Good Commentary from Foxnews.com...

Thoran · 03-19-2003, 09:54 AM

Why We Must Fight — and Now!

Wednesday, March 19, 2003
By William J. Bennett

Three weekends ago, millions of demonstrators across the globe protested on behalf of "human rights." Their marches, slogans, placards and speeches did not declaim against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, did not cite the human rights reports detailing his tyranny and torture, did not take account the plaints of Iraqis fortunate enough to live in exile.

Rather, they protested the U.S. and the U.K. and their efforts to topple Saddam and liberate Iraq. Now, we are seeing more television advertisements along these lines, and even a "virtual march on Washington."

Just after the celebration of Abraham Lincoln’s birthday, it is appropriate to remember his lament: "The world has never had a good definition of the word ‘liberty.’" With Saddam flouting international law, and President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair attempting to enforce it, portrayals of Bush as Adolf Hitler — as we saw and heard in the "human rights" protests — betray an ignorance of liberty, an ignorance of right and wrong, an ignorance of commonsense. Because Bush and Blair are putting together a coalition of countries to oust Saddam, they are labeled the warmongers and tyrants. We live in a confusing time indeed.

Lincoln described liberty by a useful analogy: "The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty." Lincoln made it clear who the sheep was and who the wolf was. It is equally important to recognize who the liberator is.

Those who march against the U.S. and the U.K. today, those who condemn Bush and Blair and remain silent when it comes to Saddam, are in league with the wolf’s view that the shepherds are destroying liberty. The people of Iraq will soon know what Afghanis know. The true wolf was devouring Afghanistan, the true shepherd saved them.

It is worth remembering what those in the former Soviet republics know and what the anti-American Western street has forgotten: It was, and is, U.S. and British resolve that truly liberates the oppressed and that defends the lives and liberties of the free against the appetites and ill-will of the world’s dictators.

In 1998 then-President Bill Clinton stated: "What if he [Saddam] fails to comply [with disarmament] and we fail to act? He will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then go right on building up his arsenal. Someday, someway, I guarantee you, he'll use that arsenal." Last year, former Vice President Al Gore stated, "[W]e know that he [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country."

It is not President Bush who woke up one day to discover that Saddam was making and harvesting weapons of mass destruction. Yet it is Bush who is blamed for doing something about it. Saddam may be mad, but he is not a scientist. He does not collect chemical and biological weapons for mere pleasure and intrigue. Just ask the survivors of Halabja. So when Saddam acts, it will be Bush and America who are blamed for inaction, for appeasement. We will be liable for such blame because we are the only ones who can do something about it.

We are not at war with Muslims or Arabs around the world; we are at war with some Muslim and Arab leaders who misinterpret their religion and put a primacy on war over peace and slavery over freedom. But among the leadership in the world’s moral democracies there is no misinterpretation, and nowhere is that more true than in the case of the U.S.

This is not a new role for us, but is a unique role we proudly inherit as the world’s liberator. As Wolf Blitzer pointed out: "Over the past two decades, almost every time U.S. military forces have been called into action to risk their lives and limbs, it's been on behalf of Muslims. ... [T]o assist the Afghan mujahadin … during the Soviet invasion in the 1980s, to liberate Kuwait following the Iraqi invasion of 1990, to help Somali Muslims suffering at the hands of a warlord in Mogadishu, to help Muslims first in Bosnia and then in Kosovo who faced a Serb onslaught, and more recently to liberate Afghanistan from its Taliban and Al Qaeda rulers."

Those who protest against the U.S. just now are legatees of those who protested against the U.S. in the 1980s, when we fought the focus of evil then, the Soviet Union. But ask a former Soviet, or East Berliner, if he is better off now than he was, say, 15 years ago. Ask a Nicaraguan. Ask a Bosnian Muslim. U.S. resolve can be thanked for all that, even as those who protested our defense and military postures marched in favor of appeasement.

Indeed, we live in a strange time when the anti-nuclear movement and its leaders of yesterday can today suggest a course of inaction such that Saddam will be able to join North Korea in becoming a nuclear power. The only logical conclusion one can reach is that for the protesters today, weapons in the hands of the U.S. are to be met with outrage while weapons in the hands of Saddam are to be met with silence.

We seek to liberate Iraq today, not only because for Saddam "[t]orture is not a method of last resort in Iraq, it is often the method of first resort," according to Kenneth Pollack, President Clinton’s director of Gulf Affairs at the NSC. We seek to liberate Iraq because after Sept. 11, 2001, we were put on notice. We were put on notice that civilized people can no longer live in a bubble and hope for the best. We were put on notice that there are fanatics and tyrants who want nothing from us but our death. And this notice requires action: the action of the brave, the action of the unthanked, the action of the free.

In Iraq as in other contemporary situations, the responsibility to act has been ours because the ability has been ours. The responsibility has been ours because oppressed people look to us for their deliverance. There is a duty in being the nation that Abraham Lincoln, speaking of our Declaration of Independence, called "a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression." That is who we happen to be. And it is an honor.

William J. Bennett, chairman of Americans for Victory Over Terrorism, is a former secretary of Education and the author of Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism, re-released and updated in paperback (Regnery, 2003).

Davros · 03-19-2003, 10:12 AM

Yup - subject title says it all - FOX [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Donut · 03-19-2003, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Davros:
Yup - subject title says it all - FOX [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I find it difficult to read because the words keep going off to the right!

Thoran · 03-19-2003, 10:35 AM

Yes they're just a BIT biased [img]smile.gif[/img] , but that doesn't by default negate the value of the editorial. Certainly his position is debatable, but it's not dismissable out of hand.

It's interesting though that most will immediately agree to the bias foxnews displays, but many other sources are similarly biased in the opposite direction (msn and cnn come to mind immediately) yet noone seems to take notice, perhaps because "Liberal" and "Media" are synonyms these days. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Iron_Ranger · 03-19-2003, 10:49 AM

The vey first and second reply, already bashing the channel, amazing.

Good artical Thoran.

Nachtrafe · 03-19-2003, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Donut:
I find it difficult to read because the words keep going off to the right!

Yes well, since on the current(and really, the general)political teeter totter FOXNews is currently dangling it's feet in the air... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 03-19-2003, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: Nachtrafe ]

Nachtrafe · 03-19-2003, 10:59 AM

Oh, and I agree with IR. Thanks for the article Thoran. I couldn't agree more with the author. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Davros · 03-19-2003, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger:
The vey first and second reply, already bashing the channel, amazing.

Good artical Thoran.

LOL - I wouldn't want you to think this is an all of a sudden thing IR me ole china - I have lost a lot of respect for FOX and old Rupie Murdoch over many many years. I think Thoran understated it nicely for us all - Fox tend to be a BIT biased [img]smile.gif[/img] .

Iron_Ranger · 03-19-2003, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Davros:
LOL - I wouldn't want you to think this is an all of a sudden thing IR me ole china - I have lost a lot of respect for FOX and old Rupie Murdoch over many many years. I think Thoran understated it nicely for us all - Fox tend to be a BIT biased [img]smile.gif[/img] .

I am aware its not al 'all of a sudden' thing. Who isnt biased? I would say they are actaully one of the more 'fair and balanced' (as they put it) of the American media. Alan Colmes, Greta Van Sustren, Bill O'Reilly DOES have liberal views, like to believe it or not. Not to mention Grehaldo Riverra, tell me, how many conservitive journalist does CNN have?

Edit- That might have have sounded overly agressive so I will add a smiley [img]smile.gif[/img] .

[ 03-19-2003, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Iron_Ranger ]

Thoran · 03-19-2003, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Davros:
LOL - I wouldn't want you to think this is an all of a sudden thing IR me ole china - I have lost a lot of respect for FOX and old Rupie Murdoch over many many years. I think Thoran understated it nicely for us all - Fox tend to be a BIT biased [img]smile.gif[/img] .

Davros would you really prefer that fox towed the "liberal media" line like the rest of the major players? Personally I like to be able to look at cnn and fox coverage, knowing that they balance eachother out and I can get a fairly realistic view of the issues. I'd hate to have them change, because then there would be nothing blocking the liberal media from TAKING OVER THE WORLD! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Or to put it another way... when I go to CNN.COM I feel like a radical conservative, and when I go to FOXNEWS.COM I feel like a radical Liberal... and I like it that way.

03-19-2003, 10:12 AM	#2
Davros Takhisis Follower Join Date: January 7, 2001 Location: Mandurah, West Australia Age: 60 Posts: 5,073	Yup - subject title says it all - FOX [img]tongue.gif[/img] __________________ Davros was right - just ask JD

03-19-2003, 10:49 AM	#5
Iron_Ranger Symbol of Cyric Join Date: August 18, 2002 Location: Where Eagles Dare Age: 36 Posts: 1,391	The vey first and second reply, already bashing the channel, amazing. Good artical Thoran. __________________ <br />[url]\"http://www.bratgirlcentral.com/cgi-bin/ouapforum/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi\" target=\"_blank\">Once Upon A Paper</a><br />Living on a razors edge<br />Balancing on ledge<br />Living on a razors edge

03-19-2003, 10:59 AM	#7
Nachtrafe Red Wizard of Thay Join Date: August 9, 2001 Location: Upstate NY, USA Age: 51 Posts: 889	Oh, and I agree with IR. Thanks for the article Thoran. I couldn't agree more with the author. [img]smile.gif[/img] __________________ ~~OFFICIAL BOYTOY OF CLOUDY'S CAFE....WELL...OK...JUST CLOUDY!~~ "May the wings of liberty never lose a feather!"

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The genius of Hungarian olympic commentary	Vaskez	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	3	09-05-2004 04:25 PM
Commentary: Why is America mad at France again?	Chewbacca	General Discussion	16	10-02-2003 03:33 AM
Commentary on current day France...An Article	MagiK	General Discussion	101	04-17-2003 04:41 AM
A Moving Political Commentary.	MagiK	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	6	03-18-2003 02:48 AM
Finished Game -- Closing Tips & Commentary	EH_Portia	Wizards & Warriors Archives	2	10-20-2000 10:05 AM

03-19-2003, 09:54 AM	#1
Thoran Galvatron Join Date: January 10, 2002 Location: Upstate NY Age: 56 Posts: 2,109	Why We Must Fight — and Now! Wednesday, March 19, 2003 By William J. Bennett Three weekends ago, millions of demonstrators across the globe protested on behalf of "human rights." Their marches, slogans, placards and speeches did not declaim against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, did not cite the human rights reports detailing his tyranny and torture, did not take account the plaints of Iraqis fortunate enough to live in exile. Rather, they protested the U.S. and the U.K. and their efforts to topple Saddam and liberate Iraq. Now, we are seeing more television advertisements along these lines, and even a "virtual march on Washington." Just after the celebration of Abraham Lincoln’s birthday, it is appropriate to remember his lament: "The world has never had a good definition of the word ‘liberty.’" With Saddam flouting international law, and President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair attempting to enforce it, portrayals of Bush as Adolf Hitler — as we saw and heard in the "human rights" protests — betray an ignorance of liberty, an ignorance of right and wrong, an ignorance of commonsense. Because Bush and Blair are putting together a coalition of countries to oust Saddam, they are labeled the warmongers and tyrants. We live in a confusing time indeed. Lincoln described liberty by a useful analogy: "The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty." Lincoln made it clear who the sheep was and who the wolf was. It is equally important to recognize who the liberator is. Those who march against the U.S. and the U.K. today, those who condemn Bush and Blair and remain silent when it comes to Saddam, are in league with the wolf’s view that the shepherds are destroying liberty. The people of Iraq will soon know what Afghanis know. The true wolf was devouring Afghanistan, the true shepherd saved them. It is worth remembering what those in the former Soviet republics know and what the anti-American Western street has forgotten: It was, and is, U.S. and British resolve that truly liberates the oppressed and that defends the lives and liberties of the free against the appetites and ill-will of the world’s dictators. In 1998 then-President Bill Clinton stated: "What if he [Saddam] fails to comply [with disarmament] and we fail to act? He will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then go right on building up his arsenal. Someday, someway, I guarantee you, he'll use that arsenal." Last year, former Vice President Al Gore stated, "[W]e know that he [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country." It is not President Bush who woke up one day to discover that Saddam was making and harvesting weapons of mass destruction. Yet it is Bush who is blamed for doing something about it. Saddam may be mad, but he is not a scientist. He does not collect chemical and biological weapons for mere pleasure and intrigue. Just ask the survivors of Halabja. So when Saddam acts, it will be Bush and America who are blamed for inaction, for appeasement. We will be liable for such blame because we are the only ones who can do something about it. We are not at war with Muslims or Arabs around the world; we are at war with some Muslim and Arab leaders who misinterpret their religion and put a primacy on war over peace and slavery over freedom. But among the leadership in the world’s moral democracies there is no misinterpretation, and nowhere is that more true than in the case of the U.S. This is not a new role for us, but is a unique role we proudly inherit as the world’s liberator. As Wolf Blitzer pointed out: "Over the past two decades, almost every time U.S. military forces have been called into action to risk their lives and limbs, it's been on behalf of Muslims. ... [T]o assist the Afghan mujahadin … during the Soviet invasion in the 1980s, to liberate Kuwait following the Iraqi invasion of 1990, to help Somali Muslims suffering at the hands of a warlord in Mogadishu, to help Muslims first in Bosnia and then in Kosovo who faced a Serb onslaught, and more recently to liberate Afghanistan from its Taliban and Al Qaeda rulers." Those who protest against the U.S. just now are legatees of those who protested against the U.S. in the 1980s, when we fought the focus of evil then, the Soviet Union. But ask a former Soviet, or East Berliner, if he is better off now than he was, say, 15 years ago. Ask a Nicaraguan. Ask a Bosnian Muslim. U.S. resolve can be thanked for all that, even as those who protested our defense and military postures marched in favor of appeasement. Indeed, we live in a strange time when the anti-nuclear movement and its leaders of yesterday can today suggest a course of inaction such that Saddam will be able to join North Korea in becoming a nuclear power. The only logical conclusion one can reach is that for the protesters today, weapons in the hands of the U.S. are to be met with outrage while weapons in the hands of Saddam are to be met with silence. We seek to liberate Iraq today, not only because for Saddam "[t]orture is not a method of last resort in Iraq, it is often the method of first resort," according to Kenneth Pollack, President Clinton’s director of Gulf Affairs at the NSC. We seek to liberate Iraq because after Sept. 11, 2001, we were put on notice. We were put on notice that civilized people can no longer live in a bubble and hope for the best. We were put on notice that there are fanatics and tyrants who want nothing from us but our death. And this notice requires action: the action of the brave, the action of the unthanked, the action of the free. In Iraq as in other contemporary situations, the responsibility to act has been ours because the ability has been ours. The responsibility has been ours because oppressed people look to us for their deliverance. There is a duty in being the nation that Abraham Lincoln, speaking of our Declaration of Independence, called "a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression." That is who we happen to be. And it is an honor. William J. Bennett, chairman of Americans for Victory Over Terrorism, is a former secretary of Education and the author of Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism, re-released and updated in paperback (Regnery, 2003).

03-19-2003, 10:35 AM	#4
Thoran Galvatron Join Date: January 10, 2002 Location: Upstate NY Age: 56 Posts: 2,109	Yes they're just a BIT biased [img]smile.gif[/img] , but that doesn't by default negate the value of the editorial. Certainly his position is debatable, but it's not dismissable out of hand. It's interesting though that most will immediately agree to the bias foxnews displays, but many other sources are similarly biased in the opposite direction (msn and cnn come to mind immediately) yet noone seems to take notice, perhaps because "Liberal" and "Media" are synonyms these days. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)