Posted on 11/09/2001 1:41:17 AM PST by Ada Coddington
Finally, an America Hater
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Bring up US foreign policy to a warhawk, point out that the terrorists have specifically named US policy in Muslim lands as the reason for their desire to kill, and the response is always the same: you are blaming the victim, which is America, and exonerating the guilty.
This is nonsense! To say that the wife killed the husband to get the insurance money isn’t to blame the husband for being insured. To say the robber held up a bank to get the money isn’t to say that it’s the bank’s fault for keeping money there. As Gene Callahan tirelessly points out, establishing a motive is essential to proving guilt. It doesn’t exonerate; it convicts.
So let’s talk motive. It’s a fact that the terrorist actions and continuing threats are a direct response to US troops in Saudi Arabia, trade sanctions against Iraq, and the perception that the US approves of the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Anyone who pays attention to the news, and understands anything about the region, knew that these policies spelled trouble even before bin Laden announced it.
To take the next step in the libertarian argument requires that we make judgments about whether the policies that inspired the attacks are justified. Even independently of the attacks, the US can and should change these policies because they are bad, period. If by our doing so, potential terrorists no longer feel inspired to poison people and hijack planes, that’s all to the good.
Hence, the neoconservative claim that we libertarians are just blaming America for the crimes of others doesn’t fly. Even in the case of most leftists who oppose this war, they are not "blaming America" but identifying US government policies as a motive force. It’s a simple matter of observing that folks don’t like it, for example, when 1 million people die as a result of sanctions you impose.
For weeks, I’ve looked in vain for someone to actually say the things that the neocons accuse us of saying: that America deserved the attacks, that this is the price we pay for being such a sinful country, that the American way of life needed to get a good wallop. We’ve all looked and looked for actual America haters among those who oppose the US war against Afghanistan.
Where are the people who are saying such things? Certainly no one on LRC. I’ve yet to see any major spokesman for peace promote such absurdities. Does anyone who thinks like that actually exist, apart from a few drugged-up antiglobalism protestors or professors in minority studies programs?
Much to my amazement, a person who actually does fit the neocon stereotype has at last shown his face. It is none other than our old friend Bill Clinton.
Speaking at Georgetown University, Clinton indulged in a flight of fancy about all the things America has done to call down these attacks on us. In particular he named the fact that "we were founded as a nation that practiced slavery, and slaves quite frequently were killed even though they were innocent."
If that isn’t bad enough: "this country once looked the other way when a significant number of native Americans were dispossessed and killed to get their land or their mineral rights or because they were thought of as less than fully human."
Finally the clincher: "And we are still paying a price today."
So there you have it: a blame America Firster, someone who actually believes that the attacks are the price we pay for our original sin, as well as events a century and a half old. When you hear this kind of drivel, it’s enough to get the old patriotic juices flowing. It tempts one to observe that this man, this former president of the United States, secretly hates this country. That sure would explain much about the Clinton regime.
Or perhaps it’s not a psychological state at all. It’s all the more gripping when you realize that the real reason for the attacks were the policies carried out under his administration. So he more than anyone else would have a good reason for wanting to distract people from events of the last 10 years to events of ancient history–events that no one can control now.
Clinton is pleased to promote the hatred of America, especially among college students, so long as it averts people’s eyes from the US government’s actions in the 1990s. So there we have the motive for the first genuine case of anti-Americanism I’ve seen. Wouldn’t you know that it comes from the mouth of the former president, whom historians will probably someday consider "near great" for his policies that got us into this war.
When Jerry Falwell said the attacks might be God’s judgment for Americans’ sins of abortion, the whole world came crashing down on him. That hasn’t happened and won’t happen to Clinton. The most the Wall Street Journal could muster was a pathetic: "wartime is hardly the time for an American politician to be harping on America's shortcomings."
The problem isn’t the harping as such; it’s Clinton’s theory itself, that the US was born in sin, and terror is the price we pay. I’m willing to bet that the hijackers didn’t care a flip about slavery or Indian policies, and Clinton doesn’t believe they did. His is a metaphysical argument, an anti-American argument. We are paying the price for Bill Clinton and those like him.
November 9, 2001
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and editor of LewRockwell.com.
Dunno. Looks to me that he is demagoging like when he said he remembered in his childhood black churches being burned in Arkansas.
I suppose I also should KIM that Clinton has a need to draw attention to himself and no one has noticed him for a while.
As you can guess I reject such an argument.
I am a proud advocate of Zionism. Now Jews have their own nation.....For a contrast look how the Kurds are knocked about because they don't have a nation to defend. But are divided between five nations. Kurds being routed by Turkey and Iraq...... their fellow Muslims by the way!
Not ashamed in the least to be Zionist It's the Arabs faults if they cannot share a small part of the MidEast. Screw 'em!
DennisW: Can you please back up this outrageous claim. … What I see is a big lie in this post of yours.
DennisW: 88 percent of the 20,225,000 dunums within the 1949 armistice lines belongs at law [sic] to Arab owners
Architect: Thank you for proving my point. In fact, according to you, I was conservative in my claim. Will you now apologize for calling me a liar?
I said this article was hysterical, but actually it's pretty accurate. The Libertarians and Bill Clinton do seem to have quite a bit in common, beginning with the fact they both think we're all stupid and ending with their determination to blame America for all the world's evils.
I'm not buying, Lew. Talk to the hand.
Maybe he just wants to keep his face before the public. I gather he does not wish to fade away like other past presidents.
And I still can't find those farmers out in the Negev desert (time for you to whip out a map and see how big the Negev really is) that Israel stole land from. You continue to romanticize the 3rd world Palestinians. Usual leftist jive.
This is land won during war (where Israel was attcked!) so I don't agree.
Your delusions have no limit. Israel attacked in 1956, 1967 and 1982 wars and, I would maintain, the 1948 one as well (although in the latter case, the general chaos makes it difficult to make a final determination). I have already stated that I have no objection to the state of Israel. On the condition that all the inhabitants of Palestine are treated equally, no matter what their religion.
But when they expel their 800,000 Jews, with most of these refugees going to Israel, this is not a collective action of the Arab ...
Here is the fundamental point of our disagreement. I do not accept the notion of collective responsibility at all. If Iraqi violates the rights of people it rules, that is the responsibility of the government of Iraq. If Israel beats up on people it rules, that it is the responsibility of the government of Israel. The one has nothing to do with the other except insofar as Saddam Hussein uses the Israeli actions to justify his treatment of Iraqi Jews. Similarly, DennisW uses the Iraqi actions to justify his treatment of Palestinian non-Jews. I say: a pox on both your houses.
You believe that Might is Right. I believe in the Rule of Law. Shall we agree to disagree?
I don't think they will listen to your high minded musings on personal liberty and responsibly over there. This is a Western phenomena.
Hahhahahah...
There are no Iraq Jews left. I guess you weren't listening when I told you they were driven out. Maybe 10 are left in Iraq. Essentially all Jews have been ethnically cleansed from Iraq and other Arab Muslim nations
Very nasty language coming from you. How sick! Which Palestinian website did you scoop up that gem from?
When I see you write this I immediately know that you are lying when you say you accept Israel's existence in the MidEast.
I think you suffer from synaptus interruptus. Just what mistreatment of Iraqi Jews do you think we were talking about?
I repeat: "DennisW uses the Iraqi actions to justify his treatment of Palestinian non-Jews. I say: a pox on both your houses".
Lebensraum. Lebensraum. Might is Right.
Goodbye. It's been fun.
You said he did.
Actually, that is a painfully kind description of anyone connected to LewRockwell, or that other pesthole - Antiwar.com.
Well done. Brilliant argument. Nice analysis. You really convinced us all. Here's a suggestion: why not let us know what it is about the article with which you disagree? Or would that be asking too much from your mind?
Well, ta ta. Lebensraum. Might is Right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.