The West's Truest Moral Failure

[I received mixed reviews from readers about yesterday's "essay", A Little Perspective. One reader thought the post packed a powerful, to-the-point punch; admitting that a picture may indeed be worth a thousand words. Another wrote that he felt cheated by the brevity of the post; that it was too diminutive. I receive both reviews with glee, for the former's is a direct compliment, while the latter's compliment is veiled: my verbosity, at least to one reader, is perceived as a good thing.]

The leftist Blogosphere is abuzz about London. But I only need to point to one example, culled from three interlinked sites – Nationaldebunker.blogspot.com, DailyKos.com, and MediaMatters.org – that has the left rather dizzy. And this one example will suffice to make a head-shaking point.

The three aforementioned sites are taking umbrage with this exchange between a Fox News co-anchor, Brian Kilmeade (who is not a reporter, nor does he pretend to be, I believe), and a Fox News guest host in what is clearly an exchange of opinions. I quote the exchange as posted at The Daily Kos:

"KILMEADE: And he [British Prime Minister Tony Blair] made the statement, clearly shaken, but clearly determined. This is his second address in the last hour. First to the people of London, and now at the G8 summit, where their topic Number 1 --believe it or not-- was global warming, the second was African aid. And that was the first time since 9-11 when they should know, and they do know now, that terrorism should be Number 1. But it's important for them all to be together. I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened.

VARNEY [the guest host]: It puts the Number 1 issue right back on the front burner right at the point where all these world leaders are meeting. It takes global warming off the front burner. It takes African aid off the front burner. It sticks terrorism and the fight on the war on terror, right up front all over again.

KILMEADE: Yeah."

It must be asked how a reasonable person might assess Kilmeade's remarks [the bold highlights were emphasized by others, not Contratimes]. Is he reckless? Is he presumptuous? Is he offensive? Does he sound as if he is celebrating the London bombings? Does he in any way indicate that he is glad these things happened?

Of course, I have asked how a reasonable person might interpret Kilmeade's remarks. Let me stipulate with generosity that Kilmeade is not much of a player: He co-hosts a morning news show that is self-consciously and intentionally silly (Fox & Friends), and is, for lack of a better word, Fox's alternative to Good Morning America and the Today show. It is not the flagship news broadcast of Fox News (that would be Special Report with Brit Hume). With that said, let's first look at how the ostensibly reasonable folks on the already-cited web-sites have spun Kilmeade's remarks:

"While I was listening to the news of the London bombings on NPR yesterday, I was online reading an essay, written before the attacks and posted on Juan Cole's site, on the improbability that the Bush administration would adopt an exit strategy from Iraq, and speculating on the legacy of the US-led occupation.

"Of course to say that that legacy arrived yesterday in London is premature. But yesterday's events are, I believe, a taste of what's likely to come. While ass-clowns like FOX's Brian Kilmeade prattle on nonsensically about how the London bombings are good for the US, thinking adults (never part of the FOX News demographic) know better.

"As the individual quoted on Cole's site compellingly argues, the outlook for the kind, severity and quantity of future terror attacks spawned by the Iraq war is not favorable to the West or its allies. He/she writes:

'The really scary thing is what happens when the well-trained jihadis leave Iraq, victorious, and head south to destroy the Saudi oil infrastructure and west, to Mexico and Canada, to slip into the US and create many more 9/11s ...'

"...What I do think, though, is that the London attacks are a portent for a future filled with many more terror attacks once Iraq's battle-hardened jihadis -- recruited thanks to the war Bush and Blair started -- are loosed upon the world."

And this from the Daily Kos:

"Fox News: London Attacks a Good Thing [headline]

"For all those opposed to the Bushites who are wondering about the ethics of politicizing the London bombings, you should know that the Murdoch noise machine [Fox News] has no such qualms ...

"The masters of war will be unafraid to utilize this tragedy to further their goals of marginalizing dissent and justifying their criminal actions in Iraq. I even heard a wingnut (Dennis Prager) on the radio this morning say that Spain was responsible for this bombing. I don't hold out much hope that this event will turn the public in Britain against Blair and in the US even more against Bush, but I still hope this happens. We must be prepared and unafraid to provide clear counterpoint to the oncoming rush of propoganda."

If my readers are unable to see the contradiction in these remarks, then I have failed in my mission at Contratimes. What is the contradiction? (You KNOW you see it, don't you?) The contradiction is this: Both writers have used the London bombings for political reasons in order to show how shameful it is that a Fox News anchor used the bombings for political reasons. Moreover, both writers actually exploit the bombings themselves (along with countless other bloggers) as evidence that the Bush War on Terror has made America and the West LESS safe (the tedious mantra of leftist critics offered since 2003). In fact, the left has actually proven that the bombings in London are GOOD for the West, because, as these bloggers and other commentators intimate, the bombings HELP the cause of the anti-war movement. In other words, the bombings are good for leftist agendas everywhere.

Ironically, even a casual analysis of Kilmeade's remarks does not show that he 'prattled' on, nor does it show that he believed it was good for America, only that it helped to unify the "West" against a legitimate and objectively real threat. He in no way suggested the bombings were morally or even politically good. It was clear, stumbling along in his often obtuse way, that Kilmeade was looking for the equivalent of a "silver lining" in a hideous and objectionable tragedy. And that silver lining is a socio-political unity between Western nations that, together, might form a strong defense against terrorism.

But the left has indeed found the very silver lining they've been looking for: The bombs of London prove that the war on terror is an abject failure. The West, to the leftists, particularly the conservative West, deserved to be bombed on Thursday. And had the West heeded the anti-Bush, anti-Blair, anti-war left, the bombings in London would have been less likely to occur (or would not have occurred at all).

Now, check out this comment by a reader on The Daily Kos:

"I can't help making a mental comparison between 3 bombs in London that killed upwards of 30 people with the tons of bombs that we have dropped on Iraq that have killed upwards of 10000 people. Frankly, I don't see any moral superiority in our position."

This comment comes in a long line of postings (196 as of 7.9.05) by all sorts of readers (mostly) aligned with the Daily Kos' progressive nihilism (sorry, but it is nihilism), and in response to Kilmeade's remarks. And I know that Boston Globe columnist Derrick Z. Jackson essentially opined the same shocking sentiments yesterday in "A look in the mirror for America" (read it and grieve). It must be asked: Are people really this unthinking? And do such people mark themselves as members of the intelligentsia?

Two questions: What warning did Londoners have on Wednesday that they were about to be bombed? and, How many Muslim terrorists have come to London, or to Ground Zero, to assist in the rebuilding of the Tube or the World Trade Center? Surely, you see the point of these questions.

When the West has attacked its enemies in the War on Terror, IT HAS ALWAYS GIVEN THEM FAIR WARNING. It has broadcast not only its intentions, it has given - repeatedly - specific deadlines and even criteria by which conflict can be avoided. This was and has been specifically true in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there have been no internecine, hidden, concealed anonymous bombings or attacks on either of these countries by the West. In fact, the West has been boldly visible in its actions and intentions. When a bomb lands in Iraq after years of diplomatic struggle with the West, an Iraqi KNOWS that the bomb came from the US military. But please, pray tell, who bombed London on Wednesday? Who exactly? Where is their capitol, and where is their embassy? Where is their military headquartered, and what uniform do they wear? And who is their president, or their prime minister?

Lastly, Americans are dying in Iraq trying to rebuild, heal and repair what they knocked down, injured or damaged. Seen any Muslim terrorists doing the same in Spain, Beslan, New York or London? No. Why? Because the West has in fact and deed taken a "morally superior position" than its enemies.

There. I said it. Am I wrong? Maybe.

Shame on Derrick Z. Jackson and those who think (it's not thinking) like him. It is the West's truest moral failure that it has raised opinions like Mr. Jackson's to the status of intellectual viability.

Today, I fly my flag halfstaff, largely because I mourn that Derrick Z. Jackson and others can be so full of hate for this imperfect country in which I live. The globe the Boston Globe's Jackson apprehends is a very small globe indeed.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes