The Diplomatic Achievments of George W Bush

The Diplomatic Achievments of George W Bush
Current mood: pugnacious

The oft repeated lie can become truth and the Democratic Party are masters of it. Barak Hussein Obama repeated his Party's most common lie-made-truth-through-repetition at the debate last week- that we need his messianic leadership to restore our supposedly damaged diplomatic position in the world. Democrats say this all the time, but how true is it? Shall we examine facts rather than Leftist rhetoric?

I'd start with Africa, and George W Bush's visit there earlier this year. The women there wore images of his face on their dresses as they danced for him. George W Bush made his AIDS relief program for that continent early in his presidency and the Africans love him for it. Our relations with most of Sub-Saharan Africa are better than they've ever been.

Next let's jet across the Indian Ocean to the Indian Subcontinent. As Bill Clinton's Utopian Presidency drew to a close in January, 2001, it is important to remember that we had economic sanctions against both India and Pakistan, which represent more than a quarter of the world's population. Think on this, Pakistan was a nuclear power, had no trade relations with the US, and was a military dictatorship allied with the Taliban. Pakistan still has a long way to go, but today they are a US ally and have an elected government, a pro-US government elected by Pakistan's people. In the last seven years, they've come far. Likewise relations have been normalized with India and they are considering purchasing our jets for their Air Force. This is unprecedented. India purchases most of its weaponry from Russia, and some from Britain. They've never used US weapons before.

In December, 2003, Libya surrendered a huge cache of WMDs in the wake of our invasion of Iraq. These included chemical weapons and even a nascent nuclear weapons program. They were also working on long-range missiles to deliver these weapons. If the only good that came out of the war in Iraq was this abandonment, it would have been worth it a hundred times over.

Likewise the people of Lebanon rose up and threw out the Syrians in early 2004. It was because freedom was on the rise in the Middle East. Naturally with the return to power of Liberals who hate freedom, the Lebanese have lost their moxy in standing up to tyranny.

The French and the Germans both had pro-American Conservatives win office and throw out old Socialists who like to look down their noses at us. Nicolas Sarkozy delivered an address to Congress praising America to the skies early this year. France elected someone like this in a time when America is "hated"?

In the 2006 election in Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, the Conservative President, argued that his Socialist opponent, Romano Prodi, was Anti-American and that he would harm Italy's relations with the US. Prodi fired back saying that he would ensure cordial relations with the US. Italy is so mad at America that its electorate needs to be reassured that its president won't anger the US? That is a contradiction.

Liberals cite massive antiwar demonstrations in Europe as proof that Europe is angry at America because of George W Bush. But it is important to remember that in every Western NATO country (and neutral as well) there was ten or more percent of the population that wanted the USSR to win the Cold War and build a Communist Europe. Thirty years ago both West Germany and Italy had Red Brigades active commiting acts of terrorism. In December, 1981 Italian Reds kidnapped an American General and held him for over a month in Fair Verona. The Christian Democrat Coalition defeated the Communist Party Coalition in the 1976 Italian elections by a margin of 37%-34%.

At the big Antiwar rally in Milan, the Red Banners of Socialism flew proudly, and many demonstrators carried pictures of Joseph Stalin. It's obvious where these peoples' allegiance lies. Nothing America will do, other than surrender control of our country to the Communist Party, will please these people. So why bother trying?

In Mexico's 2006 election a similar incident to what happened in Italy occured. Conservative Felipe Calderon claimed that Leftist Manuel Obrador would be another Hugo Chavez and would strain Mexico's relations with America. Obrador forcefully responded that this was not true, that he would make a favorable enviroment for trade with the US. Even people slightly to the Left of center in Mexico don't want an America Hater running their country.

Speaking of Hugo Chavez, he was giving one of his usual bombastic Castroesque speeches in a Ibero-American summit late in 2007. After a tirade of false accusations, the Spanish King Juan Carlos I, interjected and said, "why don't you just shut up?" From Tijuana to Tierra del Fuego to Tarragon, Spanish speaking people put the monarch's quip as a ring-tone for their cell-phones. This is hardly an indication of sympathy with Chavez's views of America and Bush.

Bush gathered together China, Japan, South Korea and Russia to deal with a Clinton boondoggle, North Korea's nuclear ambitions. We've gotten North Korea to abandon nukes, for now. Bush cleaned up after Clinton here, not vice-versa.

Our relations with Russia are somewhat strained at the moment. Is this Bush's fault? I hardly think Russia's desire to reclaim an empire it had before his father was born is his fault. What's more, Russia's recent invasion of Georgia, and chewing off a piece of it, was modeled on America's intervention in Serbia and chewing off Kossovo from it. Serbia is Russia's traditional sphere-of-influence for the past 200 years. Russia became involved in World War I to protect Serbia. And when did we do the Kossovo campaign? In 1999, during Clinton's paradisical presidency.

So where has Bush damaged America's credibility? The short answer is, he has not. Clinton went into a country unilaterally without French or German approval- Bosnia. Naturally the media doesn't spin it as something that damaged our credibility. Sheryl Crowe, Antiwar pinhead, went to sing in Bosnia. Truthfully, many of our relations today are a lot more stable and sturdy than were ten years ago.

Yes, China and Russia, both of whom have Imperial ambitions, would prefer to have a weakling like Obama running our country. Does that mean we should be subservient and elect him?