Under normal circumstances, you can expect that liberal Dems will do everything to support elections. They did in South Africa in the late 80s, El Salvador in '82, and Nicaragua in '90.
In Haiti '94, the liberals went as far as supporting the unilateral Clinton invasion of a country, occupation and installation of a new government.
I said normal circumstances. These are not normal times. Today's Dems are motivated by an irrational dislike of Bush and the US.
It reminds me of their irrational dislike of Reagan, the man that they use to mock as a crazy American cowboy who couldn't wait to blow up the world!
Reagan did blow up the world, the communist world that is. There are millions of Poles, Czechs, et al, who are grateful that someone referred to the USSR as "the evil empire". These are the same Poles and Czechs who are now building pro-American nations and creating jobs in an otherwise economically stagnant continent.
Do you think that they hate Bush around the world? Go to the internet and do a quick search of the world's major newspapers circa 1984. Pay special attention to what they used to write about Reagan when he stood up to the Soviets and did not listen to the millions who marched on behalf of the "nuclear freeze" movement.
Thankfully, Reagan did not want to be popular around the world. He was more interested in defending the US after Carter's weakness in the late 1970s. Reagan was reelected and those who marched in Europe carrying "Reagan is Hitler" placards are probably filling out work visa applications at the nearest US embassy.
As I wrote before, every anti-Bush line or joke came out of the Reagan playlist. The liberals are like Frankie Avalon doing a disco version of "Venus". It's the same song but with a different beat!
Like any addiction, irrational anti-Bushism, has turned many Dems into people who can't think straight.
During Bush's visit to Canada, an Alberta journalist said----where are the feminists celebrating the fact that thousands of women voted in Afghanistan?
There were the usual suspects marching against Bush's foreign policy:
3) The world's homosexuals against the US military,
4) The atheists against Christmas,
5) The US is evil blues band,
6) The we hate everything about Israel gang,
7) The blame the US for all of the world's problems brigade,
8) The antiglobalists,
9) The Bush is Hitler parade,
10) The let's replace cars with horses environmentalists,
11) The US taxpayers need to contribute more to AIDS research,
12) Canadian students who think that Bush is evil,
13) Arafatistas against Israel, etc.
I can't count them all.
There were also lots of feminists blasting Bush's position on abortion. Yet, these feminists would not salute the man who made it possible for thousands of women to vote in Afghanistan for the first time.
Or, the same man who is now making it possible for hundreds of women to run for public office in Iraq!
Or, the man who has made it possible for little girls to go to school in Kabul.
Without Bush's leadership, the Taleban and Saddam would still be in power and women would not be voting, attending school or running for public office in these countries.
Where are the feminists? They don't want to give Bush the credit. Why? Because the feminists are more interested in abortion than whether or not women vote in the Middle East. Sadly, today's feminist movement is all about abortion and little else!
Whatever you think of this war, the people of Iraq are showing extreme courage in setting up an election under the fear of bombs and suicide bombers. They are risking their lives daily to have an election.
We voted six weeks ago in the US. There were no bombs or suicide killers running around threatening anyone.
Can you imagine what life is like in Iraq? Yet, they continue to set up their elections. The Iraqi people deserve our admiration.
Tony Blair made this point during his visit to Iraq:
"Our response should be to stand alongside the democrats--the people who've got the courage to see this thing through--and help them see it through. I've got no doubt at all that that is the right thing for us to do. . . .
Why aren't Dem liberals supporting the Iraqi people? The answer is that a successful Iraq election is a bonus for Bush. The liberal Dems want Bush to fail, even if failure hurts them as much as it does Bush!
Who would benefit from a collapse in Iraq? Nobody. Let me repeat. Nobody.
Sober liberals understand that.
Unfortunately, most liberals today are intoxicated with something called "irrational anti-Bushism"! Their leftist brothers and sisters in Europe and Canada are intoxicated with a variation of the virus called "Irrational anti-Americanism".
Let's look at some of the symptons of this international virus:
They blame Bush for Kyoto even though it was Clinton who killed the treaty and never brought it up to the US Senate for ratification.
They blame Bush for the bad economy even though the recession began in March '00 when the dot.com bubble burst into pieces. Furthermore, Europe's economic malaise has nothing to do with Bush or the US. It is the direct consequence of their high taxes and welfare state mentality.
They say that Bush has motivated terrorists to attack us since Iraq. Who motivated the terrorists during the 1990s when the US was attacked over and over again without a military response from Bill Clinton? Have any of these people read the 9-11 report?
This is why I call it irrational. These people are irrational.
Let me point out some reasons that liberal Dems hate Bush in the US.
First, It has nothing to do with Iraq. Let me repeat. It has nothing to do with Iraq.
If Gore had won, he would toppled Saddam too. Why? No US President was going to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt after 9-11.
Let me repeat. No US President was going to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt after 9-11.
Who would have been Gore's closest advisers? Joe Lieberman and Joe Biden.
Also, McCain would have opposed Gore in '04. McCain would have pounded Gore hard saying that he had left Saddam in power despite WMDs and violations of the cease fire.
Sorry revisionist liberal Dems. Al Gore would have taken out Saddam too! And he would have used the same military plan that Bush used.
Let me make another prediction.
If Bush had not removed Saddam, then John Kerry would have run in 2004 accusing Bush of failing to defend the US by leaving the reckless Saddam and his WMDs in power. (It worked for JFK in '60 when he accused the Eisenhower-Nixon administration of being soft with Castro!)
Again, this is not about Iraq.
There wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Al Gore and GWBush on Iraq in 2000. Or between the first Bush and Clinton.
It was the Clinton-Gore administration who gave us The Regime Change Act of '98, which was a nice way of saying that the foreign policy objective of the US was to remove Saddam.
Furthermore, it was Clinton who went on national TV on Dec '98 to announce the bombing of Iraq because Saddam was in violation of the '91 cease fire and had just kicked out the inspectors in total disregard for the UN.
Clinton also said that Saddam was attacking US and UK planes enforcing UN resolutions. Those of you who say that Saddam "did not attack us" need to go back and read what Clinton said on this subject! Clinton was convinced in Dec '98 that Saddam was indeed attacking the US.
It was Madelaine Albright who warned us that Iraq was a threat to the US. Secretary Albright went to the UN and was greeted with the same indifference that met Sec. Collin Powell in '03.
It was John Kerry who went on CNN's "Crossfire" and said: Where is the backbone of the French? Kerry was complaining that the Europeans were not supporting Clinton on Iraq. The Europeans did not, except for Tony Blair.
Last but not least, it was Clinton who gave a stern speech in Feb '99 warning Iraq of dire consequences if they continued to defy UN resolutions.
Michael Moore knew all of this in 2000. Why? He voted for Ralph Nader rather than Al Gore. 4 million other liberals agreed with Moore. They voted for Nader, which arguably cost Gore the election.
Why did 4 million liberals vote for Nader rather than Gore in 2000? There were many reasons of course. Nader was a strong critic of Clinton's, and US policy in general, vis a vis Iraq. We have to assume that some of his 4 million voters felt the same way.
So this is not about Iraq.
Please do not rewrite history by telling me that Dems hate Bush because of Iraq.
The war in Iraq is a convenient vessel to load up with 10 years of electoral fustrations with Bush.
The Democrats have lost 7 of the last 10 presidential elections and it translates into a lot of liberals with broken hearts.
"How can you mend a broken heart" was a Bee Gees tune. Liberals can mend their broken hearts by nominating a candidate who can win in the suburbs and who can persuade the American people that he has the stomach to defend the country.
All of these frustrations, and broken hearts, have been dumped in the Iraq vessel.
Since '94, Bush has beaten three Dem icons----Richards, Gore and Kerry.
Bush has also had phenomenal success electing Republicans across the country. What did Clinton do for the Democrats in the 90s? Nothing. What has Bush for the Republicans? Quite a lot of down ballot victories.
Let's look at the numbers.
In '92, or before Clinton, the Democrats had 256 House Members while Republicans had only 178. The Democrats controlled the U.S. Senate by a margin of 56 to 44.
Compare this with results after the 2004 elections:
Republicans have 232 Members of the House, Democrats have 202 and there was is one Independent.
That is a gain of 54 seats.
The Senate has 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one Independent.
That is a gain of 11.
As to governors, there are now 28 Republican governors, 22 Democrat.
That is a gain of 8 from 1992.
That's what this irrational dislike is all about. Losers hate winners. And liberals have been doing a lot of losing since Bill Clinton won the presidency with 43% of the vote in '92.
Like Reagan, Bush beats Dems.
Like Reagan, Bush drives the liberals crazy.
Like Reagan, Bush projects a self-confidence that drives the "weak" liberals mad.
They are still furious that Bush beat Anne Richards in '94.
Let's remember that Anne was the darling of the American left, the sweetheart of the NYTimes editorial page and Hillary before Hillary. Every liberal dreamed of Anne leading the Dems across the South and West in 2000 and retaking all of the electoral territory lost to Reagan.
After all, Anne was perfect. She was a pro-abortion liberal with a Texas accent.
On election night '94, Anne met reality. On that same night, even Al Gore could not stop Tennessee from electing 2 Republican Senators, one of them filling the seat he vacated to become VP.
Anne Richards, Mario Cuomo, and a bunch of other Democrats, were thrown into early retirement by the Clinton years.
Let me paraphrase very liberal Eleanor Clift---Clinton won but he lost everything else!
Why do liberals hate Bush? Why did Republicans hate FDR? Losers always hate winners.
Why did Red Sox fans hate the Yankees for 86 years?
Do you get the idea?
Speaking of Iraq, time has shown that certain UN Security Council members had very unique reasons for keeping Saddam in power. The French had business interests, for example. The Germans and Russians were in the same boat.
Please don't insult my intelligence by saying that France or Germany were acting on the basis of principle, unless you spell it PRINCIPAL.
Have Dem liberals, or their European brethren, heard of the Oil for Food Scandal at the UN?
Jonah Goldberg puts it best:
"The French and Germans puffed their chests and fluffed their feathers in pride over their refusal to topple Saddam Hussein. But it wasn't just their reluctance to deprive themselves of Saddam's petrodollars, nor their more enlightened natures, that prevented them from lending military support to the effort.
They simply didn't have much to offer. The little-discussed secret of European "enlightenment" on military affairs is that the most potent weapon in their arsenals is hot air.
Even if they wanted to, France and Germany combined couldn't send much more than 20,000 troops outside of Europe - and, not counting Britain, they're the military powerhouses in Europe.
France had the choice of playing the conscientious objector in the war and hero to the "oppressed" peoples of the world (and, thereby, staying bought by Saddam) or of joining the United States and revealing itself as a third-rate military power. "
Speaking of France and the UN Security Council, it won't get any easier on the subject of Iran. Reuel Marc Gerecht, the very respected expert on Middle East issues, writes in this week's Weekly Standard:
"President Bush personally has described Iran's nuclear-weapons aspirations as "unacceptable" to the United States. He has thrown his administration behind the French-British-German effort to use diplomacy to convince Tehran to forsake its uranium enrichment efforts, even though the conduct of the Europeans has convinced an increasing number of American officials that this soft-power approach has no chance of succeeding with a regime that has been lying about its intentions for nearly 20 years.
The Europeans have so far adamantly refused to consider serious economic sanctions against the mullahs.
In particular, France, which has probably had the best intelligence collection against the Iranian nuclear target among the Europeans, has clearly signaled that it wants to expand, not curtail, trade.
France's largest automotive company, Renault, in which the French government is an influential minority shareholder, has signed an agreement with Tehran to build factories in Iran for export to the entire Middle East and Central Asia"
Look for another Bush-Chirac dispute over Iran.
Speaking of the UN Security Council, please don't insult my intelligence by saying that France or Russia are interested in using force only when the UN supports it.
Why did Chirac send troops to the Ivory Coast recently? What UN resolution was he operating under?
Putin said that he was ready to act preemptively against the terrorists who killed 400 children in Beslan.
What UN Security Council resolution gave them these powers?
So here we are. One month before the elections in Iraq.
Again, where are the liberals? Where is the international left?
Nearly one-third of the candidates in Iraq are women. Where are the liberal feminists?
One would think that the liberals would be lined up to support elections in Iraq.
The enemy in Iraq has the kind of profile that liberals usually detest.
For example, the enemy in Iraq is:
1) against abortion
2) opposed to homosexual marriage on religious grounds 3) opposed to any kind of political dissent
4) doesn't like free newspapers
5) no rights for women (the ultimate macho society, where are the feminists?)
6) no Western media
7) no affirmative action
Under normal circumstances, one would expect liberals to be in up in arms against such an intolerant lot.
These so called insurgents don't believe in abortion. That should be enough to raise the anger of every liberal in the West. Abortion is the "rosary" of modern liberalism.
Yet, most liberals are quiet. They want Bush to fail. Their hatred of Bush is such that they would rather support those who kill election workers rather than those who want to vote.
In all fairness, some liberals are standing up and screaming.
Christopher Hitchens said:
"....with the Left, which is supposed to care about secularism and humanism, it's a bit harder to explain an alliance with woman-stoning, gay-burning, Jew-hating medieval theocrats. However, it can be done, once you assume that American imperialism is the main enemy."
Thomas Friedman of the NYTimes has written two outstanding articles on this subject.
In his last one, he writes:
"There is much to dislike about this war in Iraq, but there is no denying the stakes. And that picture really framed them: this is a war between some people in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world who - for the first time ever in their region - are trying to organize an election to choose their own leaders and write their own constitution versus all the forces arrayed against them".
Where are the liberals? They are sitting around hoping that Bush will fail.
Why will Bush succeed in Iraq? Because he is doing the right thing.
Saddam had to be removed. The corrupt UN was not going to do it. The weak Europeans can't do it.
Thank God for Bush and Blair, who were willing to take a political risk for doing the right thing.
Bush and Blair stand in contrast to the likes of Spain's Rodriguez-Zapatero, a first rate demagogue, who used the Madrid train bombing to promote his anti-US platform. The Spanish people are painfully learning that their troops left Iraq but the terrorists have not left Spain.
Bush and Blair stand in contrast to the corrupt Jacques Chirac, who uses anti-US rhetoric to distract his countrymen from the sickest economy in Europe. Chirac can't create jobs but he can criticize the US. There is no economic vitality in France but there is lots of anti-Bushism.
Want to get intoxicated with anti-Americanism? Just travel to Paris. However, don't look for a job there because you won't find one! France has 10% unemployment and it won't get any better in 2005!
Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek is another liberal and he writes:
"The current issue of Foreign Affairs has an exchange between two scholars, Tony Smith and Larry Diamond. Smith accuses Diamond, a longtime supporter of human rights, of making a "pact with the devil" by working (briefly) for the United States in postwar Iraq.
Diamond, who had opposed the war, responds:
"I do not regard the post-war endeavor as a pact with the devil. Let Smith and other critics visit Iraq and talk to Iraqis who are organizing for democracy, development, and human rights. Let them talk to the families that lived under constant, humiliating, Baathist rule. Let them see some of the roughly 300 mass graves of opponents of the regime who were brutally slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands. Then they will find out who the devil really was."
I can't say it better."
Let me quote Friedman again:
"Most NATO countries (I hope) would prefer a decent outcome in Iraq, but a determined minority, more worried about an American success than an Iraqi failure, is holding NATO back. So let the record show that when Iraq finally decided to hold a free and fair election, all the bad guys decided to come and "vote" and all the good guys sat on the fence, dangling their legs, eating pistachios."
Come on liberals. Put your anti-Bushism to the side. Drop the addiction.
How do you want to be remembered?
In Iraq, you have a chance to be remembered as one of those who stood for elections and women's rights!
Go ahead and invest your energies supporting the people of Iraq. They need your support.
Put the bottle of anti-Bushism away for 30 days and support the first free elections in Iraq's history.