Bombing Wedding Parties and Strengthening Marriage
The U.S. bombing of a wedding party in Iraq on Wednesday in which more than 40 civilians lost their lives falls nicely in line with the rest of the Bush administration's War on Terrorism. Military officials now deny the dead were civilians, but let's assume for the sake of argument that they were. The affair reminds me of the U.S. bombing of a wedding party in Afghanistan about two years ago, which also killed scores of innocents, as well as other connubial massacres at the hands of coalition forces. Given this apparent trend in slaughtering non-combatants at celebrations of matrimony, some liberals will whine and complain as they always do, and to them I have the following to say:
You hypocritical, un-American leftist buffoons. How dare you criticize a military strike on a wedding party when the Left has done so much to undermine traditional marriage over the years!
Bush, on the other hand, committed to the sanctity of marriage as he is, has provided one more example of the lengths to which he's willing to go to prevent marriages from ever falling apart ' by killing the bride and groom before their union ever has a chance to be corrupted. Actually, I haven't yet confirmed if the married couple was among the casualties, but no one ever said there wasn't room for improvement in this war. Next time, the helicopter bomber can make the extra effort to ensure that the man and wife never have to live to see their marriage become dysfunctional. Killing innocents preemptively is the most foolproof way to get them before they become guilty.
Bush's brilliance in his crusade of promoting Goodness runs ever deeper than one might imagine. Not only has this wedding bombing stopped dozens from ever facing the sinful embarrassments of infidelity and loveless marriage; it may indeed encourage others to tie the knot quickly, while they have the chance. For many single couples, marriage will keep them off the path of wickedness, and if the bombings around them prompt them to expedite their sacred marital rites out of fear of dying as bachelors and old maids, we will see yet another instance of Bush's war having unforeseen and yet serendipitous results. The war has made it easier for hard-working Iraqis to commit to each other 'til death do them part' with straight faces, and feel comfortable knowing that the U.S. government is doing all it can to ensure they'll never have to live through the slow and painful process of divorce.
Of course, all married couples have to be one man and one woman; any rise in homosexual activity in Iraq should never be pinned on the highly moral Bush administration, but rather be seen as the fault of al Qaeda.
When it comes to affirming wholesome traditional moral values and institutions, no one can compete with our great president. Visualize the single pregnant women who now lie as corpses in the rubble in Fallujah, liberated from the difficult choice between two immoral alternatives of raising a fatherless child or succumbing to the temptation of abortion. Now you might not want to waste your sympathy on these trollops, who made the irresponsible decision to become pregnant before marriage ' or, almost as carelessly, to become pregnant with husbands that they should have predicted would become collateral damage.
At any rate, you might think it is too merciful to save these women from their own bad decisions and shortsightedness. Most Iraqis don't even appreciate the U.S. effort to drag them out of the chaos of the war and establish a theocratic leadership that recognizes the importance of religion in civic affairs and does not shy away from 'faith-based initiatives.' So why should Americans care about Iraqis who take the occupation for granted and yet hypocritically show resentment of our country? Why is it always the American Man's Burden to tame the wild people of the world and show them the way to salvation?
Many of us would like to say to the Iraqis: 'Hey! If you don't like Iraq , why don't you leave? You don't have to stay. You're lucky to live in a country with as much freedom as you have!'
Well, we have to accept that our pro-life president's war is one of compassion, and sometimes it will bring good things to people who do not deserve them. Aside from killing the innocent and sparing them from future dereliction, this war will no doubt kill some who have already committed grave sins, and who hardly deserve to be spared from a life of facing their guilt. This is an unfortunate consequence of war, but it must be accepted as a necessary cost to ensure victory.
Unfortunately, while Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity would likely understand this logic, too many Americans have bought into the notion that the Iraq War has become a quagmire, and that the wedding bombing is another example of a failed ' even poorly conceived ' policy.
In truth, the only real problem with the War on Terrorism is that it doesn't go far enough. Hell, why even limit it to stopping antisocial behavior such as broken marriages, single-parent families, abortions, and terrorism?
Think of all the clear-cutting we could prevent if we just bombed the forests. Imagine how drug-free the schools would be if we just blew them up. Consider this plan to get the guns and the homeless off the streets: bomb the streets. Let's get this preemptive policy going all over the country! The liberals think terrorism can be solved by the criminal justice system; I say we solve our criminal justice problems with the same 2,000-pound explosives that have done so well to bring peace to the Middle East .
On top of his reputation as the man who finally got corruption and indecency out of the Oval Office, Bush will go down in history as the first president to understand fully that the answer to all of society's ills does not lie in politics as usual, but rather in bombing the hell out of everything.
But I doubt he will be the last.