I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them - Isaac Asimov

Thursday, June 09, 2005

There’s a great post over at Powerline in which Nancy Pelosi so perfectly illustrates why John Kerry lost the election.

I just heard Nancy Pelosi make what may be the most foolish statement any public official has uttered in a long while. Pelosi called for the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention center in order to give us “a clean slate in the Muslim world.” I argued here that Gitmo should not be closed. But the foolishness of Pelosi’s commment resides not in the error of her substantive position, but rather in her fantsay of a “clean slate.” While that concept may have some applicability in therapy, there is no such thing in international relations, as anyone who has studied history for five minutes knows. And the idea of a clean slate with Muslims, a group with whom the west has clashed for something like ten centuries, is particularly ludicrous. Some of the Muslims from whom Pelosi would like to receive a clean slate are still upset about the reconquest of Spain. And then there’s the small matter of the existence of Israel.

Pelosi’s comment also reveals the self-hating belief held by so many on the left that Muslim antagonism towards the U.S. is our fault. If only we would avoid stepping on the Koran, all would be well. Bill Clinton was also a “clean-slater,” though he was too intelligent to put it that way. Clinton’s foreign policy consisted largely of running around the world apologizing for past U.S. wrongs real and imagined, and trying to help Muslims in the Balkans and in territories occupied by Israel. But instead of a clean slate, Clinton bought us the rise of al Qaeda and ultimately 9/11.

Pelosi also fails to recognize that any brownie points we might conceivably gain by closing Gitmo would be lost the first time a Muslim (aided by the MSM and liberal Democrats like Pelosi) claimed that abuse was occurring at some other facility or locale. As I have said before, if Gitmo didn’t exist, our enemies and critics would have to invent it, as they basically have.

On the morning of 9/11, this was a 50-50 nation politically. Since then, the Republicans have gained a clear upper hand. That’s not because Americans are happy about what’s happening in Iraq or overjoyed about our economy. It’s because Americans realize that the Democratic party is not completely serious when it comes to fighting terrorism. Pelosi’s comment shows that one of the party’s leaders isn’t serious at all.

Exactly.  When I was up in the SF area, living among the left-wing scum like Jane Goodall living among the chimpanzees, I heard variations on this theme on almost a daily basis.  That it’s America’s foreign policy that makes the Middle East hate us, that if we just apologized for what we did then they would leave us alone, that it’s all our fault, that we are the oppressor and all their problems are directly related to us, that Israel should de returned to the Palestinians, and so on.  This is a big hurdle for the Democrats to get over if they want to appeal to the American voter.  If it wasn’t for the terrorism angle, Kerry would have stomped Bush.  But he was obviously weak on terror.  To me, nothing illustrated more Kerry’s unfitness to the president was during his acceptance speech he stated that (and I’m paraphrasing here) “If we are attacked again, rest assured that I will strike back.” The idea isn’t to sit around waiting to die, it’s to get out there and kill your enemy before they get a chance to kill you.  For all his many faults, Bush understands this and the Democrats do not.  It is this self-imposed ideological ignorance on the part of the Donks that made it so that a largely unpopular president was able to become reelected.