Maybe The Democrats And Their Media Buddies Should Try Silence, Or At Least Some Honesty
Captain Ed posts excerpts from a Tom Friedman piece advising President Bush to practice silence when he visits Europe next month.
Let me put this as bluntly as I can: There is nothing that the Europeans want to hear from George Bush, there is nothing that they will listen to from George Bush that will change their minds about him or the Iraq war or U.S. foreign policy. Mr. Bush is more widely and deeply disliked in Europe than any U.S. president in history. Some people here must have a good thing to say about him, but I haven’t met them yet.In such an environment, the only thing that Mr. Bush could do to change people’s minds about him would be to travel across Europe and not say a single word – but just listen. If he did that, Mr. Bush would bowl the Europeans over. He would absolutely disarm and flummox people here – and improve his own image markedly.
No, Mr. Friedman, the one who may need to practice silence is the Democrat Party. Besides the fact that Europeans would still find plenty to criticize even if Bush said nothing (remember the smirk and the swagger), the fact that the Democrats oppose for opposition’s sake almost every word that President Bush utters, and that an anti-Bush media cast every story in the light least favorable to the administration, probably has as much to do with what the world thinks about Bush as what Bush says. Remember, Europeans are not just hearing Bush’s speeches. They are also hearing American congressmen and women calling the President, and his entire foreign policy team, liars and worse.
If there were some Democrats who would be honest and take on the leaders of their flailing party by speaking the truth, that would do more good than any silent tour of Europe. Just imagine if Harry Reid decided to really meet the President halfway and work for unity by very publicly admitting that EVERYONE IN THE WORLD, including Democrats, believed Saddam had WMD, but that Democrats just didn’t think that was a good enough reason to go to war. But then, of course, they would have to admit that WMD in the hands of a madman who had proclaimed his hatred for the U.S., had attempted to assassinate a former U.S. President, and that Russia had warned us was planning a terrorist attack on American soil and American interests overseas, was not considered enough reason for Democrats to go to war.
Instead we hear claims that Bush and Condi and Rumsfeld LIED. Nevermind that there is a paper trail a mile long showing that not only Bush, but all the Democrats, the U.N., France, and everyone else with a brain believed Saddam had WMD. The media can’t be concerned with facts when they can just repeat the “Bush lied” mantra. The Democrats and the lying liberal media have done all they can to present the world a picture of a lying President who misled the country into an unnecessary war. Then they want to blame Bush alone for the impression the world has of him. They will accept none of the responsibility. That is too bad for them. They will continue to lose elections until they come clean with American voters.
As for what Bush should say in Europe, I agree with Captain Ed:
Too long have we remained silent about global threats before 9/11. The solution to the problem isn’t silence, but continually challenging the European electorate to rouse themselves from their defeatism and knee-jerk pacifism. They don’t like George Bush because he reminds them that the European public can’t even defend themselves any more, let alone assist us in our security issues.
UPDATE: David Limbaugh has a similar take on Mr. Friedman’s idea, but goes on to provide evidence of just how stupid the idea is by recalling what has happened everytime the President has “just listened” to the Democrats.
Subscribe to blog feed.