First we heard it from John Kerry some months back, now we hear it from John Edwards. Foreign leaders want Bush gone. They trumpeted this as though it was simply a given that these leaders, if they existed, had the best interests of the United States at heart. The news media, though, has never asked them the most pertinent question regarding these desires. What are their motives?
We really shouldn't expect the mainstream press to ask this question, because as a whole, they agree. They want Bush gone too, so questioning motives isn't important. Further, secular socialist Europe is the model for what most of our news reporters want in a society, so anything that comes from there has to be good.
We should, though, at least take a brief look at some of these attitudes. I have no doubt that Jacques Chirac wants Bush gone. I further have no doubt that he doesn't have American interests at heart. France is a has been nation that can't accept its has been status. France has resented the US ever since we delivered them from the evil of Naziism. Charles De Gaulle, who was a self aggrandizing opportunist of Clintonian proportions, was the first to pull a Chirac.
He separated France from the military arm of NATO and demanded that all American troops leave French soil. President Johnson, through his Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, asked DeGaulle if that included those buried in France while liberating it. That has been the attitude of the French nation, by and large, ever since. George W. Bush's perceived arrogance can't hold a candle to that of the French.
In fact, most of Europe needs the US to fail or diminish. The French and German dominated European Union has made no secret of its desire to be the dominant world player in the new century. The EU doesn't want a strong independent United States in competition with it. Therefore, the EU needs a US leader that is more interested in consensus than leadership.
One other factor that the US media never mentions in regards to Europe's opposition to the US and its confrontation of Islamofascism is the fact that the Muslim population of Europe is growing quickly and becoming more powerful. Quite frankly, the nations of Europe don't want to tick off that Muslim population. In other words, there is a fear of standing up for what is right.
I'm sure Kofi Annan would like to see a Kerry presidency as well. Of course, if you think that the United Nations has the best interests of the American people at heart, then I have some ocean front property for sale in Iowa. Just to give you an idea of the make up of the United Nations, this week, that body voted on the security fence that Israel had built around its border to keep out the crazies that bomb pizza parlors looking for virgins. The vote was 150 votes demanding that Israel remove the fence. Only six nations voted for Israel's security, including the United States. That is the body that Kofi Annan leads. Yet we should care who he wants to be President? Only if we are suicidal.
Kim Il Jong of North Korea has already made his preference public. He began broadcasting John Kerry speeches on North Korea state radio even before the Democrat primaries ended. Now that is definitely a glowing endorsement. Of course, given the fact that Kerry's picture hangs in Hanoi's Vietnam War museum, we shouldn't really be surprised.
The bottom line is that I don't question that some foreign leaders support Kerry and want rid of Bush. However, we might want to ask ourselves "why?"
3 comments:
The UN, and the Franco-German dream of leading it, seems to think everything is solved with a spot of tea and a mild 'you shouldn't ought to do that'. (the same pacified parenting techiques that have raised a generation of overgrown children who still have temper tantrums when they don't get their way). The UN, and it's bastard stepchild, the EU, is incapable of asserting any real authority over any real crises and they lack the intestinal fortitude to do anything beyond pass resolutions that the despots of the world routinely laugh off. It was evident in the Balkans, it was evident in Iraq, it is evident in Sudan. They can't even commit more effort to ensure Afghanistan has secure elections, a party they agreed to join. Maybe they are too busy castigating Israel while calling Arafat a statesman. Considering some of the most heinous human rights violators sit on that council is it any wonder? They are irrelevant in terms of any resolute action, and they like it that way. Bush rightly called them on it, and now their culots are in a bunch. Remember, they voted FOR serious consequences for Iraq's repeated violations before they voted AGAINST it. No wonder they like Kerry.
DONT WORRY BUSH WILL WIN AND AS FAR I CARE FRANCE CAN GO TO HELL. MY DAD HELP TO SAVE THEM IN THE FIRST WORLD WAR AND I DID IN THE NEXT ONE. JC
This is fun. You write and then I write and then you and your supporters look like idiots. Well, I think it's fun.
The gist of your comments is that even if world leaders do not support Bush, we can assume their motives are so dastardly, we ought to ignore them. And of course, that nasty old news media reports this stuff and we all know what those people are like--why, they are just like, just like...foreigners! Give me a break.
First, if polls showed most world leaders supported Bush, you and your girlfriends on the Right would be touting this as an important fact. Remember how conservatives ranted and raved over those early Iraqi polls that showed most of the people of Iraq wanted Americans to remain in their country? As soon as the polls turned sour, conservatives were done talking about Iraqi opinion polls.
There is simply an ugly element within the conservative camp that feels they are supporting America if they dump on foreigners. I would too, if I knew as little about the rest of the world as the average conservative.
As for motives, every nation's leader is supposed to look out for his own country's best interests. That does not mean that because a country is looking out for its own best interest that it is immediately hostile to the United States. The name of the game, politically speaking, is compromise. Bush has shown he is incapable of compromising and therefore has forfeited the right to rule. Conservatives have shown themselves incapable of compromising and therefore have forfeited the right to govern.
Post a Comment