You’re right – liberals don’t get it |

You’re right – liberals don’t get it

In response to Robert Cooper’s Sept. 11 letter:The writer is correct in at least one assumption. “Liberals don’t get it and George W. does.” Not only do liberals not get it, but also any thinking American who is interested in a rational discussion of the critical issues facing this country does not “get” what the George W. faithful use as a standard of reality in these debates. It does not seem to be of importance to these followers that, for the first time in our history, we have been convinced as a nation to abandon a shining quality of our democracy that up until now has differentiated us from the Saddams of the world – we do not strike others unless we are struck first. We took this fateful step on the solemn promise of the current president that we would find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; in response, we took a fateful step away from the single most important core value of our culture. In addition, yes, the “Liberals didn’t get it.”When the inescapable fact emerged that no such weapons exist, did the president step forward and accept responsibility for the massive failure of the war planners on his watch to determine the true nature of the threat? Think again!Bush strategists knew that this small factual inconsistency would fly over the heads of the faithful faster than Saudi private jets carrying the Royal family the day following 9/11. Never mind the blinding fact that Osama himself, the admitted architect of 9/11, is running around free as a bird somewhere in Pakistan openly avowing the destruction of America. And he is no longer even mentioned by Bush as having any significance. Yes, it’s true. The liberals “don’t get it.”Finally, there is the most incredible inconsistency of the entire Bush saga. Shouldn’t we consider that in the first Iraq war, George W.’s father invoked another cherished principle of American democratic idealism to send us into combat. Kuwait was invaded by Saddam in a clumsy and vicious effort to gain control of Kuwaiti oil. George the First responded to Saddam’s belligerence by convincing America that it was our nation’s moral obligation to step up and defend a small country being arbitrarily invaded by Iraq. In the strangest of ironies, George W., more than a decade later, unwittingly takes the role of Saddam in the first war by arbitrarily invading Iraq without provocation and for questionable motives surrounding oil. The faithful seem to have no problem following this convolution whereby the United States goes to war against the same nation twice following morally opposing principles, and yes, the liberals and a lot of people who do not suffer under some form of political label, still don’t get it. What does George Bush get? Well, unless there is more critical thinking about war as a last defense against overt aggression rather than accepting it as just one more political tool, George W. gets to be president again and we will likely see a lot more of the “shoot first and ask questions later” approach to all who find disfavor with W.

Support Local Journalism

Support Local Journalism

As a Summit Daily News reader, you make our work possible.

Now more than ever, your financial support is critical to help us keep our communities informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having on our residents and businesses. Every contribution, no matter the size, will make a difference.

Your donation will be used exclusively to support quality, local journalism.


Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User