The Democrats have their didies in a twist and are throwing their creamed peas all over Momma’s clean floor because Bush had the temerity, the audacity, to say this to the legislature of the most beleaguered, endangered democracy in the world:
There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men [i.e., radical Muslim leaders and nations] and try to explain away their words. It’s natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is–the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it.
Elder statesman Joe Biden called these remarks “bullshit.” How so, Mr. Biden? William Edgar Borah actually did say that when Hitler invaded Poland, and he was a damn fool for saying it. History has proven that dialogue with madmen is, at best, a waste of time and energy, and at worst, an invitation to attack. So why are Bush’s comments “bullshit?” I suspect the bullshit will actually be contained in the oh-so-eloquent, utterly meaningless speech/comment Obama is rumored to be working up in rebuttal to Bush’s speech. Sorry, Obama. Tongue baths are for cats (and brainless liberals who think with their feelings, of course).
Now, I know I’m just a dumb conservative Christian from Arkansas, but how was Bush’s speech an attack on B. Hussein Obama or the Democratic Party—unless, of course, they really believe in what Bush was condemning? Bush was describing a dangerously naive attitude towards Islamic terrorism that is shared by most of the West, including at least half of the political leaders in the United States. Bush was articulating a foreign policy position that rejects the notion that bloodthirsty maniacs can be reasoned with, or should be treated as reasonable actors who merely disagree with us on an issue that requires negotiation. And Bush was addressing Israel, the country that understands far better than any other democracy the deadly threat posed by Iran and other Islamic kookocracies.
If someone at work, at church, wherever, made strong statements condemning promiscuous behavior, I can’t imagine being offended and defensive unless I were a whore, in which case I’m sure I’d be flustered and pissy and dismayed that someone was calling me out on my behavior. If the Democrats are not, in fact, appeasing whores just waiting for the chance to kiss some Islamist ass, then why are they so tied up in knots over Bush’s speech?
Rhetorical questions, I admit it. The reason they’re all pitching their little bitch fit is absolutely because Bush’s comments–although not aimed at them–exposed their views as cowardly and, in light of history, inexcusably naive. Somebody call the waaaaaaahmbulance.
Another thing: how unfathomably narcissistic can the Democrats be? Did it ever occur to them that maybe, just maybe, the entire world does not revolve around the ascension of their false messiah, Mr. B. Hussein Obama? Did they ever stop to think that perhaps Bush’s comments were about Israel, a nation fighting constantly just to survive; a general principle that has been proven correct over and over again in history, and many times in the past century alone; or a foreign policy position that Bush believes strongly in and was advocating as the President? Bush’s comments were perfectly relevant in any speech concerning terrorism, in any location he might’ve made the comments, and for any audience he might be trying to reach. Especially considering the fact that Iran’s “president” Ahmadinejad threatens to destroy Israel every time a microphone is put in his face.
Could we be any more September 10th?
Oh, and also: Obama, Biden & Co. didn’t seem to have much of a problem with Bill Clinton bashing Bush in public speeches, or Jimmy Carter cozying up to Hamas in “diplomatic peace talks” (which, proving Bush’s point precisely, went nowhere). Clearly, the Democrats think Americans are too stupid to notice the glaring realities I just pointed out in this post. I guess we’ll find out in November if they’re right.
AND, one more thing: even if Bush was criticizing the American Democratic Party, what of it? Since when is it unacceptable to candidly, aggressively attack the ideology and policy positions of one’s political opponents?