The Sin of Indifference

Sometimes an article comes along that just absolutely moves a person to realize something profound. That just happened to me when I read Rusty Humphrey's The sin of indifference.

Each time that I see another liberal Democrat bash and blame Bush over the war (the way that Hillary Clinton did today during her interview with Meredith Viera), especially when she (like John Kerry) voted for it in the first place, I have struggled to find the correct word for what, and why (besides politics), they are continually doing that. Humphrey's article helped me to realize the real, genuine, subconscious reason that they can do such a thing. Indeed...it is because of the sin of indifference.

Humphrey asks:

Why is it the morale of American troops in Iraq remains so high, and why are re-enlistment rates so strong? Elie Wiesel may shed some light on this important question.

[You must click on the link to read all of Wiesel's enlightening comments.]

From Mr. Wiesel's speech:

Fifty-four years ago to the day, a young Jewish boy from a small town in the Carpathian Mountains woke up, not far from Goethe's beloved Weimar, in a place of eternal infamy called Buchenwald. He was finally free, but there was no joy in his heart. He thought there never would be again. Liberated a day earlier by American soldiers, he remembers their rage at what they saw. And even if he lives to be a very old man, he will always be grateful to them for that rage, and also for their compassion. Though he did not understand their language, their eyes told him what he needed to know – that they, too, would remember, and bear witness.

In that same speech,Wiesel spoke eloquently about what he considered the real cause of the Holocaust – the indifference to the evil of Hitler. The blurring of the lines between good and evil to avoid confronting evil:

What is indifference? Etymologically, the word means "no difference." A strange and unnatural state in which the lines blur between light and darkness, dusk and dawn, crime and punishment, cruelty and compassion, good and evil. What are its courses and inescapable consequences? Is it a philosophy? Is there a philosophy of indifference conceivable? Can one possibly view indifference as a virtue? Is it necessary at times to practice it simply to keep one's sanity, live normally, enjoy a fine meal and a glass of wine, as the world around us experiences harrowing upheavals?

Wiesel dug in deeper to the true menace of indifference. In the end, indifference is always the friend of the enemy. Enemies like Radical Islam and Fascism depend on our indifference.

The Iraqi people are getting blown up by people who don't want them to succeed. And the men who desire to protect their women and children and join the security forces – they too are targets of this evil. That is why our soldiers' morale is high. They see the human events unfold on the ground. They see the nature of the enemy, and see the Iraqi people struggling to live normal lives.

Indifference, then, is not only a sin, it is a punishment. And this is one of the most important lessons of this outgoing century's wide-ranging experiments in good and evil. In the place that I come from, society was composed of three simple categories: the killers, the victims and the bystanders. During the darkest of times, inside the ghettoes and death camps we felt abandoned, forgotten. All of us did.

I recommend Mr. Wiesel's thoughts to people like John Kerry who think a whirlwind trip to Iraq will provide all the wisdom and information necessary to satisfy their own agendas and, as a side issue/benefit, determine the fate of the people of Iraq. I also believe Sen. Kerry should ponder the vexing question, "Why has the morale of our troops in Iraq remained so high?"

I know one thing, it isn't because of their indifference.

The indifference of those countries, whose leaders apparently liked the status quo of allowing Saddam Hussein to brutalize his own people while getting rich off the kickbacks from the U.N. Oil for Food Program Scandal is another example of indifference to the suffering of others, precisely because of greed!

After 17 resolutions against the former Iraqi dictator, the U.N. still refused to do what was necessary at the time when most intelligence operatives agreed that Saddam had WMD's!!

So, when we look at this in hindsight, if the U.S., Britain and the coalition forces of countries that came around to supporting the invasion didn't take action, the status quo of Saddam murdering hundreds of thousands of his own people (plus neighboring Kuwait) would be continuing today and he would not be on trial for crimes against humanity. The Oil for Food Scandal would not have been revealed and those who participated in it would be continuing to line their pockets with blood money.

The parallels between the Iraq situation with Hitler's holocaust cannot be missed! In both cases, innocent people were murdered because of the world's indifference to the situation and their suffering!

The United States cannot solve all of the world's problems. But we are the one country that has solved many of them in the past, and we will continue to be active in fighting fanatics around the globe. Our country has been successful at liberating millions to a kind of freedom that they previously could have only dreamed of!

I truly believe that America has been, currently is, and ever will be blessed by God because of our uniqueness in the the world today. Despite the fact that many other countries may hate us and our policies...most of the naysayers are not into the business of liberating other countries from evil dictators and terrorist strongholds like our world-class military is currently doing.

Most of the countries that continually bash us are not even willing to do anything to help liberate victims of dictatorship nor are they concerned about any fledging democracies (like Lebanon) by helping them to stay on course!

We hear about totally naive ideas like the suggestions to "talk" with evil regimes like North Korea, Iran, and Syria. These sideline "suggesters" in the ideological struggles we face would award such countries with "talk" without first getting them to stop their nuclear proliferation and/or terrorist funding!

Such ideas would show weakness to our enemies.

Despite the hatred often aimed at President Bush, at least he has the moral conviction and steadfast fortitude to get the job done and not retreat like many secular progressives would want our nation to do. The Bush Doctrine is a policy of strength in a world that sometimes demonstrates a Polly-Annaish, "Land of Oz" view that peace will happen if we just leave the terrorists alone and let the status quo remain regarding insane, evil dictators oppression upon their people as well as the threats they pose to the rest of the civilized world.

In another thread, I posted links to articles about Jimmy Carter's new book which demonstrates how he is definitely on the wrong side of history in his worldview. Here are the links in case you missed them.

Stein said: "Does that mean killing Jews is legitimate? Did I misread this? I don't think so. If he wrote it, he is endorsing violence, which is not the original purpose of the Carter Center.

Carter to Leno: Treatment of Palestinians 'horrible' Jimmy fails to mention onslaught of terrorist attacks against Israelis

*******
Update 9:59 a.m.
Kerry too busy for Iran

In true Kerry form:

It's clear he doesn't have too many ideas of his own – other than embarrassing his own country. But he thinks the anti-Semitic, anti-American regime in Damascus might be able to enlighten him.

It's also clear Kerry has different expectations of Middle Eastern people than he has had in the past for others. He says it's too much to expect them to embrace liberty.

"We will always be a nation that advocates democracy … but we need to be smart about the steps we take and the pace at which we demand people make transitions," he said.

Funny, I don't recall Kerry and his ideological cohorts being quite so patient in South Africa, South Vietnam and with the Iranians under the rule of the shah.

Kerry is an extremely reckless politician – unaccountable to anyone else, even his own evolving worldview. He doesn't have a clue as to what he is doing in the Middle East, other than humiliating the Bush administration. He doesn't care how much he hurts his own country's interests, as long as he perceives he is furthering his own.