Who is the Conservative??
Who is the Conservative: Bush or Kerry?
By Daniel G. Jennings
There is one interesting question we must ask about this year's presidential election: who is the conservative and who is the liberal?
A quick analysis of the candidates' behavior shows us that this is not a silly question because Republican George W. Bush is behaving like a liberal and Democrat John Kerry is acting like a conservative. That is if we consider a liberal someone who takes bold and radical steps for change and a conservative somebody who defends and upholds the status quo at all costs.
Since his election Bush has taken one radical step after another: he proposed giving government funds to religious charities (faith based initiative), greatly increased federal aid to education, put the federal government in the business of evaluating and regulating public schools (No Child Left Behind), invaded Afghanistan after Sept. 11, adopted a new policy of seizing foreign terror suspects and imprisoning them in US military facilities, greatly expanded the federal government's police powers, launched a preemptive war in Iraq, adopted a new policy of nation rebuilding, ran up a vast deficit, proposed the construction of a moon base and a manned mission to Mars, and announced his support for the most radical constitutional amendment since Prohibition. Even Bush's seemingly conservative actions are radical in nature the faith based initiative would be a complete break with American traditions while the 28th Amendment which would ban gay marriage would take the unprecedented step of using constitutional law to set social policy (something nor president has done since prohibition in the 1920s).
Kerry at the same time has acted like a conservative defending the status quo of affirmative action and public education, demanding a return to traditional foreign trade practices, demanding a return to traditional democracy, attacked Bush's expansion of federal police powers, attacking Bush's policy in Iraq but demanding the use of American troops to shore up an existing foreign government in Haiti, he's even attacked Bush's out of control spending. In terms of social policy Kerry has opposed both the radical step of gay marriage and the radical policy of using the constitution to ban gay marriage. Kerry hasn't proposed an expansion of environmental law and protection simply a continuation of existing policies. The only radical measure Kerry has backed has been national healthcare, something that has been Democratic policy since Harry Truman's day fifty-five years ago.
The old rules and definitions no longer seem to apply to American politics. The world is turned upside down, the Left-wing Democrat John Kerry is mindlessly defending the status quo, while the Right-wing Republican George W. Bush is trying his best to tear it down.
What sort of nation will these new politics create? I don't know but it'll be a very different nation from the one we're living in today.

Dateline Hollywood
Dateline Hollywood,
Nerd of the Wings Director and Best Picture Winner Peter Jackson was astounded to learn from the other individuals at the Academy Awards that there is something called a razor and people called hair stylists and barbers who will actually cut people's hair. He said he wished somebody had told him this before the Oscar ceremony. In other news movie goers are advised to avoid the vast number of very boring fantasy epics full of bad special effects that will soon be hitting theaters.
Also in Hollywood, Mel Gibson apologized to the public in advance for the dozens of very boring, very long and very bad mind numbing Bible epics that will soon be flooding into theaters.

Iraq War Justified
One of the greatest pleasures of being a pundit is seeing yourself proven right. Recent events seem to be proving me right. In a commentary awhile back I noted that the main reason we should be fighting in Iraq is to fight and kill the Islamic extremist terrorists on their own soil. The anti-war crowd has long claimed there is no connection between Iraq and the War on Terror. Now, the Denver Post reported that a force of terrorists shouting Allah Akbar (God is Great) a traditional Islamic battle cry attacked a police station in Fallujah Iraq. Four of the attackers were killed by Iraqi police. Documents on the attackers indicated that two of them were Iranians and one was a Lebanese. At the same time, US forces have launched a massive manhunt for a top Al Queada leader believed to be in Iraq. Recent bombings in Iraq fit the Al Quaeda pattern. Yes America, Al Queada is in Iraq, attacking our forces there and our allies. What this means is that Al Queada isn't here in America attacking our cities and murdering our civilians. It also means that our military will be in a position to wipe out the Al Qaeda animals once and for all. No this isn't a very nice or moral situation but it's a hell of a lot better than seeing a dozen more Sept. 11 style tragedies on our soil and the 30,000 or 40,000 casualties they'd produce.

media
Mood:  incredulous
Media Hype Could Make Presidential Election a Joke
By Daniel G. Jennings
Media types covering the presidential election are acting more like the commentators and promoters at a professional wrestling match than objective journalists. That is they are spending most of their time hyping up candidates in order to get the public to pay more attention to the election rather than actually covering the election.
Remember Howard Dean? The media crowned him the front runner and gave unlimited attention to his brash style, and large band of idealistic young followers. They all but said Dean would be the Democratic nominee. Then the real primaries and caucuses were held and Dean came in a distant third or fourth well behind lackluster candidates like Wesley Clark and John Kerry.
The whole "Dean Phenomenon" turned out to be nothing but media hype. Dean's popularity and his legion of followers was shown to exist only in the pages of newspapers and on TV reports. Real voters had no little or no interest in the man from Vermont and actually seemed to be turned off by Dean's personality?
Why did the media go to such lengths to hype and promote Dean? Obviously a lot of media types liked Dean and sympathized with his left wing politics but that wasn't the main reason Dean was hyped. Dean was given a "push" as they would say in the wrestling business because he was the most interesting and entertaining of the candidates.
This is nothing new, in the 2000 presidential primaries the media paid vast amounts of attention to John McCain and tried to convince the public that he was a serious rival to George W. Bush when he was nothing of the sort. McCain was a much more interesting and entertaining candidate than Bush and one the media liked better.
Now the media hype machine is trying to convince the public that John Kerry can beat George W. Bush. Political commentators are saying that high voter turn in the Democratic primaries means enough Democrats could come out to help Kerry beat Bush. Newsweek magazine is asking what sort of President Kerry would make on its cover?
This of course is nonsense, Kerry is a bland and lackluster candidate who will probably suffer a defeat on the order of Michael Dukakis or Walter Mondale. Most of the political journalists know that Kerry's chances of beating Bush rival Quenton Tarantino's prospects of winning an Academy Award for Best Director they're zilch.
So why is the media deliberately slanting stories to make the presidential race seem like a real contest? Because a close presidential race makes for better television, bigger headlines and increased ratings.
Like wrestling promoters and reality TV producers the journalists covering the presidential race have to compete for attention. They have to compete with the war coverage, the Laci Peterson case, the Michael Jackson trial, all manner of sporting events, the Academy Awards, the Super Bowl, Janet Jackson, the War on Terror, the War in Iraq, Martha Stewart, Wall Street and a thousand other things. A routine presidential election with a second rate challenger being quashed by a popular incumbent just can't compete for attention with all that.
Like everybody else in our modern economy journalists have to justify their existence that is they have to convince their bosses that their stories bring in ratings or sell newspapers or magazines. If they can't they could loose their jobs or see their departments' budgets cut. If the presidential race is dull, it could threaten the political journalists' jobs. Since the race isn't sexy enough to attract attention they make it that way.
The ethical problem with this stance is obvious the political journalists have abandoned their objectivity and become active participants in the political process. The journalists are actively working on behalf of candidates rather than seriously examining them and giving the public an accurate picture of what is really going on. In some cases they actually seem to be distorting the truth for selfish ends.
There is no way the public can learn much about the candidates or their positions from such coverage. Worse while such media hype attracts momentary attention, sooner or later the public (which is far smarter than journalists believe) will see through it and start ignoring the media coverage of the campaigns. Or start relying upon campaign commercials, talk radio and what the candidates themselves say for their election news.
Political journalists had better learn their real role in the political drama and start performing it. For if they don't America; will have one of the most dangerous political situations around, a completely uninformed electorate.

Dumb Democrats
Mood:  accident prone
Democrats Do It Again
By Daniel G. Jennings
The Democrats have done it again, in Iowa they got together and came up with a worse Presidential candidate than Howard Dean. That is they ignored the exciting and charismatic young John Edwards or the feisty moderate Joseph Leiberman and bestowed the crown of front runner upon a tired old fossil called John Kerry.
John Kerry is the Republicans' dream candidate he's left wing, Ivy League, wishy washy, sort of wimpy and just plain boring. The Senator from Massachusetts has no national following and is largely unknown outside the Northeast. At least Dean has national name recognition and a lot of passionate followers. Kerry has nothing to offer except a sorry impersonation of John F. Kennedy.
Yes, John Kerry is a veteran and supposedly a hero of the Vietnam War. Kerry's Vietnam experiences will hurt his chances of election in a big way. After coming back from Vietnam Kerry became the leader of the radical left wing anti-war protest group called "Vietnam Veterans Against the War." He marched in protests and in at least incident threw his medals away.
In recent years, Kerry has acted as if he is ashamed of his military service. When stories alleging that Kerry had been involved in atrocities against Vietnamese civilians surfaced, Kerry did nothing to debunk the rumors. Instead it was left up to Republicans to point out the fact that the allegations were coming from Vietnamese Communists and were quite suspect.
Now, Kerry's anti-war protesting might make him a hero on Martha's Vineyard or in Santa Monica but out here in the real America it'll hurt him. The vast majority of American veterans are proud of their service and get this John Kerry the vast majority of Americans think our nation did nothing wrong in Vietnam. Most Vietnam Veterans are actually proud of what they did over there and disgusted by wishy washy leftists who are ashamed of wearing their country's uniform.
I'm sure that Bush's political strategist Karl Rove and his staff are salivating at the prospect of nominee John Kerry. As soon as Kerry is nominated Talk Radio and attack ads will start telling the public the story of John Kerry's anti-war protests. He'll be portrayed as a hippy, a Communist and worse. Kerry will end up spending all of his time trying to justify his anti-war activities instead of campaigning.
Kerry's candidacy shows everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party today. It is concentrated in the Northeast and its support seems to be confined to a narrow collection of intellectuals and special interests.
Of the seven men seeking the Democratic nomination right now four are from the Northeast Al Sharpton, Kerry, Dean and Leiberman and three, Kerry, Dean and Leiberman, are from New England. Edwards is from North Carolina and Wesley Clark is from Arkansas. Dennis Kuchinich is from Ohio the old rust belt. There is not a single candidate from west of the Mississippi. There is nobody from California or the Northwest or the Rocky Mountains, or Texas.
Have the Democrats written off the rest of America? Have they become so focused on the Northeast that they are ignoring the rest of the country. America's fastest growing cities are in the Sunbelt, not the Northeast.
If the Democrats want to start winning again they'll have to figure out how to start attracting voters in the Sun Belt and figure out what's going on on Main Street America. That'll mean they'll have to get out of Martha's Vineyard and leave New York for a few days.
History bears me out here, no Northeasterner has been elected President since John F. Kennedy in 1960 and then he barely defeated Californian Richard Nixon. Every elected President since Kennedy has been from the Sunbelt. Lyndon Johnson was from Texas, Nixon from California, Carter from Georgia, Reagan from California, George Bush from Texas, Clinton from Arkansas and George W. Bush from Texas.
The Democrats it seem don't have a clue of how to win a Presidential election these days. And unfortunately they won't learn what they're doing wrong until November when George W. Bush wins the biggest electoral victory since Ronald Reagan.

Imperialists
Opponents of Imperialism Have No Clue
By Daniel G. Jennings
Lately it has become fashionable for intellectuals of the left such as Gary Hart and Molly Ivins and of the right, such as Pat Buchanan, to denounce the idea of an American Empire. That is they are opposed to any American attempt to impose order upon the world, or any use of our military forces to make positive change in other countries.
Yes these critics have some valid points but their argument falls flat because they offer no alternative to American Imperialism. Neither set of opponents of imperialism offers any constructive or realistic alternative to the imperialistic agenda of the Bush administration.
The answer offered by the leftist critics of the war, who are the most visible and vociferous critics of Bush, is an extremely vague and dangerous one. The leftists believe that we must place our faith in diplomacy, the United Nations and the international community. This solution would work if every other country in the world were a civilized place and every government and group in the world willing to play by the rules and obey the laws.
It won?t work in a world full of people like Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Mohamar Khadafi and Mr. Kim of North Korea. The only thing that these people understand is brute force we can?t communicate with them unless we speak their language. These criminals are not going to obey the rules and follow the law unless a large policeman is going to come and force to them to do so.
The right wingers? answer is an even worse one, they want America to start behaving as if it were the year 1903 or 1923 when the US could retreat into Fortress America and quietly ignore the rest of the world. This strategy worked fine before the advent of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and jet airliners. No matter what America does it can?t hide from the bad guys and there is no defense we can build that they won?t be able to penetrate. The only way to keep our country safe is to fight the evil at its source and prevent the conditions that lead to the rise of terrorism.
The anti-imperialists then are not realistic critics of Mr. Bush?s policies they are wishful thinkers who refuse to accept the ugly realities of today?s world. The leftists are arrogant Eurocentric elitists who like to think that the rest of the world is Europe or Canada. The people who believe that Fidel Castro is a good social democrat and that third world thugs and terrorists can be trusted to play by the rules. The right wingers want to return to an earlier simpler time that only existed in books and movies. A pristine pure America uncorrupted by the evil world around it.
To the silliness and stupidity of the anti-imperialist arguments we can add a rather nasty note of hypocrisy. Howard Dean, the anti-imperialist standard bearer in the elections, believes it was wrong for America to conquer Afghanistan and Iraq but thinks those countries are now our responsibilities in his own campaign literature. In other words, Dean is saying that the wars of conquest were wrong but it is right to keep what we conquered. (This assertion is made in the standard Dean campaign flyer now circulating around the country)
Gary Hart, who demands that Democrats defend the ideal of an American republic against an Empire, wrote that America should form a constabulary in an editorial the Jan. 18, Denver Post. A constabulary would be a militarized police force specifically formed and trained to police the empire. In the same commentary Hart advocated reforming the military to make it more mobile and flexible. In other words a leaner meaner fighting force that would make it easier for America to use its military to impose its will on other nations. Hart, the critic of Empire, is advocating the creation of the institutions necessary to conquer and police an empire.
Hart and Dean seem to be accepting the necessity and inevitability of American imperialism, they just don?t want to admit it. Or more likely they don?t want to say because they don?t want to loose the anti-war vote.
Given the shallowness of their arguments and the note of hypocrisy in their rhetoric, it is safe to dismiss the ant-imperialists as moral cowards who are trying to hide their cause?s lack of substance with high-sounding rhetoric.

Left no friend of freedom
Mood:  incredulous
The Left is No Friend of Freedom
By Daniel G. Jennings
Recently leftists like Christopher Hitchens and Noam Chomsky have began bewailing the lack of commitment to the causes of freedom and human rights by their fellow leftists. The question I have to ask is why are these people surprised by the left's lack of interest in freedom and human rights?
Historically the left has been no friend of freedom. During the 1920s and 30s when the world's first Communist dictatorship, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was committing some of the worst atrocities in human history the left was hailing it as a utopia and a symbol of human progress. Even though the crimes of Lenin and Stalin were well-reported in the news media outside Russia (America's largest chain of newspapers the Hearst Press accurately reported many Stalinist horrors) most leftists chose to believe the Stalinist propaganda. Very few leftists spoke out against the deaths of millions of innocents at the hands of the Communist utopians. There were no protests and no serious leftist outcries at the cynical deals non-Communist leaders made with these monsters. The British abandoned several independent Republics including Georgia to Lenin and stabbed the anti-Communist White Russian forces in the back in the early 1920s in a dress rehearsal of the appeasement of Adolph Hitler. Nor did the left have any serious problems with Stalin's deal with Hitler in 1939 which led to the occupation of four independent countries and the deaths of many innocent people.
Many of the world's most prominent leftists proudly and openly praised Lenin and Stalin. British author H.G. Wells, the father of modern science fiction, wrote apologies for Lenin that were downright criminal in nature. George Bernard Shaw, the greatest playwright in the English speaking world in the 1930s praised Stalin's penal experiments (in other words the Gulag). American educator John Dewey after seeing Soviet Russia said he had "seen the future and it works." These leftists showed little or no interest in the fate of the millions of average people oppressed, imprisoned, tortured and murdered by the Soviets. Nor did they seem to care about the almost total elimination of human freedom in Russia.
Nor did the left take any particular notice of the horrendous atrocities committed by Chinese Communist madman Mao Zedong in the 1950s and 60s. Atrocities that included the worst famine in human history and the Cultural Revolution an all out assault upon China's traditional culture. The left's response to Mao's barbarism was admiration. Many American and European leftists proudly waved the "Little Red Book," the Bible of Mao's vicious storm troopers, the Red Guards, in 1960s protests. There was not a single protest against Mao's crimes on American college campuses in the 1960s. No leftists picketed President Nixon when he made his cynical trip to China to slavishly cultivate Mao's friendship in the early 197Os.
As with Lenin and Stalin before him, Mao had a host of willing admirers among world leftists. American journalist Edgar Snow praised Mao's virtues, sang his praises and promoted his sick cause. Indian Prime Minister Jemal Nehru courted Mao's friendship even when Mao's brutal People's Liberation Army was invading Indian territory and killing Indian soldiers.
Disturbingly enough the left only became critical of Red China when Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping adopted reforms that encouraged capitalism. The left wing elitists who completely ignored the deaths of twenty million Chinese peasants in the 1950s and 60s and declined to take the world leaders who ignored this horror to task for it, were horrified by the deaths of several hundred students in China in 1989 in Tinnimin Square.
With the left's history of ignoring and whitewashing the crimes of tyrants past. Why should anybody be shocked when today's leftists have absolutely no respect for freedom and basic human rights? After all they're only staying true to character.

letter to democrats
Mood:  crushed out
Who Stole My Democratic Party?
By Daniel G. Jennings
I'm a loyal Democrat who is disgusted with my party. The first presidential candidate I voted for was Michael Dukakis, since then I cast my ballots for Clinton and Gore. Yet now I look at the Democrats and I am disgusted.
My party, the party of Truman, FDR, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Woodrow Wilson has been taken over by the wimps, the whiners, the losers, the peaceniks, the snobs and the elitists. The so-called Presidential candidates are busy trying to kiss up to a small cadre of America-hating, latte-drinking, snobs while ignoring the rest of us. In Congress, our party has an important chance to compromise with the Republicans and President Bush and get important social legislation that would have benefited average people such as Medicare and Social Security reform and maybe even national health care passed. Instead we are letting pompous asses such as Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd block such legislation in order to score political points with the Volvo driving set.
One of our most important allies the American Association of Retired People has abandoned us and gone over to the Republicans on Medicare. A compromise that would have given millions of poor seniors the prescription drug benefits they so desperately need. Yet what do we do? We attack it come on. The AARP leaders will get the message they'll see that if they want anything constructive accomplished for their constituents they'll have to go to the GOP.
Then there's the war, I have news for you Democrats most Americans see nothing wrong with it. They have no problem with our President using our military forces to overthrow governments that are hostile to our interests such as Saddam's (many of us think it's about time the USA started kicking some ass in the third world). Average Americans see nothing wrong with American dominance in the world for we know that America is the land of freedom, justice and opportunity - not an evil empire as the college professors and journalists like to claim. (Yes Democrats those Marxist professors at your university lied to you and are still lying to you.) Average Americans know that our troops will treat the Iraqis decently and that our rule is preferable to Saddam's cheap thuggery. We also know that if we don't get control of the Middle East we'll suffer devastating new terrorist attacks that will make Sept. 11 look like tame in comparison.
We also know that there is no alternative to American dominance in the world, the United Nations and Europe are too weak to make a real difference in the world. China the would be super power is ruled by a small and vicious cadre of Communist gangsters who would invade and loot as much of the world as they could if they were given the chance. India is democratic but it lacks the economic and technological capabilities to match our military might. America has is a world leader and we have to act like one, not bow and scrape before the European elitists.
When we average Democrats see our so-called leaders listening to the intellectuals, the journalists, the movie stars and the rest of the media and academic elitists we have to wonder do you care about them or America? Do you care about our troops fighting in Iraq or the average Americans who would be slaughtered in the next terrorist attack?
We see you listening to the peace movement but we don't see you talking about some of the issues facing average Americans? What about overtime Congress recently eliminated that. You could have cut a deal with Bush and the GOP. Keep overtime and we'll back your war in Iraq. Did you? Now lots of average Americans will loose a large percentage of their income because you couldn't compromise. The Volvo driving snobs at the peace rallies won't loose any income but average working folk will thanks Democrats.
So Democrats if you want my vote again, start being the party of average Americans again. Stop being the party of Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd and Howard Dean. Start being the party of John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman and FDR again. Start being the party of workers and the middle class and stop being the party of the latte set. Then guess what you'll start seeing the kind of electoral victories that Truman and FDR won again.

What If??
What Will Happen if the "Peace Movement" Wins the Debate on Iraq?
By Daniel G. Jennings
What will happen if the self-proclaimed peace movement and the self-serving Democratic politicians who are kissing up to it win the debate on Iraq? What happens if the United States pulls out and the so-called Iraqi resistance wins the war? Well there are two scenarios neither of one is particularly moral or appealing.
Scenario number one, it is the year 2006 or 2007, the President of the United States is sitting in the Oval Office listening to a report from the Director of Central Intelligence. The DCI informs President Hillary and her husband that Osama Bin Laden, President of the Islamic People's Republic of Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Caliph of Islam has just taken delivery of an atomic bomb or the small pox virus from a renegade Russian scientist. The President seeing no choice gives the order, she orders the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to fire nuclear missiles at Baghdad, Riddyah and Mecca. The threat is eliminated but several million innocent Iraqis and Saudi Arabians die. The peace movement's devotion to human life has led to the deaths of millions of innocent people. Americans can learn to ride the streetcar to work again because gasoline is a thing of the past in most American towns after the nuclear fires scorch the oilfields.
Scenario Number Two. It is the year 2018 and Iraq is no threat to us because the Chinese People's Liberation Army is occupying Iraq and Saudi Arabia under the guise of "UN Peacekeeping." Both those nations are now peaceful the PLA having pacified the Middle East at the behest of the world's major oil companies through the simple expedient of shooting any Middle Easterner who didn't go along with the new order. Elite Israeli military units having dealt with any Arabs who were too much trouble for the Chinese.
Since the PLA's first action on landing in Iraq was to expel all Western journalists and shut down the Arab media outlets nobody actually saw the murder of all those innocent Arabs. It's just a vicious rumor as the oil company publicists keep telling the media. Media executives flush with oil-company advertising money are quick to agree and present the "facts." CNN now part of the Chinese National Television combine has been too busy reporting on Jennifer Lopez's tax evasion charges to care what happened in the Middle East a few years ago. News of the slaughter of several million innocent Arabs didn't appear in the world's media.
The Middle East is now peaceful Western oil field workers can now safely walk the streets of Riddyah and Baghdad and enjoy a nice meal of Dim Sum washed down with a cold can of Tsingtsao. Western women can now wear pants and make up in Saudi Arabia. They can even wear shorts and miniskirts if they want. American oilmen can even enjoy a night at the new strip clubs enterprising PLA officers are opening in Middle Eastern cities as a moneymaking sideline. (Arab women caught wearing the Burkah are now shot by Russian Jewish mercenaries who compose the new Chinese sponsored "police forces" in the name of sexual equality.) No Moslem dares speak out against such outrages, the Chinese security service and the Mossad are everywhere and very efficient.
None of them dare ask where all of the mass graves on the outskirts of major Arab cities came from? Or where all of the Arab men of military age are?
Who cares? There are now pictures of Mao hanging in the Mosques and puppet regimes recognizing the legitimacy of Israel in all the Persian Gulf nations. Western businessmen with "friends" in the politburo in Beijing are making big money by setting up franchises in the Middle East. Israel is at peace with the Palestinians who are now happy in their new role as servants to Chinese officers and American oil executives. Of course, no Western oil field worker publicly voices such suspicions.
Americans are now paying $25 a gallon for gasoline and Taiwan, Vietnam, Siberia and the recently reunited Republic of Korea are now provinces of the People's Republic of China but who cares. There is finally peace in the Middle East and China's paramount leader has just been awarded the Noble Peace Prize for her peacekeeping efforts in the Middle East over the protests of human rights activists everywhere. The leader interrupted her golf game with the president of Exxon-Shell-Total-Royal Dutch, former President Jeb Bush and the Prime Minister of Israel to tell reporters how happy she was to receive such a great honor before returning to the links.
These are the two most possible futures we face if we listen to the "peace" movement today. Persons who don't believe me should read their history, because the British people listened to the "peace movement" of 1938, six million Jews died, London was devastated by the Blitz and the Red Army was occupying most of Eastern Europe by 1945.
The fools in the peace movement have to be careful what they wish for. They might just get it and the future they get won't be very peaceful.

Reagan and Bush
Reagan and Bush
By Daniel G. Jennings
The chattering classes are all a blather about President Bush's new commitment to bring democracy to the Middle East. They are calling Bush's plan unrealistic and hypocritical and saying it will shatter the peace by provoking other nations.
This seems like d?j? vu all over again to me, back in the 1980s I recall another bold visionary President who made similar statements. His name was Ronald Reagan and he challenged the Soviet Union, he demanded that Gorbachev tear down the Berlin Wall. He armed anti-Communist guerrillas in Afghanistan and backed the Solidarity strikers in Poland.
The intellectuals were horrified by Reagan's statements, they dismissed him as a warmonger and a cowboy. They said his statement would lead to increased conflict with the Soviet Union and heat up the Cold War. The Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe was a fact of history that could never be changed.
Well, history shows us that the intellectuals were wrong and Reagan was right. Relations with the Soviets actually improved, the Red Army pulled out of Eastern Europe, the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union collapsed. The intellectuals of course don't remember this.
The question is who are we going to listen to? The bold and visionary President who is offering us a vision of hope and a better world or the arrogant, small-minded and weak-kneed intelligentsia that won't take any action to improve the world while ridiculing those who do?