An open question to Democrats:
Why is it not okay to talk about terrorism to advance your political situation, but perfectly acceptable, in fact laudable, to talk about a natural disaster to achieve the same goal?
And if you want to say, "It isn't about Hurricane Katrina, it's about how the Bush administration failed to respond to it" then why can't the same questions be raised about terrorism and the Democrat's plans for preventing and responding to attacks?
It's revealing to note that while the good folks at MoveOn.org have pledged to "never forget" Hurricane Katrina, they don't seem nearly as interested in memorializing another anniversary that's just around the corner.
UPDATE: Derek at Freedom Dogs has more:
This is true. I say it is as simple as taking sides in terms of God's laws vs. natural laws, or moral decisions vs. the natural happenings. What I am getting at here is that old moral relativism thing. 9-11 was clearly a morally evil act perpetrated by men--Islamo fascist activists--and lauded by an even greater group as witnessed ever since in posters and T-shirts glorifying Osama Bin Laden.
Where as Katrina, although devastating, was a natural disaster not aimed or intended for anyone. The moral question can only be applied to one of these events. Both saw massive aid efforts from the government, citizens and religious organizations. Both caught us with our pants down. Both cost dearly in lives, hardship and our economy. And similar versions of both could happen again tomorrow.
What can not be said about both events was that they were equal in terms of their impetus on a moral level. And it is not surprising to see those that favor moral relativism to take sides in this way.
No comments:
Post a Comment