TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Hernando Today

The Ever Ugly Americans

ADVERTISEMENT

By JOHN REINIERS

Published: January 15, 2008

America is being pilloried around the globe — George Bush in particular. Being a conservative, I am not an avid fan of his, but virtually all of this Bush-whacking is more emotion than thought. (This is painfully obvious on the blogosphere where far too many postings are simply rants sprinkled with four letter words about Bush.)
On top of this our media spins all this stuff as negatively as possible for international consumption — particularly foreign policy. After seven years of relentless attacks, virtually all of Europe and the Middle East have renewed their anti-Americanism, what with another Republican president in office. (Ronald Reagan went through this with missile deployment, which incensed liberals even though it was a factor that contributed to the disintegration of the communist Soviet Union.)
In this political season it has now become standard strategy for Democratic presidential hopefuls to run against Bush — in Democratic primaries — as though Bush is running for an FDR-like third term as a Democrat. (They can't wait for the general election to attack Republicans.) A recent comment by a liberal Democrat referred to "Bush's immoral war in Iraq," which undoubtedly drew a standing ovation from the Arab street and al-Qaida (currently hanging on by its fingernails in Iraq.) It brings to mind a recent biography by Martin Gilbert, Winston Churchill's official biographer. In 1937 during the run-up to WW II Churchill urged Hitler to become the "Hitler of peace" and thus avoid war. (At that time Germany was rearming in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.) He noted, "We cannot say that we admire your treatment of the Jews or of the Protestants and Catholics of Germany, but these matters, so long as they are confined inside Germany, are not our business."
Using the "immoral war in Iraq" analogy, one would assume liberal Democrats would applaud Churchill posthumously for this "moral" policy statement, because at that time wholesale Nazi genocide had not yet begun, although concentration camps had been established, and the free world would have had no business taking any preemptive action against Hitler. On the other hand, at the time of the Iraq invasion, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis had already been slaughtered by Saddam who still coveted Kuwaiti and Saudi Arabian oil and ignored countless United Nation's resolutions, much as Hitler ignored the Treaty of Versailles. Back in the 1930s, commentators were critical of the iconic prime minister's patronizing statements to Hitler, and were as displeased then, as Democrats and Europeans are now over Bush's "immoral" war with Saddam Hussein — the "Hitler of peace" — but their attitudes were polar opposite — one not supportive of a dictator, the others deferring to and doing business with him.
What truly is destructive for our country is the painful partisan gap in American politics — thanks to the establishment media — that muzzles any good news about outcomes of American foreign policy. (This is somewhat inexplicable since the State Department, which is traditionally anti-Republican at its grassroots, as are most federal agencies, has been partly responsible for these successful ventures.) Just imagine if Madeline Albright had achieved the same measure of success that the U.S. has thus far in 2008 with North Korea. (Note I said U.S. and not the dreaded "Bush Administration.") I can remember when Bush was savaged by partisans for concentrating on Iraq, rather than North Korea, or so they thought, because as the whole world knew, Kim Jong-il had nuclear weapons. When Kim detonated a nuclear device in 2006, Democrats said this was the result of "failed Bush policies." Yet the only achievements of the Clinton State Department with North Korea were Madeline Albright's gifts to Kim in the summer of 2000 of a nuclear reactor and an authentic NBA basketball autographed by Michael Jordan. On the other hand, the dreaded "Bush Administration and its failed policies" some years later was instrumental in getting a commitment from Kim to disarm his nuclear weaponry, which is under way. (If this achievement gets any attention at all in the media, it is always couched with negative caveats.)
The same analysis could be made about Libya, which disavowed any banned nuclear weapons right after Saddam Hussein was captured. Most analysts believe Moammar Gadhafi saw the handwriting on the wall and decided to throw his lot with the good guys. (But that was a bit before Democrats viciously attacked the Bush administration's "failed" Iraq policies that might have influenced Gadhafi to stay his nuclear course.)
If the civilized world achieves any progress at all towards the creation of democratic institutions in the tribal Middle East, it will be spotty — at best, three steps forward, two steps backward. For example Bahrain had its first parliamentary elections in 30 years. There was strong female participation, with the first female being elected. On the other hand, Islamists made significant gains.
Kuwait has allowed women to run for office for the first time. Females are shaking up politics all over the Middle East. All Gulf countries, except Saudi Arabia, now have female representation at the ministerial level due to international pressure, particularly by the U.S.
Failed Bush policies? Sure, some things don't work. But why do the media, academics and Democrats relentlessly seek to embarrass the United States? They provide the negative headlines for Al Jazeera and other Islamic and European media.
Just imagine what the reaction would have been by the traditional media, if Condoleza Rice — Bush's dreadful Secretary of State — had presented Kim with an autographed basketball and threw in a nuclear reactor for good measure.
Come on! Be honest.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT