New Yorkers got a reminder of just what is the nature of our adversaries yesterday when the terror-sponsoring, nuclear-bomb-building, Holocaust-denying president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, released an open letter at the United Nations directed to the American public. It alleged that those "infamous aggressors," the "Zionists," have "imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors."
It is a classically anti-Semitic myth that was mobilized in the effort to kill millions of Jews in the Nazi Holocaust, the occurrence of which Mr. Ahmadinejad denies. It is a timely reminder, coming as it does at a moment when there is a little-noticed divide among New York's two senators, both senior figures in the Democratic Party, about how to handle Iran. In an interview with the Daily News that the newspaper published yesterday, Senator Schumer said of Iran, "I really think that they are an evil country, and do you talk to an evil country?"
Senator Clinton, by contrast, in her Halloween speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, accused the Bush administration of "a simplistic division of the world into good and evil. They refuse to talk to anyone on the evil side." She called that "dangerously unrealistic."
Well, chalk us up with Mr. Schumer in this matter. If Mrs. Clinton persists in deriding as "simplistic" the description of the Iranian regime as evil, she can count on the Iranian leadership to keep issuing anti-Semitic statements, arresting and beating democratic activists in its own country, and funding terrorists in Iraq, Lebanon, and Israel. If the American people get wind of it, as they probably will, and if Mrs. Clinton doesn't revise her position on the matter, we'd reckon that Mr. Schumer stands a better chance of getting elected president than she does.
Perhaps that last line was a little bit of wishful thinking. If only the country was following these developments as the readers of the Sun have.
6 comments:
Come to think of it, this morning I blogged on Ahmadinejad's letter and ran a comparison against a certain political group here in the US.
I am sorry to say that I think events may unfold such that a good portion of the American people will agree with Ahmadinejad.
If a war breaks out in the ME between Israel, Hibollah, Hamas, Lebanon, Iran and Syria, and then, America needs to come to Israel's aid, I believe a substantial number of American citizens would go the wrong way on this issue.
I still think there is a large enough group of Democrats to join the majority of the Republican Party in supporting Israel.
The sad thing is the inability of these senators to back tough action to prevent the problem. It’s as if everyone wants to see suffering first -- wait until the SOBs do the ultimate -- before we respond.
I agree that there are enough Democrats NOW. The question is, how many of them will remain moral in the face of the hard decision of having to get involved in a horrible war.
We already see what such fears have done to them. They are willing to align themselves with people like Michael Moore. I don't think they do that because they agree with Michael Moore, so much as because Michael Moore puts forth a myth by which they can sell themselves on inaction.
Does that make sense?
I think, in ways, it is worse than that. The moderates remain silent while the Kennedy, Murtha, Kerry klan advances a self-loathing agenda to demoralize the nation. If the Republicans could kick-out and banish David Duke, the Democrats can back their Party. “The only thing for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Schumer is ineffective if he doesn’t oppose the far left.
Jason Pappas,
For me, evil is the central issue. I may not be religious, but I am a fervent believer in the existence of good and evil. I try to be good but with dismay I see the spread of evil in the world.
Currently we see evil personified by the Islamofascists.
And speaking of Iran: It is given that not all Iranians are evil , but that many are and that a majority in Iran and other Muslim countries are in the grip of evil, is to me self evident.
History tends to repeat itself. Evil such as Nazism has from time to time been fought to a standstill by the forces of good (not pure - but good).
This is yet another such battle. And yet another time we see how ignorants and apologists lend support to evil or simply refuse to see it. In my mind, some of them in the process embrace evil to such a degree, that they themselves become evil.
A known psychological factor, and probably an old defense mechanism, is the tendency of some to freeze temporarily in the face of immediate danger. The danger is simply not perceived. Armed forces have discovered how to filter out people with the tendency. This has among other results led to far fewer accidents in military aviation.
The defeatists and apologists are hardly in immediate physical danger and yet have already surrendered. The freeze it not temporary but permanent.
Today we live in a much better informed world than at the time of previous battles against evil. There is little excuse for not learning of the facts. When evil is not perceived, when the evidence is so clear, the explanation can only be one:
Evil sees no evil
Post a Comment