State of Disunion: American Security & Democracy

State of Disunion: American Security & Democracy

Those who regularly read Clarity & Resolve already know that what concerns me most when it comes to politics is foreign policy, homeland security, and the war on Islamofascism here and abroad. I leave the baroque—and often, to my mind, melodramatic—complexities that characterize much of domestic policy to the kuffar who are wiser than I am in this sphere.

So, to be frank, I kind of dozed off while Dubya was outlining his vision for Social Security reform, faith-based initiatives, gay marriage, etc. Of course these matters concern me, but they don't elicit the same passion and original, creative thought from me as issues like Islamic terror, uninformed leftist tolerance of totalitarianism, defense of our homeland and our freedoms, and foreign policy do. By the way, these are the principal issues which compel me to throw 100 percent of my support behind this president. He handles them all in a way that makes me feel a bit safer going to bed at night. I have more than a few points of respectful criticism for President Bush when it comes to some of his policies here on the homefront, but that's not what Clarity & Resolve is about. It's is about taking a strong and principled stance against the enemies of freedom, particularly Islam, promotion of our excellent and crucial friendship with Israel, and bringing the hope of a better tomorrow to all of my human (and animal!) brethren. Right and wrong, more than right and left.

So, bearing all that in mind, I'd like to tell you that I thought last night's State of the Union Address was superlative. Nice one, Dubya.

The angry and cynical sore losers on the left here in America, and their America-hating homies worldwide, will, of course, just not be placated. I knew that before President Bush even walked onto the floor of the House chamber. I mean, just the fact that such a person as George W. Bush exists is enough to send these people into paroxysms of unhinged, irrational rage. But if one is to be honest, one must acknowledge that the President is trying to reach out to our friends in the world community. It's just not in the servile, appeasing, and lackadaisical talk-a-lot-but-do-nothing way they'd like to see. Much of the world, and the left here at home, appears to resent the fact that our president is proactive about confronting our enemies. Put simply, President Bush understand what free nations are facing at this moment in history, and he is entreating our allies with something along the lines of: Come on people, there are some seriously troubling, iniquitous, and menacing forces gathering in the world right now and we all need to make a concerted and resolved effort to confront them now while we can! And of course, that's seen as arrogant American cowboy&trade politics.

Well, too bad. It's time for everyone to grow up, dispense with the overemotional reflexivity, and face the fact that America has real enemies who are going to be dedicated to our destruction no matter who is in the White House, or what policies they adopt. The Islamothug regime in Iran kidnapped American civilians when Carter was in office and 9/11 was planned while Clinton was in office. These hit men for Allah are on a holy mission that is not contingent on where the balance of power lies between right and left in America. George Bush sees that and wants to deal with it. And if someone like me, who never voted Republican and does not belong to any political party, can get behind this committed straight shooter of a leader when it comes to defending freedom, I don't see why others can't—well, at least grudgingly, if you're not a stark, raving leftist loon.

I personally don't care who is in the White House if they're going to do the job right. My trusty organic logic/calculation executor has come up with this conclusion: Without a strong and effective foreign policy, a domestic policy will cease to matter. We need both, but the former enables the latter. A nation that is willing to emply demonstrably inadequate, failed leftist policies against the phenomenon of a violent, expansionist, supremacist ideology that is utterly immune to the niceties of liberal democracy, is inviting more 9/11s, more Theo van Goghs, and more Madrid train bombings upon its citizens. The enemies of free societies, who these days are mostly Islamic as it turns out, must be hunted down ruthlessly, squeezed for intelligence, and locked up if captured, or liquidated if they cannot be captured. This is the only policy that has worked for Israel when its enemies refuse to rein in their murderers. Disincentive. This isn't crime we're dealing with, it's war. This is something our president understands, and it transcends right or left politics. Or at least it should if you care about preserving the sanctity of life and our hard-won liberty in the face of those who love death and totalitarianism.

While I was a bit dismayed by the President's cheerful demeanor about shelling out yet more money to the PA, and his apparent optimism about the supposedly forthcoming transformation of an entrenched Palestinian Arab culture of death into vibrant democracy, I think I understand where he's coming from. I think Ariel Sharon understands too. This is realpolitik. We'll see how far Arafat II advances his Israel-hating society six months from now, as he continues to treat the child-murdering lowlifes of Hamas and other Arab/Islamic terrorists as respectable diplomats and ambassadors. Heck, we'll probably see in one month from now.

Overall, though, I think the President demonstrated admirable aplomb in laying out some clear and reasonable points of foreign policy during last night's address, and one really can't say that he was at all arrogant about in presenting them (unless you're an embittered ideologue—then he was a Zionazi neocon fascist™). Here are some of my favorite highlights:

Saudi Arabia: The Qur'an may have been an acceptable governing document in the seventh century (yes, kuffar, the Qur'an is the law of the land in the KSA), but the civilized world has now moved on to real human rights protected by law, progress, and decency. Why not join us?

The government of Saudi Arabia can demonstrate its leadership in the region by expanding the role of its people in determining their future.

Egypt: Even though you take billions in USAID each year for not attacking Israel, while your state-run media routinely reviles and demonizes America and Americans, we'd still like to give you the benefit of the doubt. Have you perhaps considered dispensing with the one candidate presidential elections and rubber stamp parliament? Just a thought.

And the great and proud nation of Egypt, which showed the way toward peace in the Middle East, can now show the way toward democracy in the Middle East.

Syria: You're on notice.

To promote peace in the broader Middle East, we must confront regimes that continue to harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of mass murder. Syria still allows its territory, and parts of Lebanon, to be used by terrorists who seek to destroy every chance of peace in the region.

You have passed, and we are applying, the Syrian Accountability Act, and we expect the Syrian government to end all support for terror and open the door to freedom.

Iran: You're on notice.

Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror, pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve. We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing and end its support for terror. And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you.

I've got to tell you, kuffar, I never really liked a president until George W. Bush came along. I can look back in retrospect and feel awe and respect for Ronald Reagan, but I was a leftist agitprop-spewing Dead-head back then. I like Bush. Not as my buddy or even so much as the man (although I do respect and admire him as a man), but as a clear-minded, strong, and resolute leader who espouses and backs up values that resonate with me and many of my fellow Americans. Those values are primarily (although not limited to): belief in the formidable power of freedom, the conviction to call evil by its name, the ability and willingness to protect freedom, and the refusal to compromise any of these timeless principles for temporal gain. You can call him an arrogant cowboy, and call me a "chickenhawk" or a "Bushie," or whatever leftist groupspeak term is fashionable these days, because I support him—I don't care. He's an able leader who is successfully performing the job I elected him to do. I'd feel the same if he was a Democrat. Just get the job done right, and make sure that America stays America.

Back to the State of the Union: Finally, this moment... My goodness, when the grieving mother, whose son died in Fallujah bringing freedom to those who have never known it, hugged and handed his dogtags to the Iraqi women's rights leader, whose father was assassinated by Saddam Hussein's goons, as they both wept... Moments like these seem to follow this President around wherever he goes. Whether planned or not, they are all genuine and simple expressions of honest understanding between everyday people who share a love for freedom and who know pain, joy, and hope. And these are the moments that the human spirit will always be thirsty for.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Janet Norwood, right, of Pfugerville, Texas whose son was killed in Iraq last year, hugs Safia Taleb al-Suhail, leader of the Iraqi Women's Political Council, during the State of the Union address Wednesday, Feb. 2, 2005, at the Capitol in Washington. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Americans recognize that spirit of liberty, because we share it. In any nation, casting your vote is an act of civic responsibility. For millions of Iraqis, it was also an act of personal courage, and they have earned the respect of us all.

One of Iraq's leading democracy and human rights advocates is Safia Taleb al-Suhail. She says of her country, "We were occupied for 35 years by Saddam Hussein. That was the real occupation. Thank you to the American people who paid the cost, but most of all to the soldiers."

Eleven years ago, Safia's father was assassinated by Saddam's intelligence service. Three days ago in Baghdad, Safia was finally able to vote for the leaders of her country. And we are honored that she is with us tonight.

And we have said farewell to some very good men and women, who died for our freedom and whose memory this nation will honor forever. One name we honor is Marine Corps Sergeant Byron Norwood of Pflugerville, Texas, who was killed during the assault on Fallujah. His mom, Janet, sent me a letter and told me how much Byron loved being a Marine and how proud he was to be on the front line against terror. She wrote, "When Byron was home the last time, I said that I wanted to protect him, like I had since he was born. He just hugged me and said, 'You've done your job, Mom. Now it is my turn to protect you.'"

Ladies and gentlemen, with grateful hearts, we honor freedom's defenders and our military families, represented here this evening by Sergeant Norwood's mom and dad, Janet and Bill Norwood.

In these four years, Americans have seen the unfolding of large events. We have known times of sorrow and hours of uncertainty and days of victory. In all this history, even when we have disagreed, we have seen threads of purpose that unite us. The attack on freedom in our world has reaffirmed our confidence in freedom's power to change the world. We are all part of a great venture: to extend the promise of freedom in our country, to renew the values that sustain our liberty, and to spread the peace that freedom brings.

What a shame it is when spiteful antagonists feel the irrepressible need to drag these wonderful and historic moments for freedom down into the foul morass of bitter partisanship. How sad it is when Americans forget the exhilarating, almost outrageous sense of optimism and ambition that is born of freedom—a transcendent, uplifting hope which is woven into our heritage and written in the hearts of our soldiers, our heroes, our finest leaders, and our family and friends. Why is it that we forget that the shades of grey which define the differences between the members of a free society are as nothing when compared to the stark black and white that defines free and totalitarian societies? This is a time when we need to stand together, unified against the danger that threatens us all.

To all Americans—on our shores or beyond, wherever you come from—liberty and justice are still our standard. We will take all the help we can get when it comes to bringing these two simple rights anywhere in the world to those who seek it, but if need be, we'll also do it alone, however long it takes. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan well understood this sacred responsibility of a free and just people, and so does George W. Bush. What a pity that all of his reactionary detractors don't or won't.


Copyright ©2005 Patrick D. O'Brien: may not be copied, published, or otherwise used (except for brief quotes) without express permission of author

originally posted at Clarity & Resolve

Posted by Patrick at February 3, 2005 07:44 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/7684

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference State of Disunion: American Security & Democracy:

» SOTU - By patrickafir from American On Line
A proud American, patrickafir, a/k/a Patrick D. O'Brien, provides his take on Bush's SOTU over at Israpundit as well as C&R. Well worth the read. But be careful if you seek to purloin his thoughts, cause they are subject to his: [Read More]

Tracked on February 3, 2005 08:21 AM


Comments

1. BobW said:

The distinction between foreign policy and domestic policy is not a line but rather a somewhat large band that's blurry on the margins. This is presuming a difference is to be clearly made between foreign policy and domestic policy. I'm omitting the traffic light on the corner issues. A domestic tax policy can have broad international implications. Production of a fleet of jet fighter aircraft has international implications. US price supports for domestic sugar has international implications.

Using the first or clearly defined breakdown bwtween foreign and domestic policy, it is domestic policy that must be in shape before going international.

For the last couple of decades, 50 million Americans have been receiving 450 billion (billion) dollars in social security checks per year. The US Government does not obtain the money for this program from FICA taxes. The money comes from borrowing from 3 sources, Japan, Saudi Arabia and the Peoples' Republic of China. Depending on how its measured the biggest creditor is Japan or PRC.

From the above one can see why the US does not have a free hand in foreign affairs. The US must be careful not to risk offending its creditors. The question should be begged as to why China would buy US dollar denominated bonds yielding very low interest, in a currency that's already lost a third of its value and is continuing to do so. There is no economic rationale but there is a strategic rationale. One wrong move by the US - in Sudan (where China National Oil Corp is present) or Iran ( where Beijing and Teheran signed a 100 billion (Billion)dollar oil and gas deal "Deal of the Century" [Thanks to Ted for posting the article]) or the Taiwan Straits, and a public hint from Beijing about a sell order would tail spin the US economy into a collapse. Thus, the domstic-foreign policy relation.

Until social security is under control, the US military cannot be beefed up. Today, a major segment of the US military is disguised unemployment.

Compounding the bad news about social security -although it will be closed down by the Bush administration -is Medicare/Medicaid. These 2 programs have the Republic party split with Republican governors and some GOP Senators not supporting the Bush administration because of the consequences to the States. This domestic issue will govern much in the foreign affairs realm. Reagan was the first to address this. The American Medical Association is running a cartel buried within its professional society. The medical and allied costs are destroying the US. Because of this destruction, foreign policy concerns are only partly addressed.

US oil policy is hostage to special interests as if I must type this. It's not just the Arabs. The world oil industry has a Jewish component making fortunes over the artifically priced goo from the ground and seabed. The Islamic terrorists will disolve as a function of the disappearing petrodollars. This cannot be addressed until social security is resolved.

I do not believe US friendship with Israel is crucial. It is definitely not excellent. Nixon's Kissinger serves as a better symbol of close friendship than Bush's Rice or B41's James Baker.

Saudi Arabia is really like Egypt. The governments do not represent the population. Sunni Saudi has problems with its eastern Shia area. Egypt deems the Islamic Brotherhood to be an illegal organization.

Returning to the broad issue; what comes first, foreign policy or domestic policy. Blame any response on the Jews and there will be a strong consensus.

Kol tuv,
BobW

Posted by: BobW on February 3, 2005 09:24 AM

2. PolemicLomed [TypeKey Profile Page] said:

    After reading this twice I was a bit confused. You said you were going to express your thoughts on Bush's state of the union. Instead you made some claims I don't agree with.
     You said, "It's is about taking a strong and principled stance against the enemies of freedom, particularly Islam, promotion of our excellent and crucial friendship with Israel..." How can Bush promote a strong and prinicipled stance against the enemies of freedom when his foreign policy, and the foreign policy of the four or so last presidents, undermine the whole argument of promoting freedom? I don't call supporting Authoritarian and oppresive regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and China an outreach to extend freedom. I call that egging on evil dictators in return for oil or freedom to operate.

     You said, "the President is trying to reach out to our friends in the world community." When has he tried to reach out to the global community. Was it when he refused to talk to Arafat for the past 5 years? Or when he basically snubbed all of the EU by saying something along the lines of, "I don't care if you help the U.S., we're going into Iraq anyway. We don't need your help."

     Yes, terrorists captured the civilians during Carter's presidency and allegedly 9/11 was planned during Clinton's administration. But back then globalization hadn't yet exported terrorism. When the planes hit the World Trade Center, America was literally hit with terroism in a globalized form. This warranted the war in Afghanistan. As Friedman says it was, "a war of no-choice." Did it warrant a war in Iraq? Saddam would never have used his WMDs. Have you seen his palaces? He loves life more than he hated us. Have you seen Osama's palaces? Yeah, that's right, he has none. He hates us more than he loves life. War on Iraq was unnecessary but the war on terrorism is necessary. But America cannot win this war alone. Do you think the American public will support another full deployment of American soldiers in another country? Most of America is crying for their troops to come home. Bush needs to listen to Europe and not demand support from Europe.

     The phrase "hitmen for Allah" disgusts me. Allah does not enlist those who kill the weak and innocent. Osama and Zaraqwi do. Islam is a religion of peace and tranquility. You wouldn't call the Christian militants in America who bomb abortion clinics "hitmen of God," would you?

     The murdering low-life thugs of HAMAS are terrible people when killing innocent Israelis. But you have to admire and respect them for their social reform in Palestine. Who has created more hospitals, welfare programs, public education institutions than HAMAS? Not the Palestinian Authority? America has created so much social reform but why do you think America refuses to recognize the International Criminal Court?

     I respect your right to your opinion but I also cherish my right to refute. Good day to you.

Posted by: PolemicLomed [TypeKey Profile Page] on February 3, 2005 10:21 AM

3. Susan said:

I found it quite ironic that Bush who is justifiably going after Iran for 'sponsoring terror' is at the same time giving the palestinians a state and millions of $$ as a REWARD for SPONSORING and INFLICTING TERROR!! How difficult is this to see?

Orin Hatch was interviewed on Fox this morning. He said the 350 million to the palestinians is good because it will stop terror. One we pay off and the other we rightly destroy. Simple as that.

Double standards and immoral injustices matter little when it comes to shafting Israel. Of course Israel is once again being served up on a platter to serve not only political gains but to appease our so-called arab friends and the europeans who serve them.

Posted by: Susan on February 3, 2005 10:47 AM

4. The Redhunter said:

Not speaking to Arafat is a badge of honor, in my book. I, too wich we'd cut off aid to the PA, but you can't get it all.

Overall, the President thinks big thoughts and takes on big challenges. Coasting is not for him.

Nice analysis, Patrick.

Posted by: The Redhunter on February 3, 2005 11:07 AM

5. Tamar said:

"The phrase "hitmen for Allah" disgusts me. Allah does not enlist those who kill the weak and innocent. Osama and Zaraqwi do. Islam is a religion of peace and tranquility"

RUBBISH!!!!! Bush invented that definition of Muslims and the Islamic world......it is both theologically and historically incorrect.

Posted by: Tamar on February 3, 2005 11:13 AM

6. BobW said:

Shalom Polemic Lomed,

I'm going to challenge you on your point that HAMAS created more hospitals...etc ,than any other organization. I believe the correct answer is Government of Israel. Israel replaced Egypt as the protecting power after the 1967 war. During the early 1970s the residents of Gaza, Israel had a continuous improvement to their lives and standard of living. The GOI infrastructure and social support was so large it attracted huge numbers of Arabs to the area. Thet's why it is crowded to this day.

During the 1970s, Gaza, along with Judea and Samaria, constituted the 4th fastest growing economy in the world - even ahead of Singapore, South Korea and Hong Kong, BCC.

HAMAS now takes public funds from the UN and some small Arab charity. The "locals" are being used.

Regardless, HAMAS is involved in murder.

Kol tuv,
BobW

Posted by: BobW on February 3, 2005 01:44 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)