One more sore loser
Newsmax does us the favor (?) of bringing to our attention the latest missive from our old friend, George Soros, distributed via email to his supporters the other day:
Soros charged that when the President declared war on terror, "he used that war to invade Iraq. When no connection with Al Qaeda could be established and no weapons of mass destruction could be found, he declared that we invaded Iraq to introduce democracy."
In point of fact Mr. Bush cited all three as part of his case for liberating Iraq. What he emphasized was Saddam's defiance of eighteen UNSCRs, including #1441 that promised "severe consequences" in the event of noncompliance. And Saddam didn't comply.
Also in point of fact, there is a long and documented history of collaboration between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. The case that couldn't be definitively made was that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11, and the Bush Administration never attempted to make that case.
We are now, he predicts, "about to convert elections in Iraq into a civil war between a Shi'a-Kurd dominated government and a Sunni insurrection," a charge the Administration and Iraqi officials deny.
Boy, is HE in for a shock. As John Podorhetz observed yesterday, the principle reason for such diehard, unfounded pessimism is because White House foes are desperate to "pre-empt" any public perception of success for the Bush Iraq policy and the Bush Doctrine in general.
But even if Soros' prediction were at all likely, it would argue for our continued military presence in Iraq, not cutting and running.
Moreover, Soros, a rabid internationalist, insisted that in Iraq and beyond, "when Bush says that 'freedom will prevail,' many interpret him to mean that America will prevail. This has impugned our motives and deprived us of whatever moral authority we once had in intervening in other countries' domestic affairs."
No, "when Bush says that 'freedom will prevail,' people like George Soros interpret him to mean that 'America will prevail.' Just as it is people like George Soros who constantly impugne our motives and try to deprive us of whatever moral authority we once had."
And we did NOT "intervene in Iraq's domestic affairs." That description fits Bill Clinton's military adventures in Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo, none of which I've ever seen that Mr. Soros has ever had a problem with.
Soros boasts that he has spent billions around the world using "foundations operating on the ground and led by citizens who understand the limits of the possible in their countries.
"To explain what is wrong with the new Bush doctrine, I have to invoke the concept of open society," he wrote, adding that this concept has guided him in his efforts "to foster freedom around the world."
You'll note he provides no examples. And he is AGAINST "fostering freedom" in Iraq.
The U.S., "the most successful open society in the world," he wrote, does not "properly understand the first principles of an open society; indeed, its current leadership actively disavows them. The concept of open society is based on the recognition that nobody possesses the ultimate truth, and that to claim otherwise leads to repression. In short, we may be wrong."
Morally relativistic nonsense. Soros claims to understand what goes into making a "successful open society" yet denies the very principles of America's founding, which the President eloquently proclaimed a week ago today.
The President, however, refuses to acknowledge the possibility that he is wrong, "and his denial appeals to a significant segment of the American public" – the people who elected him twice, to Soros' dismay.
Why would he acknowledge such a thing? History has vindicated him and repudiated ignorant left-wing know-nothings like Soros. The analysis of which the Belmont Club gets into at some length today.
Soros says of the recent election that an "equally significant segment is appalled. This has left the US not only deeply divided, but also at loggerheads with much of the rest of the world, which considers our policies high-handed and arbitrary."
Ah - like the same den of thieves, murderers, and dictators that gave us the Oily Food scandal, I presume. Gotcha.
Mr. Soros wouldn't recognize "a real open society" if it bit him in the ass. Otherwise, he'd recognize, as the President does, that promoting freedom and democracy - which used to be a liberal staple - is entirely consistent with American values and interests.
But then, "a real open society" DID bite him in the ass - last November 2nd.
And chances are he'll never get over it.
Soros charged that when the President declared war on terror, "he used that war to invade Iraq. When no connection with Al Qaeda could be established and no weapons of mass destruction could be found, he declared that we invaded Iraq to introduce democracy."
In point of fact Mr. Bush cited all three as part of his case for liberating Iraq. What he emphasized was Saddam's defiance of eighteen UNSCRs, including #1441 that promised "severe consequences" in the event of noncompliance. And Saddam didn't comply.
Also in point of fact, there is a long and documented history of collaboration between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. The case that couldn't be definitively made was that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11, and the Bush Administration never attempted to make that case.
We are now, he predicts, "about to convert elections in Iraq into a civil war between a Shi'a-Kurd dominated government and a Sunni insurrection," a charge the Administration and Iraqi officials deny.
Boy, is HE in for a shock. As John Podorhetz observed yesterday, the principle reason for such diehard, unfounded pessimism is because White House foes are desperate to "pre-empt" any public perception of success for the Bush Iraq policy and the Bush Doctrine in general.
But even if Soros' prediction were at all likely, it would argue for our continued military presence in Iraq, not cutting and running.
Moreover, Soros, a rabid internationalist, insisted that in Iraq and beyond, "when Bush says that 'freedom will prevail,' many interpret him to mean that America will prevail. This has impugned our motives and deprived us of whatever moral authority we once had in intervening in other countries' domestic affairs."
No, "when Bush says that 'freedom will prevail,' people like George Soros interpret him to mean that 'America will prevail.' Just as it is people like George Soros who constantly impugne our motives and try to deprive us of whatever moral authority we once had."
And we did NOT "intervene in Iraq's domestic affairs." That description fits Bill Clinton's military adventures in Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo, none of which I've ever seen that Mr. Soros has ever had a problem with.
Soros boasts that he has spent billions around the world using "foundations operating on the ground and led by citizens who understand the limits of the possible in their countries.
"To explain what is wrong with the new Bush doctrine, I have to invoke the concept of open society," he wrote, adding that this concept has guided him in his efforts "to foster freedom around the world."
You'll note he provides no examples. And he is AGAINST "fostering freedom" in Iraq.
The U.S., "the most successful open society in the world," he wrote, does not "properly understand the first principles of an open society; indeed, its current leadership actively disavows them. The concept of open society is based on the recognition that nobody possesses the ultimate truth, and that to claim otherwise leads to repression. In short, we may be wrong."
Morally relativistic nonsense. Soros claims to understand what goes into making a "successful open society" yet denies the very principles of America's founding, which the President eloquently proclaimed a week ago today.
The President, however, refuses to acknowledge the possibility that he is wrong, "and his denial appeals to a significant segment of the American public" – the people who elected him twice, to Soros' dismay.
Why would he acknowledge such a thing? History has vindicated him and repudiated ignorant left-wing know-nothings like Soros. The analysis of which the Belmont Club gets into at some length today.
Soros says of the recent election that an "equally significant segment is appalled. This has left the US not only deeply divided, but also at loggerheads with much of the rest of the world, which considers our policies high-handed and arbitrary."
To which the proper answer is: so what? Funny that for a man who makes such a show of embracing moral relativism, he sure has an absolutist view of the inerrancy of "world opinion."
A real open society, Soros wrote, would be able to distinguish "between promoting freedom and democracy and promoting American values and interests. If it is freedom and democracy that we want, we can foster it only by strengthening international law and international institutions."Ah - like the same den of thieves, murderers, and dictators that gave us the Oily Food scandal, I presume. Gotcha.
Mr. Soros wouldn't recognize "a real open society" if it bit him in the ass. Otherwise, he'd recognize, as the President does, that promoting freedom and democracy - which used to be a liberal staple - is entirely consistent with American values and interests.
But then, "a real open society" DID bite him in the ass - last November 2nd.
And chances are he'll never get over it.
posted by JASmius at 12:47 PM
<<< Home