Today’s lead editorial in the Liberal Death Star (aka The New York Times), “No More Foot Dragging,” reflects the dissonance that liberals always bring to discussions about national security, and everything else for that matter. It’s all too familiar, but never less annoying, no matter how many times you hear it. “Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, but …” “No one is FOR abortion, but …” “Of course, racial discrimination is wrong, but …” None of that narrow-minded, black and white thinking for them. Leave that to the mouth breathers in the Christian right. In the present case, they apply their nuanced analysis to the current efforts by Israel to eliminate the cancer that Hezbollah is in the Middle East. Not surprisingly, they have decided that what is needed now is a ceasefire. There’s a shocker—liberals wanting to stop fighting terrorists.

Check out these choice excerpts from this fatuous editorial:

“The White House has resisted calls for a cease-fire, arguing that a return to the situation that existed before the latest fighting would not bring lasting peace. While that is true, we fear that what the administration has been doing is buying Israel more time to pound Hezbollah and Lebanon.”

Yeah, and the problem with that is …? Note the perfect illustration of liberal weeniness in the first two sentences. They admit that the Bush administration is correct in its assessment that yet another timeout to allow the murderous dirtbags in Hezbollah to regroup won’t accomplish anything constructive, and STILL they “fear” any action that will actual result in permanent peace.

“Since July 12, hundreds of Lebanese civilians have been killed and nearly a score of Israelis. For all that dying, there is little sign that Hezbollah — which fired 100 missiles into Israel on Sunday — has been so deeply wounded that it can’t rebuild quickly. Ms. Rice needs to make clear to Israel that more civilian deaths in Lebanon won’t make Israelis safer.”

No, my squishy friends, more “civilian deaths” won’t in itself make Israel safer, but killing more terrorists will. Since the terrorists’ official policy is to use civilians as human shields, it’s inevitable that some civilians will be killed. That is sad, even tragic, but it happens in every war. If the New York Times is so concerned about civilian deaths, they should turn their outrage on those who are actually responsible, Hezbollah, and their patrons Iran and Syria.

“After her sessions in Israel, Ms. Rice goes on to Rome, where she will meet with Arab and European officials. She needs to use these discussions to win support for a United Nations resolution authorizing such a force and strengthening its call — so far unheeded — for Hezbollah to disarm.”

Oh yeah, that’s just what we need, another U.N. resolution.

“Ms. Rice has no plans, apparently, for a surprise visit to Damascus. At a minimum she must urge European and Arab allies to make that trip. They must deliver a united message that isolation and scorn is the price Syria and Iran will pay for continuing to abet Hezbollah, and that Israel will not be restrained until Hezbollah is restrained.”

Wait a second—“Israel will not be restrained until Hezbollah is restrained?” Isn’t that precisely what this editorial is calling for—for Israel to stop “pounding” Hezbollah while their missiles are still raining down on Israeli cities?

This editorial is one more reminder, as if we needed any, of why we can’t trust liberals to defeat the enemies of Western civilization, no matter what John Kerry says.

The New York Times, Saddam Hussein, Israel, Hezbollah, Damascus, Syria, Iran, Western civilization, John Kerry   

Trackback URL