Seeing What He Wants To
CBS' Andrew Cohen uses the magnificent film "Judgment at Nuremberg" as a tool to attack the Bush Administration's efforts to protect the country from the threat of Islamofascist terrorism.
Perhaps the film is a little like the Roschach ink blot test -- and everyone can see what he wants to. Cohen quotes the following dialogue:
"There are those in our own country, too, who today speak of the 'protection of country' — of 'survival.' A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems, that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient — to look the other way.
Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what?' A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! Before the people of the world, let it now be noted that here, in our decision, this is what we stand for: justice, truth and the value of a single human being."
The thought that Cohen would use this dialogue to make invidious comparisons between the United States and Islamofascist terrorists is a joke (unless, somewhere, Americans are deliberately targeting innocent civilians and hacking off heads with butter knives). It likewise strikes me that the virtues of courage, perseverance and steadfastness in protecting the innocent from the predations of the hate-filled is what the war on terror stands for -- and right now, continuing to stand for it "is most difficult" given the weak-kneed defeatists among us.
And while Cohen is swooning over the concepts of "justice, truth and the value of a single human being" -- well, why do those values apply when it comes to terrorists, but not when it comes to unborn children?
Perhaps the film is a little like the Roschach ink blot test -- and everyone can see what he wants to. Cohen quotes the following dialogue:
"There are those in our own country, too, who today speak of the 'protection of country' — of 'survival.' A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems, that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient — to look the other way.
Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what?' A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! Before the people of the world, let it now be noted that here, in our decision, this is what we stand for: justice, truth and the value of a single human being."
The thought that Cohen would use this dialogue to make invidious comparisons between the United States and Islamofascist terrorists is a joke (unless, somewhere, Americans are deliberately targeting innocent civilians and hacking off heads with butter knives). It likewise strikes me that the virtues of courage, perseverance and steadfastness in protecting the innocent from the predations of the hate-filled is what the war on terror stands for -- and right now, continuing to stand for it "is most difficult" given the weak-kneed defeatists among us.
And while Cohen is swooning over the concepts of "justice, truth and the value of a single human being" -- well, why do those values apply when it comes to terrorists, but not when it comes to unborn children?
posted by LadybugUSA at 10:22 AM
1 Comments:
More moral relativism by the left. Using the film in this manner disregards an important factor in determining good or ill of a given action: intent. We saw it in the pants wetting over treatment of detainees at Gitmo. It's as if our purpose in inflicting discomfort is for sport or malicious designs as opposed to obtaining info that saves lives. Intention is everything here. Shame on those who believe the intent of our president, admin, military is malevolent while never producing proof for the accusation.
Post a Comment
<< Home