America Without The SwordJohn Hawkins asks:
You hear all these left-wingers who advocate tucking our tails between our legs, running out of Iraq, closing Gitmo on the way home, and then -- although they won't admit it -- they want to hunker down in America, hope we don't get hit with another attack, but still plan to blame George Bush if we do.
Why?John takes it on a slightly different tangent than I would, answering it politically rather than philosophically.
I'm reminded of a terrific
Mark Steyn column from about a year ago. He described the unfortunate son of a peacenik, who didn't let him play with toy weapons. When somebody gave the boy a plastic sword and shield combination, the mother decided to discard the sword, but let him play with the shield. Steyn went on to describe the boy playing in the yard, practicing cowering.
Now why did the mother take the sword from her boy? Because she wrongly believed that he was a part of the problem. Unless she refused him the opportunity to use toy weapons, he'd become a bully in his teen years and a wife beater as an adult. This is of course, silly stuff; effectively this mom was punishing him for being a bully when in reality he was almost certainly not headed down that path. Indeed, as soon as the word got around that he wouldn't hit back, he was probably doomed to victim status during adolescence.
Why do liberals want to take the sword from America? Because their mindset is stuck on America's potential to become the bully of the world. They want America to be taught a lesson in Iraq, so that we don't go around beating up defenseless little countries, when of course that's not what we do.
