Monday, August 28, 2006

Rude Questions Asked

I was in Cabot, Arkansas from last Thursday {the 24th} 'til this morning. I had a wonderful visit with my "Sistah" Cait. She drew my attention to this opinion piece in Sunday's Arkansas Democrat Gazette. The title is the same as this blog and the author is Bradley R Gitz. He is a free-lance columnist who teaches politics at Lyon College at Batesville.

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.


Flo said...


Dian said...

Hi Holly, I really enjoy reading your blog!

Desertrat said...

Lots of us out here in Emailand have been saying these very things, in one phrasing or another, for years, now.

We just don't get much MSM coverage.


G Bro said...

1. They're called "crimes against humanity" (or jewmanity if jour Spanich.)

2. a. No. We didn't invade Iraq 30 years ago.
b. The Democrats lost their center by being for everything on the fringes. They became the donut party.
c. This "50%" argument doesn't wash. The fact that they lost Congress with a sitting President is evidence enough.

3. Islamic Fascists

Clever term. The great linguists of the Right (Safire, Will, Buckley) could surely come up with something even catchier.

4. Military force is not being used in Iraq in response to terrorism. It is being used in Iraq precisely because Saddam had an army we could fight, not guerrillas in caves.

5. "If Iran and Syria are acknowledged sponsors of terrorism ..., acts of war ...?"

They are and they are.

6. "What was Hezbollah resisting?"
Peace with Israel.

7. If Islam is so obviously a religion of peace, why do so many of its clerics preach jihad and hatred?

Tough question."Christians" have left a lot of dead natives (and Jews and some Muslims, et al.)in a lot of places, too. But in recent decades or centuries we haven't seemed that "hell-bent" on killing for religion. Islam has been a religion of conquest since day one. But I know a ton of very nice Muslims.

8. "If all religions are, by definition, peaceful..."

Poor premise

9. "Why should Israel be required to withdraw its forces?"

To be seen as taking the high road in the world court of public opinion.

10. "And does anyone other than Kofi Annan really believe ...?"

He doesn't believe it either. It's politics.

11. If most everyone in Hollywood ..."

Who cares?

12. "If Fidel Castro is as beloved ... free and fair election?"

Good Lord, this guy is getting absurd!

13. If Islam has been hijacked by extremists, ..."

Religions are very poor at putting their own houses in order.

14. "If the Democrats truly believe ... sounds better than "cut and run"? "

Most anything sounds better than "cut and run" - that's why Republicans use it. Democrats have clearly lost the language wars, which is very surprising to me. I heard "tax and spend" for decades, but when we get "borrow and spend" Republicans, nobody speaks up. Our love of borrowed money and cheap oil has gotten us into a deep hole, and now we're like a crack whore with the shakes. We'll do ANYTHING to get that fix.

Cait said...

You go, g bro...loved reading your thoughts! Bestest,