I see I taste I write Links What?
June 16, 2005

Liberals, Bolton, terrorism and a response

Relevant quotes:

“The same (American, of course) inability to feel the pain of others is the pathology that shapes the minds of terrorists.” (as if suffering everywhere is somehow America’s fault, and terrorism an appropriate expression of it. Italics are my additions.)
Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun

“To say that poverty explains terror is to slander those caught in poverty who choose to lead worthy lives. . . . Based on the biographies of the September 11 attackers, the logical inference would be that ‘money, education, and privilege’ cause terrorism.”
Sean Wilentz (a Princeton professor and Clinton defender.)

Notice any similarity?.

Mona Charen, in her tome Useful Idiots (2003: Paperback edition ISBN 0060579412) observed, as have others in the past, that (in the post-WWII era) “liberals failed one of the two great moral tests . . . [and] still do not know [that] they failed [nor have they] grappled with the implications of that failure.” They had no difficulty facing down “despicable, barbaric” fascism, but did and do fail to identify the same difficulties in Communism, and now in the war on terror, which is arguably as important as WWII—maybe more so.

If liberals in the legislature are using all of the current techniques for purely political reasons they are beneath contempt. If they truly believe what they say they are hopelessly naïve--even childlike. One of the beauties of childhood is this simple naiveté. It fits less well on an adult, and especially one supposedly educated, and in the know, not to mention in positions of power.

Their post Vietnam views, further conditioned by the dilemmas of Central America, were wrong, as history has proved. All of the countries over which the Pooh-Bahs of the left wrenched themselves out of shape are now democracies. Worse, they were and are similarly wrong about America. To suggest that America is corrupt, dangerous, culpable, etc. is simply incorrect. Pure and virginal we are not, but, as Reagan observed: “America is not what’s wrong with the world.”

An unwillingness to carefully evaluate the dangers, and the need to sacrifice some of our vaunted liberty in order to get inside the terror network (i.e. the Homeland Security debacle), and the stalling of the Bolton nomination to the U.N. for nothing but political reasons is abominable. With the U.N. in its current condition, we need another strong personage to represent us, as were Moynihan and Kirkpatrick. To deny this requires considerable, voluntary blindness to the facts, or intentional distortion of them.

No war is perfect . . . many are necessary . . . most have no “exit strategy” except victory. To interfere at all levels at all times for political advantage (think terrorist detainees in Cuba), just to make Bush look like a demon is simply not acceptable. Problems do exist, and certainly some need address by these legislative bodies, but to pretend that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo equals the Russian Gulag system, Saddam, and terrorist beheadings is repulsive on its face.

We are in a war to the death. Psychological Operations manuals all note that you can’t kill them all, you have to convert some of them . . . still, killing some of them is necessary in its own right, and is known to assist in the conversion of others.

Posted by respeto at June 16, 2005 10:29 AM