In watching the “debate” over attacking Saddam Hussien, there is one point that the detractors seemingly keep failing to mention… This man and his supporters are driven to destroy both the people and the culture of these United States. I wonder, frankly why they would do that. Let’s examine the reasons.
I have stated several times in this column that I hold politics a means to a societal end… Whatever that end might be for the individual or group. On that basis, one would normally argue that the societal end of any American citizen should at least include, if it doesn’t focus directly on, the furtherance of western culture in general, and American culture particularly. Well, common sense would
dictate that at least.
If we make the assumption that most follow that rule, we can make three observations very quickly about those those arguing against our waging war against those who have declared war against us, and have acted on that declaration .
The kindest observation would be that the people in question seriously under-estimate the danger presented to the stated goal of supporting and extending the sway of western culture. In short, To hell with the country, and for that matter, the rest of the world … So long as their short – term political goals are satisfied.
Since, as I say, this is the kindest cut, it only gets downhill from here, I’m afraid.
The second, less kind observation would of course be that they are operating outside the group of people who are for the furtherance of our culture, and so they simply don’t care about it. Apparently, there are many libertarians who are in this position. I find their position singular in it’s short- sightedness. Since they are in the extreme minority, I won’t delve very far into this one, except to suggest that
this is the major flaw in the stated libertarian philosophy; they think government should have no influence on culture…. Forgetting, apparently, that the original purpose of government was to reinforce and extend it.
The third, most damning, and possibly most accurate observation would be that the people against our defending ourselves are working directly against us and directly for the destruction of our culture our society and our way of life. There are many, I fear, who are quite squarely in this last group. The majority of them are Democrats.
Now, lest you think this an outlandish statement, consider the new book by one Yossef Bodansky called “The High Cost of Peace”, which I’ve only had a chance to go over quickly as this is written. At first glance, this book will be worth picking up.
Bodansky, in his book reports that former President Bill Clinton betrayed pro-American Syrians who sought to oust the reviled, terroristic, drug-dealing Assad regime.
Catch this act:
Bodansky goes on to suggest that dozens of Sunni officers in mid-1999 wanted to overthrow Assad and bring Damascus into the modern world with economic development and a representative government. They asked the U.S. for help. So, the U.S. Embassy responded by requesting a list of the coup leaders and details of the Plan.
“Naively, the Syrians complied,” Bodansky writes. Then “the Clinton administration decided to save Assad.” It released the names of the leaders of this pro-American coup to Assad, which resulted in a deadly purge.
“Washington betrayed an intended coup that was supposed to be pro-American against a regime that was on the United States’ own terrorism and drug-trafficking lists,” the author summarizes.
And Americans wonder why those in the Middle East hate us?
I would take that a step farther; 9/11 would not have happened, had another pro-American power been in place in Damascus.
And let’s see what we can of those the Clinton administration befreinded…. Yassir Arifat. Reports are that he tried to assasinate Colin Powell and the Israeli president, as well, as they were on their way to a peace conference. I’ve written quite a bit about Terrorfat, so I won’t go much further here, either.
Given these reports, much less including the other discussions we’ve had on the subject over the recent years, I’m quickly coming to the conclusion that the Democrats, of whom Bill Clinton is only a part, are intent on the willful destruction of America. I think you are, too.
But it gets even more conclusive.
We’re now seeing reports that there is a direct link between Robert Jaquez and Saddam Husein.
Now we find out that the government at the time… Read that Bill Clinton’s White House, and many lower level people within the FBI and the CIA have been stuffing the information that there’s a link.
http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/opinion/4251116.htm
Now, remember; this is a bombing Clinton tried to blame on the voices of the right. If this report is anywhere near accurate, it becomes clear that Murrah’s terrorism was the left was doing it’s work, And as usual blaming the right.
So we arrive back at the question of why liberals would defend Saddam, with this new information about Clinton’s activities in the MiddleEeast, with only one answer. There is no other logical conclusion, but that the left is working toward the destruction of America.. Just look at the stink they raise about anything that even
comes close to resembling America defending itself and it’s interests.
It was Robert Frost who suggested that liberals are so open minded they won’t even take their own side in an argument. However, in this case with all respect to the talented Mr. Frost, I tend to doubt its open-mindedness that causes them to take the positions they do.
Rather, with the evidence presented us, it’s clear that Liberal Democrats are actually representing their own position; That is to say, they’re being what they are. Anti-American.
That’s right… you read it correctly, that’s what I said. And I mean it; Liberal Democrats have exposed themselves as being Anti-American.
Remember that, come Election Day.