penalty. I've always wondered:

Iraq: The Left vehemently oppose the war in Iraq, saying that, although we believed Saddam Hussein could be a threat to the U.S. and allied states, we should not have launched a pre-emptive attack unless the threat was much more certain. The Right says that, given Saddam's history, we couldn't take a chance that he would develop and use weapons of mass destruction against us.

Global warming: The Left (who oppose action in Iraq) want the U.S. to immediately reduce production of greenhouse gasses, even if it damages our economy. They say that we can't take a chance with the future of the planet by waiting until we have absolute proof. The Right (who backed pre-emptive war in Iraq) insist that we need not do anything about climate change until it is proven to be a true threat.

Abortion: The Right says that abortion is murder, the killing of totally innocent unborn humans. The Left says that the woman's right to abortion is paramount; what's best for a current human trumps whatever rights an unborn fetus may have.

Death Penalty: The Right favors the death penalty for the properly convicted guilty, saying their actions require retribution and permanent removal. The Left opposes the death penalty, saying society has no right to take someone's life.

In summary:
Left - Against preemptive actions in Iraq, for preemptive actions on the environment. For killing fetuses, against killing adult convicts.
Right - For preemptive war in Iraq, against preemptive actions on the environment. Against killing unborn babies, for killing adult human convicts.

Anyone else wondering why politics are so confusing?

In Liberty