By Jack Kelly www.JewishWorldReview.com | The New York Times approached a plate of crow Tuesday, took a few nibbles, then pushed the plate away. In its editorial on the "Cedar Revolution" in Lebanon, the Times said: "This has so far been a year of heartening surprises � each one remarkable in itself, and taken together truly astonishing. The Bush administration is entitled to claim a healthy share of the credit for many of these advances. It boldly proclaimed the cause of Middle East democracy when few in the West thought it had any realistic chance. And for all the negative consequences that flowed from the American invasion in Iraq, there could have been no democratic elections there this January if Saddam Hussein had still been in power." But the Times wrote about developments in Lebanon as if they were disconnected from events in Iraq. A leader of the Cedar Revolution, Walid Jumblatt, demurs. "I was cynical about Iraq," he said. "But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. The Berlin Wall has fallen." In its concluding paragraph, the Times editorial said: "Over the past two decades, as democracies replaced police states across Central and Eastern Europe and Latin America ...the Middle East stagnated in a perverse time warp that reduced its brightest people to hopelessness or barely contained rage. The wonder is less that a new political restlessness is finally visible, but that it took so long to break through the ice." The Times writes as if communism collapsed of its own accord. It didn't. It was pushed off history's cliff by Ronald Reagan. At a time when liberals were demanding accommodation with the Soviet Union, Reagan recognized communism was as internally weak as it was morally repugnant. "When we look back on the 1980s now, it's not remembered as a decade in which a dim cowboy president courted global thermonuclear war, but as the decade when the USSR was brought down, the Warsaw Pact eliminated, and democratic governance came to Eastern Europe," said web logger Dale Franks. It has taken so long for "political restlessness" to "break through the ice" in the Middle East because presidents before George W. Bush took a liberal approach toward the despots of the region. The tyrants were too strong to be opposed; they must be appeased. "Stability" is more important than human rights for oppressed peoples. ------------------------------------------- Continued... Moreironic
Continued... While liberals clung to the peculiar notion that Arabs didn't mind being oppressed, so long as they were being oppressed by dictators who hate the United States, Bush believed Muslims want liberty and democracy as much as anyone else, and would embrace them if the tyrants' boots were removed from their necks. He then proceeded to remove those boots in Afghanistan and Iraq. And now the "Arab street" has spoken in a manner liberals never expected. Lebanon has become the central front in the war on terror. A bloodless victory is possible there. But it is possible only because Syria's dictator fears consequences if he attempts to crush the Cedar Revolution by force. "The New York Times wants Bush to continue pressuring Syria for a withdrawal (from Lebanon)," said web logger Ed Morrissey (Captains Quarters). "Do they think for a moment that Bashar Assad would even consider it without having 150,000 increasingly available American troops on his eastern border?" That Assad is nervous is indicated by the fact that he has turned over to Iraqi authorities a half-brother of Saddam Hussein and 29 other Baathists. "Our most lethal weapon against the tyrants is freedom, and it is now spreading on the wings of democratic revolution" said Michael Ledeen. "It would be tragic if we backed off now, when revolution is gathering momentum for a glorious victory." But backing off is precisely what liberals want to do. Liberals underestimate what can be accomplished by courage and resolve because these are not qualities they possess. Liberalism is a can't cant. Every task is too difficult. Every danger is too great. This is why liberals don't oppose dictators until after they've been deposed by the likes of Reagan and Bush. While tyrants are still in power, liberal lips stay firmly glued to their backsides. ------------------------------------------- Moreironic
Thank you for posting this marvelous article! I forwarded it to all my liberal in-laws- all I ever hear from them is that "this can't be done" or "that was done wrong." The fact is, they are the very people who would let dictators flourish in the world!!!!!!!