An Unnatural Disaster

October 14, 2005

 

Countless thousands of people were killed. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, were suffering. A half a world away, we watched from the cozy confines of our living rooms in horror. Something must be done to help these people. We're a rich nation with vast resources. Surely there's something we can do. We can use our massive military for good, for humanitarian purposes. We can use our personnel and machinery to stop the misery. We simply cannot stand idly by while people suffer so.

 

This is the humane response to a disaster, right? We've been blessed with so much, if we are able to use our blessings to help stop the suffering, we must. No liberal in America will argue with that scenario, that is until you tell them that it's not earthquake-ravaged South Asia you're talking about. This calamity is man-made. This disaster is Iraq.

 

I was struck by the recent similarities between the horrible death toll in South Asia and the atrocities in Iraq. Yet, the response to human torment from those on the left is decidedly different when it's at the hands of a mad man. Suffering is suffering, is it not? Oh, but how dare I compare the human devastation in South Asia with the reign of Saddam Hussein.

 

I'll let the numbers do the talking.

 

As of this writing, the death toll in South Asia is expected to hit somewhere around 30,000. According to the Gallup Baghdad Survey, Saddam executed 61,000 in Baghdad alone. In all of Iraq, human rights officials estimate some 500,000 people were killed by Saddam and his brutal henchmen and were dumped into mass graves throughout the country. That's an average of 60 people murdered every single day of Saddam's 23-year brutal rule. Coalition forces are still coming across these ghoulish graveyards and the tally continues to climb. It's called ethnic cleansing. Bill Clinton saw it in Bosnia and did something about it. Sheryl Crow and friends fell all over themselves to show their support by entertaining the troops. She and her liberal buds were nowhere to be found when President Bush came calling. I wonder why.

 

One of the stains left on the Clinton legacy was his inaction in Rwanda. In April of 1994, the United States and the United Nations stood quietly by while Hutus slaughtered Tutsis in one of the most horrific acts of ethnic cleansing ever to be carried out in such a short period of time. In just three months almost one million people were murdered while the U.S. government did absolutely nothing.

 

Amnesty International, a group certainly not known for its conservative leanings, decried the massacre in Iraq for years. Were the devastation in Iraq brought about by nature there would be no question that we would participate in the relief efforts. The fact that it was a political issue made it more problematic but no less critical. The CIA pre-war intelligence showed Saddam had mass destruction capabilities. Under the terms of the cease-fire, he was in violation. We commenced firing again and finished him off.

 

Now the CIA says its pre-war intelligence on Saddam's weapons was faulty but it criticizes the Bush administration for not heeding its predictions for a post-war Iraq. Sounds like the CIA is engaging in CYA, as is the left. With each milestone we cross in Iraq, their annoying whining goes up a notch. Like it or not, Iraq is headed for self-rule. We have a president willing to take a stand against the wanton murder of innocent people. What bugs the left is it's not one of them.