Posted on 09/10/2002 12:27:37 PM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
In this past week we saw Colin Powell address the third world crowd at a conference in South Africa. Colin sides with them on most issues within the Bush Administration. He seems to favor letting Saddam Hussein off the hook for his murderous brutality against his own people as well as ignoring the threats Hussein poses to his neighbors as well as the entire free world with his weapons of mass destruction and his support for terrorists. He favors generous American aid to third world tyrants and wants American taxpayers to bail out the third world from its self imposed misery of poverty and disease. Of course he has been the biggest supporter of their hero, the grandfather of all terrorists, Yassir Arafat. What was his reward for his support of their aims? He was booed.
The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that two members of the families of terrorists could be deported into Gaza from the West Bank. The Court ruled this was permissible because these family members had aided the terrorists. If this was true, deportation would be a minor penalty. These terrorists have inflicted death and horrible injuries to men, women, and children. The court ruled that absent proof of an actual connection to terrorism, the family members could not be deported. That is a ruling that is very favorable to the terrorists and against the safety of the Israeli people. One would think the Europeans and the other left wingers would speak out in support of this left wing court that keeps poking its fingers in the eyes of the Israeli security forces´ efforts. Forget it. Amnesty International condemned the ruling for allowing the deportations of people who had conspired to murder children.
Bill Simon, the Republican candidate for Governor tried to please two groups with opposite agendas. He told the Log Cabin Republicans, a group of Republican homosexuals that he favored various parts of their agenda. When this was reported to Conservative groups that disapproved of the homosexual agenda, Simon claimed he had not been in favor of what he told the Log Cabin group. Both groups are angry with him now.
George Bush has gone out of his way to not offend Liberal Democrats and has in some cases, such as the Education Bill, farm subsidies, and steel tariffs, adopted some of their agenda. He has heaped honor on Ted Kennedy and gone out of his way not to criticize the degeneracy of his predecessor. This week Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter heaped criticism on his policy of removing Saddam Hussein from his role as the strongman of Iraq. Certainly, it is healthy in a democracy for all points of view to be expressed and for a serious debate to precede a major move such as a military attack.
However, attacks on Bush have been cynical. We have Clinton and other liberals whining that we need to get Bin Laden before we take on Saddam. I have no idea why that would be necessary. During World War II we fought Japan and Germany at the same time. Of course there is at least as much reason to believe that Bin Laden is dead as there is to believe he is alive. Is Clinton suggesting that all other terrorists be left alone until Bin Laden´s remains are discovered? Bin Laden may be buried under half a ton of rubble in the remote mountains. His remains may never be found. That hardly seems like a reason to leave Saddam free to acquire nuclear weapons and host terrorists.
Tom Daschle has stated that he could not support the attack on Saddam unless the United Nations agrees to it. Why would we hold our national defense hostage to a group of nations that are more often than not opposed to us? The only possible purpose of that statement is to move the goal post back in order to make sure that Mr. Bush cannot reach it.
Jimmy Carter´s column this week trashed Bush´s policy. He came out totally against taking care of the menace Saddam poses. He also opposed Bush´s failure to kiss the feet and other unpleasant anatomy parts of Yassir Arafat to the extent that most of the anti-American crowd would like.
Usually a President will get bipartisan support when faced with an international crisis. The war on terror might qualify as the mother of all international crises that this nation has faced. Yet Mr. Bush is receiving the same old partisan obstruction.
What bothers me about all of these cases is that these are people who represent institutions that represent the better side of conflicts with some of the worst forces of mankind. Colin Powell represents the United States and was speaking to a group of anti-Capitalist hypocrites who were on vacation drinking $hundred bottles of wine amongst the squalor of Africa and criticizing the system that allows them to live well.
The Israeli Supreme Court represents the only democracy in the Middle East. Israel is in conflict with states that are allied with terrorists and who confine their own people to despotism and poverty. These neighbors are committed to Israel´s destruction and the murder of all of its citizens.
George Bush is a decent and relatively honest man who has restored honor to a Presidency that was trashed by his degenerate predecessor. He is a supporter (although often not strong enough) of free markets and American strength in foreign policy.
Bill Simon is the son of a great man. I honestly am not sure of what he is capable of but he is running for Governor of California against a man who is objectively speaking an awful Governor. Grey Davis could best be described as Bill Clinton without the charm or luck.
What all of these men have done is try to please their opponents by abandoning their own nation´s or parties´ principles in order to please people who are generally opposed to them. In all cases it has backfired on them. Their opponents did not give them any credit for trying to “reach out”. Instead these decent men have largely been trashed by those they were trying to please.
There is an argument in politics that one must avoid hard ideology in order to win. Dick Morris, the political advisor, is an extremely able strategist. He helped rescue Bill Clinton´s presidency. He uses a theory called triangulation. Basically this means that one adopts many of the ideas of one´s opponents so that the opponent no longer can use that idea as an issue. Therefore a Bill Clinton agrees to welfare reform and a cut in capital gains taxes so that the Republicans cannot campaign on that issue.
Obviously Dick Morris knows much more about politics than I do. I have never run a political campaign since I ran for President of my class in the sixth grade (I lost that one). However, if there is any purpose to politics aside from winning elections his strategy is lacking. What purpose is there in a liberal politician winning elections by implementing Conservative ideas? If his only purpose is to gain office it makes sense. However, if he really believes in his liberal ideas this is accomplishing the opposite of what he set out to do. It reminds me of the people I knew of in San Francisco who became bisexual because they were able to have sex more often that way. I fail to see the point of doing the opposite of what you want in order to get something which is different (or the opposite of) what you set out to do.
In New Jersey last year the Republicans nominated a principled conservative to run for governor. He looked to be an excellent candidate who could have made a very good governor. However, his appeal was too limited for him to win the Governorship. Many say the Republicans in California made the same mistake in nominating Bill Simon when Dick Riordan, the liberal Republican mayor of Los Angeles (who has supported several liberal Democrats against Republicans and has even contributed to Grey Davis´ previous political campaigns) would have had an easy time beating Davis. We all have to make compromises in life and accept less than 100% of what we want.
However, the people who have strongly held principles and who stick to them are the ones who make history. Ronald Reagan was an extremely successful President largely because he did not get bogged down by those who thought he was crazy to cut taxes and vigorously oppose Soviet domination of their own peoples. Our founding fathers held to their beliefs in the face of the mightiest military in the world at that time.
Mr. Bush may find that if he acts firmly most nations will not oppose him. Even the Democrats will quietly fall into place. Nobody likes to stand in front of a speeding train. Strong leadership tends to attract followers.
At the same time that many Democrats are lambasting Bush over Iraq there are already signs that he has more international support than we might have thought. Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of Great Britain has recently gone on record indicating that Britain will support the American move on Iraq. In the past week there was a major military air strike on Iraq. British planes participated in the strike. There are some reports that the air bases in Saudi Arabia were used. There are other reports that Jordanian, Turkish, Kuwaiti, and other Mid Eastern Moslem nations are supporting the American campaign despite all official declarations to the contrary.
Some Arab nations are probably afraid the Americans will make noise and upset Saddam but will not finish him off, leaving them to have to deal with him when the Americans get tired of the issue. Others don´t want to see an Arab tyrant taken out since most Arab rulers themselves are tyrants. In either case those are poor reasons to leave Saddam in power.
Mr. Powell should have told the delegates in Africa that Americans have something to offer the third world. That would not be the $billions of handouts they were looking for. It is the model of political freedom and economic freedom that has produced real sustainable growth that their citizens covet. He should have pointed out that we have to turn away immigrants and asked how often their nations do. He might have gotten booed, just as he did while kissing up to them, but he would have represented American ideals more effectively.
The Israeli Court should have announced that Israel is under siege and that it would not second guess its brave soldiers defending their nation from savagery. It could have given the terrorists´ family a warning that they could have been put in prison for what they did and to consider their light punishment of deportation a gift if they were looking for consolation. When told that the European Union or Amnesty International did not like it, they could have pointed out that not one Israeli life was ever saved by these groups.
Mr. Simon should read a book that his father wrote called Time for Truth. It was one of the most impressive advocacies of political and economic freedom that I have ever seen. The senior Mr. Simon served in the Ford and Nixon Administrations. He was the first “Energy Czar” and was deeply involved in helping New York City recover from its fiscal mess. The straightforward manner in which he described the absurdity of these situations is something Simon Jr. should remember as he runs what Lyn Nofzinger, the former Reagan aide calls the worst political campaign he has ever seen.
President Bush has an almost schizophrenic quality in which he rotates from brilliant advocate of strong principle to pathetic political calculator and back again. He could be another Reagan or another Kerensky (the first post Czarist leader of Russia whose weakness was used by the Communists to take over the nation and begin the Soviet Union).
We all have to chose whether we believe in real ideas or just want to go along with what someone else believes. If we chose to go along with someone else we had better make sure their ideas are better than our own. We will have to live with their ideas if we default to them.
What all of these men have done is try to please their opponents by abandoning their own nation´s or parties´ principles in order to please people who are generally opposed to them. In all cases it has backfired on them. Their opponents did not give them any credit for trying to “reach out”. Instead these decent men have largely been trashed by those they were trying to please........
We all have to chose whether we believe in real ideas or just want to go along with what someone else believes. If we chose to go along with someone else we had better make sure their ideas are better than our own. We will have to live with their ideas if we default to them.
If you've watched as much "Law and Order" and "NYPD Blue" as I have (I do love cop shows), you can recognize a classic "good cop, bad cop" routine here. Instead of listening to the crazy man/bad cop that the White House keeps locked up somewhere and lets out once in a while to harange the troops, and just bombing the hell out of Iraq, everyone in the EU, Middle East and UN finally gives a sigh of relief when Bush relents and lets Colin talk him into accepting a couple of UN Security Council resolutions that require Saddam to either allow the inspectors back in or get whacked.
If you think about it, getting such resolutions pre-9/11/01 was off the radar screen. But now, with Cheney rattling the sabers on the right, what was unlikely before has become a good bet now to happen, as the EU and the rest will do anything to keep that madman Bush from setting off World War III, including going along with whatever Colin Powell whispers in their ears. Don't forget that their economies are worse off than ours. They're not up for war if it's avoidable.
"So what; Saddam blew off inspectors before, he'll do it again!" Well, maybe so. But I've got a funny feeling that things will be different this time. The scenario I see goes like this:
"Knock Knock!"
"Who's there"
"UN"
"UN who?"
"You am going to allow this place to be inspected?"
"No, go away."
"O.K."
At which point, instead of filing a protest with Saddam, or the Security Council, a couple of B-52's file a few dozen GBU's dead center on the facility, because this time the Security Council resolutions will allow the use of force in such circumstances.
Maybe I'm crazy. We'll see.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.