Democrats have done such a good job of misleading the American public on Iraq lately that George Bush had to go on TV last night to remind Americans why we are fighting the War on Terror. If the democrats are successful in brain-washing the public, as they appear to have been on killing any meaningful reform of social security, future generations of Americans will again suffer the consequences. And what is at stake in this case is the most basic human right of all - survival.
Headlines this morning proclaim that democrats are outraged President Bush had the audacity to connect the war in Iraq with the events of 9/11. Once again, the ability of the democratic party leadership and their mouthpieces in the mainstream media to manipulate public opinion is almost beyond comprehension. They are desperately working to turn Americans against the war by relying on their typical strategy of separating cause from effect, because if that can be done then doubts begin to surface about the legitimacy of the effect.
But guess what, folks. THE WAR ON TERROR IS DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO 9/11. Nothing can change that fact, but a continuous stream of misleading "news" stories and editorials misrepresenting reality by highlighting the bad and ignoring the good can cause people to forget it.
A friend of mine, who like most thinking Americans is concerned about the situation in Iraq and often questions his own support of the war, sent me the following email. "The question I struggle with is the statistic that up to 150 million people were murdered in mass, politically motivated killings in the 20th century. As a citizen of the one country in the world that has the greatest ability to stop the murders, should we insist our military save these people? Or should we close our borders and tell everyone else 'good luck' "?
My personal response to that question is if we could be 100% certain we could close our borders and escape the carnage occurring throughout the rest of the world, then I would be all for closing the borders and telling everyone else "good luck and God bless." But the history of human behavior has proven that course of action would be dangerously naive - and suicidal. Once tyranny rules the rest of the world, they wouldn't allow us to sit alone on our little utopian pedestal. Eventually, they would come for us. We have already allowed the forces of evil to grow to dangerous proportions. If we don't take them on now, it will soon be too late.
From their behavior it seems that democrats are either advocates of tyranny and rule of the self-appointed elite (as long as it is them), or are dangerously uninformed and naive about history and human nature. Terrorists have declared war on western civilization. They have been murdering anyone who happens to have a different opinion (and any innocent who happens to be in the vicinity) for decades. 9/11 was just one event of this war. It is a war western civilization cannot afford to lose.
It is tough enough fighting terrorists who kill indiscriminately, know no bounds of decency and easily blend in with the local population. It does not make it easier that most of the countries in continental Europe have already surrendered, as usual. But it makes it even tougher when, for purposes of nothing more than political and personal gain and with complete disregard for the survival of the American people, politicians in our own country conspire to mislead the public and turn it against our efforts to defend ourselves from those whose goal is to eliminate freedom and democracy from the face of the earth.
4 comments:
Greetings from Salt Lake City. Excellent commentary on the Democratic Party.
It always amazes me the way are political parties pit against each other to accomplish nothing. My husband just finished 10yrs in the Navy and it is too painful to be hysterical what the media puts out on what our military is really doing around the world. If only our own country could agree and support our own efforts.
Of course, the War on Terror is connected to 9/11. No Democrat in their right mind is debating that straw-man argument. What the debate is about are the following two things: 1) Is the War in Iraq really connected to the event of 9/11 and Al Queda or was it simply an excuse for deposing a dictator that Bush wanted out anyway, and 2) Is the War in Iraq front on the War on Terror really forwarding a likely victory in the War on Terror or is it a setback?
What shocked me about Bush's speech last night was his "shooting gallery" strategy in the War on Terror. If that's what Bush means by "sacrifice", then if we really support the troops, we should reject this dangerous policy and bring them home alive.
OK, I'll bite. Let me present you with a different perspective.
Let's take a hypothetical situation: I represent a superpower even greater than America, that has decided that the American Constitution is bad for the American people.
What's more, we can easily demonstrate that portions of it, like the 2nd Amendment are hideously inapproapriate for any modern-day society.
The 2nd Amendment's justification for arming the public for concerns about tyranny and evil overrunning the world was a concept that died with the Second World War. Today, you couldn't hope to bankrole it.
The present day conflicts are ancient wars with histories that fade into the past, the Iraqi Shiite/Sunni one being one of them.
Now as this hypothetical superpower with more military might even than the US, we're going to come visit you and insist that you dump your 200+ year old Constitution (a newcomer by historical standards) because too many Americans are getting killed unnecessarily because of it.
Also, the unbridled capitalism it propounds makes for enormous disparity of wealth, such that portions of America live in poverty comparable to some Third Worlds.
And remember, we're doing this for your own good.
Don't you suppose that if our troops overrun you, and stick guns in your face, that even if we claim to be doing this 'for your own good' that you may get royally pissed off anyway?
America has done this in Iraq, and your still wondering why these people aren't grateful.
Yes, there is a problem with these wars killing many people, but if there's one lesson the rest of the world has learned from American experiences, it is that you can't fly in and deliver them from evil; you can only try to broker peace.
This may mean a peacekeeping role, one that requires more diplomatic policing skills, as opposed to the 'let's overrun 'em and learn 'em a lesson' approach.
The bottom line with any society with long-standing tensions; often they are based on ancient cultural dogmas that hadn't been reconsidered, only blindly followed.
And where there is little critical reassessment, only blind adherence, there is the old dilemma 'how do you change an unthinking man's mind?'
The solutions? History has shown that;
1) You kill him.
2) You almost kill him.
For obvious reasons, the first solution is useless. The problem with the second solution is that under NO circumstance do you want to step in in place of one of the adversaries - the situation is messy enough as it is.
The best you can do is to attempt to limit carnage and promote non-violent exchange.
But dropping 'Daisy Cutters' on urban neighbourhoods simply doesn't qualify. All that will get you is suicide bombers looking to stroll through YOUR neighbourhood.
Post a Comment