Commentary by Mathias Döpfner
A few days ago Henryk M. Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe – your family name is appeasement." It’s a phrase you can’t get out of your head because it’s so terribly true.
Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements. Appeasement stabilized communism in the Soviet Union and East Germany in that part of Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo and we Europeans debated and debated until the Americans came in and did our work for us. Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians. Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore 300,000 victims of Saddam’s torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, to issue bad grades to George Bush. A particularly grotesque form of appeasement is reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by suggesting that we should really have a Muslim holiday in Germany.
What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians and directed against our free, open Western societies.
It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than the great military conflicts of the last century—a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by tolerance and accommodation but only spurred on by such gestures, which will be mistaken for signs of weakness.
Two recent American presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. Reagan ended the Cold War and Bush, supported only by the social democrat Blair acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic fight against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.
In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner instead of defending liberal society’s values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China. On the contrary—we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to the intolerant, as world champions in tolerance, which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we’re so moral? I fear it’s more because we’re so materialistic.
For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy—because everything is at stake.
While the alleged capitalistic robber barons in American know their priorities, we timidly defend our social welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive. We’d rather discuss the 35-hour workweek or our dental health plan coverage. Or listen to TV pastors preach about "reaching out to murderers." These days, Europe reminds me of an elderly aunt who hides her last pieces of jewelry with shaking hands when she notices a robber has broken into a neighbor’s house. Europe, thy name is cowardice.
Hat tip: Dennis Prager Show yesterday.
posted by The WordSmith from Nantucket at 11/16/2005 11:25:00 AM
9 Comments:
Reagan ended the Cold War
I think you give too much credit to Reagan. The Cold War ended on his watch...but it was not his doing.
The Cold War ended because Communism finally asserted its nature as an untenable economic system. It was bound to fail, it was only a matter of time.
I think you give too much credit to Reagan.
Tell it to the German who wrote the article.
Your opinion isn't anything I haven't heard before; and when Afghanistan and Iraq are finally thriving democracies, changing the face of the Middle East, I'm sure those on the Left will do everything they can to spin it so that credit to George W. Bush is minimized.
Reagan's policies did help drive the Soviet Union into bankruptcy.
The Cold War ended because Communism finally asserted its nature as an untenable economic system. It was bound to fail, it was only a matter of time.
Must explain why China is a thriving economic powerhouse right now.
Reagan most definitely did end the cold war. And it was he who did it in spite of the Democrats cries of Appeasement. I seem to recall that at the time, the Democrats were complaining that Reagans bold assertion that The Soviet Union was an evil empire was sure to embroil us in World War III. Obviously, it didn't.
Good speech you found Wordsmith. I personally am fed up with the way the Liberals are whining about Bush taking the decisive action he has taken.
I wonder what they would have done differently?
If you want to know what I think, I think if Kerry was president now, he would have done the exact same thing and the Liberals would be bitching at him now, instead of Bush.
Great speech! Liberals refuse to acknowledge the process of global democratic liberty or give credit where credit is due for these achievements.
In the coming years, and the world sees democracy spreading throughout the Middle East, Europe will be left behind to fend for themselves with little sympathy. It is only then they will be begging the U.S. for help and kicking their righteous asses for their cowardliness.
Maybe you should hammer out yourself a conscience, you asshole. But before you do, read this
Would true conservatives countenance the fiscal rape of their children and grandchildren?
One thing the Bush Administration clearly has been very good at is focusing the attention of the press (and by extension the American people) on issues that they want to highlight. This has had the effect of advancing the Bush agenda, but has had the added effect of deflecting focus away from things that the Administration does not want to highlight. One of those issues is clearly the rampant, runaway spending of your tax dollars by Bush and the Republican majority congress. At this point there can be no doubt that, as they try to focus your attention on issues like stem cells and Supreme Court nominations, Bush and the Republican Congress are spending us all into a hole from which it will take us, our children and our grandchildren years to recover.
You don’t need to take my word for this, nor the words of any democrat or Bush-hater. You need only to read what conservatives like George Will are saying, or the people at conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute recently completed a report on the spending habits of all US presidents during the last 40 years. If you’re interested in reading the report I’ve included a link at the end of this post.
If you want to continue to believe that Bush and Congressional Republicans are “on your side” or if you care only about saving stem cells and banning gay marriage perhaps you should read no further. But if you’re interested in the truth and are concerned about your financial well-being and that of your children, perhaps you should read on. Here’s some of what the Cato Institute report had to say about presidential spending over the last 40 years:
All presidents presided over net increases in spending. As it turns out George W. Bush is one of the biggest spenders of them all. In fact he is an even bigger spender than Lyndon B. Johnson in terms of discretionary spending.
The increase in discretionary spending in Bush’s first term was 48.5% in nominal terms. That’s more than twice as large as the increase in discretionary spending during Clinton’s entire 2 terms (21.6%) and higher than Lyndon B. Johnson’s entire discretionary spending spree (48.3%).
Adjusting the budget trends for inflation Bush looks even worse; his spending rate is much higher then Lyndon Johnson’s. In other words, Bush expanded federal non-entitlement programs in his first term almost twice as fast each year as Lyndon Johnson did during his entire presidency.
George W. Bush is the biggest spending president of the last 40 years in both the defense and discretionary spending categories by a long shot. He beats Johnson by almost 4% in defense spending growth and more than 3% in domestic discretionary spending growth.
And conservative columnist George Will points out that federal spending has grown twice as fast under President Bush and congressional Republicans as under President Clinton. And with respect to the argument that this profligacy is related to 9/11 and homeland security, Will and the conservative think tanks have noted that over 65 percent of the spending increase is unrelated to national security.
Will further reports that Congressional Republicans (who achieved their majority by promising fiscal discipline) have presided over an orgy of pork spending with your tax dollars the likes of which have never been seen before. In 1991, the 546 pork projects in the 13 appropriation bills cost $3.1 billion. In 2005, the 13,997 pork projects cost $27.3 billion. Does that sound like fiscal discipline to you?
You may support Bush and the congressional Republicans because of some vague promise of “progress” on social issues with which you and the Republicans agree. In that case perhaps you are entitled to refer to yourself as a “social conservative.” But nobody who calls themselves a fiscal conservative could support Bush and the Republican Congress who are spending your tax dollars in an orgy of profligacy the likes of which has not been experienced in our lifetimes. You can continue to deny yourself this truth, but be assured that true conservatives know the truth. Bush and the Republican Congress are asking you to mortgage your future and the futures of your children and grandchildren in exchange for soft “promises” on social issues. You are justifying the fiscal rape of your children and grandchildren perpetrated by your “moral leaders” in exchange for a vague promise of gains on social issues.
Do yourself and your kids a favor; look them in the eye and explain to them why you have chosen to saddle them with these financial burdens, explain to them your reasoning. Then look in the mirror and explain to yourself how you can continue to support the people who you know in your heart are screwing you and to your kids. Is that morality? Is that conservatism?
Read the whole Cato article here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf
Read the Will column here:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/will/cst-edt-geo17.html
Ok Phil, since you were blunt, I figure you can take it on the chin. If I am wrong then you are a hipocrit. Get your head "out of your a$$!"
You went on and on about leaving a huge debt for our kids and grandchildren. I find that curious. If the troops pull out of Iraq right now or we lose this war on terror, what do you think will happen?
Let me give you a hint. The Al Qaeda has already said they intend to keep pushing the media buttons so the Americans will leave. Then they plan to over take Iraq as a staging area for their move against Saudi Arabia and Egypt and restore their long defunct "Caliphate." They also plan to destroy America by destroying our economy and killing as any Americans who do not convert to Islam.
They also plan to take over all Europe and the rest of the world. So, this is my question. If these nut cases succeed, there won't be any debt to worry about, shopuld we go ahead and teach Radical Islam to our kids and grandchildren so they can live long enough to pay off that ddbr you are concerned about? Or do you think the terrorists will let them, cancel the debt?
Tell me something else, if all you appeasement guys succeed in ending our efforts in Iraq, who will you all blame for the resultant chaos. Will all the hatred most of you guys have for ideals different than your own have been worth it?
Thanks for weighing in, DD. I'm back from the weekend's festivities.
Maybe you should hammer out yourself a conscience, you asshole.
Welcome to my blog. Thanks for the name-calling; does your side great credit, doesn't it?
One of those issues is clearly the rampant, runaway spending of your tax dollars by Bush and the Republican majority congress.
How has the press been "deflected away" from talking about it? Both conservatives and liberals and the press have raised their concerns over the spending.
What's funny, is last week not a single Democrat voted with the Republicans when they finally passed the bill to reduce spending entitlements by $50 billion. You guys whine about the spending, yet don't want to cut programs. $50 billion is so much drop in the bucket as well, and it's a start. Quit obstructing, and let's shave off some more unecessary spendings.
At this point there can be no doubt that, as they try to focus your attention on issues like stem cells and Supreme Court nominations, Bush and the Republican Congress are spending us all into a hole from which it will take us, our children and our grandchildren years to recover.
There's a brain disconnect here: the GOP "focus on stem cells and SC nominations"? Hello? Earth to moonbat:...these topics only get focused on when they happen to be news items of interest.
You don’t need to take my word for this,
I'm going to take your word on that..
nor the words of any democrat or Bush-hater. You need only to read what conservatives like George Will are saying, or the people at conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute.
We all love it when we can cite sources from the opposition to back up our talking points.
The Cato Institute recently completed a report on the spending habits of all US presidents during the last 40 years. If you’re interested in reading the report I’ve included a link at the end of this post.
Thanks, I do appreciate it.
If you want to continue to believe that Bush and Congressional Republicans are “on your side” or if you care only about saving stem cells and banning gay marriage perhaps you should read no further.
Funny how you just lump me into a Republican stereotype without knowing where I stand on either stem cells or gay marriage. It's not all cut-and-dry like that.
I'm going to profile you as a liberal moonbat who thinks President Bush has banned stem cell research and gay marriage. How do you like that?
But if you’re interested in the truth and are concerned about your financial well-being and that of your children, perhaps you should read on.
Thanks for wishing to enlighten me. You are a true Philanthropist.
As it turns out George W. Bush is one of the biggest spenders of them all.
Republicans and fiscal conservatives have been very critical of the spending. Doesn't mean we don't support this President overall on a host of issues that also matter to us. It's not like Dems aren't big-spenders themselves. Look at the spending proposals under President Clinton that were defeated by a Republican Congress. And then tell me that Dems are any more fiscally responsible than Repubs.
In other words, Bush expanded federal non-entitlement programs in his first term almost twice as fast each year as Lyndon Johnson did during his entire presidency.
What amazes me, is that programs that liberals care about, such as spending on education...under this President, school spending has gone way, way up! We've never spent more! It's increased by about 40% since President Bush took office; and we spend more on education as a nation that we do on national defense. You'd think liberals would be happy, since they think the answer is always "more money, more money, more money" to solve our education woes. President Bush is damned when he does, damned when he doesn't by his haters.
You can continue to deny yourself this truth, but be assured that true conservatives know the truth.
When my choices are "George W. Bush or Al Gore" and "George W. Bush or John F. Kerry"....I'll choose Dubbya EVERY SINGLE TIME!!!
Do yourself and your kids a favor; look them in the eye and explain to them why you have chosen to saddle them with these financial burdens, explain to them your reasoning. Then look in the mirror and explain to yourself how you can continue to support the people who you know in your heart are screwing you and to your kids. Is that morality? Is that conservatism?
I slept very well last night, thank you. Very busy weekend.
Thanks for the articles and for preaching to the choir about fiscal responsibility. Now go read Aesop's fable, "Chicken Little", and let me know if you've learned anything.
Oh, and by the way: federal tax receipts are growing much faster than federal spending outlays. The deficit is shrinking.
DHIMMITUDE
EURABIA: The Euro-Arab Axis
by Bat Ye’or
Her new book (published January 2005) explained the transformation of Europe into “Eurabia,” a cultural and political appendage of the Arab/Muslim world. Eurabia is fundamentally anti-Christian, anti-Western, anti-American, and antisemitic. The institution responsible for this transformation, and that continues to propagate its ideological message, is the Euro-Arab Dialogue, developed by European and Arab politicians and intellectuals over the past thirty years.
It is happening all over the world and may eventually usher in the Caliphate State that is very much al-Qaeda's desire.
Post a Comment
<< Home