At a press conference in Vienna on Wednesday, a questioner asked President Bush, "Most Europeans consider the United States the biggest threat to global stability. Do you have any regrets about that?" Could that man with a British accent actually have been a DNC plant?
Of course, I don't believe DNC Chairman Howard Dean really put him up to the question. I don't think Dean was there. He was back in the United States collaborating with his party leaders to write lyrics for the very same songbook.
For years, Democrats have charged that President Bush has employed an arrogant approach to foreign policy and alienated our European allies. They denounced him for refusing to endorse the Kyoto climate change treaty and the International Criminal Court. They shuddered with horror when he designated Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil." They said he acted unilaterally on Iraq. They said he hasn't been deferential enough toward the United Nations. They said his cowboy approach to the war on terror was creating more terrorists than it was capturing or killing.
Former President Clinton snuggled up to the America-bashers at a global conference in Montreal last December, telling them Bush was "flat wrong" that signing on to the Kyoto treaty would damage the U.S. economy. An appreciative attendee, Kenya's Emily Ojoo Massawa, chair of the African group of nations at the conference, said, "It's such a pity the United States is still very much unwilling to join the international community, to have a multilateral effort to deal with climate change." Obviously, the Democrats' talking points memo on Bush's "unilateralism" made its way to Kenya.
Howard Dean, during his 15 minutes of presidential contender fame in 2003, slammed President Bush for his "go-it-alone approach to every problem," his "radical unilateralism" and his "brash boastfulness." Bush, said Dean, has "created a new rallying cry for terrorist recruits." As if auditioning for a role as questioner in the 2006 press conference in Vienna, Dean said, "We find ourselves, too often, isolated and resented." The Bush administration, said Dean, "seem[s] to believe that nothing can be gained from working with nations that have stood by our side as allies for generations."
Demonstrating his softness on American sovereignty, Dean added that he "would not have hesitated" to attack Iraq "had the United Nations given us permission and asked us to be a part of a multilateral force." (Not that we're keeping track, of course, but this same Howard Dean had urged President Clinton to enter the war in Bosnia in 1995, saying, "the efforts of the United Nations and NATO in Bosnia are a complete failure. … We must take unilateral action.") But I digress.
Early in 2002, former President Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said President Bush's "axis of evil" designation was a "big mistake" and was alienating our allies. Albright said Bush's conduct of foreign policy was causing many in the international community to believe the United States had "lost [its] mind." Sound familiar?
Albright criticized the "axis of evil" designation as a simplistic, "cookie-cutter approach. Those three countries, specifically, are quite different from each other." But as events are shaping up, President Bush's grouping of the three rogue nations doesn't look quite so incongruous anymore. I'm sure you've read by now that Saddam Hussein really did have WMD.
Moreover, now that we've deposed Saddam Hussein, Iran and North Korea are looking more alike every day, especially in their belligerence toward the United States. I wonder if liberals would mind if we redesignated North Korea and Iraq as twin monsters? They are each run by terrorists and sympathetic to other terrorists who might do their bidding against America. They are each hellbent on developing WMD, including nuclear weapons and delivery systems. They have each demanded talks with the United States alone.
But these monsters may be offended if we call them monsters. So let's not agitate them. Let's not make the monsters mad. Let's quit making the whole world mad. We must do something to reverse our falling poll numbers in Europe. And we must negotiate with each of the monsters alone, excluding European countries from the talks. (Sorry, I know that last line sounds off-script from those who have been insisting on multilateralism and the inclusion of Europe. But that is, indeed, what many Democrats have been demanding.)
Perhaps the reason these monsters want to negotiate with just America is simply to divide (us from Europe) and conquer (discredit us). By peeling us off from Europe, they can blame any breakdowns in the respective negotiations on the evil United States.
That strategy makes perfect sense from the monsters' perspective. But why in the world would Democrats advocate such a self-destructive approach for America? Don't ask me. Try the guy with the British accent. He would probably have better insight on the matter.