"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
--Joseph Stalin

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Moral Equivalency: A Lie of Uttermost Evil

7/12/05
Will Malven

There is a truly pernicious concept which was heard from the left, like a mantra, during the cold war.  This was the lie that, because America supported some despotic leaders around the world whose government supported America’s anti-communist goals, America was no better than its communist enemies. 

Even though America was the bastion of freedom and the guarantor of freedom for the Western world, we were still evil because of these failings. 

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and our resultant victory, the fallacy of these claims became self-apparent.  The near instantaneous emergence of fledgling democracies among the Eastern block nations proved the validity of America’s chosen policies.  More people throughout the world enjoy freedom now than ever in history.  More nations follow the lessons of democracy than ever before. 

Had we heeded the advice of these nay sayers, say in the early eighties, America and the West might have unilaterally disarmed just as the Soviet system was about to fail.  This would have had massively negative consequences both for the people of the West, and especially for the citizens of those fledgling democracies in Eastern Europe.

Other examples of this flawed philosophy abound.  The anti-Israel faction insist that Palestinian “suicide bombers” who conceal themselves in a passenger bus full of civilians or seat themselves in a crowded restaurant to perform their heinous act are no different than Israeli attacks against Hamas, Hezbollah, or Islamic Jihad leaders or strongholds, because civilians get killed in those attacks as well. 

After 9/11/01 we were informed by our “beloved” MSM, that “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”  Some in the MSM went so far as to prohibit the use of the word terrorist by their reporters.  Even today in the wake of the bombings in London, these same lies are going around the anti-Bush, anti-war blog sites and alternative media commentary websites:

“not attempting to minimize the tragidy [sic]... why is any one shocked? the "Those", "responsible" who "have no respect for human life..." are Bush and Blair etc.! And this will continue until we change our politics.”

“And anyone who votes for the violent policies of those Presidents and PMs should take a long hard look at what they've fostered. Violence begets violence.”
“even on this morning, there is a war in iraq taking the lives of ordinary citizens, just like the ones in london. as the poster said: violence begets violence. whether it's bombs dropped by the USA or suicide bombers: the dead are still dead.”
“Bush says the war on terror must go on -does that mean invade Iran? Or perhaps it will be Syria.
I do feel for the people of London, because most of them didn't want
the invasion of Iraq, but they're the ones paying the price.
I also feel for the people of Iraq, because this is what they're
experiencing every day, especially in Baghdad. But nobody's making
any reference to that”
“Bush's Statement
UGH!
I am so embarrassed--no, mortified--that this dimwit is our face to the world. What a joke.
So, we're going to "spread an ideology of hope and compassion," huh. Of course, we all know that the best way to accomplish this is by murdering thousands of Iraqis.I can't believe anybody takes him seriously”

The first four quotes were from DemocraticUnderground and the last from dailyKos (don’t let the disparity of in number of quotes fool you they are equally prolific on all similar sites, I just didn’t want to waste any more space).  They represent a very small sampling of what passes for commentary on those web pages.  There are others, BoomanTribune and SmirkingChimp also come to mind. 

The sad fact is that these people have no moral compass.  They are incapable of discerning the difference between people who deliberately target civilians with the intent of killing as many of them as they can, and those who target combatants only, seeking to minimize civilian casualties. 

An even more sinister aspect of this moral blindness is that it is politically motivated.  They choose to believe every negative story, every innuendo, about this administration simply because they disagree with them.  They seek to believe the worst about them because they hate them. 

Hatred is one of the basest of emotions, one to be avoided wherever possible, these people, to the contrary, revel in it.  They celebrate their hatred.  They vie against each other to be the most hateful in their comments.  What a sad, sick, miserable existence it must be.

Inevitably wars lead to civilian casualties.  That is the unfortunate nature of war, but there is a vast difference in the causes of those casualties on each side and the aims of those inflicting the casualties.  The term “collateral damage” is sneered at by those on the Left.  It is often cited as proof of our callousness toward civilian deaths.  In fact, it is nothing but a factual description.  It conveys no valuation of the loss, it merely informs one of the unintentional nature of the injuries inflicted. 

Juxtapose this to the intentional level of loss in a terrorist attack.  Terrorists are not interested in inflicting casualties on the military, they are interested in inflicting terror on the people. 

The road to Hell may indeed be paved with good intentions, but motives are still a legitimate means of determining the good from the evil.  America is fighting a war in Iraq for a number of good reasons and one which, as it turns out, was apparently not so good.  There are currently no WMD’s (okay, I know that technically it should be W’sMD, but it just doesn’t look right) in Iraq, so far as we know.  We do know that there were WMD’s in Iraq at some time in the past. 

The concern about WMD’s was a legitimate concern; worldwide, major intelligence organizations all believed that Saddam had them.  We also know that Saddam was prone to provide sanctuary to anti-Israel and anti-American terrorists.  The two are definitely not a good mix.  Whether Saddam Hussein shipped his WMD’s out to Syria or he destroyed them, is something we will eventually find out.  What we do know for sure, is that the other reasons cited by President Bush prior to the invasion all remain valid and all are just by nature. 

The Iraqi people were suffering under one of the worst despotic regimes in history.  Saddam had no difficulty in starving his nation’s children while building himself luxurious palaces, then accusing the embargo of causing the suffering of Iraqi children.  Sadly, a lot of the Left-wingers cheerily echoed those lies in their ardor to smear President Bush.  Saddam was clearly a continuing threat to the region.  It was only through our continued over flights of the no-fly zones, that his military and territorial aspirations were kept in check. 

We know now that several of our “allies” were routinely violating the U.N. imposed embargo for their own monetary gain.  The geopolitical chess game was beginning to fall apart, as the embargo began to fail.  This is again evident as those same “allies” sought to undermine the U.S.’s efforts to turn up the heat on Saddam’s brutal regime.  It is understandable the France, Germany, and Russia resisted the efforts to reign in Hussein, as they were profiting substantially from their illegal trade with Iraq.

It is also true that the democratization of Iraq will bring greater security and freedom to the region.  Such a democracy could lead to the eventual destabilization and democratization of the two worst remaining terrorist harboring nations, Syria and Iran. 

The left wrongly asserts that the solution to the terrorist threat lies in our withdrawing entirely from the Middle East and providing a higher standard of living for the people of the region.  While one cannot ignore the economic plight of the people of the Middle East, it is wrong to lay blame for the terrorist problem solely on poverty and illiteracy.  Those conditions will solve themselves in a successful democracy.  The political and economic freedom resultant from the establishment of democracy are the most likely precursors to peace in the Middle East.   

Isolationism has been tried before in our history.  Each time it has been tried, tragedy has resulted.  World politics is a dynamic game with potentially very deadly consequences.  Without the stabilizing presence of the United States, local problems tend to spiral out of control.  In a time when the results of these disputes can have cataclysmic results (nuclear war, bio-chemical war) America cannot afford to be a disinterested party.

For the people on the left to ascribe comparable culpability to America’s leaders and those of the terrorist organizations is a dishonest attempt to smear the President and the Republicans with a very broad brush for political gain.  It is easy to determine who is working for the good of the American people and that of the Iraqi people simply by looking at who the Arab press is quoting time and again. 

Al Jazeerah doesn’t quote those espousing American and democratic values for the Iraqi people, they quote the terrorists and those in the West taking up their call.  They didn’t quote Bill Frist or Jim Sessions, they quote Dick Durbin.  The Left have willingly, knowingly, allied themselves with our enemies.

In business there is a saying “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”  These days, as usual, the Democrats and their puppeteers on the Left are part of the problem.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

No comments:

Post a Comment