Rubin growled: “Yeah, Adolph Hitler won in Germany.”
|
|
The left never tires of referencing Bush to Hitler, yet I never hear them call him "traitor" or "rapist"... |
Posted on 02/17/2005 4:09:07 PM PST by CHARLITE
No words can do justice to the march of freedom underway in the Middle East and what it took to lead us there. Liberals will not want to hear this, but they know it’s true: What has happened in formerly Saddam’s Iraq and the Taliban’s Afghanistan—which, hopefully, could propel a flowering of freedom in a region more resistant than any other—is a tribute primarily to the efforts of one man: George W. Bush. For students of international relations, the elections in Iraq, capping those in Afghanistan in October, serve as a case study of how individuals, as opposed to larger global-systemic forces, can change events—can alter history.
My conservative friends are making comparisons between Bush and Ronald Reagan. Yet, these comparisons yield an important contrast: For Reagan, there will always be debate over who was more responsible for the collapse of the USSR—Reagan or Gorbachev. In George W. Bush’s case, however, there will never be any doubt that he was the source responsible for what has transpired. With Bush, there is no Mikhail Gorbachev. Sure, there are allies like Tony Blair and courageous leaders in Australia, Italy, and Spain. In Bush’s situation, however, the historical debate will not be over him or his Gorbachev but, rather, on those who joined or rejected him. The Howard Deans and Ted Kennedys will be seen as crass, shortsighted men. “No one should try to overhype this election,” said a very small John Kerry of an Iraqi election whose importance cannot be overstated, and who himself was never elected in an election with so high of a voter turnout.
The dilemma for the historian will be to adequately convey the degree to which Bush succeeded and endured: First came the removal of the Taliban, then the fall of Saddam’s statue in Baghdad, then the deaths of Uday and Qusay, Saddam’s capture, the Afghan vote, and now the Iraqi elections. All the while, Bush pursued what was widely regarded as impossible. All the while, he was savaged by opponents.
No future biographer will be able to sufficiently chronicle the opposition and white-hot hatred of Bush. The material would be so voluminous and repetitive that no publisher would print it. Let’s just say that it is instructive that while the new mayor of Baghdad says that he would like to build a statue of President Bush as Iraq’s “symbol of freedom,” at DNC headquarters they would like to burn him in effigy.
Maybe the crudest and most inaccurate assessment of the Iraqi triumph came from former Clinton administration official Jamie Rubin, who was asked on Fox News about the “potential” of the Iraqi vote. The reporter pondered to Rubin: “I’m trying to think of another instance in history where there was a successful democratic election that was not a catalyst for … positive change, can you?” Rubin growled: “Yeah, Adolf Hitler won in Germany.” Historians will view the Clinton years as an odd pause between two great international conflicts: the end of the Cold War and the start of the war against murderous Islamic fundamentalism. This hiatus was characterized in George W. Bush’s inaugural as “years of repose, years of sabbatical” between the “shipwreck of communism” and the “day of fire.” Rubin’s flippancy is symbolic of that unremarkable period.
Alas, there is a profoundly interesting element to this historical moment: Those most angrily opposed to Mr. Bush viciously attacked his personal religious faith, which they believe makes him a simpleton. Therein is a rich irony: How did George W. Bush, almost alone, appear to know with certainty that Iraqis and Afghans would brave bombs and bullets in huge percentages to cast ballots—something they had never done before? How was he sure they would literally die to vote? Bush was certain because he is convinced that God has implanted the desire for freedom on the hearts of all human beings regardless of their faith, ethnicity, or where they live—a classic Jeffersonian thought that somehow made the hysterical left apoplectic. In other words, the dummy’s faith served him correctly. Moreover, like Ronald Reagan, another so-called dummy who also viewed freedom as God’s gift, and who believed that liberty was “contagious” and ever marching onward, Bush’s faith gave him the strength and security to weather the storm.
Speaking of that faith, George W. Bush rightly says that only the Author of history truly knows what will ultimately unfold. Democracy in the Middle East might even end with the elections in Iraq and Afghanistan—which still would not dismiss the achievement. Hopefully the momentum will continue. And to those on the left, I plead: go ahead and curse Mr. Bush, but for the sake of humanity, cheer the liberty he is pursuing.
Paul Kengor, Ph.D. is author of God and George W. Bush. He is also a professor of political science at Grove City College and a visiting fellow with the Hoover Institution. Contact Kengor at pgkengor@gcc.edu.
No doubt his credentials will be scrutinized and he'll be run out of town like Ward Churchill wasn't.
That last paragraph is a pretty profound comment. Think I'll save that one for my quotes.
Good post.
====================================
Hogwash!
"For Reagan, there will always be debate over who was more responsible for the collapse of the USSR—Reagan or Gorbachev. "
Question: Why would a communist want to end communism in his own country?
Answer: He doesn't!
Great stuff ~ Let Freedom Reign!
There's nothing to debate, the Gipper's Strategic Defense Initiative finally convinced the communists they couldn't win. Gorbachev was just smart enuf to face reality.
</lib'ral>
Gorbachev tried to keep it from collapsing. He failed.
There was/is a debate between the left and the right about Reagan or Gorbachev (we know it was Reagan) ending the cold war ~ the left has no Gorbachev this time; which makes it all the sweeter. :)
To the lunatic left, I say: Schadenfreude!
Nope, they won't be seen at all. They will disappear without a trace, unmourned and unmissed. Twenty years from now, let alone a hundred, they will be less well remembered than Horatio Seymour.
I can't agree with this statement.
Gorby was led by Reagan and Thatcher.
Without them, Gorby would not have been Gorby, and "gorbasms" would never have occurred.
Agreed, but I have this debate with a 20-something history PhD all the time. Sheesh, he was barely out of diapers while Reagan was kicking down the wall.
Rubin growled: “Yeah, Adolph Hitler won in Germany.”
|
|
The left never tires of referencing Bush to Hitler, yet I never hear them call him "traitor" or "rapist"... |
For Reagan, there will always be debate over who was more responsible for the collapse of the USSR—Reagan or Gorbachev.
No debate. Ronald Wilson Reagan lead the American people to defeat an evil empire.
(The play was written long before the actor appeared. It just needed the old Irishman who played Dutch, to win the Oscar)
5.56mm
bttt
"And to those on the left, I plead: go ahead and curse Mr. Bush, but for the sake of humanity, cheer the liberty he is pursuing."
Nice sentiment, but there's no negotiating with Terrorists or Liberals. They will never, ever get it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
