Our world is full of danger. Think about it: Virtually everyone
on Earth is threatened by evil people. Centuries ago, Edmund Burke handed
reluctant warriors against evil in our time the billboard message to answer
today's "peace" rallies: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil
is for good men to do nothing."
Only in America (surprise) is the public heeding Burke's
warning. The latest CBS News poll found that when asked, straight up, if
they approved or disapproved of "the United States taking military action
against Iraq to try to remove Saddam Hussein from power," 66 percent are in
favor, and only 29 percent opposed. City blocks full of people armed with
nasty signs railing against that alleged Nazi terrorist, George Bush, have
not shaken the American people's support for the president and his mission.
The public wants to support the United Nations -- which the media have
presented as less controversial than either Mother Teresa or the Boy
Scouts -- but they do not favor doing nothing in the face of evil.
And yet the American media are celebrating those leftists who
want the forces of good to do nothing on Iraq. That's not quite correct,
come to think of it. The "peace" protesters certainly don't recognize that
our side is good or that the other side is evil. Many don't see any
discernible moral difference between President Bush and Saddam Hussein. They
don't see any moral difference between American possession of weapons of
mass destruction and Saddam's acquisition of them. Some are so fixated on
their disdain that they have no time to consider this fellow in Iraq as
another Hitler. The beauty of the "anti-war" message is you don't have to be
for or against anything, except against war, at any time, for any reason.
Isn't it amazing that liberals, who are perpetually
congratulating themselves for their unparalleled sophistication and their
ability to corner the market on nuance, approach the prospect of war on
television with little more intellectual heft than the rudimentary idea that
war is bad? Slacker rock stars mouth their "agreeance" with it at the Grammy
awards show, and we simply accept that this camp seems incapable of mental
Our 21st century flower children won't confront the ugly reality
of what happens if Saddam Hussein is left to keep accumulating weapons of
mass destruction. They only symbolically place flowers in gun barrels and
wonder why everyone can't bask in the glow of their virtue. They cannot
comprehend the moral absurdity of unalloyed pacifism, the consequences of
projecting weakness and endless diplomatic dithering. What if "peace"
activism makes war down the road more likely and more lethal?
With all the desperation of a camp that feels it's losing the
battle for public opinion, the media are avoiding any hard questions for
their protesting pals. Instead, they're stepping up the praise for the
perpetually "growing anti-war movement." It's reminiscent of how Dana Carvey
always joked in his impression of Bush the Elder that Dan Quayle was "still
gaining acceptance." Newsweek's "Conventional Wisdom" box pitched the old
spin that the "not-so-silent minority is respectable and growing fast."
Who's stretching now?
Last week, some reporters celebrated those "human shield"
oddballs who traveled to Baghdad to stand in front of military targets and
dare American forces to kill them. ABC's Dan Harris worried about the
"problem" these idiots have to "avoid being tools of the Iraqi government"
when Saddam is providing food and housing. The New York Times channeled the
outrage of Ken Nichols O'Keefe: "They are not using me. I am here
voluntarily. What is Saddam Hussein supposed to say? 'No, they can't do
it'?" Is this man really so deluded as to think that Saddam is powerless in
deciding which fools to import? These people aren't "shields" to glorify.
They're traitors putting American soldiers and missions at risk.
Why not schedule some air time for the millions of Americans who
aren't protesting in the streets, who aren't carrying signs smearing their
president with swastikas and telling the cameras they're patriotic? Surely,
they could protest that they're just as "anti-war." Who, after all, (SET
war? But the majority won't be romanticized as
idealists by the American media.
Network producers think the people worth showing are "mainstream
protesters," people who've come to their first protest to march alongside
the hippie on his 164th outing. But they won't find it "newsworthy" to focus
on the president's supporters on Main Street, or even find first-time
converts to the cause of war. Why not find someone who changed his mind
after 164 protests?
Easy. It doesn't serve the media's anti-war agenda.