Of Invasions And Inconsistency

Many liberals have this fascinating ability to separate two inconsistent opinions and argue that both are correct and consistent. One of the most glaring of these concerns how they view the invasion of Iraq with the invasion of the Davidian compound in Waco, Texas.
Many liberals will defend Clinton and Reno against all dissenters on the correctness of the siege of the property of an American citizen, while at the same time argue that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified and inappropriate.
How is this possible? Oh, I know, I've heard the arguments. Koresh was a gun nut who was molesting children. That was the allegation. However, if one looks at the human intelligence on which the warrants against Koresh were based, the evidence against Saddam was much stronger.
If you don't believe me, read the warrants against Koresh. The warrants were based upon intelligence of him engaging in LEGAL activity that could be interpreted to be the precursor to illegally manufacturing or altering weapons.
The anti-war crowd screams about how evidence was manipulated against Saddam, yet cares little about how evidence was manipulated against an American citizen, who happened to be a "gun nut". Whatever else, David Koresh was an American citizen. He was entitled to Constitutional protections of that citizenship. However, the same people who believe that Saddam should have been considered innocent until proven guilty will justify a military invasion of the home of an American citizen on a suspicion.
The same people that worry about the Patriot Act think Koresh got what he deserved. Islamic terrorists and a Middle Eastern despot should have more rights than an American gun nut.
All of this makes sense to most liberals. I just find it amazing.

Call Me An Extremist

I believe that the United States should lose the pretense and call this current war what it is, a war against militant Islamists where ever they might be.  I know that makes people cringe and they call me an extremist.  The thought of this actually becoming a religious war is horrifying to so many.

If one looks at history, though, extremism isn't an insult after all.  In the 1770s, moderates hoped to work out a settlement with King George.  Instead of Americans, the majority considered themselves British citizens for as long as possible.  Extremists, however, like Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death."  Henry was right.  American liberty could only be bought with blood.

In the 1850s moderates on all sides tried to reach compromise after compromise on the issue of slavery.  John Brown knew, though, that the abolition of that horrid practice was going to require a washing in blood.  He was an extremist, but history proved him right.

In the 1930s, Winston Churchill was called an extremist because he believed that Hitler could not be appeased.  Moderates like Neville Chamberlain proclaimed "Peace in our time", not realizing what a phony peace it was.

Barry Goldwater stated, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.  Moderation in the defense of liberty is no virtue."  I agree.  Go ahead, call me an extremist.

 

 

No One Ever Talks About This

When hands are wrung and brows are furrowed over the loss of manufacturing jobs to foreign nations, the discussion always centers around how we are losing our manufacturing base and how we are supposedly going to lose our middle class.

The prophets of doom and those pushing a political agenda never mention one thing, though.  Foreign made goods imported to the United States typically cost less than American made goods.  Oh they mention that foreign workers are paid less than American workers, but they choose to ignore the fact that the goods made by these workers cost the American consumer less than comparable American made goods.

Modern America is built on consumption.  The poor in America still have televisions, stereos, microwave ovens, and, probably, cellular telephones.  The poor in America live a lifestyle that would qualify them as rich in most other parts of the world.  That is only possible because of the importation of cheap foreign goods.

Protectionist trade policies would necessarily drive those prices up.  When prices are driven up, consumption decreases.  The poor, who have less disposable income, would be the first to stop buying these so called luxuries.  In effect, protectionism would drive down the lifestyles of the people at the bottom of the ladder.

No one ever mentions this, though.  I'm no expert on trade policy, but I certainly don't see how making the poor live with less is good for the American economy.

It Did Change Him

Until today, I had not had the chance to listen to Rush Limabaugh since he returned from a drug rehabilitation program.  However, thanks to a three hour drive between Nashville and home, I got to listen to almost all the show today. 

Like most people, I wondered if anything about him would change.  Would the experience of the past few weeks cause him to lose the skills that had made him popular and controversial at the same time.

As I listened to the show today, I heard that liberals were bad and conservatives were good.  At least that hadn't changed.  I was worried that rehab would turn him into a cross between Jimmy Carter and a commune dweller.  I also heard that the Democrat party was trapped in its past.  So far so good.

Then e-mailers and callers tried to goad him into discussing the Michael Jackson situation.  It was then that I heard a change.  A subtle change, but a change nonetheless.  Rush said that his one thought when hearing all the accusations and pontificating concerning Jackson was, "What if he didn't do it?"

Yes, the guy who derided the jury for acquitting O. J. Simpson said that he was concerned about a rush to judgment in the Michael Jackson case.  For too long, it had bothered me that admirers of Ayn Rand never worried about an overzealous law enforcement.  Conservatives forgot their distrust of government when it came to police matters.  I became used to seeing conservative pundits and judges make excuses for the excesses of law enforcement.

Rush was part of that.  Yet, here he was today, refusing to condemn Michael Jackson and reminding everyone that he hasn't been convicted of anything.  I did see a change in him, and I must say I approve.

I Don't Want To Be That Enlightened

One of the requirements to being a full fledged leftist citizen of the world is the enlightened ability to see the United States as a selfish, corporato-imperialist monster that has spent the last 45 years trying to impose its will on innocent populations of other countries.

These enlightened leftists claim that they are able to look at this nation dispassionately and objectively.  These are the same people that wince at the thought of standing for the Pledge of Allegiance, with or without "under God".  In their eyes, national borders come and go, but the globe is forever.

They feel no familial loyalty to a nation they consider no better than any of one hundred other nations on the planet.  They consider their citizenship to be a mere accident of birth, and thus, see no emotional connection.

Does the emotional bond of patriotism permit one to look past some of our less than perfect moments?  Of course.  Most children consider their mother to be the prettiest woman in the world and capable of fixing every boo boo.  In the clear light of objectivity is it the truth?  Probably not.  But it doesn't matter, the emotional bond colors the vision.

I have an emotional bond to the United States of America.  I have no desire to tolerate nitpickers looking at every wrinkle and flaw she has.  The nitpickers claim to see clearly.  They claim to be enlightened.

In truth, they are moralizers, but only become morally indignant over the actions of one nation.  They claim to be dispassionate observers of the truth, but, in fact, are partisans of a dogma that seeks to tear down our national identity and demean our history.

I don't want to be that enlightened.

 

Comparing Apples And Apples

No one has ever given a satisfactory answer for this question.  How can intervention in the Balkans be right, and intervention in Iraq be wrong?

Slobodan Milosovic was a problem to his country only.  Yes, in spite of the factions, Yugoslavia was a single country.  It was forced together by outsiders who didn't understand the region, you say?  You mean like Iraq was created by the British, with Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'ites forced together without any thought given for the consequences?

Europe was unable to clean up the mess in the Balkans and innocent people were being slaughtered, you say.  The UN was unable to clean up Saddam's mess and have you read the accounts of the mass graves in Iraq?

The world supported us in the Balkans, you say?  Really?  Russia opposed us.  Western Europe had no intention of doing anything until we took the lead.

We are getting into a quagmire in Iraq.  The last time I looked we were still in the Balkans, too.  Of course you might say that we didn't have to commit to a land invasion of the Balkans.  That is true.  We bombed the country from 15,000 feet and killed more civilians than Serb troops.  Is that supposed to be better?

The war in Iraq is helping the terrorists who oppose us.  Excuse me, the war in the Balkans put us squarely on the side of the Kosovo Liberation Army.  It is a radical Muslim Army that is funded by Al Qaeda.

Other than the Balkans being Bill Clinton's idea and Iraq being George W. Bush's idea, I am at a loss to find a SIGNIFICANT difference.  Oh yeah, for some of you, that is the only difference that matters.

 

Could September 11 Have Been Prevented

There are people in this country who are convinced that September 11, 2001, could have been prevented.  They treat information glowing in the light of hindsight as clear dots that could have been connected beforehand.  There are some things that need to be considered, though.

In 2001, before the attacks, there were over 24,000 commercial flights per day.  There were over 5000 per day at major airports.  There isn't enough manpower in the country to check everyone boarding all those flights.

Additionally, the hijackers used box cutters and plastic knives to take over the planes.  Those items were not typically confiscated in 2001. There would have been no way for the government to anticipate that.

Now, let's look at the hijackers.  Other than connections to Bin Laden, these men hadn't broken any laws beyond immigration violations.  Now, if any of you have dealt with the INS, they weren't typically interested in individual illegal immigrants, and depending upon the part of the country, there might not have been any INS agents close by.

But, to satisfy the finger pointers, let's say that all twenty are targeted and  detained.  Under Federal law, prior to September 11, illegal aliens are entitled to bond.  If they had been detained without bond, the ACLU would have pounced in a heartbeat.  We can't racially profile, you know.

Further, even if they had been detained at the planes, they would have had to have been released.  They hadn't broken a law.  All we would have accomplished is to make September 11 turn into October 18 or something similar.

It might make political points to blame someone, but it is futile and shows a lack of logic.  September 11 couldn't have been prevented unless clairvoyants had been permitted to violate the Constitution.