"There is a great divide unfolding between the engine of history and the dumbfounded spectators who are apparently furious at what is going on before their eyes," writes Victor Davis Hanson at NRO:
Surely, the slow emergence of real civilization in Iraq is one of the seminal events in the history of an Arab and Muslim Middle East that has had no prior record of either consensual government or an independent judiciary . . . Don't listen to cynical American reporters and played-out professors who laugh at the idea of civilization. Watch instead how dictators and monarchs in the region recoil at it all. After all, such autocrats have lots to worry about: 70 percent of the world is democratic; excluding Israel, 0 percent of the Middle East is.
The message of this out-of-touch, spoiled idiotocracy seems to be something like, "How embarrassing for us to have an inarticulate president who has freed Iraq and inaugurated democracy in Saddam's place." Are all these people crazy and ignorant of history — or do they simply want a free civilized Iraq and the American soldiers who brought it about to fail?
What's the difference between John Kerry and the following: Michael Moore, NYT, George Soros, Tom Brokaw and Christiane Amanpour? Davis's answer:
So John Kerry is starting to get it that the conventional ignorance of Michael Moore, the New York Times and George Soros is already anachronistic. You can see that well enough when a grandee like Tom Brokaw, Christiane Amanpour or a Nightline flunky starts in with the usual cheap, cynical hits against Iraq reformers — only to be stunned mid-sentence, like deer in the headlights, with the sense that they are berating noble and sincere men and women — far better folk than themselves — who at risk to their lives are crafting something entirely new in the Middle East.
[via InstaPundit]
Comments