Hatred's Root Cause

Think the "Chocolate producing nations" hate America because of Bush? Eric at No Parasan is appropriately skeptical:

[T]he fact that members of the "peace camp" end up looking like they support autocrats and tyrannical régimes is entirely imputable to Dubya's arrogance, since that state of affairs is, needless to say, an unheard-of anomaly that has nothing to do with the reality of their friendship with Uncle Sam and the sharing, through the decades, of the common goals of democracy for all.

And he's got proof Bush isn't to blame, including this quote:

The French last night welcomed the Democratic gains in Tuesday's United States elections as good news. The government took no official position, but many French officials are known to hope that the Democrats will use their control of the House and their strengthened Senate position to press for a more conciliatory policy toward Communist China and toward the Soviet area in general. Many responsible French officials feel that the United States must agree to a recognition of Red China if only as the first step toward organizing an Asiatic defense on an acceptance of realities.

That appeared after the mid-term elections--in November 1954.

It's not Bush, it's envy. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

(via Instapundit)

More:

In the daily edition of the Weekly Standard, AEI's Tom Donnelly nails the blame Bush crowd here in America:

[T]he U.S. government can't eliminate every outpost of tyranny at once (although, ironically, the president's inaugural was criticized for championing precisely this). And if the Bush administration can't help everyone equally and simultaneously, what criteria should it use in setting priorities? [Democrats don't] offer any prescription, other than to say that President Bush doesn't have the right one.

And there's that annoying necessity to exercise power and, horror of horrors, from time to time, military force, in the face of tyranny. So "even a triumph like the vote in Iraq is not enough to convince the world that the administration is using liberal rhetoric as principle rather than as a euphemism for neo-imperialism." Rather than using the U.S. military, "the State Department's diplomatic corps should be the frontline of efforts to fortify vulnerable democracies worldwide." Apparently liberalism can only be principled if you're not willing to fight for it.

If the Republicans have not yet fully come 'round to being the party of Lincoln again, the Democrats have never been further estranged from the tradition of Truman. It remains to be seen if liberals in the Democratic party can fashion a coherent response to President Bush's foreign policy agenda. For now, however, the cause of international liberalism is no longer theirs.