This week has unfortunately seen an unusually large quantity of important and troubling news, news which has already incited fierce debate in the media.
It all began on Sunday, when my championship team, Kentucky, lost to upstart UAB in the NCAA tournament, dashing my hopes of a bracket victory.
Devastated, I weakly watched the remaining games only to find “Sixty Minutes” set to reveal former counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke’s allegations against the administration’s handling of the war on terror before and after 9/11. Already somber because of my bitter end at the hands of green-jerseyed Cinderellas, the special did not alleviate my mood.
If Sunday was depressing, the rest of the week fared no better.
The dogs of the Karl Rove political machine soon came barking, defaming this non-partisan, 30-year veteran of public service as a careerist bent on increasing book sales and finding a place in a possible Kerry presidency.
This line of attack against a man who is clearly haunted by the ghosts of 9/11 is unconscionable. Clarke, unlike any of the other officials who testified before the 9/11 commission, apologized personally to the loved ones of terrorist victims, saying “Your government failed you… I failed you.”
As a person who typically defends the Bush administration’s thinking amongst liberals, I remain utterly appalled at their behavior regarding this man.
How can a group of people, who claimed to “have restored integrity to the White House,” be so repulsively shameless?
Their tactics should sadly come as no surprise.
When Sen. John McCain ran against Bush, the President’s supporters passed around information claiming that McCain had fathered an illegitimate child.
When former Sen. Max Cleland, who lost all of his limbs in Vietnam, ran for re-election in Georgia, the administration called him “unpatriotic.”
A true patriot will realize that the war on terrorism is far too serious for America to tolerate disgraceful efforts to undermine distinguished public officials seeking to strengthen the security of the nation.
To add to the fun, Israel assassinated the wheelchair-bound Hamas co-founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
Immediately, the international community erupted in condemnation of the attacks, ranging from the sensible to the comically absurd.
It’s always easy for foreign nations to see the “reasonable” course of action when their citizens aren’t being made gruesome examples of the infinite justice of Allah.
I actually saw a Palestinian woman claim that Yassin, a widely acknowledged proponent of suicide bombing, was a “spiritual leader to the Palestinian people.” Eh?
International law wasn’t declared by God, but is an institution grown out of a mutual understanding as to the nature of justice in warfare. When necessity points otherwise, international law is an inappropriate guideline for a nation’s actions.
People often say that the violence is an endless cycle, but it’s important to keep the history of these two peoples in context.
The first Intifada, the type of struggle which characterizes the current state of terrorism against Israel, wasn’t declared until 1987, after multiple attempts by Egypt, Jordan and Syria repeatedly failed to destroy the Israeli nation by military force.
After their Arab friends gave up, the Palestinians resorted to terror. I see no reason why Israel should not view those who have given their souls to terrorism as having forfeited their lives to justice.
It is also important to realize that this new strategy is actually an effort to quell fears that Israel’s removing military presence and settlements from Gaza will give terrorists a chance to strike.
Israel is hedging its bets, sending a message to the terrorists even while loosening its grip on innocent Palestinian civilians. This new campaign is no joke, for recently Israel has said that all of Hamas’ leadership will be targeted.
I would never deny that Israel and its people aren’t guilty of enormous misdeeds, but the fact that the Israelis’ behavior has historically been far less than stellar bears no import upon their responsibilities as a nation toward its people.
Killing is an awful thing, but there is only so much an individual, and by extension a nation, can tolerate.