BCT Editorial – 6/17/05

This page was last updated on June 18, 2005.

Jogging around; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 17, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“BUSH’S MORAL RELATIVISM: While we do think the head of Amnesty International was over the top in calling the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba ‘the gulag of our times,’ the Bush administration must not get a free ride on using that remark to justify its in general condemnation of the organization. Dana Milbank of The Washington Post reports the administration repeatedly cited Amnesty International reports in building its case against Saddam Hussein. It has done the same with Fidel Castro in Cuba. In addition to that, the State Department’s most recent annual report on worldwide human rights abuses cited Amnesty’s findings dozens of times. It’s just another example of this administration’s moral relativism.”

[RWC] I have two points to make with this paragraph.

First, I agree it’s not smart for the Bush administration to cite Amnesty International figures. It’s a double-edged sword ever to lend credibility to an anti-American group even on those occasions when they are correct.

Second, the Times seems to have missed this point on the Beaver County voting machine flap. In February, Sheila Green (leader of the anti-voting machine crusade in Beaver County) bashed the person who provided the technical input for a previous Department of State report claiming that he “(1) hasn’t yet been proven to be capable of assessing computer security in a sufficient manner, (2) wasn’t the choice of the people, and (3) will want to pretend that he hadn’t been mistaken in approving the defective system previously.” When the same tester issued a report Ms. Green liked, he suddenly became OK. In her own words, “Surely you acknowledge, on contemplation, that even someone unsuited for a job can in some instances still do it right.” I could be wrong, but I don’t recall any of the Times articles on this subject noting Ms. Green’s “moral relativism.”

In fairness to the Times, it was in an awkward position. Decertifying voting machines is currently a liberal cause célèbre but Democrats control virtually all aspects of Beaver County government and selected the voting machines. In addition, the current Democrat commissioners continue to support the voting machines. I suspect this is why we heard so little from the Times on this subject other than a fluff piece about Ms. Green.

“SHAME ON US: When it comes to putting up with autocratic rulers, the world’s tolerance of Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe no longer can be excused. In his 25 years of rule, Mugabe has taken one of Africa’s most prosperous nations and turned it into a pauper state where free elections are a joke and voter intimidation is widespread. Now, Mugabe is evicting thousands of his nation’s poorest from the shacks they live in around major cities and forcing them into the countryside - and the world’s governments do nothing but protest. Shame on us.”

[RWC] I have four points to make.

First, the editorial failed to note Mugabe is a Marxist and turned Zimbabwe (formerly known as Rhodesia) from a parliamentary democracy into a one-party socialist state. This is yet another example of socialism – a.k.a. liberalism, Marxism, progressivism, et cetera – destroying a country. I wonder why the author failed to mention these facts.

Second, did the Times publish a similar editorial when Mugabe evicted white farmers from their land – with no compensation – and distributed the land to his cronies? I don’t know the answer to the question and I don’t have the time to research 25 years of editorials. FYI, most of the seized land – approximately 10 million acres of prime farmland – sits idle because the people left behind don’t know how to farm.

Third, what harm can Zimbabwe possibly cause the United States? Does it threaten our national security in any way? Why not just “contain” Mugabe with protests and sanctions? I guess the editorial board wants us to forget all the editorials bashing President Bush for taking action against a country that actually appeared to present a threat to our national security. How often have Times editorials referred to taking action in Iraq as a “blunder?”

Fourth, the editorial presents no suggestions.