March 02, 2007
Without George, Who's to Blame?
An excellent op-ed piece by Gerard Baker in today's Times UK Online discusses that question:
It’s been a great ride for the past six years, hasn’t it? George Bush and Dick Cheney and all those pantomime villains that succour him — the gay-bashing foot soldiers of the religious Right, the forktailed neoconservatives with their devotion to Israel, the dark titans of American corporate boardrooms spewing their carbon emissions above the pristine European skies. Having those guys around for so long provided a comfortable substitute for thinking hard about global challenges, a kind of intellectual escapism.
...
Some day soon, though, this escapism will run into the dead end of reality. In fact, the most compelling case for the American people to elect a Democrat as president next year is that, in the US, leadership in a time of war requires the inclusion of both political parties, and in the rest of the world, people will have to start thinking about what is really the cause of all our woes.
Well, I don't know as I'd go so far as to think that electing a Democrat in 2008 is vital. After all, I don't want to find out when it's too late what will happen if the official Appeasement Party manages to worm its way into the Oval Office in these uncertain times. But Baker is indeed correct: who will become the scapegoat during "smart dinner-party conversation?"
It's so easy to say that George Bush occupying the White House is the reason Islamofascists have it in for us. Of course, it's convenient to forget all of the terrorist acts that happened before the 2000 election, especially those that happened on the Democrats' favorite rogue's watch (USS Cole, Khobar Towers, World Trade Towers 1993, etc.).
But radical Islamists hate the West. No matter how much we want to say we understand them, how much we want to "talk," they will hate us and continue to hate us until they either destroy us or we destroy them.
Writing for the American Thinker today, Ken Boyette describes an encounter he had with some young men in South Lebanon back in 1985, when he was working as a contract producer for Middle East Television:
[A]s we were preparing to leave two young men that tailed us for some time finally approached. One spoke English well and said he had something to say. I offered to put him on camera but he refused. Suddenly, he launched into a diatribe and made a blood chilling promise.
"We are holy warriors chosen of God. We are coming to America to kill Americans. You cannot stop us. You'll see."
"Are you Hezbollah?" I asked.
"Yes," he replied. "Some day we will make you pay for all the evil you have done. We'll come to America. You'll see!" With that he and his companion congratulated each other and walked quickly away.
1985? W's dad was vice president to Ronald Reagan, while W himself was dabbling in business interests at that time. He didn't even become governor of Texas until 1994. If Islamofascists today hate America because of George W. Bush, why did these two young men hate America then? Boyette continues (emphasis mine):
Did the two Hezbollah recruits in Bent Jbeil keep their promise? You bet. Last I checked they mayor [sic] of Bent Jbeil, Lebanon is from Dearborn, Michigan. And the Hezbollah stronghold has sent thousands of its residents to the US. I'm no genius, but with where I've been and what I've seen, I can connect the dots. They're here, waiting.
But what drove them to our shores is another matter. In Islam there are four enemies, two of which qualify for a holy war. Those two are the unbelievers and the apostate. Of the four enemies of Islam the apostate is the worst. In the case of the apostate all those who leave the faith and those who persuaded them are to be put to death. By their very existence apostates betray all Muslims.
According to the Iranian Shiite Revolution, the modern state of Israel is an apostate government in the heart of Islam, and America is viewed as the supporting resource, the persuader of the apostasy. So the Ayatollahs call America the Great Satan and Israel the Little Satan and Hezbollah chants; "Death to America. Death to Israel".
I fear the left will never be done with Bush. Vile invective will continue to be poured on his head until the day he dies, because when hatred runs that deep, it's hard to let go. Being able to point the righteous finger of blame at someone else is comforting. But when that person is no longer around, some uncomfortable facts will need to be faced.
I'm not looking forward to that day, because it'll mean we're in much hotter water than we are now.
Others blogging: Dr. Sanity, Betsy's Page
Show Comments »
I wonder if some of this is a continuation of the Clinton era demonizations? For those who have a historical bent, pull out some political dialogue from the pre Clinton era. Sure, you'll find partisanship, namecalling, disparagement, dislike. But demons?
Those came 'out of the closet' when Bill and Hillary were in power.
It was a time where everything that opposed the imperial couple was a product of a 'right wing conspiracy'-- that is, millions, I hope a majority of Americans, were shoved out of the public square as extremists. Pretty soon the MSM felt it had a Constitutional right to administer its own bigotry. To object to the actions of the amoral, appeasing administration of the Clintons was to suffer popular damnation.
Hate for anyone outside the politically correct doctrines of the Left became normal. (Still raving: read any 'good' Left blogs lately?)
Honesty is foreign to today's public square, but honesty will say that the hate afforded George Bush is uniquely vile. IF Bush had ONCE replied to that hate with a putdown.. but he hasn't. If the real man had in the least bit resembled the Left's nightmare sicknesses. But he hasn't. So it's all on THEIR side.
The Left's dark, demented view of the evil THEY judge in all of US, spewed upon the President. Disagree with them-- see the profanities as they demonize you, a fellow American.
You write:
"It's so easy to say that George Bush occupying the White House is the reason Islamofascists have it in for us."
It may be. But I'm not aware of anyone ever saying this. Certainly, it is not a common thing for anyone of any political stripe to say. Another example of your really distorted "impressions" being completely out of touch with reality.
Posted by: paul at March 4, 2007 10:21 AM
