Man of the Year

Why, you ask, did I blog and campaign for President Bush? So I could write a "clip-job" New Year's column!

The enemies of America struck first. The blame for September 11th doesn't fall on Bush, Clinton or even (it pains to admit) Jimmy Carter. Donald Rumsfeld isn't responsible for Danny Pearl and the dozen of staged-and-taped beheadings since. All these events were evil; all these events were the product of radical Islamic terrorists. To do evil is to be evil. To be American is to challenge and battle evil.

I say it deliberately. George Bush was among the first to recognize radical Islamic terrorism meant war. And so America dropped “containment,” and substituted the "Bush Doctrine":

1. We will fight for freedom. We reject moral relativism.



2. The friends of our enemies are also our enemies.



3. We reserve the right to hit our enemies before they strike us.



4. We will not negotiate with those who continue to support terrorism.

Old Europe balked, for principled reasons such as spite and bribes, and nearly undermined the President. Democrats unveiled a three prong-approach: deny America's at war, oppose nearly all wars and/or (think Kerry) stall.

This is a breathtaking retreat. Actions have consequences, which pre-occupy the left today. But, the Dems ignore the effect of inaction, far tougher to quantify. So the party of multi-culti was reborn as isolationists. Today, they appear un-concerned about Arab autocracy and weekly beheadings; they presume democracy's too good for the developing world; they recoil when Americans with even average rhetorical skills correctly call terrorists evil. Whatever this platform is, it ain’t “liberal.” In contrast, Bush's vision and actions saved thousands of lives, with recent growing optimism in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

The U.S. didn't have to land troops in the developing world a decade ago--unfortunately for the people of Rwanda and Burundi; luckily for those in Haiti and Kosovo. England and France didn't have to go to war in central Europe 65 years ago--but delaying the dispute doomed Austrians, Czechs and Poles, but hundreds of thousands of Brits and Frogs. So the election was a referendum on foreign policy, and Bush the choice, as James Lileks concluded in March:

[I]t's the war. That's what counts. If I had a choice between an isolationist Republican who would withdraw all American troops from everywhere and cast Israel adrift, OR a Joe Lieberman Democrat who understood the threat and wanted to take the fight to them - and nevermind what our valiant allies thought, like Russia - I'd pull the lever for the D. As I've said before: we can argue about the future of Western Civilization after we've ensured Western Civilization will survive.

More recently, the left blames everything on the decision to invade Iraq. Nonsense. The war’s not (or not just) about Iraq. As Bin Laden’s deputy Zarqawi said himself: "We do not wage our jihad in order to replace the Western tyrant with an Arab tyrant. We fight to make God's word supreme, and anyone who stands in the way of our struggle is our enemy, a target of our swords." The leader of the Islamic Army of Aden said much the same, after attacking a French ship, "We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels." Not just Americans, not just Jews, but Poles as well. Christians and agnostics. Buddhist monks and Voodoo witch doctors. Infidels. We're all infidels. Even liberal Democrats: Terrorists don't distinguish, so an ACLU card or San Francisco Chronicle subscription won't protect you. No amount of Kerry stickers can bomb-proof your "infidel" car.

Which is another plus for Bush—who didn’t give in. As shown by Ann Coulter and Charles Johnson, much of the left is terrified of Christianity, indifferent to Judaism--but staunch defenders of Islam. The left loathes mixing religion and politics--but Muslims get a "pass." Though Islam may, technically, qualify as a religion, liberals somehow forget that radical Muslims seek America's destruction. And they soft-pedal criticism of Islamic terrorism, even though core liberal rights and values would be the first casualty of Muslim Shari`ah law.

This is where I’m supposed to discuss jobs and condoms, the deficit and global warming. I don’t have it in me. True, I disagree with some of Bush’s domestic agenda. But, as Victor Davis Hanson said, such concerns can wait:

If White House politicos figured that many who were angered about out-of-control federal spending and immigration proposals would grumble, but not abandon Mr. Bush -- given the global stakes involved after September 11, and the specter of a new alternative foreign policy far to the left of that of a Warren Christopher and Madeline Albright -- then they were absolutely right.

So quit blaming the United States (out of misguided post-Colonial guilt). Killing election officials isn't a legitimate protest against the temporary coalition presence in Iraq. If terrorists aren't evil then evil has no meaning--except, perhaps, the evil flowing from failing to recognize, and fight, evil.

Supporting President Bush between now and the January 30th elections in Iraq would be an excellent New Year's resolution.