Peace movement blames America

Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | Marc Berley

[ppaul]

Just as America must fight a "new kind of war," so it must deal with a new kind of peace movement, one that blames American foreign policy for the recent terrorist attack. Blame the hateful mass murderers seeking martyrdom in their radical holy war against America? Not the new peace movement -- it's a part of a global war against America.

Those who opposed U.S. military action in the past questioned the right of America to protect its interests in other countries. That questioning centered on two issues: the definition of American interests and our right to impose our interests on others. These have always been reasonable questions, whatever one's view in particular cases.

The new peace movement has nothing to do with reasonable questions. "Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a 'cowardly' attack on 'civilization' or 'liberty' or 'humanity' or 'the free world' but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions?" So asks Susan Sontag in The New Yorker.

Never before have so many Americans been killed on American soil. But the new self-proclaimed peaceniks are anti-American cultural warriors willing to sink to unimaginable moral equivalencies.

Whereas the old peace movement questioned America's right to kill people in other countries when no attack on American soil had occurred, the new peace movement defends the brutal killing of thousands of Americans on the grounds that America got what it had coming.

The new peace movement doubtless recalls the old. The latter began with communist sympathizers who excused the Soviet Union its innumerable crimes against humanity, seeing capitalism as the world's great evil. Having adjusted to the end of the Cold War, the new peace movement hates America for being the world's sole remaining superpower. And it wants that power eviscerated.

Unmoved to anger against the perpetrators of the atrocious violence of September 11th, the new peaceniks merely heat up their longstanding anger against America.

Deplorably, they turn the death of thousands of innocent lives into an opportunity to point a cold ideological finger at America.

In its extremism, the new peace movement has something in common with Jerry Falwell: the refusal to blame those responsible for the September 11th atrocity, choosing instead to blame America.

Falwell blames America for harboring heretics. The peaceniks blame America for harboring Americans. Put the two together and you get the holy war of Osama bin Laden, the jihad declared against the U.S. by the Taliban.

So far the percentage of Americans who blame America is small. But those who do blame America congregate in places that shape the future of American culture: our nation's college and university campuses.

Anyone who thought that the loss of more than 6,000 lives on American soil might have led to unanimous patriotic compassion even at America's campuses was too hopeful. The Sontag sentiment is highly audible on campus.

The day after the September 11th attack, one of my Columbia students voiced this representative reaction: "I hope it will cause America to examine its foreign policy decisions."

Like the old one, the new peace movement is rooted in our universities. Thus, it is ruled by political correctness, which, after expunging America's virtues and exaggerating its crimes, credits America's most vicious enemies with political and moral validity.

As part of its anti-American campaign, political correctness teaches young Americans to identify their country as a global oppressor and to regard the rest of the world as blameless victims.

It not only urges identification with such victims but also encourages students to see themselves as victims too.

Thus they can simultaneously identify with the victims of the September 11th attack and blame the oppressive U.S.

Off campus, Americans are united, and their present unity is a beauty to behold. A New York Times/CBS poll shows 85 percent supporting military action against whoever is responsible for the recent attacks.

But once America starts fighting, opposition will grow. The same poll shows there is already less support for a protracted war than for a short one. And this "new kind of war" is likely to be a very long one.

If we are to win this long war against terrorism, the next generation will have to be another great generation. Lines at recruitment offices for America's armed forces suggest it just might be exactly that.

But courageous, patriotic young Americans will find their peers using the cloak of a new "peace" movement to make a war against them.

:

[ppaul]

ping.

[ppaul]

ping.

[ppaul]

ping.

[ppaul]

ping.

[ppaul]

Jump in.

[FreedomPoster]

These "peace movement" folks, and the rest of the "blame America first" crowd are really

Irrational Pacifists

A term I picked up from another Freeper on another thread. I like the term, as I think it boils it down to a succinct, accurate description of what we're dealing with here. And it's much more media-genic than "the blame America first crowd".

Pass it on.

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

with a "visualize world peace" bumper sticker on his car.

I'm sorry. I'm hard of hearing. Did she say -

"VISUALIZE WHIRLED PEAS" ???

Another favorite spinoff bumper sticker of mine is :

"VISUALIZE NO LIBERALS"

[Nate505]

The 'peace movement' can kiss my a$$....

I actually like peace, I just hate self-righteous bastards.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"Your input?"

I've seen the anti-war movement up close and personal in downtown Chicago
when I was discharged from the Navy in '69.
I was cursed at, yelled at, ridiculed, and denied entrance
to Nortwestern University simply because I was a Viet Nam Vet.
Then, as now, my support for the 1st amendment and free speech remains the same.
One thing HAS changed, if I see an anti-war protestor
HARMING anyone in the military OR anyone who supports our country,
OR damaging government or personal property
I will personally exercise my right to defend my country from those who seek to destroy it.

[L`enn]

Craig would not have wanted a violent response to avenge his death. And I cannot see how good can come out of it. We cannot solve violence with violence. Mohandas Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind."

As Gingrich said tonite, "The only thing that allowed Gandhi to preach non-violence so long was he was up against the Brits, if he was up against Hitler, he would have been killed."

Come to think of it, he killed wasn't he? Guess non-violence ain't too healthy.

[L`enn]

"Those who say violence does not solve anything, are the ones who do not know how to use it properly"

[Hail Caesar]

Thanks for the ping.

[ladyinred]

There is something I have to say. No matter what kinds of policies our nation has engaged in, no matter what anyone in this country, or anywhere in the world thinks about us, there is absolutely nothing this nation could ever have done that would justify the brutal murder of over six thousand innocent civilians. NOTHING!
Anyone who could think differently has no concept of decency or honor, or the value of human life. They are just as uncivilized as the terrorists themselves.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

Looks like the Senate is already caving in to the "peace movement."
Senators Back Base Closings 53-47

[Mudboy Slim]

"...the new self-proclaimed peaceniks are anti-American cultural warriors willing to sink to unimaginable moral equivalencies."

Can you say, "Jane Fonda"?! How 'bout "Barbra Streisand"?! Alec Baldwin?! Ed Asner?! How many other strident, anti-American Socialists do we have out there in Hollywood?! I'd say 85%-90%!!

Thanks, my FRiend...MUD

[Mudboy Slim]

"I've seen the anti-war movement up close and personal in downtown Chicago when I was discharged from the Navy in '69. I was cursed at, yelled at, ridiculed, and denied entrance to Nortwestern University simply because I was a Viet Nam Vet. Then, as now, my support for the 1st amendment and free speech remains the same. One thing HAS changed, if I see an anti-war protestor HARMING anyone in the military OR anyone who supports our country, OR damaging government or personal property I will personally exercise my right to defend my country from those who seek to destroy it."

Extremely well-expressed, mi amigo...MUD

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

OK, I'm sorry that my last response to this was to joke about bumper stickers. I would like to be totally serious for a moment....

I have heard angry rhetoric by some Americans, including many of our nation's leaders, who advise a heavy dose of revenge and punishment. To those leaders, I would like to make clear that my family and I take no comfort in your words of rage. If you choose to respond to this incomprehensible brutality by perpetuating violence against other innocent human beings, you may not do so in the name of justice for my husband.

I am sad, Mrs. Amundson, that your husband died.

And I am also sad that you had no understanding of the eloquent words spoken by our nation's leaders at the prayer service in D.C. as well as other places. Let me assure you that 100's of millions of your fellow grieving Americans also heard the same words, but unlike you, none of them ever heard any call to arms against the "innocent human beings" whose lives you are fearing for. The rest of us all heard a call to action against people who cannot in any way, shape or form be described by that phrase.

And lastly, Mrs. Amundson, I am very, very sad for your published letter, because it can and likely WILL be used by America's enemies against her. They will know how to put it to good use. At the time of your husband's death, he had NOT died in vain. He gave his life for his country, and it WAS NOT in vain. So what makes me the saddest of all is that it is very possible that with just a few strokes of your pen and a 34 cent postage stamp, you have transformed your husband's death into something entirely different - into a call to arms against America by her enemies. I certainly hope that it is NOT the case! But if it is, it would be unspeakably sad ... for a grieving widow to inadvertently transform the meaning of her husband's death into the case where he DID die in vain. That would be the saddest, cruelest irony of all!!

[lepton]

Just as America must fight a "new kind of war," so it must deal with a new kind of peace movement, one that blames American foreign policy for the recent terrorist attack

The U.S. government has at times messed up. It has done some bad things. It has made mistakes. It has donemisguided or expedient things. In the case of one recent President it did some things that would clearly qualify as war-crimes if done by others. None of this has anything to do with Osama bin Ladin and his cult. He is angry because we are, and further angry because we set foot on the "sacred soil" of Saudi Arabia. It did not matter why we did so - only that we did.

It also would not matter even if we did indeed deserve it - the attack simply cannot be permitted to stand.

[abigkahuna]

In the past 50 years our country has committed many bonehead foriegn policy actions and has some of those actions have contributed to the death of innocents.

That aside, I say we go to war against this evil that has spread around the world. It will be a long battle because there are many who are not "peachy" with America.

But if this war ever ends. And I hope it ends in my lifetime, or at least someone declares its over--then I would wish America turns inward and praticises a little isolationism. Quite frankly I am ticked off at the rest of the world and could do without them for awhile. Lets build a missle shield, circle the wagons, drill our own oil and say to hell with the rest of the planet for awile---say three or four generations.