Even a casual reading of the news pages these days serves up a larger than usual number of comments and assertions so silly or stupid that even those who make them have to know that they are silly or stupid.
Granted, we seldom expect straight talk from statesmen and politicians, but wouldn't it be a wonderful world if we could get answers to the following questions?
- If Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora is correct that the unintentional loss of lives due to Israeli air strikes constitutes crimes against humanity,how do we categorize Hazobollah's intentional killing of Israeli civilians with its rocket attacks upon Israeli cities?
- If John Kerry truly believes that Joe Lieberman's refusal to support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq is a Republican position, hasn't he consisely explained why no Democrat, including Kerry, has won 50 percent of the popular vote for the presidency over the past 30 years?
- If George W. Bush's use of the term "Islamic fascists" in the aftermath of the Heathrow terrorists scare spreads hate and represents a slur against all those Muslims who aren't fascists, as some Muslim activists claim, don't we need to urgently revise our history books to remove all references to German and Italian fascists? Or are such terms only politically correct,thus acceptable, when directed against Europeans?
- If even discussing the propensity of Muslim extremists for terrorism and violence represents hate speech, how do we engage in resoned discourse with the goal of identifying and removing the sources of Muslim violence and terrorism? Or are we to somehow pretend that those who have committed so much of the terrorism against us in recent years, including on 9/11,are actually Christians,Buddhists, and Hindus in disguise?
- If using military force in response to terrorism is counterproductive, as many liberals (and conservatives like George W. Will) now argue, doesn't that leave only the law enforcement approach that we pursued before 9/11 as an alternative? And how. precisely, is that an improvement?
- If Iran and Syria are acknowledged spomnsors of terrorism directed at Americans and American interests, how can such behavior constitute anything other than acts of war by any reasonable reading of international law?
- If Hezbollah is truly the resistance, what, exactly, were they resisting in all those years after Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon?
- If Islam is so obviously a religion of peace, why do so many of its clerics preach jihad and hatred, and why do they have no counterparts of any kind in the clergy of other religions? Or is it intolerant and bigoted to merely ask such questions?
- If all religions are, by definition, peaceful, then why have there been so many bloody religious wars over the centuries? Or do we use the "religion of peace" moniker only because it is politically incorrect to do otherwise, regardless of the facts?
- If Hezbollah won't disarm and leave souther Lebanon in accord with the cease-fire agreement, why should Israel be required to withdraw its forces? And does anyone other than Kofi Annan really believe that the Lebanese Army has either the ability or will to disarm Hezbollah and police the area?
- If most everyone in Hollywood is anti-Bush and opposed to the war in Iraq, why are Hollywood figures always being praised as courageuos when they express such sentiments? Wouldn't courage in such a context consist of doing exactly the opposite, of being pro-war and saying nice things about the current administration?
- If Fidel Castro is as beloved by the Cuban peopple as news reports suggested on the occasion of his recent illness, why has he never put that popularity to a test in a free and fair election?
- If Islam has been hijacked by extremists, then why did so-called mainstream Muslims let that hijacking take place, and what are they doing about it? Or have they simply been too busy blaming the problems of the Islamic world on America and tiny Israel to look into the mirror?
- If the Democrats truly believe that Americans will embrace their "withdraw now" position on Iraq, why do they attempt to disguise that position by referring to it as a redeployment of forces? Perhaps because ir sounds better than "cut and run"?
Let me hear your thoughts. Not just Flo and George. I want to hear from the "Silent Majority". Leave an anonymous comment, just so I'll know I have more than 2 readers, please.