Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Cal  Thomas :: Townhall.com Columnist
Wisdom and judgment deficiency
by Cal Thomas
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


And now for the definition-impaired, the meaning of the word "naive": "deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment."

There was plenty of that on display last week in Pittsburgh and in Washington.

At the annual National Conference of Editorial Writers Convention in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania governor and former general chair of the Democratic National Committee, Ed Rendell, addressed a group of pundits on the subject, "Will the Real Democratic Party Please Stand Up?" After running through standard Democratic boilerplate issues - increase the minimum wage, raise taxes (except property taxes), spend more on education (as if too much is not already being spent with little to show for it) and, curiously, "The Bible has nothing to say about abortion and gay marriage" (but it has plenty to say about sexual relationships and life's value at all stages). Later, Rendell invoked biblical mandates to justify his view that God meant government, not individuals or the church, should help the poor and "disadvantaged."

Rendell was asked what he would do about Iraq if he were president. He said he is not running, but if he were and he won, on the day after his inauguration, "I would go to Iraq and ask to be on TV throughout the Middle East and I'd say, 'We came here with the best of intentions and wanted to create freedom and democracy for all and 3,000 Americans have died. It is clear to me we have become the main problem. I'm going to ask the international community to develop a peacekeeping force and reduce our presence. We're going to help you build houses, provide aid and economic opportunity for your people.'"

That isn't a peace plan; it's a plan for surrender. Like liberal Democrats in the 1980s, who believed the best way to handle the Soviet Union was to demonstrate we meant them no harm by unilaterally disarming, Rendell and many of his fellow Democrats believe there would be no consequences for America and the world should we fail to support democracy in Iraq for which millions of Iraqis have voted. Does he seriously believe such a retreat would not be seen as surrender and weakness, playing into the hands of jihadists, who would be emboldened to keep on fighting until they dominated all of Europe and then come after America? This is why liberal Democrats cannot be trusted to run the foreign policy of the United States.

Democrats are not alone in suffering from the naivete virus. Several Republicans last week exhibited a similar deficiency in wisdom. John McCain, Arizona Republican senator, may have severely hurt his chances for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination by suggesting the United States should be bound by the Geneva Conventions in dealing with stateless terrorists determined to murder civilians. Murdering civilians is condemned by those same Conventions, but the jihadists are not persuaded to conform to these treaties. McCain (who was joined by fellow Republican senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and former Secretary of State Colin Powell) suggested that "torturing" terrorists to extract information that might save American lives could put U.S. soldiers at risk and that other nations would be more likely to abuse U.S. captives if Americans appeared to sanction such conduct.

The North Vietnamese imprisoned and tortured McCain for five and a half years in the infamous Hanoi Hilton. The communists were not influenced by America's adherence to the Geneva Conventions. Neither are the terrorists, who kidnap - and force their captives to convert to Islam or, in many cases, behead them - influenced by America's behavior toward enemy combatants.

The jihadists know nothing but intimidation and domination. They believe us to be weak. They believe religions practiced freely within our borders are inferior to theirs. If they have their way, all of those who practice any religion but theirs will be killed or severely discriminated against. They also believe their god has told them to take over the world. That's what they say in their sermons and media. That is what they demonstrate by their actions. Why do so many believe otherwise?

It's easy for the elites to talk warm and fuzzy, as if being nice to killers can persuade them to be nice to us. That's because most of the elites have escape routes or bunkers in which they can hide during a future attack. The rest of us are on our own. We should not have to pay for their naivete.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Cal Thomas is co-author (with Bob Beckel) of the book, "Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America".
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Cal Thomas' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
A learning experience for both of us.
“I ask you, what has the President EVER said that was a LIE?” This was the challenge presented to me by Liberty Promoter in his post of 19 September. LP goes on to specify reasonably enough that he desires specific references and concludes by declaring, “I’ll say is more clearly: the President has NEVER lied about this war. Show me where I’m wrong.”

So I did.

In fact, I gave two examples, although LP only asked for one. I could have given many more. George Bush is not only a shameless liar, he’s also abysmally dumb. Cheney’s an egregious liar too, just not as stupid; although he did tell Tim Russert that Iraq had “reconstituted its nuclear weapons” and then during a later appearance on the same television program, categorically denied having said it.

So it wasn’t a difficult exercise that Liberty Promoter posed, but it was informative. LP honestly believed that Bush hadn’t lied and that I’d be unable to back up my claim. To anyone who follows the news at all, this kind of ignorance might seem incredible. The first of Bush’s lies that I documented was widely reported, even by the American press, because it was so blatant and foolish.

What does Liberty Promoter make of this? How has his thinking been affected by my answer? Has it occurred to him that Bush may have lied about other things? So far, there’s no way of knowing, because LP hasn’t responded. Did he just issue his challenge and forget about it? Highly doubtful. Is he reluctant to acknowledge that I really could prove my point? Sadly that’s probably the case.

A learning experience for both of us.
“I ask you, what has the President EVER said that was a LIE?” This was the challenge presented to me by Liberty Promoter in his post of 19 September. LP goes on to specify reasonably enough that he desires specific references and concludes by declaring, “I’ll say is more clearly: the President has NEVER lied about this war. Show me where I’m wrong.”

So I did.

In fact, I gave two examples, although LP only asked for one. I could have given many more. George Bush is not only a shameless liar, he’s also abysmally dumb. Cheney’s an egregious liar too, just not as stupid; although he did tell Tim Russert that Iraq had “reconstituted its nuclear weapons” and then during a later appearance on the same television program, categorically denied having said it.

So it wasn’t a difficult exercise that Liberty Promoter posed, but it was informative. LP honestly believed that Bush hadn’t lied and that I’d be unable to back up my claim. To anyone who follows the news at all, this kind of ignorance might seem incredible. The first of Bush’s lies that I documented was widely reported, even by the American press, because it was so blatant and foolish.

What does Liberty Promoter make of this? How has his thinking been affected by my answer? Has it occurred to him that Bush may have lied about other things? So far, there’s no way of knowing, because LP hasn’t responded. Did he just issue his challenge and forget about it? Highly doubtful. Is he reluctant to acknowledge that I really could prove my point? Sadly that’s probably the case.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.