Isn’t it ironic that, right at this moment, Iraq is by far a more peaceful country than France?

What’s the difference? Well, American troops for one.

Yeah, I know. More people are dying in Iraq from terrorist bombs.

But that one remaining advantage for France may yet be a temporary one. Who knows, perhaps as Iraq becomes a thriving new democracy, France will become the next Islamic state.

It seems to me that, at this point, anything can happen, especially in light of the fact that French leaders continue to talk tough but seem unable to act in any kind of decisive manner. It makes the Katrina response here in the US appears to be downright brilliant!

I can only conclude, based on what I’m seeing via the news reports, that French culture has grown too weak to properly deal with the more-vigorous Islamic culture which exists within its borders. And, big surprise, one of the underlying flaws is its nearly fanatical adherence to secularism.

Let’s exam secularism’s track record to-date:

• The Soviet Union - A proudly secularist society… which is now dead.
• China - Tried secularism, but is opting for some cautious forays into allowing religious expression so as not to follow the USSR into oblivion.
• North Korea - Secular as well, I believe, and dying even as we speak. North Korea’s communist government will eventually fold.
• Cuba - A communist government committed to secularism which will likely die with its current leader.

See any patterns here? Nahhhh!

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

I heard an interesting comment from New York’s ‘other’ Senator, Chuck Schumer, on one of the political talk shows yesterday. Schumer talked, as usual, about the President’s “twisting” of the intelligence regarding Iraq’s WMDs. The show’s host, Chris Wallace I believe, from Fox News, nailed him with a quote from a speech he gave a few year’s back saying, at the very least, everything the President had said before we took down Saddam.

Schumer’s response was amusing. He said, basically, that the President was more certain than he was regarding the intelligence. Funny, Schumer sounded pretty confident during that speech to me. As confident even as he does now when he tells everyone in essence that “the President set me up!”

But that is not the point.

The point is, we went to war, not because we were certain, but because we were NOT absolutely certain whether or not Saddam had the WMDs we feared he might have. The fact that we have not found those weapons doesn’t bother me as much as the thought of not being sure.

Ironically, it was Saddam, who was doing everything he could to hamper the investigation, who really forced this war. If he had opened his borders and complied with the dozen or so UN resolutions which demanded he do this, we could have moved on. But he didn’t. And so, we just were not sure!

Meanwhile, Democrats were talking like hawks regarding the need to deal with Husain. They were ready to eat the President alive if he showed even one iota of weakness on the issue, and, of course, to make it look as if they were in control and had both the authority and the desire to show strength on issues of national security, they demanded that the President come to them for war authorization. When he did, of course, they gave it to him.

Which goes to the saying, ‘be careful what you wish for.’ Or demand, for that matter.

If anything, these folks GOADED the President into taking on Husain. Does anyone really believe that President Bush could so easily manipulate a bunch of hardened Washington politicians so easily? Not to mention all the journalists.

I’ve said it before, if the President id THAT good, then give up hope all ye who enter here, because he’s way too good to ever be defeated.

But, of course, those hardened Washington politicians were NOT manipulated, nor were they even for one second misled, they were simply courting votes, hoping to gain some ground during the next upcoming election.

The President, for his part, knew that we could no longer sit idly by while Husain payed money to terrorists and their families and thumbed his nose at the world community. We didn’t know what he was up to and I have no doubt that, had the President chosen NOT to go after Saddam, he would not have seen a second term.

Democrats would have made certain of that.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjouirnal.com