Sponsored Content

Intermarkets' Privacy Policy

Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!

Recent Entries
Absent Friends
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups

Report: Hussein Used Same Money-Launderers as Osama Bin Ladin | Main | On "Chickenhawks"
June 03, 2004

On Mike Wallace

Mike Wallace phoned O'Reilly last night to defend his partisan, anti-American remarks at the highly-inappropriate venue of a Memorial Day speech.

His main point was that WWII was a "good war," because it "united" us, whereas Iraq is a "bad war," because it divides us.

Put aside the point that liberals claim to have an absolute veto over American war-making. Apparently they don't think that we need a mere majority of Congressmen or voters in favor of war in order to go to war, but that we need a majority of the subset of liberals in favor of war in order to go to war.

What struck me was how important he thought it was that America had resisted entry into WWII until the Japanese sneak-attack on Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor united the country, he reasoned.

Well, yes. Yes it did. Pearl Harbor united the country. And all it took to unite the country was the deaths of thousands of US servicemen and civilians and the sinking of half the Pacific fleet.

And that's all it took to get the everyone on board. That, and, of course, the fact that Uncle Joe wanted us to join the war in order to save the Soviet Union.

This is, right here, the crux of the disagreement. Implied in Mike Wallace's remarks is the idea that in WWII, we were wise and peaceful enough not to go to war until we had been grievously wounded by a sneak attack. Also implied is the idea that we would not have been justified in pre-emptively hitting Japan before they hit us; that would have been barbaric and warlike.

Even if we knew, as of course we know now, that Japan was planning its own pre-emptive attack.

Liberals have the idea that we should only be forced into war by direct attack. Even when we have strong suspicions or actual proof that another country is conspiring against us, or actively funding terrorists who attack us, we must never attack first. We must absorb the first blow in order to be peaceful and righteous and have the moral approbation of the world, by which they mean the French.

Even when such moral approbation of the French comes at the cost of thousands of American lives.

With all due respect: the moral and rhetorical value of allowing ourselves to be attacked first is simply not worth letting thousands of our fellow Americans die.

Liberals are forever claiming that conservatives are selfish, heartless, and cowardly for sending American boys off to die in foreign wars. The argument goes that anyone not serving in the military must never agitate for war, because doing so means you're sending someone to die for your beliefs.

Liberals never seem to grasp the implications of their own position, however. Liberals would gladly sacrifice thousands of American lives simply so that we can have the moral high ground of saying "We were attacked first."

It seems to me that they're willing to sacrifice a lot of lives in order to achieve a policy goal as well.

I'm not so willing, and I never will be. Sure, I'd like to have an inarguable moral high-ground for any war. But when that moral high-ground comes at the expense of a thousand people immolated in a holocaust of burning jet-fuel, I say it's too high a price.

Besides, there is actually no "inarguable" moral high ground. The Nazis and Japanese certainly didn't seem to think they were the bad guys in WWII. And the Islamofascists sure don't seem to have any pangs of conscience about 9-11.

The philosophical divide is clear. Conservatives say "Better them than us."

Liberals actually believe the opposite: "Better us than them." Better that we die, even if in large numbers, than we ever act pre-emptively to protect ourselves and kill would-be enemies.

I've always felt that liberals were viciously abstract in their thinking. One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic and all that. There sometimes seems no limit to the amount of real, concrete, tangible human suffering and misery they will countenance in order to achieve an abstract, philosophical, and utterly unreal goal.

Liberals love "the masses." They just don't seem to particularly like actual people.

The abstract rhetoric of "We were hit first" is all well and dandy, Mr. Wallace.

Care to explain to the families of the 9-11 victims why letting Al Qaeda hit us first was preferable to pre-emptively attacking Afghanistan?

How many dead Americans, precisely, is "We were attacked first?" worth? I want an actual number. I want to know exactly how many Americans we have to allow to be murdered in order to put liberals into the strange position of supporting their own country.

Tell me the exact number, and then we can all decide whether or not having the liberals for once "united" with us against an enemy is actually worth the bargain.

digg this
posted by Ace at 04:56 PM

| Access Comments

Recent Comments
mpfs: "Pence, Bite my shiny metal ass. ..."

Thomas Bender: "Got my ball joint separator today. This weekend ..."

Montec: "Oh shit the debate is on? ..."

Robert: "Dear Vice-President Pence, Dude...it ain't happ ..."

mpfs: "Pence is a such a weasel. ..."

LenNeal, well, the aerator is a funny thread: "Awkward business is, as drugs here are delivered: ..."

BetaCuck4Lyfe: "This debate is pointless. Gavin Newsom is going t ..."

screaming in digital: "Robert's solution to gun violence. Mandate ever ..."

Robert: "What's even the point of having moderators? ..."

Bertram Cabot, Jr.: " [i]He needs to just walk down and slap the moder ..."

Thomas Bender: "I like Vivek, but his speaking cadence and style i ..."

Alberta Oil Peon: " Speaking of stuck critters. Hubby recently helped ..."

Recent Entries

Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64