Yesterday I highlighted a typical piece of liberal, Democratic bias by the MSM. Today I have to eat my words a bit. Don't get me wrong. The MSM is definately biased towards the leftists liberal view of the world, but every once in awhile even a Democrat will have a few seconds of clear thought and writes something like this:
After years of struggling to define their own approach to post-Sept. 11 foreign policy, Democrats seem finally to have hit on one. It's called pandering. In those rare cases when George W. Bush shows genuine sensitivity to America's allies and propounds a broader, more enlightened view of the national interest, Democrats will make him pay. It's jingoism with a liberal face.
The latest example came this week when Democratic senators and House members demanded that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki either retract his criticisms of Israel or forfeit his chance to address Congress. Great idea. Maliki — who runs a government propped up by U.S. troops — is desperate to show Iraqis that he is not Washington's puppet. And the United States desperately needs him to succeed because, unless he gains political credibility at home, his government will have no hope of surviving on its own.
Maliki took a small step in that direction this week when he articulated a view of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict quite different from that of the Bush administration. His views were hardly surprising: Iraq is not only a majority-Arab country; it is a majority-Shiite Arab country. And in a democracy, leaders usually reflect public opinion. Maliki's forthright disagreement with the United States was a sign of political strength, one the Bush administration wisely indulged.
But not congressional Democrats. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid demanded that Maliki eat his words or be disinvited from addressing Congress. "Your failure to condemn Hezbollah's aggression and recognize Israel's right to defend itself raise serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East," wrote Reid and fellow Democratic Sens. Richard J. Durbin and Charles E. Schumer on July 24.
How, exactly, publicly humiliating Maliki and making him look like an American and Israeli stooge would enhance his "leadership" was never explained in the missive. But of course Reid's letter wasn't really about strengthening the Iraqi government at all; that's George W. Bush's problem. It was about appearing more pro-Israel than the White House and thus pandering to Jewish voters.
Reid's letter is not an anomaly; it is part of a pattern.
[…]The Democratic Party's single biggest foreign policy liability is not that Americans think Democrats are soft. It is that Americans think Democrats stand for nothing, that they have no principles beyond political expedience. And given the party's behavior over the past several months, it is not hard to understand why.
Granted, the writer is a liberal that is a rarity in today's world. He wrote a book ""The Good Fight: Why Liberals—and Only Liberals—Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again"…..stop laughing.
Seriously tho, he may be VERY wrong when he came up with that title but he believes there is actually a war on terror, another rarity in the liberal world. For this I will give him his due.
Someone else I have to give his due is Alan Dershowitz who writes today:
As a liberal Democrat, I listened carefully to the opposition voiced by many Democratic senators to the nomination of John Bolton as our chief representative to the United Nations. Mr. Bolton has been representing us at the United Nations since August. During the current Middle East crisis, I have been able to listen for myself to what Mr. Bolton has been saying at the United Nations.
On the basis of his performance, I have become a Bolton supporter. He speaks with moral clarity. He is extremely well prepared. He is extraordinarily articulate. He places the best face on American policy, particularly in the Middle East during this crucial time.
[..]Now, there's John Bolton, who follows in that tradition with distinction. Were he not to be confirmed as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations at this crucial juncture it would send a powerful message to the international community that Senate Democrats do not stand behind our policy in the Middle East. It would be seen as undercutting American policy toward Israel. Even if that were a misunderstanding, it would have a devastating impact on the world's perception of America's solidarity with Israel.
[…]What remains of last year's nomination battle, though, is what I suspect to be the real reason that some Democrats oppose the Bolton nomination. That is, they felt uncomfortable with Mr. Bolton's oft-expressed and blunt skepticism over the United Nations' legal and moral authority. Mr. Bolton can even, at times, come off as "contemptuous of the U.N.," in Sen. Barbara Boxer's words.
But Mr. Bolton is right to be skeptical, and all the great U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations – from Adlai Stevenson to Arthur Goldberg to Pat Moynihan to Jeane Kirkpatrick – have shared that skepticism. Mr. Bolton is absolutely justified in pushing for reform of the notoriously corrupt and inefficient bureaucratic structure in Turtle Bay. As he once said, "If member countries want the United Nations to be respected … they should begin by making sure it is worthy of respect."
Most importantly, Mr. Bolton understands that his job is to represent the United States and our interests to the world, and not the other way around. When The Washington Post's Dana Milbank chided Mr. Bolton for "disparaging the very organization he would serve," the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto promptly corrected him by saying, "the American ambassador to the U.N. is supposed to serve America, not the U.N."
Alan recognizes the one thing that Democrats stand for. Hating the United States. The whole reason Bolton is so hated by the left is because he is a advocate for the United States.
Amazing isn't it? Years ago Alan was considered a far left liberal, now the majority of the left has passed him by as they sped onward to the fringes of idiocy. Simply amazing, and at the same time a godsend for the right. Elections are not won by those on the fringes of society, which now includes the majority of the Democratic party.
Other's Blogging:
See author page
