Muslim Extremists And Liberal Democrats
by Christopher G. Adamo
Throughout the Arab world, a rash of statements have been issued in recent weeks condemning Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as a “bloodthirsty terrorist.” Simultaneously, any of their references to Yasser Arafat invariably include the title “Chairman,” along with some descriptor which suggests that he is only a beleaguered and desperate (but otherwise well-meaning) ruler of a helpless and oppressed people.
This despite the fact that Arafat consistently lauds the actions of suicide bombers whom he has encouraged and regularly dispensed into Jewish gatherings for the sole purpose of inflicting wanton bloodshed and death on innocents, just as he has done by one means or another for several decades.
Arafat is a statesman and Sharon is the terrorist. Has a more outlandish example of such juxtaposition between good and evil occurred anywhere in recent history? Sadly, “political correctness” yields absurdities which exceed the most hysterical rantings of Islamic extremists. Worse yet, such things occasionally emanate from the hallowed halls of the United States Congress.
In 1998 and 1999, during the height of Bill Clinton’s impeachment, Democratic operatives on Capitol Hill and in the media (but I repeat myself) sought, by any available means, to deflect American attention from the misdeeds of the president. Among other tactics, they gladly accepted the assistance of Hustler magazine owner and publisher Larry Flynt, who engaged in a mudslinging effort to uncover any illicit behavior among Republicans. Rather than being embarrassed by association with such sleaze and scum, they instead embraced Flynt as kindred, enthusiastically trumpeting his irrelevant and often baseless accusations against Republican House and Senate members. In the words of the Democrats, Flynt was not obstructing the impeachment process but was merely doing the worthy task of “investigating” Bill Clinton’s antagonists.
With absolutely straight faces, liberal Democrats roundly castigated Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, who was forced to amass indescribably lurid evidence as he sought to comprehensively investigate the actions of the former president. According to liberal Democrats, Kenneth Starr was singularly guilty of disseminating smut throughout the House and Senate. Imagine that! Neither, the publisher of the most vile filth this nation has ever known, nor the vile president whom he supported, should be the focus of criticism. Bill Clinton was honorable. Larry Flynt was “an investigator.” But Ken Starr was a “pornographer.”
Now, as the War on Terror has been further mired down by U.S. involvement in the “Middle East peace process” (the term itself being an unfathomable absurdity), Arab nations have gotten together and drafted a proposal which they insist will bring instant harmony to the region. All that is necessary is for Israel to withdraw to the borders it held prior to the ‘67 war, and everybody will be happy. Is this supposed to pass as a “peace proposal?” It is hard to imagine how the lunacy of such a suggestion could ever be topped.
Perhaps they will conclude their next conference by reaching a consensus that the U.S. must immediately end the War on Terror and make peace with bin Laden by putting al Qaeda in charge of airport security. Inconvenient though the facts may be, somebody ought to remind those who concocted this scheme that Israel was within those very borders, back in ‘67, when five surrounding Arab nations nonetheless felt a need to declare war in an attempt to annihilate it. As a sidenote, the worst aspect of this entire episode is Secretary of State Colin Powell’s treatment of it as a legitimate effort to broker peace in the region.
Meanwhile, back on the home front, liberal Democrats are engaged in an all out war against the Republican administration for control of the judiciary. In essence, they have determined that unless a Bush nominee passes their liberal “litmus test,” meaning that the individual in question must abhor constitutional limitations on their lust for power and, more specifically, must be pro-homosexual and pro-abortion, such a nominee will not even be considered for a Senate vote on his/her confirmation.
This, from the very same people who insisted that when the president was a lawless and morally bankrupt Democrat, “litmus tests” of any form were unacceptable, and that he should be granted his choice of nominees to the bench. Where is the Constitution in all of this? Where is any degree of honesty and consistency? Apparently such things matter among the Democratic leadership about as much as they do among nations of the Middle East.
The Palestinian Authority, with enthusiastic support from throughout the Arab world, has employed the blind zealotry of “suicide bombers,” not because of any concern for the welfare of the Palestinian people, but in a mindless quest for power. If this tactic works, its success will be its justification. The broader strategy requires deceitful statements opposing terrorist acts (intended strictly for Western consumption). And if innocent civilians of both cultures needlessly suffer and die as a result of these actions, then so be it.
Likewise, the phony advocacy of “bipartisanship,” regularly expressed by liberal Democrats, is only intended as a thin veneer beneath which they can continue their attacks against anything worthwhile within the Bush Administration. Thus, from the integrity of the Courts to the safety of airline passengers (and employees in high-rise office buildings), to any efforts at achieving energy independence, Democratic motives are guaranteed to be as noble and genuine as Arab interest in the well-being of Israel.
Their plan is heinous but consistent. The reacquisition of Democratic power in Congress and, ultimately, in the White House, will be its justification. And if this country’s interests and security are compromised and Americans needlessly suffer in the process, so be it.
|
