Bush: Lesser of the 2 Evil Moderates

Submitted by Rob James (United States), Oct 25, 2004 at 18:13

I do maintain the views of my previous post regarding Bush's partisanship, but I feel it dangerous to believe that the next logical step is to think that Kerry will be America's and Israel's cup of tea.

One of Kerry's primary objectives in international politics is the rebuilding of international alliances; which I think will lead to a counter-productive situation for Israel. In order to gain our idealist Eurabian allies back, we may have to run the risk of offering a less-than-kosher roadmap for Israel. Iraq is a less of an important subject than one might think, considering the efforts for rebuilding it will be essencially identical no matter who is elected. Soon after stability is maintained, the focus will once again turn to Israel, with the UN and Europe at the forefront.

Bush put us in an ideal position for supporting Israel, despite his administration's inconsistency. We have cut ties with Europe and thusly completely annulled the UN's whacko Eurabian attempts to delegitimitize Israel's right to self defense on numerous occasions. Bush has also declared Hamas to be a terrorist organization, which is a decisive blow to the financial proselytizing done in liberal Universities.

The focus on Iraq which both Bush and Kerry take seems to be purely on national interests. It was/is in Israel's interest to remove Saddam since he financially supported the families of successful Palestinian suicide bombers. More importantly, the insurgents in Iraq are NOT Saddam loyalists, as both Bush and Kerry believe. If they were, we would not have found Saddam alone in a spiderhole. Rather, the insurgents are Terrorists from the surrounding Arab nations which jump at the chance of becoming Shaheeds while fighting Americans. This isn't something caused by the invasion.

Both Bush and Kerry will allow Iraq to become Islamist as long as it's done "democratically". This would effectively contradict everything we have been fighting for in my mind. Imagine the destructive implications of a US sattelite country in the midst of Arabia, or an American-Israeli-Babylonian alliance? It would be possible if we took a hard stance on Islamic theocracy in Iraq.

Bush has accidentally done the right thing on all occasions. His problem lies in that he refuses to be completely consistent. Things such as his statement that he would have no problem with a "democratically elected" Islamic government in Iraq; his support for Palestinian statehood and his poor stance regarding "the wall"; his refusal to reconsider the prominance of so-called "moderate Islam"; and his support for gay "civil unions" while claiming to protect the sanctity of marriage otherwise. Bush is far from the Christian Cowboy fundamentalist the left likes to portray him as, and perhaps this is the problem. Nonetheless, this Christian Zionist fundamentalist will vote for him in November.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".