Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Posted by Daniel Greenfield 4 Comments
If there was a line guaranteed to get a cry of outrage, a derisive snort or a 15 page dissertation out of a liberal in the 70's to 80's, it was "peaceful uses of nuclear power." As far as liberals were concerned there was no such thing as peaceful uses of nuclear power. The very idea was a contradiction in terms. Nuclear power was Satan's bodily fluids, a horrific material that was the very essence of evil. The only reason why anyone would want it to exist was in order to kill people, pollute the environment and destroy the earth; possibly in that order.
Since then liberals don't appear to have become great fans of nuclear power (though the Europeans whom they constantly assure us we should be more like seem to be) but when it comes to Iran, the cry they echo now is 'peaceful uses of nuclear power.' Iran they assure us is only developing nuclear plants for peaceful uses.
Yes the very same people who are sure that the Patriot Act was a government conspiracy to seize power and end all civil rights, are happy enough to give Ahmadinejad (Adolf Jr) the benefit of the doubt. After all it's not as if he constantly talks about wiping out Israel (by which liberals assure us he only means it will be peacefully wiped out by non-nuclear means) or that Iran is one of the world's leading sponsors of terrorism.
The common thread is that the same people who are certain that everything the government does for national defense is evil, are equally sure that everything countries that are violently opposed to the United States do is good. The double standard is no arbitrary coincidence, it is an integral part of their belief system.
That is how the same people who have 'Cukes not Nukes' bumper stickers can also field 'Hands off Iran' bumper stickers. What they really mean is they vastly would prefer if all we had to defend ourselves with were cukes and Iran had the nukes. But then these are the same people who could chant 'No War for Oil' while arguing that we were better off with Saddam, the man who had unleashed the region's largest war for oil by invading Kuwait and moving in on Saudi Arabia.
Liberals never truly hated nuclear weapons, only what they represented, deterrence for America against the glorious forces of the socialist Soviet motherland, the obstacle in the way of the Red Army sweeping across the rest of Europe and introducing it to the glorious concept of a dictatorship of the proletariat. Ultimately F16's, M1A1's and M16's were as repugnant as the bomb. Just not the Soviet caches of nuclear weapons, tanks and helicopters. Those were of course just fine because they were only needed for the USSR to defend itself against 'us.' Or so the reasoning went.
Liberals have learned to love the Iranian bomb for the same reason they hated the American one. They do not oppose weapons on moral grounds or certainly they wouldn't have spent the last decade championing terrorists whose weapon of choice is a suicide bomber in a cafe. They oppose the use or possession of weapons on political grounds by the United States and any country resisting the progressive opposition of the latest homicidal sociopath who happens to be leading the world's Anti-American camp.
They don't hate the bomb. They hate America and Israel and when the bomb is pointed at them, then liberals finally learn to love the bomb.