Bush Haters Insist on Their Own "State of the Union"

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Adam's Apple, Feb 3, 2005.

  1. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Bush Haters Insist on Their Own Version of the State of the Union
    By Joe Scarborough for Jewish World Review
    February 3, 2005

    With the State of the Union Address, Americans are getting an up-close and personal view of the President's political enemies. It's an ugly sight.

    Leftists like Michael Moore and George Soros have spent years tearing down the President's plan to bring freedom to Iraq. But since the election, both have refused to discuss the remarkable democratic revolution that took flight this past Sunday.

    Former President Jimmy Carter's response was even more pathetic. Carter, who has been predicting for months that catastrophe would surround the Iraqi elections, has once again shown an unparalleled ability to wind up on the wrong side of history. From the Soviet Union to North Korea, the 39th President has once again shamed all of us Georgia natives.

    But his greatest slap at the nascent democratic movement was not his insistence that the election be delayed or permanently postponed, but rather his refusal to offer immediate praise to those true "Minutemen" who dared to dip their finger in ink and cast their lot with liberty. Can anyone seriously label the Carter Center a "human rights organization" when the events of the past several days prove the bitter ex-president to be a supporter of basic human freedoms only when such rights are advanced by a Democratic administration? Of course not.

    Forget what you've heard. Jimmy Carter is not only the worst president of the 20th Century. He may also go down as the worst ex-president of all time. Especially when you consider the deal he struck with North Korea may have provided the Stalinist regime with the cover needed to export nuclear technology to terrorist states like Libya.

    So what does it all mean? Just what I have been telling you for months.
    President Bush's most vocal critics hate him so much that they would rather see freedom fail in Iraq than let the commander in chief's policies be viewed as successful at home. How sad it must be to be so driven by anger that you find yourself cheering for terrorists.

    As for me, I once again quote Tocqueville: "In any other time I think I would have loved freedom. But in this time I am ready to worship it."

    May God bless the people of Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, and the U.S. troops and Iraqi police officers who gave their lives so millions could vote in a free election. Because of them, Iraqis live in dangerous but exciting times.

    P.S. - Some praise should be offered to the often-maligned New York Times editorial page. Gail Collins and staff appear to have turned a corner and are now offering cautious optimism for its readers. Because the stakes in Iraq and the Middle East are so high, I couldn't care less if they admit past mistakes. I just want to see them on the side of freedom.
     

Share This Page