Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Woes, US

Mickey Kaus worries that Ol' Teddy Kennedy is going to be attacked for saying that Bush has made a "mushroom cloud more likely, not less likely." Does anyone really care what Ted Kennedy says anyway? Ted Kennedy says these types of things all the time. I agree with Mickey that this is what the election comes down to: who will make us safer, Bush or Kerry? But I haven't seen much criticism of Kennedy's firebreathing, while I saw John Edwards and his wife go on TV to denounce VP Cheney for saying the same thing. Of course, this is the typical Dem projection/copy-cat response.

Naturally, I disagree with his assessment of the argument (and Kennedy's main point).

He writes:

"In pursuit of our goals in Iraq, we've angered millions of people around the

world, a certain small percentage of whom will become terrorists--some of whom,

inevitably, in due course will get hold of a WMD. It seems likely this will

happen before any process of democratization we may set in motion in the Middle

East works to lower the number of people who hate us. In any case, that's a

calculation voters need to make."
What about the ones who were dying to kill us on September 11, 2001, or before? The problem with this argument is and has been for a long time is that these fanatics who are trying to kill us everyday have always hated us and always will. People sympathetic to this cause aren't going to hate us all the sudden b/c we invaded Iraq and freed millions of their Muslim brothers and sister. Its actually a source of shame for these Muslim fanatics. They hate that we can kick their ass anytime we want. They hate that there's not much they can do about it, so long as Bush is president. Anyway, who cares? Why is it that liberals judge every proposed action on whether or not someone will hate us afterwards or not?

These people were trying to get WMDs before Iraq and regardless of our policy there, and they are going to remain in pursuit. Going there and eliminating a regime that would facilitate the acquisition of WMDs by terrorists who are trying to kill us everyday does help us in the short term. Why? Because it eliminates a regime that would facilitate the acquisition of WMDs by terrorists who are trying to kill us everyday.

This argument is also an exercise in short-term thinking. It may not pay off immediately in terms of making Muslims love us, but in the long run we have a good chance to change the region into a more democratic region, which will make us safer. The people of France and Germany don't love us too much, but they aren't trying to kill us everyday. The Dem thinking on this is clear: no instant gratification. The polls will be against us. Conclusion: too hard. That's why 9/11 happened. Anyway, how many people are going to hate us less if we don't do anything to free them from their authoritarian oppressors?