Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Left Caught in Rhetorical Dodge of Issue

Well, today is your lucky day, or unlucky day depending on which end of the political spectrum you apply to, though I seriously doubt those on the left would eagerly be awaiting what I had to say. Anyway, since I do not have much to work on based on school work over the next day or two, I thought I would take the time to post an expanded edition entry for today, taking the time to carefully analyze several items …

First off, here is the Viewpoint article, which I wrote up for my Short Writing #2 assignment for English 002 yesterday, created in response to the editorial written Patrick Whitty, which in itself was a response to a response I had written to a Viewpoint article written by Brian Koch in The Marquette Tribune … simply, here is my response to his article. Sorry, but it happens to be a confusing chain of events. You truly had to be a part of it to understand its meaning. I more then likely won’t be sending this in, or at least not in the foreseeable future, just because they already have two other articles of mine backlogged (and they happen to have that stupid four week limit on submitting another, which sucks if you’re a writer like myself … but that is why Al Gore invented the internet), so it does not make sense for me to do so. In any event, it happens to be a bit over the seven-hundred word limit (only by about eight words) and I do not feel like taking the time to go through the entire thing and whittle it down. Enough bitching from my part, here is the article:

I am quite sorry to hear that Patrick had been “disappointed” with my particular “portrayal of war opponents as people who support the likes of Saddam Hussein and Vladimir Lenin”, but sadly here is the awful truth those on the left do not want to be hear – if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, chances are it is a protestor engaging in a rhetorical dodge. Clearly the Democrats will not pick up on the joke, and why would they? Call them what you want – anti-war pacifists or pro-Saddam loyalists – it is all the same. In any event, those choosing to broker a ‘peace’ deal with this vile dictator would have been choosing to continue his reign of terror and oppression upon the Iraqi people. As President Bush declared following the September 11th attacks, “You are either with us or you are with the terrorists”; it is that simple.

As far as its younger generation is concerned, too many within the left-wing spectrum of this country have acted as the proverbial mouthpieces of Michael Moore and his duplicitous conspiracy theories, many of which would make even Oliver Stone blush. His declaration that the Bush Administration “bent over backwards to find evidence of a solid terrorist connection [in Iraq] and came up short” could not be further from truth as those who have read the 9/11 Commission Report can attest to. For example, in July 1998, according to the report, “an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin”. This meeting, along with several others, was arranged by Bin Ladin’s right-hand man, Zawahiri, “who had his own ties to the Iraqis”. Even recent Bush-basher Richard Clarke, former ‘terrorism czar’ under President Bill Clinton, admitted to the 9/11 Commission that if Bin Ladin were to escape into Iraq it would be “virtually impossible” to find him. I do not know about you, but this clearly would not be the scenario if no connection between the two ever existed. So yes Partick, how dare we remove as respectable and amicable a ruler as Saddam Hussein who had no ties whatsoever to terrorism. Shame on us!

But Patrick’s most naïve, border-line ignorant, statement came when he stated, “The quickest way to fill terrorist camps around the world is to exercise American military might with all but a handful of countries supporting our endeavor”. First, why does Patrick, along with every other leftist like him, believe destroying members of an evil organization produces more of them? Did going after the Nazis create more Nazis? Did reigning in the Klu Klux Klan result in the formulation of more KKK organizations? No, this only comes as a direct result of the United States failing to take action and allowing Muslim children to be born into an environment where the belief that violent acts committed against innocent people can be conducted without fear of retribution or punishment.

And secondly, why is it that the left believes so ardently in the concept of equality among nations when it serves their particular interests, but as soon as a smaller nation takes part in something they do not agree with, they ridicule and humiliate them through public vitriol. I understand that equality can only exist among human beings and not nations, in spite of what Article 2 of the UN Charter may claim otherwise, but any contribution to the war effort should be degraded in any way. For those who curious, here is a complete list of the twenty-nine countries which have made some contribution to the Iraq War effort as of this publishing – Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Rep, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, United Kingdom, and Ukraine. But until the day France and Germany make contributions to the Iraq War effort, which will also be the day in which California … I mean, Hell freezes over, this will be nothing to the left then the ‘Coalition of the Bribed’, which begs question as what that would you designate those who opposed the war and accepted oil gratuities from Saddam as? The Axis of Turpitude?
I am going to take a short break for right now and be back in a bit with a response to another editorial written in response to my Viewpoint article, this one calling me disrespectful (ha, ha … sorry) in my labeling of the UN as scum. Man, the left sometimes ... be back in a bit.