Sunday, March 06, 2005

Democrats Allied With The Terrorists

Or, at the very least, they're co-belligerents. Two recent items provide dismaying substantiation of that astounding reality.

Amir Taheri brings to our attention something for the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland that frankly dwarfs the furor generated by Eason Jordan's most recent defamation of the U. S. military:

Where is the country that Bill Clinton, a former president of the United States, feels ideologically most at home?

Before you answer, here is the condition that such a country must fulfill: It must hold several consecutive elections that produce 70% majorities for “liberals and progressives.”

Well, if you thought of one of the Scandinavian countries or, perhaps, New Zealand or Canada, you are wrong.

Believe it or not, the country Bill Clinton so admires is the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Here is what Clinton said at a meeting on the margins of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, just a few weeks ago: “Iran today is, in a sense, the only country where progressive ideas enjoy a vast constituency. It is there that the ideas that I subscribe to are defended by a majority.”

And here is what Clinton had to say in a recent television interview with Charlie Rose:

“Iran is the only country in the world that has now had six elections since the first election of President Khatami (in 1997). (It is) the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals, or the progressives, have won two-thirds to 70% of the vote in six elections: Two for president; two for the Parliament, the Majlis; two for the mayoralties. In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70% of the vote. There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own.” [emphases mine]

The mind boggles at such idiocy. As Mr. Taheri goes on to detail at great length, the "liberals and progressives" to which Clinton warmly refers are nothing of the sort, they share the same Islamic fundamentalist extremism as the mullahs who control them (or they'd never have gotten into office), and they were never "elected" because Iran is a theocratic dictatorship whose "elections" are about as bona fide as those of Saddam Hussein and the old Soviet Union. Iran is a hellhole where fourteen year old boys are flogged to death for missing curfews, women are executed for not covering their faces, and any challenge whatsoever to the absolutist rule of the mullahgarchy is immediately and viciously smashed.

Bill Clinton is supposed to be a vastly intelligent man (at least where women aren't involved) and a voracious reader of history and culture. Is it really possible, even conceivable, that such a man can be cut a pass as being "woefully misinformed"? Or, as a charter member of the America-hating extreme Left, does he look upon even a gang of fascists like the one in Tehran, which is driving pell-mell toward obtaining nuclear weapons to use against American cities, and see only fellow anti-Americans with whom to make common cause?

Perhaps we should ask a member of his National Security Council:

A senior Clinton administration national security official offered a stunning admission this week, confessing during a national television interview that Democrats are secretly rooting for the Bush Administration's war on terrorism to fail.

In comments largely overlooked by the mainstream press, former Clinton National Security Council member Nancy Soderberg discussed the recent outbreak of democracy in the Middle East with Daily Show host Jon Stewart.

"As a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to have progress," Soderberg observed, before quickly adding, "But as an American, you hope good things would happen."

However, Soderberg quickly undermined her own caveat, noting, "It's scary for Democrats, I have to say."

There it is. It's like we've always said about liberal Democrats: they put party before country. They'd rather see America collapse into anarchy, poverty, and ruin, rather than Republicans benefit politically from peace and prosperity. The latter is what she describes as "scary" for her party. And all the more so since it is all the less deniable that the current peace and prosperity, to say nothing of the burgeoning transformation of the Middle East, are a direct product of the policies of the Bush Administration.

Is there any limit to this brazen sedition? It would seem not:

After noting that the U.S.'s remarkable foreign policy success followed the toppling of one of the three members of the axis of evil, Soderberg suggested again that the more success America has in defeating global terrorism, the worse it is for her party.

"Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's still hope for the rest of us. ...There's always hope that this might not work." [my emphasis]

Even Jon Stewart was left all but speechless by this traitorous candor.

Ms. Soderberg's words should be remembered if and when we're hit again, particularly with a WMD attack. They should also be the historical prism through which the 9/11 attacks are viewed. It's her crowd that let the threat of al Qaeda fester and grow unchecked, her crowd that left us wide open and vulnerable to such attacks, and her crowd that is rooting for our enemies to land further, even worse blows and deal us devastating setbacks. All so that they can swoop in like vultures and try to make political hay out of it.

That's the latest, heinous depth of the American Left: wishing mass death and destruction upon the fruited plain, all so that they can take their self-appointed place as rulers of a poisoned realm.