"ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE."

Saturday, December 11, 2004

WHY EUROPEANS LIKED POWELL MORE THAN THEY LIKED BUSH - AND MORE THAN THEY WILL LIKE CONDI

Old Europe always disliked Bush. They loved Clinton. But always hated Bush. Bush is a cowboy - and to Old Europe - and the Left everywhere - that's a bad thing.

Old Europe liked Saddam more than Bush. But it wasn't just personal. We all know why Old Europe fought in the UNSC to save Saddam: they were on his payroll - either directly through Oil-For-Food bribes, or indirectly through lucrative business dealings with Saddam's socialist regime.

What is slightly less understood is why Powell remained relatively popular among the Old Euorpeans - even as Bush wallowed in their irrational vitriol.

Powell did, after all, deliver the infamous UNSC WMD speech. Perhaps Old Europe forgave Powell this lapse because they think they "played" him - suckering him into thinking he had, in 1441, what amounted to a "declaration of war," when in fact they knew they wouldn't allow any such thing. (Of course, Bush out-smarted them all, by daring to act on his belief that "final chance or else" meant exactly that!)

The REAL reason that Powell remained popular in Old Europe was basically the same reason that Clinton WAS so popular in Old Europe. (HINT: Clinton met with Arafat in the White House more than any other foreign leader.)

YUP: Powell was so popular in Old Europe because he was the most pro-Arab member of the Administration; Powell - like most of the bureaucrats in the pro-Arab/Arabist State Department - always publicly sought to buttress Arafat and the Arabs and to undermine the hardline taken by Sharon - (a hardline that - it turns out - was very effective: the Second Intifada is over, and its use of terror failed miserably; this result strengthens all the free nations in the West who seek victory in the GWOT, and not merely appeasement and containment. Bush supported Sharon; Powell did not).

Old Europe has had two reasons for their accommodationist policies toward to Jihadoterror: first, Old Europe has a long and deep heritage of anti-Semitism; second, Old Europe has found decades of relative peace from Arafat and his minions by paying them blood money and obesiance - (Chirac gave Arafat's casket a full State send-off, and France still refuses to agree with the USA that Hizballah and Hamas are terrorists organizations - which allows them to continue to raise money for their Jihadoterror in France!).

NEED MORE PROOF? Consider this: The Jihadoterrorists consider Israel to be Little Satan and the USA Big Satan (because Israel couldn't continue to exist without USA support, in their view). Old Europe is NOT called "Middle Satan." And for this, Old Europe is relieved. They shouldn't be. Because, to the Jihadoterrorists, Old Europe is instead thought of as the future colony of the Caliphate! (And many believe that full colonization of Old Europe by Jihadoterrorists may be - for demographic reasons - an irreversible trend.) Anyhow, Old Europe has deluded themselves into believing that sacrificing Israel and the Jews has bought them relative security and safety.

Well, it's NOT totally delusiona: it has to some extent.. They HAVE been relatively free of Jihadoterror attacks for decades - except for anti-Semitic attacks inside Old Europe which were largely perpetrated by Arabs, and which Old Europeans largely ignored (until only recently). This feeling of success reinforced Old Europe's stance on Saddam: they concluded that if they paid off Saddam - the way they had Arafat, then Saddam wouldn't target them either. This, of course, really amounts to nothing more than surrendering to the enemy, (but that doesn't seem to bother Old Europe - even as Islam becomes their second largest religion - maybe the largest if one considers weekly participating adherents...)

The French in particular have for centuries relied on surrender as their favored way to resolve conflict and avoid war! (America and the UK have always been a little bit more stubborn when confronted by blood-thirsty tyrants.)

The Left in Old Europe seems to have even decided that it is better to pay ransom to Jihadoterrorists than to become Americanized, or Anglicized - if you will. So-called "American Cultural Hegemony" mobilizes more proactive efforts on the part of Old Europe than beheadings by Jihadoterrorists. Well, this isn't new; as Seinfeld famously joked: the French fought harder to keep out EuroDisney than they did to keep out the NAZI's!

But back on topic:

If - in the post-Arafat era (thank God the day came!) - the Arabs do not play ball (and that is not assured; though there are many hopeful signs that things may indeed be leading toward a global settlement of the Israeli-Arab conflict) then Condi will probably be tougher on the Arabs than Powell was, and in turn she'll be as popular there as her boss is - which is UN-popular. Well, that's all right with me!

NOTE: Clinton and Powell have sometimes been characterized as having been "more even-handed" in their approach to the Israeli-Arab conflict. But I believe people who want more pressure applied to Israel to make a deal with Arabs BEFORE Jihadoterrorism and anti-Semitic genocide is halted are making a false equivalence and are being anti-Semitic - and NOT just anti-Likud. Putting the IDF's defense of the sovereign state of Israel on par with the Palestinian Authority's lack of effort (at best) in fighting Jihadoterror (FATAH or HAMAS or any of the other Jihadoterrorist groups attempting to commit genocide against the Jews in Israel) is anti-Semitic.

This is not a side issue; this is the crux of the matter: Unless and until the P.A. makes an earnest effort to halt all Jihadoterror against Israel no bilateral deal - AND NO PEACE - is possible.

(ASIDE: Another reason that Bush is hated by many in Old Europe - one not to be ignored - is the fact that it is primarily the Left - the SOCIALISTS - of Old Europe who are most anti-American and pro-Jihadoterror: Zapotero and Schroeder are Socialists in name; Chirac isn't - but then: France is so far Left that even when Chirac thinks he's on the Right he's really on the Left!

Of all of Europe's socialists only Blair is a truly reformed socialist, and of all the Left-wing parties in Europe only New Labour is truly unwavering in its support for America, and its opposition to Jihadoterror. WHY? Because the UK and New Labour and Blair have been truly transformed by the Thatcher Revolution. The continent of Old Europe... well, they're still awaiting their "Thatcher."

I believe that the only hope for Old Europe is if they get their "Thatcher" before they become an Islamicized continent and a virtual colony of the Caliphate. The clock is ticking...)

No comments: