| 114th Year, 9th Issue | Thursday, October 10, 2002 | Sparta, North Carolina |
The "anti-war" idiotarians are feeling a lot like Rodney Dangerfield lately — they don't get no respect. Their frustration is epitomized by the latest petition/advertisement being circulated, which rehashes the same old "blood for oil," "unilateralist" and "big business" arguments, and is signed by such distinguished luminaries as Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Ed Asner and "Hanoi Jane" Fonda. It seems that building a career by being told what to wear, where to stand, what to say and when to say it somehow qualifies one to weigh in with authority on subjects that are obviously not understood by the speaker. Sort of a replay of the old pain-reliever commercials — "I'm not an intelligent person, but I play one in the movies." Sometimes I get the impression that Martin Sheen actually believes he's President.
That's not to say they haven't had some influence on current events. Instead of the 60's chants and marches, the action has moved to the media and the Senate. Instead of riots, we now have a never-ending series of conditions, continually moving the base line for acceptance. Do we have proof of weapons of mass destruction? It had better pass the test of legal viability, acceptable in any court of law. We must hold ourselves to a higher standard.
Is the proof less than concrete? Then we should wait until the enemy makes the first move. One wouldn't want to rush things.
Do we know, in detail and with certainty, what the end game will look like? If not, we should develop the plan in detail first, less the area become destabilized. Have we got a replacement government ready to go? If not, the risk is too great and will lead to another Vietnam "quagmire." Are we without sin? If not, we should not be hasty in our judgment of others; after all, we are restraining Arabs in 'Gitmo,' aren't we? Do we have support from the international community? We wouldn't want to be unilateralist, would we? We must present the case to the UN; to do otherwise is a slight to the rest of the world. Was the UN informed? Well, we had best wait until that august body acts before we make a decision. Has the UN made a decision? Then we must hold hearings, before multiple committees, to assure full disclosure of the relevant information to the American public.
War plans and preparation, intelligence sources, and dates would be helpful. Of course, if a war develops, no one will actually be killed. Correct? All-in-all, the demands have the effect of becoming a pretty good defense of a homicidal tyrant. Under the current umbrella of "concerns," Eisenhower would have had difficulty getting authorization for the D-day invasion — after all, he had no idea if the invasion would ultimately be successful, much less having an "exit strategy" and replacement government in his back pocket.
Two observations — 1) the "concerns" and complaints are both puerile and narcissistic in their tone. 2) The intent of the critics is not to improve our response but, rather, to avoid having to say one is opposed to the war, thereby avoiding responsibility for any subsequent decision — a sophisticated form of political cowardice.
This same aggregation of heavy thinkers has gone on record as believing that we could have known that al Qaeda was going to fly civilian airliners into American buildings and we should have known enough to prevent it. But the same people who say the danger was obvious also claim that we don't yet know enough about Iraq's military capabilities or intentions to act preemptively against Saddam Hussein. Let me count the ways:
1) Ten year war with Iran, which included the use of lethal gas and chemical weapons.
2) Invasion of Kuwait, including random murder, indiscriminate rape, looting and deliberate destruction of oil wells for the sole purpose of devastating the environment.
3) Attempt to assassinate the President of the United States.
4) Use of lethal gas against the Kurdish population.
5) Diversion of UN-approved funds to the construction of palaces and the acquisition of war material while the people of Iraq starve.
6) Torture of children and relatives as a means of keeping their parents in line.
7) Mass murder of southern Shiites and northern Kurds, in violation of the cease-fire agreement, leading to the establishment of the no-fly zones.
8) Continual attempts to down coalition (US and Great Britain) aircraft.
9) Violation of every agreement that was conditional on the cessation of hostilities in 1991.
10) Information from four different defectors, indicating the regimes' priority nuclear weapons development.
I was a young sailor when JFK stated, "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." I participated in the US reaction to Cuban missile deployment, when the US acted preemptively, and unilaterally, to force their removal. Many of those now participating in the current evasion and euphemistic "debate" over Iraq were moved by and agreed with those sentiments, and actions, then.
It is a sad reflection on that great tradition to see the same players, through political expediency, sheer ignorance, opportunism or all three, placing their own short-term interests above the interests of their country.
It is both sad and disgusting.
Back to the Mushroom Chronicles Archive
Email: allnews@ls.net