Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Sunday, March 06, 2005

Jack Kelly is quickly becoming one of my favorite columnists:
While liberals clung to the peculiar notion that Arabs don't mind being oppressed, so long as they are being oppressed by dictators who hate the United States, Bush believed Muslims would embrace liberty and democracy if the tyrants' boots were removed from their necks. He then proceeded to remove those boots in Afghanistan and Iraq. And now the "Arab street" has spoken in a manner liberals never expected.
I heard the argument from more than one leftist that Arabs couldn't live democratically. At one time that was the biggest argument against President Bush's "recklessness" in the Middle East. Many people simply saw the Arabs as some sort of wild animal that couldn't live under a democratic system. Yes, that argument came from supposed liberals who insist they are the least racist people on the face of the earth.

Liberal tolerance and enlightenment is a myth. The only thing they are tolerant of is others who agree with them. If you're black or gay and you stray from the script you will be attacked and vilified. Just ask Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and most recently Jeff Gannon.

Each Sunday I look for Mark Steyn in the Chicago Sun-Times. He is by far my favorite writer and today's column is up to his usual standards. I especially love this paragraph:
By the way, when's the next Not In Our Name rally? How about this Saturday? Millions of NIONists can flood into the centers of San Francisco, New York, Brussels and Paris to proclaim to folks in Iraq and Lebanon and Egypt and Syria and Jordan and Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority that all the changes under way in the region are most certainly Not In Their Name.
I had almost forgotten about those people. The Not-In-My-Name-ers.

How ashamed many of those people must now feel. I know most of them are leftwing true believers from Moveon.org or the Democratic Underground, but there were others who hopped on the bandwagon on the spur of the moment and it's those people I am talking about. I hope they are truly embarassed and contrite for being on the wrong side of history and for actively working to keep the Arab people under totalitarian rule.

Once again The New York Times acknowledges that something revolutionary and, for them, unexpected is happening in the Middle East:
The entire Middle East seems to be entering uncharted political and social territory with a similar mixture of anticipation and dread. Events in Lebanon and Egypt, following a limited vote for municipal councils in Saudi Arabia and landmark elections in Iraq, as well as the Palestinian territories, combined to give the sense, however tentative, that twilight might be descending on authoritarian Arab governments.

A mix of outside pressure and internal shifts has created this moment. Arabs of a younger, more savvy generation appear more willing to take their dissatisfaction directly to the front stoop of repressive leaders.
Outside pressure. That's a reference to President Bush and PM Tony Blair's leadership which The New York Times opposed so vehemently.

The Times was a leader in the fight to maintain the status quo of Arab despotism. They didn't actually advocate for oppression and totalitarian rule, but the hard fact is that if anyone who counted had actually listened to them and done what they wanted then the changes we are seeing in the Arab world would not be happening. Period.

The left, led by it's intellectuals and it's elites, fought to keep things just the way they are and no one should ever forget that.