the Centrist

There has been several attempts by media pundits as well as pro-Islamist groups to draw a parallel between George Washington and the Islamic terrorists. I’ve even heard experts on CNN, Fox, and MSNBC compare Washington to Arafat. Matt Lauer took such an opportunity when he interviewed the ‘Second Lady” Mrs. Cheney on his NBC “Today Show”. She was there to showcase her children’s book on America’s First President. The book emphasizes the crossing of the Delaware on Christmas Eve. According to worldnetdaily.com the it went something like this:
Lauer: “Weren’t the Americans the ragtag army that were not well equipped and not well nourished … much like the insurgents in Fallujah against our army today.”
Cheney: “Well, the difference of course is who’s fighting on the side of freedom …”
That seemed like a good answer to me, but Lauer doesn’t ‘get it’.
According to the Media Research Center, Chris Mathews of ‘Hardball’ and former President Jimmy Carter are yet two more pundits that just ‘don’t get it’. Mathews was interviewing Carter on Oct. 18 when he asked him: whether when comparing the “insurgency against a powerful British force, do you see any parallels between the, the fighting that we did on our side and the fighting that is going on in Iraq today?”
Carter replied: “Well one parallel is that the Revolutionary War, more than any other war up until recently, has been the most bloody war we’ve fought. I think another parallel is that in ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided …” He then goes on to make a parallel that the British gave Canada, Australia, and India their independence merely by fiat and they could have done that with America but decided instead to fight.
First this former President may be politically correct, but he is not historically correct. America’s bloodiest war to date was the Civil War. Second India, and subsequently Pakistan, got their independence from the Christ like non-violent actions of Ghandi and his followers. This was the same method used by Rev. Martin Luther King in the 50′s and 60′s American Civil Rights Movement. In both cases the demonstrators were beaten, tortured, killed, and imprisoned for their desire for freedom … their freedom hardly came by fiat. Third, it was the experience of the loss of America in the Revolutionary War that convinced Great Britain to allow the Canadian and Australian democracies and eventually the Commonwealth to exist. Great Britain knew that mankind longs to be free … once the seeds of freedom are placed within a nations’ soul there is nothing that will stop self rule. This has recently been exhibited in Afghanistan where death threats were ignored and people voted by the millions.
If anybody should be compared to George Washington it should be Iraq’s interim Prime Minister Allwe. He, like George Washington, is the one risking his and his family’s life on a daily basis trying to bring freedom to his people. He is the one trying to enable his people to self rule, via a democracy for the first time in history. Why is it that the left thinks that spreading self rule is the same as ‘imposing’ America’s form of government on others? In a democracy the people determine what is best for them, not what is best for America. These terrorist thugs are no better than Saddam, they are trying to intimidate their way into power … not govern.
America’s left conveniently forget that George Washington was a serious man of faith … a strong believer in Jesus Christ. As such he entered into this war as a ‘just war’, but did so honorably. Washington had at his disposal plenty of gunpowder … is there any evidence that he purposely killed innocent women and children? Did he target schools and hospitals? Did he kidnap innocent ‘loyalist’ civilians, then cut off their heads when the British would not leave? As a father of a brave decorated infantry soldier in his third tour in Iraq and fighting in Fallujah at the time this is penned, I am offended to the point of outrage for him and our family at this parallel ignorantly championed by the left.