Replies

Caroline Glick points out U.S support for democracy and freedom and courting figures like Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan in its name - is in fact a sideshow and a distraction from the war on Islamofascism. The latter must be defeated before proceeding to build democratic institutions and holding free elections in the Islamic World. To do otherwise is not only sheer folly; it is putting the horse before the cart. Islamofascists have shown they can take advantage of democracy's weapons to pursue their jihad against the West. Above all, as Glick takes pains to demonstrate, this is a war for the survival of free societies and anything that interferes with the primary objective of winning that war and eradicating the Islamofascist threat must for the time being be put in cold storage. For the stakes are larger than one can imagine and victory over the West's enemies must of necessity, be pursued first.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

This editorial should be compulsory reading for everyone. It is powerfully true right down the line.

What she says about Pakistan, Bhutto, and Musharref is unarguable. It is entirely correct. Marc Steyn has recently said some of the same things, but Glick hits it even harder and more convincingly.

What she says about voting is also regretably true. Freedom and Democracy are powerful political weapons, but they can only be used if the people are willing to open their ears to them. And fanatical Muslims are not. Give the vote to a population of Muslim fanatics, and they will elect a government of Muslim fanatics.

Possibly Democracy can gradually be imposed in Iraq, because we have an army there to do it. But it cannot be imposed on Pakistan without an army. They have a long, long record of fanaticism, and it has only been getting worse with Saudi money training up their children in Wahabbi madrassahs.

What she says about President Bush is also, regretably, at least partly true. Bush has been stalwart in what he has done, but he has failed to do much that should have been done. Handling the Pakistani-Afghanistan border is one instance. Dealing with Syria is another. Persuading the Saudis to stop funding terrorism all over the world is a third. Too much has been left undone, and it has only weakened the considerable accomplishments he has achieved in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

Now it looks as if we need to wait for a new catastrophe to wake people up and deter the Democrats from betraying us further. Nothing less than a catastrophe can revive the spirit that prevailed for a while after 9/11, while hillary ground her teeth and waited for it to die back. Yes, there are still plenty of people who understand the dangers and back the war, but they are not a majority of the electorate.

And Bhutto herself was anything but an ideal candidate to change the direction of Pakistan. Bhutto was many things, but she was neither a liberal democrat nor a strong leader. Her two brief tenures in office were marked by corruption. She was ousted from office in 1996 and forced to flee the country due to suspicions that she and her husband had purloined some $1.5 billion from Pakistan’s national treasury.

In addition to racketeering, Bhutto was also suspected of engineering the assassination of her younger brother and political rival Mir Murtaza Bhutto.
______________________________
Bush and the uninformed are desperately painting her as a saint....she was anything but.