"The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth."
-'Publius' The Federalist No. 1
This frustration stems from the observation. The disagreement develops from the core. It is not seen inasmuch in the methodology as much as it is a divergence from its inception.
Liberals and Conservatives trade many barbs, but herein the observations of the mind, or the culture that is Islamofascism provokes what should, unquestionably be an easily reconcilable debate. Victor Davis Hanson poignantly tackles this issue in a recent editorial, and it is seen as well on Fundamentally Right's 'In The Terrorist's Nest.' Sadly, both of these observations are yet more examples of what has become a pathetic quagmire. The debate surrounding the terrorists motives.
Since September 11, 2001, it has been sickening to continuously hear the insinuation and, many times, the out-and-out statements that somehow the terrorists are morally justified in their actions for atrocities we as Americans somehow committed. What foolishness and simplemindedness this posture connotes. As Hanson states,
'Throughout this war we have an understandable, if ethnocentric, habit of ignoring what our enemies actually say. Instead we chatter on, donÂt listen, and in self-absorbed fashion impart our own motives for their hatred. We live on the principles of the Enlightenment and so worship our god Reason, thus assuming that even our adversaries accept such rational protocols as their own. So they talk on and on of beheading, suicide bombing, another holocaust, and blowing thousands of us up, while we snooze, now and again waking in the midst of a war to regurgitate Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, flushed Korans, the abusive Patriot Act, and the latest quip of Donald Rumsfeld.' Since its inception this country has persistently attempted, and quite a few more times than most, and has successfully stayed on the correct side of history. Maybe, just maybe, it is somehow inherently good to question our motives, and to question the motives of others before we proceed. This country has an almost phobic condition of wanting to ensure that it acts with pure and just motivations. But therein lies theconundrumm, which is this: at what point must you leave this constant questioning and realize that some things in life are black & white, right & wrong and so forth?
The consternation felt by most Conservatives of this country is that the consistent bickering is, in the least, counterproductive, and in many circumstances it should be construed as providing 'shelter' to the enemy. This brings the discussion full circle; should not illustrations as the ones cited here lean in the way of establishing a foundation for what these animals seek? They want the destruction of our western civilization and will stop at nothing to bring about their perverted goals to fruition.