Breaking News

Letter to the Editor: Defending conservatives

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Has anyone noticed the number of foiled terrorist attacks in the news? I thought that this was all going to change with the presidential election of Barack Obama. The last two weeks there have been attacks, in this paper, on the conservative philosophy by students who have no idea how it works. So now it is my turn to point out the obvious.

The liberal philosophy has said that all it takes to defeat terrorism is respect and understanding. It was the fault of the U.S. that international terrorism exists. They said Obama would “reset” the world stage and we would all gather and sing the “Coca-Cola Song” (ask your parents). If any of this were true, Osama bin Laden or any terrorist leader could just cancel any and all attacks.

Modern international terrorism got its start under the liberal president Jimmy Carter who thought of Yassar Arafat as a George Washington. Carter also forced out the Shah of Iran in favor of the Ayatollah Khomeini and his fundamentalist beliefs.

Another liberal president, Bill Clinton, asked that Sudan send Bin Laden to Afghanistan where he would not be able to do any mischief until at least 2001.

Clinton denied the requests from his general for tanks and troops to protect his forces. The tanks requested would have likely saved the lives of many of the 18 American soldiers killed in Mogadishu after a Blackhawk helicopter was shot down. But those tanks were still sitting in the United States. Clinton ignored attacks on our embassies, naval vessels, military barracks and and fled Somalia afterward.

Even on TV liberalism fails. “The West Wing’s” President Bartlett was most presidential when he struck back against terrorism like a conservative. For those who attacked conservatives in these pages, I would like to see a reasoned defense of liberalism, but I doubt you have the stomach for the fight.

— Calvin Oyler is a senior from Lenexa.

Comments

thatonedude (anonymous) says...

Or maybe nobody wants to gratify such a juvenile attack with anything more public than this comment on the UDK website.

I'd also suggest you study your Iranian history. Carter had nothing to do with pushing out the Shah. Of course, if you acknowledge that you have one less way of criticizing liberals, which you seem determined to do at the expense of anything else (like provide a rational argument that doesn't partially hinge on "The West Wing").

October 29, 2009 at 12:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

G_E (anonymous) says...

Oh Calvin, thanks for the lulz. I know it was written to be serious, but it sure gave me a good laugh on this gloomy afternoon.

October 29, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

domoking (anonymous) says...

Calvin, you are not defending anything, you are attacking right back.
tsk tsk. That is all.

October 29, 2009 at 5:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

linguo_the_grammar_robot (anonymous) says...

The only thing these columns by conservatives have taught me is that they are more ignorant than I originally thought. Thanks for confirming that for me, Cal. Good for a laugh.

October 29, 2009 at 6:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Z (anonymous) says...

I think one of the problems with this letter is that the author demonstrates no grasp of what "liberalism" and "conservatism" actually are.

I've said it before, and now I'll say it again.

NEITHER OUTLOOK IS INHERENTLY EVIL

FDR was an incredibly liberal president that that pulled America from the depression and yet thrust us into World War II.

Reagan was a conservative who walked a tight rope for two terms and somehow kept the world's two superpowers from annihilating the globe.

...and linguo.

take off your glasses. The world isn't black and white, and not every conservative is "ignorant."

October 29, 2009 at 11:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

xz007 (anonymous) says...

Let's then look at the benefits the so-called conservative party have offered in the international arena.

1) The Reagan administration armed both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
2) If the conservatives at the time would have had their way during the Cuban Missile Crisis, nuclear holocaust would have obliterated the entire world.
3) The past eight years, internationally speaking. Even assuming that Hussein deserved to be deposed, rushing an invasion and then evacuating almost (but not all) of the troops out of the country and letting the remainder be slaughtered by insurgents before finally starting a surge is not effective policy.

October 30, 2009 at 8:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Z (anonymous) says...

My goal here isn't to defend conservatives. I'd be the first to admit that the Presidents Bush have both largely been failures when it comes to foreign policy.

However, you have no clue regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis. You can speculate all you want on what MIGHT have happened but you are evoking an image that can't possibly be proven right or wrong to try and support your argument.

Yes the Reagan administration armed Hussein and bin Laden.
But Clinton gave China a jump start in nuclear energy.
If things ever sour with China things could get interesting so I don't feel that argument holds all that much weight.

Plus, you seem to be insinuating that Hussein and bin Laden were somehow products of conservatism. I'm not going to dwell on this too much and just assumed that I'm looking to far into this.

In regards to the withdrawal from Iraq. I agree. I wish congress had listened to the military leaders in how to proceed.

One more point of my own...

I would caution people against holding the Bush administration up as a shining example of conservative leadership. I think we can all agree, conservative and liberal alike, that Bush's leadership was lacking several areas. (I'm putting it lightly but I don't want this discussion to devolve into a Bush bash-fest so lets end it here).

October 31, 2009 at 12:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Advertisement