Answering Michael Moore’s Question To Bill O’Reilly
Michael Moore and Bill O’Reilly had a conversation/interview/confrontation, whatever you want to call it, and Moore kept pounding away at O’Reilly with a question he really seemed unable to answer effectively. Here’s a snippet of the conversation that’ll allow you to get the gist of it…
“Michael Moore: So you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that.
Bill O’Reilly: I would sacrifice myself—
Michael Moore: Your child—Its Bush sending the children there.
Bill O’Reilly: I would sacrifice myself.
Michael Moore: You and I don’t go to war, because we’re too old—
Bill O’Reilly: Because if we back down, there will be more deaths and you know it.
Michael Moore: Say ‘I Bill O’Reilly would sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah’
Bill O’Reilly: I’m not going to say what you say, you’re a, that’s ridiculous
Michael Moore: You don’t believe that. Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this?”
That is of course an intellectually dishonest question because very few people are going to be willing to send their child off to die for any reason at all. If every parent of an American soldier was guaranteed to lose their child in a war, the United States would never go, or have gone, to war for any reason.
Some people, Michael Moore included, may think the world would be a better place had that happened. But, as Jonah Goldberg once said,
“This shouldn’t be news to anybody by now, but just to clarify: If you go into every situation saying there’s absolutely nothing worth fighting over, you will inevitably end up on a cot sleeping next to a guy named Tiny, bringing him breakfast in his cell every morning, and spending your afternoons ironing his boxers. Or, in the case of the French, you might spend your afternoon rounding up Jews to send to Germany, but you get the point.”
In other words, if Americans never went to war, we might be taking orders from the Brits, from the Nazis, or maybe the Soviet Union, but make no mistake about it — we wouldn’t be free people.
That being said, let me get to the $24,000 question: Is Iraq worth the blood and treasure we’ve sacrificed?
If you believe we need to stop future terrorist attacks against the United States that could make 9/11 look like a Bar Mitzvah, yes, it’s unquestionably worth it.
I say that — and pay attention for once, you liberals — because we cannot effectively stop terrorist organizations with global reach if they’re being supported, supplied, protected, & trained by rogue nations like Iraq, Iran, & Syria. Yes, we can fire off a few Tomahawk missiles or send Special Forces into a rogue nation for a raid or two, but we cannot seriously disrupt and destroy terrorist groups that have armies, intelligence services, & the entire government apparatus of a nation backing them up.
On 9/11, it was Al-Qaeda, a threat we had seen coming for years, that hit the Pentagon, took down the WTC, and most importantly took almost 3000 lives. We knew they were dangerous, we knew they wanted to hurt us, but we were unable to effectively deal with them because they were shielded by the Taliban and we paid a terrible price for our reluctance to act.
To make the exact same mistake we made before 9/11, to stand back and allow rogue states to continue to aid terrorist groups of global reach, would have been foolish beyond comprehension — especially in a world where WMD are continuing to proliferate.
So was it worth it to take out Saddam? You bet it was, just like it would have been worth it to take out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda before 9/11. September 11th was a wake-up call for our country. We had a choice between continuing to tolerate attacks on a scale of 9/11, if not worse, or we could go after terrorist groups of global reach and rogue states that support them. George W. Bush chose option #2 and he was right to do so…