Democrat honchos, while forever complaining that President Bush has hurt America's image in the world, have themselves been engaged in a systematic campaign to slander President Bush, particularly over foreign policy, consequently undermining America's image in the world.
Indeed, if you wanted to discredit America in the eyes of other nations, how would you go about doing it? Would you:
Constantly wring your hands over our alleged torture of terrorist detainees, likening certain mildly tough and infrequently implemented interrogation techniques to the worst kinds of torture practiced in history?
Falsely accuse high administration officials of virtually authorizing certain renegade military personnel of employing clearly unapproved interrogation methods?
Unconscionably accuse the Bush administration of lying about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction to deceive the public into support for the war? (Sorry for repeating this one, but its egregiousness requires that it be on every list, no matter how often.)
Ludicrously accuse the Bush administration of attacking Iraq for the purpose of exploiting Middle Eastern oil?
Lambaste the administration for "unilaterally" attacking Iraq, though, in fact, many other nations were on board and we earnestly tried to recruit others, including those whose intelligence agencies agreed that Saddam had WMD stockpiles -- not to mention that some of them had been bought off by Saddam?
Downplay any good news coming out of Iraq, especially concerning the Iraqi people's steady march toward constitutional autonomy?
Also downplay just how brutal Saddam's regime was and sometimes even imply Iraq is worse off now than under Saddam?
Portray the terrorist anarchists sabotaging the Iraqis' drive for freedom as insurgents, freedom fighters or revolutionaries: those with different, yet morally equivalent ideas on Iraq's governance?
Promote the convenient canard that our preemptively motivated military action against Iraq has caused otherwise peacefully inclined Islamic radicals to hate us? (France, anyone?)
Speciously argue the Wilson/Plame debacle besmirches the entire administration even though the very Scooter Libby indictment you cite as validation for your charge is a precise refutation of it?
Cite that same Libby indictment, which is bereft of evidence implicating anyone in the administration of violating any crimes pertaining to national security, as a compelling reason for President Bush to "clean house"?
Depict the United States as the singular demon on the world stage for refusing to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol even though its essential premises are highly suspect and it could wreck our economy and severely compromise our sovereignty?
Suggest, directly or directly, that the United States is responsible for "widespread" feelings of ill will around the globe against it?
With respect to this last point I refer you to a recent episode of "Hannity and Colmes" involving anti-American protests in Argentina accompanying the president's recent visit there for the Summit of the Americas. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez egged on the protestors by denouncing President Bush as "Mr. Danger," and the United States as "the evil empire."
Guest Susan Estrich, anticipating that guest Ann Coulter might partially blame American liberals for the protest, said, "I don't know a single soul who's protesting down there. I don't think … that we (liberals) are responsible for them. You can't blame us for what's going on down there."
Then, amazingly, Estrich turned right around and said, "I do think that one of the issues they're protesting about is the War in Iraq, and I do think the president is vulnerable, obviously, because Karl Rove is still under investigation. He's refusing to comment about that. He's refusing to say anything about the fact that Scooter Libby is pleading in court now … And, you know the more we hear the more it becomes clear that we were lied to about the basis for this war, and at some point there's going to have to be some reckoning here, and I think we would be in a stronger position if the president would be more forthcoming on that."
In other words, Susan, perhaps the violent protests in Argentina against us are our "reckoning" for President Bush's "lies" to get us into war and refusal to be forthcoming?
If this weren't such a familiar routine it would be jaw-dropping. Liberals have become so used to defaming President Bush, it apparently doesn't occur to them that they are doing much more to harm America's image than President Bush.
How can we possibly expect other nations -- even our allies (who one would reasonably assume not to be as loyal as our own opposition party) -- to hold us in high esteem while that opposition party daily proclaims that our president is an uncompassionate, dishonest, Machiavellian, imperialist, racist, oil-thieving, unilateralist, sadistic, torturing cowboy hell-bent on alienating peaceful Muslims the world over?