- The Washington Times - Saturday, November 4, 2006

Right and Just - Then and Now

In his Washington Times article, (November 11, 2005), Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. praises the $1B the US has committed to aid Asian tsunami victims and called for increased US aid in Pakistan where 80,000 lost their lives in the earthquake a month earlier. He warned that, “If the harsh Pakistani winter arrives before aid does, thousands of innocent people will die,” and then concluded, “Disaster relief is one of the most effective - and cost-effective-tools in any nation’s diplomatic or political arsenal”. He goes on to make the additional point that disaster relief is a “Wise investment in war on terror”.

Beyond, and perhaps more important than diplomatic, political and war on terror advantages, Sen. Biden seems to suggest that the United States has a “moral obligation” to provide foreign disaster relief and even supports President Bush’s decision to send American military personnel on “missions of mercy” to fulfill that obligation. This raises an interesting question. Does Sen. Biden believe the salutary effects of, and the moral imperative for, US disaster relief applies only to “natural disasters” - or does he think they also apply to “man-made disasters”?

Brad Maaske’s DVD “Weapon of Mass Destruction,” reveals that during Saddam Hussein’s despotic reign, over 1.3 million people have been slaughtered and entire towns destroyed. If Sen. Biden believes the US to be morally bound to provide relief to countries and people afflicted by disasters, why wouldn’t that obligation apply to Iraq and Hussein’s victims?

Think about it. The best we can do in natural disasters is to improve prediction and warning, and “re-actively” support rescue and recovery. We can “batten down the hatches,” but we can do little to “prevent” natural disasters from taking place. Not so for man-made disasters! If timely action is taken, we have opportunities to actually prevent the occurrence of, or at least shorten, man-made disasters, and concomitant losses of life and property.

So let’s take as a given that a moral imperative exists to provide relief in the case of either natural or man-made disasters and see where it takes us.

Let’s look at a hypothetical situation. Let’s assume that following a natural disaster, the US provided Country “X” with recovery assistance. Let’s further assume that either internal sectarian groups or internal or external terrorist groups, (seizing upon the opportunity to wreak havoc and death during stricken-Country X’s weakened condition), launched relentless car-bomb and other suicide attacks on US military and civilian citizens administering aid - as well as on innocent Country “X” citizens. In other words, suppose that during or following US natural disaster aid, Country “X” fell into a chaotic situation equivalent to what is now happening in Iraq.

Would it be then proper for high-ranking US Congressmen to shriek loudly that the humane response of providing disaster aid was a mistake? To jump to the conclusion that the President and his administration are incompetent and only acted to increase political power? That if they knew providing disaster relief was going to result in so many suicide bombings, they never would have voted for its funding? Should liberal-dominated major media relentlessly broadcast world-wide, pictures of terrorist/sectarian killing and violence with bylines and commentary claiming that America’s providing such natural disaster relief is the cause of the carnage?

Well if that line of reasoning doesn’t make sense when applied to US natural disaster relief, pray tell why it holds when the US provides relief from man-made disasters? In truth, whether or not Saddam Hussein had massive stockpiles of WMDs or not, could the US justifiably stand by and not try to stem Hussein’s million-plus carnage to his own and his neighbor’s people? While the possibility of Hussein possessing dangerous WMDs may have separately been justification enough for the a US-led Iraqi-liberation military campaign, clearly since Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad, was himself a Weapon of Mass Destruction, under the above arguments was not the US morally compelled to act as we did?

That being so, what are we to make of liberal politicians and the major media who daily seem to relish the job of being mouthpieces providing terrorists with their most effective propaganda - propaganda that would be laughable if the terrorists made it up themselves.

Let’s cite just a few examples - Dick Durbin’s claim that “American treatment of prisoners at Guantonamo Bay and other locations is equivalent to what was done by Nazis and Soviets in their gulags”; Ted Kennedy’s, “the War against terrorism being waged in Iraq is unjust and merely a political ploy of George Bush”; Representative John Murtha’s rush to announce that “Marines were guilty of killing Iraqis in ‘cold blood’ before they were tried”; John Kerry’s claim that “our soldiers have terrorized women and children”; the admittedly false Newsweek report of “American soldiers flushing the Koran down toilets”; and we can go on and on.

Not only are these unproven accusations outrageous, is it not time to admit that major media hype of anti-American accusations by liberal Democrats are grievous acts giving wartime aide, comfort and encouragement to the enemy and that such statements themselves directly result in more deaths to soldiers and innocent non-combatants? But, far from admitting that their remarks spur impressionable Muslims and others to carry out more, and ever more violent, suicide and other attacks that cause ever more deaths and injuries - liberal Democrats have the unmitigated gall to turn around and complain about increasing violence and body counts in Iraq when it is their anti-American diatribe that caused the increased bloodshed?

Is it not the height of guile and deceit that these high-ranking liberal Democrats accuse the very people managing heroic efforts to stop the killing of being responsible for them? Whatever happened to patriotic admonitions like “Loose lips sink ships” that flooded the airwaves during World War II and were abided by government leaders and ordinary citizens alike?

Just think how disastrous it would have been if instead of refusing to give moral aid and comfort to the enemy by keeping their mouths shut, that before, during and after the D-Day attack on Normandy, high-ranking Congressmen and politicians shrieked and US media broadcast absurd accusations that the US President was a liar, that US European liberation efforts were motivated only by a need for oil or a desire to acquire new territory or some other calumny!

One must conclude that either today’s “loose-lipped-liberals” don’t believe that stoking negative, anti-American world opinion spawns terrorism or they don’t care if it does - or as David Limbaugh speculates - they don’t care as much about losing American or other innocent lives as they care about regaining political power.

Understanding that these people are all well educated current or past US government politicos, or equally well educated and informed major media sycophants, one can be sure that their rhetoric is not a mistake in judgment, but rather that they make their anti-American screed intentionally and with a full knowledge of the danger it poses to our troops and other innocent victims. Isn’t it time to hold them responsible for the blood on their hands and at least deny them the political advantage they seek?

Ideally, if we had the technology to link and positively prove that some particular feckless, reckless, irresponsible anti-American statements caused the loss of even one US serviceman’s life, the morally obtuse - or perverse - loose-lipped-liberals found guilty should be tried and hung - like any other war criminal causing American casualties!

Instead of facing the fact and admitting their “hate America” statements insight riots, inflame impressionable terrorists and cause more deaths, loose-lipped-liberals claim that they are only exercising First Amendment rights. While it’s true the Constitution does not “ahead of time” restrain or prevent any kind of speech, it offers no protection from prosecution of those who cause grave damage by exercising free-speech rights. There may be no way to prevent a person from mistakenly or intentionally screaming “Fire” in a crowded theater where no fire exists, and thus causes needless injury and death. But you can clearly hold him responsible for his actions.

Similarly, there may be no way ahead of time to prevent liberals from providing terrorist murderers with their most effective propaganda. Is it not ironic and truly tragic that some thoughtless and cruel Americans feel it’s okay to use a precious American Constitutional right as a mechanism to kill the very heroes fighting to protect that right. You would think that if these liberals had any conscience whatsoever and if they perceived “even the possibility” of causing the loss of a serviceman’s life, that they would have the decency to exercise self-control and find another way to express their opinions. Whose opinion is so important that he has the right to kill another human being to be heard?

It seems that no patriotic American with a conscience would ever do that. Perhaps that’s the problem. Perhaps those Americans with uncontrollable hatred for President Bush and his administration are willing to risk other American’s lives just to vent their hatred. Perhaps when it comes to trying to wrest control from the Republicans, they have no conscience.

Do we really want to elect people with no moral compass at all - especially when they offer no sensible alternative plan to keeping Islamofacists from strapping suicide bombs on themselves or their own children while targeting and killing as many innocent victims as they can? Are they so ignorant or malignant that they don’t understand that we are “plowing new ground” and that there are no tried and true military or diplomatic strategies for combating suicide attacks on a scale Islamofacist are waging? Please think about it and vote, and please vote carefully!

Joseph A. Pecar October 28, 2006 Silver Spring, Maryland


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide