Australia

According to the chatter in the right wing blogosphere after Nicolas Sarkozy won the election in France, Sarkozy’s victory was a tectonic shift in French politics. The defeat of the socialist Segolene Royale was a repudiation of all things leftist. The French were finally awakening to the alleged wisdom of conservative policy.

As is so often the case with right wing pronouncements, it simply was not true. That reality becomes emphatically clear with even the most cursory review of the facts. Mr. Sarkozy supports the Kyoto treaty, opposes the war in Iraq, and at the time of his election would not even make a firm commitment to continued French presence in Afghanistan.

But none of that mattered to right wing partisans here in America. In their usual bumper sticker method of analysis, the socialist defeat was a vindication of all things conservative. Sarkozy said he liked America and that was all that was necessary,despite Mr. Sarkozy’s views on the issues.

Like a clueless forgiving, spouse whose adulterous partner professes undying love even as the adultery continues, right wing America swooned over Sarkozy’s sweet nothings while he made it quite clear that there would be no fundamental change in French foreign policy.

It’s a lot like the American election results of 2004 when these same folks were prattling on about a permanent GOP majority. President Bush’s reelection was all the proof that was needed. The GOP was now omnipotent. Nancy Pelosi’s ascension to the office of House Minority Leader was met with guffaws and identified as evidence of the final weld in the stainless steel burial vault of the Democratic party.

Never mind that political analysis no more arcane than what was published in the technicolor big print USA Today, pointed out that at the state and local level in 2004, the electoral advantage had clearly shifted to Democrats. In 2004, Democrats gained control of legislatures in red states such as Montana and Colorado. Anyone pointing out that the Democratic gains might well be an indicator of future success at the national level, was dismissed with one epithet or another.

So what in the world does this have to do with the largest English speaking nation on the planet where the water goes down the drain counter-clockwise? Other than Britain’s Tony Blair, Australian Prime Minister John Howard was President Bush’s most vocal ally in support of the war in Iraq.

Yesterday, Mr. Howard’s conservative party lost control of the government. In Australia’s parliamentary system this means he is through as Prime Minister. As I write this, it is not even certain that he will retain his seat in Parliament. Visualize if you will Nancy Pelosi losing her seat to a Republican in 2008. Yes Virginia, it is true, the Australians are not happy.

The point is that I would urge those who share my views opposing the war and President Bush, to avoid making the same mistake as our fellow citizens on the right have made with France’s Sarkozy. None of us should ever forget that politics is cyclical. In generations past, those cycles lasted for decades. Now with instant and constant global communication, political fortunes can and do shift 180 degrees in just a couple of election cycles.
The new Australian Prime Minster ran on a platform that included signing Kyoto and withdrawing all Australian combat forces from Iraq.

No one should overestimate the meaning of the Australian election results. But let us not underestimate them either because the point that was made is significant. Among all the nations in the world who are our closest political and cultural allies, the majority of the electorate in every single one of them, has emphatically stated that their freedom and security do not require that their young men and women die in a country thousands of miles away.

Both the British and the Australians have endured tragedies that clearly illustrate a lesson that has yet to be learned by the erstwhile 30% of America that still supports the war in Iraq. As the British transit bombing, and the attack on Australian tourists in Bali indicate, protecting the people against terror is not a job for the military.

The British know it. The Australians know it. The Canadians knew it from the very beginning and stayed out of the Iraq fiasco altogether. Approximately 70% of America knows it. Invading and occupying Iraq will do nothing to prevent another group of Saudi zealots from purchasing airline tickets at a major American airport. How many more people must die and how many more billions must we spend before supporters of the war in Iraq come to understand this fundamental truth?

A Look Back At People Who Got it So Catastrophically Wrong

The Internet is unforgiving in its accurate record keeping of exactly what people wrote and when they wrote it.

It is highly instructive to revisit opinions of the people who told us that invading Iraq was in the best interests of the United States. Amazingly, some of these people such as neo-conservative Reuel Marc Gerecht still think we should listen to them.

Below are some samples and links to writing from Mr. Gerecht, Richard Perle and a host of other misguided individuals who all told us that this war thing would work out just fine.

The full page of links can be found here

Of special interest to me is the hypocrisy of David Frum who complains about the dictator Saddam whose brutality and murder were perfectly acceptable when those atrocities worked in our favor.

""Saddam has no title to rule his country. He seized power by force, and has held it by murder. He represents the will of nobody but himself. And yet there are people all over the world, and even freely elected heads of democratic governments, who see it as an important principle to preserve Saddam in power.""

From Richard Perle:
"Blix is dealing with Saddam as if he were a normal, sane person. But Saddam isn't someone you can treat like that. Blix doesn't have a clue that he's talking to a bloodthirsty thug as if he were in a Bloomsbury salon. In fact the whole approach of the weapons inspectors has been wrong. The impression is being created that they are trying hard to find weapons of mass destruction-and because they can't find them, maybe they do not exist."

From Reuel Marc Gerecht: it should be noted that despite Mr. Gerecht's predictions, Pakistani President Musharraf recently awarded amnesty to pro-Taliban tribal leaders.

""The Pakistani example is illuminating. In 2001, after the September 11 attacks, Secretary of State Colin Powell visited Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, who had consistently backed the Taliban regime in Kandahar, the protector of al Qaeda. General Musharraf had also been one of the primary architects of the practice of using Afghanistan for training Islamic militants for the guerrilla-cum-terrorist war in India-controlled Kashmir. These training camps, supervised by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency, were interconnected and co-located with some of the training programs funded and organized by al Qaeda. With Powell's visit, General Musharraf quickly understood America's resolve, abandoned the Taliban, fired some pro-Taliban army and ISI officers, and confronted Islamists within Pakistan whom he had once backed. Now it is open to doubt whether Islamabad has permanently retired from playing the fundamentalist card among the Pashtun tribes in Afghanistan, but Musharraf and his fellow military officers will certainly be wary of resuming past habits so long as they believe Washington is looking over their shoulder and retains the will and capacity to punish them painfully."

VIOLENT JIHAD - A REAGAN LEGACY?

Believe it or not, it was Ronald W. Reagan who began the process of educating Afghan children in Wahhabism. That is the radical version of Islam that fuels the jihadists behind terror attacks worldwide.

This is yet another story not widely reported by the so-called liberal media. But in our efforts to help the Taliban defeat the Soviets at the end of the Cold War, virulently "anti infidel" textbooks were paid for by US tax dollars and shipped to Afghanistan.

As a nation, we should really start paying attention to these periodic reminders that if we would just mind our own business, and keep our noses out of the affairs of other nations, maybe the anti-terror strategy of our neighbor to the north, Canada, would be all we need to protect America as well.

Note that Canada has had no terror attacks since 09/11.

http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3453

Looking back, it seems unbelievable that the U.S. government would ever hatch such a scheme. But during the presidency of Ronald Reagan — when all vision was still focused on the Cold War — the United States got itself into the business of sponsoring militant Islamic schools for Afghanistan, then a nation under the influence of the Soviet Union. Martin Schram explains.

I'd like to share a few words with you.

Something written a long,long time ago. It goes something like this, and I quote

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


Those words were not written by the liberal media.

Those words were not written by someone who hates the United States of America.

Those words were not written by some extremist politician running for office next year.

Those words come from the document that signaled the inception our great nation.

So the next time, some so-called patriot tells you that it is unpatriotic to criticize the President, look them squarely in the eye and suggest they go home and read that document known as the Declaration of Independence.