The Ressurrected One
05-09-2005, 06:34 PM
For more than three years, the Left has characterized the War on Terror, and especially the liberation of Iraq, as "Bush's War." They've also referred to Iraq as "Bush's Adventure," "Bush's Crusade" and "Bush's Folly." They were calling it "Bush's Hastily Planned, Poorly Realized and Badly Executed Diversion From the 'Real' War," but pretty much stopped when they realized that it wouldn't all fit on a Volvo-sized bumper sticker. Liberals don't understand the strategy of defeating terrorism by changing the totalitarian governments that support it. They don't get the concept that freedom reduces frustration, which in turn reduces the ability of terrorist groups to recruit. They refuse to acknowledge that Congress voted the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq into law. They insist that the war was all Bush's idea (when they don't consider him a puppet, that is), and that every setback and problem is all Bush's fault.
Well, that's just fine with me. Let's establish that in plain English: President Bush is solely responsible for sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter decision made in spite of a corrupt United Nations and a compromised France, Russia and China. Therefore, he should be considered responsible for all the results of his decision -- the positive as well as the negative. So far, it's all been about the negative.
How many countries have been changed for the better by the War on Terror?
Libya saw the handwriting on the wall and called for the cops to come disarm them.
Afghanistan has become a democracy in which women vote and hold positions of power, and has even sent female athletes to the Olympics for the first time in history.
In Pakistan, Pevez Musharraf has handed the government over to civil rule but maintains his permanent position as president. However, Pakistan has been a staunch ally, and provided us with critical information by exposing the activities of Abdul Qadeer Khan. Khan supplied nuclear weapons related technologies, equipment, and know-how to Iran, North Korea, and Libya, and attempted to do the same with Syria and Iraq.
Freeing Afghanistan (especially Afghan women), revealing the corruption in the UN and discovering Khan's activities, none of which would have happened without the War on Terror, must therefore be all Bush's fault.
In the Middle East, the central cesspool of terrorism, things have also changed dramatically. While the death of terrorist leader Yasser Arafat was not part of the War on Terror, forcing him to give up some power to a Prime Minister was... and this led to free Palestinian elections upon his death. The liberation of Iraq led to the first truly free democratic elections in that country, which the naysaying Left swore would never, could never happen.
Eight million Iraqis defied the death threats of terrorists (and the dour predictions of Liberals) to cast their votes as the rest of the region watched. Elections in Iraq, elections in Palestine... and suddenly, the Lebanese people took to the streets in protest. After the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, they demanded the end of Syrian occupation of Lebanon. The Syria-backed government spontaneously resigned, paving the way for elections. The fact that it happened without direct action on our part shows that democracy is developing its own momentum in the Middle East. And since Iraqi elections were the catalyst, that's all Bush's fault, too.
Now, inspired by the Lebanese protests, the Syrian people are beginning to demand a greater voice in their government. Hosni Mubarak, president of Egypt, has announced that the next election will include opposition candidates for the first time, although candidates must be approved by Parliament. Saudi Arabia, which just had its first elections at the municipal level, has announced that women will be allowed to vote in the next local elections. Women will also be allowed to work in the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Baby steps, to be sure... but steps in the right direction.
Whose "interference" in the Middle East is responsible for these changes? The Left certainly didn't want the liberation of Iraq to take place. Senator John Kerry, representing the Democratic party in the 2004 election, repeatedly called Iraq "the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time." President Bush has been labeled a warmongering cowboy for sending troops to Iraq. If the blame for Iraq is laid at his feet, then the credit must go with it... and if he has earned the label "cowboy," then also "liberator."
Well, that's just fine with me. Let's establish that in plain English: President Bush is solely responsible for sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter decision made in spite of a corrupt United Nations and a compromised France, Russia and China. Therefore, he should be considered responsible for all the results of his decision -- the positive as well as the negative. So far, it's all been about the negative.
How many countries have been changed for the better by the War on Terror?
Libya saw the handwriting on the wall and called for the cops to come disarm them.
Afghanistan has become a democracy in which women vote and hold positions of power, and has even sent female athletes to the Olympics for the first time in history.
In Pakistan, Pevez Musharraf has handed the government over to civil rule but maintains his permanent position as president. However, Pakistan has been a staunch ally, and provided us with critical information by exposing the activities of Abdul Qadeer Khan. Khan supplied nuclear weapons related technologies, equipment, and know-how to Iran, North Korea, and Libya, and attempted to do the same with Syria and Iraq.
Freeing Afghanistan (especially Afghan women), revealing the corruption in the UN and discovering Khan's activities, none of which would have happened without the War on Terror, must therefore be all Bush's fault.
In the Middle East, the central cesspool of terrorism, things have also changed dramatically. While the death of terrorist leader Yasser Arafat was not part of the War on Terror, forcing him to give up some power to a Prime Minister was... and this led to free Palestinian elections upon his death. The liberation of Iraq led to the first truly free democratic elections in that country, which the naysaying Left swore would never, could never happen.
Eight million Iraqis defied the death threats of terrorists (and the dour predictions of Liberals) to cast their votes as the rest of the region watched. Elections in Iraq, elections in Palestine... and suddenly, the Lebanese people took to the streets in protest. After the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, they demanded the end of Syrian occupation of Lebanon. The Syria-backed government spontaneously resigned, paving the way for elections. The fact that it happened without direct action on our part shows that democracy is developing its own momentum in the Middle East. And since Iraqi elections were the catalyst, that's all Bush's fault, too.
Now, inspired by the Lebanese protests, the Syrian people are beginning to demand a greater voice in their government. Hosni Mubarak, president of Egypt, has announced that the next election will include opposition candidates for the first time, although candidates must be approved by Parliament. Saudi Arabia, which just had its first elections at the municipal level, has announced that women will be allowed to vote in the next local elections. Women will also be allowed to work in the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Baby steps, to be sure... but steps in the right direction.
Whose "interference" in the Middle East is responsible for these changes? The Left certainly didn't want the liberation of Iraq to take place. Senator John Kerry, representing the Democratic party in the 2004 election, repeatedly called Iraq "the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time." President Bush has been labeled a warmongering cowboy for sending troops to Iraq. If the blame for Iraq is laid at his feet, then the credit must go with it... and if he has earned the label "cowboy," then also "liberator."