The consequences of ugliness

I wrote back in September about how Kerry's words were assisting the terrorists in their endeavors. If you look around, there's more evidence every day that this is true. A comment posted by National Review reader gives the perspective from China:

One of the things I find particularly distressing is how the careless and hateful rhetoric of Democrats and the media have been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the Chinese, who receive it via (God help us!) the BBC. Bush evil. Bush stupid. That's what my students believe; the dismissive tone of their voices, when they mention President Bush's name, speaks more than any words can. Democrats and the media are so insular, that they do not begin to conceive of the impact of their propaganda and how that shapes the way the rest of the world views us. What has poisoned the perception of the U.S. abroad is not the actions of GWB, but that of the Democrats and the media who noised abroad their disdain and lack of support for Dubya, all for political gain. Had the Democrats and media done what was right, the U.S. would be in different odor around the globe.

What makes the Democrats and/or Liberals (hmm, maybe we should just call them the Liberal party?) Bush-bashing most despicable, in my mind, is that in time of war, it is giving encouragement to the enemy. No matter who occupies the White House for the next four years, we will not be "respected abroad" on account of how negatively we speak of ourselves. It's like sneaking into a house you're buying and peeing on the walls to bring the price down. I recently discovered The Mesopotamian, a blog by an Iraqi man who is making the most of freedoms he never had under Sadaam. I think he's going to become regular reading for me anytime I have questions about whether the press is telling me the truth. A recent post about the U.S. elections and how they will affect Iraq was very interesting to me. (Sorry for the long quote, but this is how he wrote it.)

So, I have been, personally very attentive to the debates and positions of both candidates, and I have some thoughts which I would like to share with you, my American friends. To start with, Senator Kerry may be a very good man and quite patriotic. Also we have to respect the almost 50% of the American people who lean towards the democrats. I don’t know much about domestic issues in the States so naturally, as might be expected, the position of any Iraqi would be mainly influenced by the issue that most concerns him. Thus, regardless of all the arguments of both candidates the main problem is that President Bush now represents a symbol of defiance against the terrorists and it is a fact, that all the enemies of America, with the terrorists foremost, are hoping for him to be deposed in the upcoming elections. That is not to say that they like the democrats, but that they will take such an outcome as retreat by the American people, and will consequently be greatly encouraged to intensify their assault. The outcome here on the ground in Iraq seems to be almost obvious. In case President Bush loses the election there would be a massive upsurge of violence, in the belief, rightly or wrongly, by the enemy, that the new leadership is more likely to “cut and run” to use the phrase frequently used by some of my readers. And they would try to inflict as heavy casualties as possible on the American forces to bring about a retreat and withdrawal. It is crucial for them to remove this insurmountable obstacle which stands in their way. They fully realize that with continued American and allies’ commitment, they have no hope of achieving anything. On the other hand if President Bush is reelected, this will prove to them that the American people are not intimidated despite all their brutality, and that their cause is quite futile. Yes there is little doubt that an election victory by President Bush would be a severe blow and a great disappointment for all the terrorists in the World and all the enemies of America. I believe that such an outcome would result in despair and demoralization of the “insurgent elements” here in Iraq, and would lead to the pro-democracy forces gaining the upper hand eventually. Note that we are not saying that President Bush is perfect, nor even that he is better than the Senator, just that the present situation is such that a change of leadership at this crucial point is going to send an entirely wrong message to all the enemies. Unfortunately, it seems to me that many in the U.S. don’t quite appreciate how high the stakes are. The challenge is mortal, and you and we are locked in a War, a National Emergency; and in such circumstances partisan considerations must be of secondary importance.

Wow! The rest of the article (in fact, the rest of the blog, apparently) is just as to-the-point. Meanwhile, The Scotsman reports the evidence is in, and it shows that Saddam was using oil-for-food money to fund the PLO and other terrorist organizations.

The Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which is still working its way through 20,000 boxes of documents from Saddam’s Baath party discovered only recently, found a list of pressure groups bankrolled by Saddam. Using the United Nations’ own oil-for-food scheme - ironically intended as a sanction to control the behaviour of his dictatorship - Saddam gave Awad Ammora & Partners, a Syrian company, two million barrels of oil. Documents handed over to US authorities by a former Iraqi oil minister only four months ago show that this was a front for the PFLP - which was then embarked on a spate of car bombings aimed at Israeli officials.

The PFLP is the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a group which split from the PLO when the PLO agreed to peace talks, which should tell you something about what they stand for. When you look at the ever gathering evidence that France, Germany and Russia were each, in their own ways, on the take from Saddam, it's hard to see how Kerry can keep a straight face when accusing GWB of having a "coalition of the bribed". Finally, I've just purchased Ann Coulter's "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)", and by halfway through the second chapter, I'm loving it. Her book doesn't try to be persuasive to liberals, more to give evidence for conservatives. As a constitutional lawyer, she speaks from experience and a deep understanding of the law, though how much of her writing can be counted on as fact, I leave to you to decide on your own.