Protesting Too Much

When I first heard the breathless charges that followed President Bush’s speech before the Israeli Knessett, I was concerned. It is, in my opinion, inappropriate for a U.S. President to present a partisan political speech in a foreign land. And as far a Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama were concerned, it was an obvious frontal attack on the Democrats. The vast majority of main stream media, defending their candidate (if you have to ask who “their candidate” is, you really have lost touch with reality), presented only a small part of the speech—one that could be interpreted as a political attack.

I decided to read Bush’s whole speech. The part that is relevant follows:

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is--the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it.

There is nothing partisan about what Bush said, unless you feel uneasy about your position and decide to protect yourself by protesting too much. Or maybe it’s just that Obama et al have decided to play their own brand of cynical politics, recognizing that any perceived attack by Bush energizes their own base and can only benefit them. Hence, they paint a reasonable statement of fact in a very dangerous world as a partisan political episode.

But read Bush’s words again. Do Barack Obama and his surrogates disagree with what Bush has said? If they do, where is the disagreement? And if Obama has "some ingenious argument" that will cause Iran, Hamas, and Hezballah, not to mention North Korea, Syria, and other deadly adversaries, to approach the world in a less violent and more rational way, maybe they should share it with us.

Hmmm, puts the “controversy” in a different light doesn’t it.

And, oh, by the way, the “senator” who Bush noted in his speech? A little research indicates that he was William Borah of Idaho. Borah was a Republican.