Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Moments of Truth

There are few things more laden with significance than marriage. As much is why the gay "rights" movement is atwitter over homosexuals having the option to marry (even though in at least one area where same-sex civil unions have been legal, precious few have availed themselves of the opportunity.) Issues of sexual orientation aside, marriage speaks to the optimism shared by the betrothed, as well as to that of the society in which they hope to spend their wedded bliss.

As I can personally attest, marriage also reveals fundamental truths about those who enter therein, particularly as the years progress. Every conflict, every disappointment, every sacrificial labor and every shared joy will serve to lay bear the true nature of the person underneath the veil or behind the cummerbund. And it is the prospect of seeing that truth, naked before us and the God to whom we made our vows, that makes marriage a situation not to be entered into ill-advisedly.

So perhaps just as one can discern improvement in Iraq from the truths surrounding the improving security situation in Baghdad (as reported by the New York Times with associated video and photos), or the fact t
hat weekly attacks in Iraq are falling to a level not seen since February 2006 (also from the NYT), one might be able to see as much from the upturn in Baghdad's wedding business (again, NYT.) The good news is that from any perspective, things in Iraq are steadily improving; we continue to confront and defeat al-Qaeda and their confederates and are denying them sanctuary from which to launch further attacks on America.

And so with all signs pointing to the wisdom of the Iraq War - and to a similar extent, that of the greater War on Terror - it is time now for liberals to marry themselves to the truth by way of contemplation of what we knew before that Tuesday in September, and what we know now. I offer the following for the Left's consideration:

1) If on the justification of the August 2001 PDB, President Bush decided to press for passage and implementation of the Patriot Act, would progressives have been supportive of such efforts?

2) If on a like basis, the President decided to preemptively and unilaterally attack Afghanistan in order to prevent 9/11, how would this have sat with the American Left?

3) Would liberals have supported warrantless wiretapping in order to prevent the 9/11 attacks? (And would the Times, the Washington Post and USAToday have leaked sensitive information about such programs?)

4) If we were able to capture Zacarias Moussaoui prior to 9/11, would liberals have supported waterboarding him in order to get information that would have thwarted the 9/11 hijackers?

5) If the U.S. were able to capture some or all of the hijackers, would liberals have agreed with confining them to Guantanamo Bay or a C.I.A. detention area overseas (or some Afghani equivalent of Abu Ghraib?)

And one more question for good measure...

6) If it were known that a Middle Eastern country were in violation of multiple U.N. resolutions (i.e.: resolutions 1747, 1737 and 1696), was responsible attacks on U.S. servicemen, was a state sponsor of regional terrorism and was in pursuit of nuclear technology, would the Left consider preemption against said country to be prudent and warranted?

We know liberals by the truths they reveal when they think no one is listening. They condemn President Bush for both failing to prevent 9/11 and for launching a preemptive war against Iraq in order to forestall future attacks. They would enter the United States into open-ended negotiations with countries that have shown neither the desire nor the ability to commit to peaceful resolution of conflict.

And soon, one of them will ask America to plight its troth to them and their schemes for the country. Acknowledging that any marriage is a difficult proposition at best, it is the wise bride who would cautiously scrutinize her would-be suitor. Life is too short to spend in an unhappy marriage.

No comments: