Exploring Liberal Myths: America's International Standing

The popular Liberal view.

This week, Just Politics..? is going to explore 5 Liberal Myths (as they relate to Republicans).  To some readers, these may seem to be facts because they are repeated so many times.  The 5 Liberal Myths are: 

1. America’s International Standing
2. Torture
3. Republicans as Party of “No”
4. Healthcare
5. Ineffective Energy Policy

Today being Monday, we will examine America’s poor international standing: 

During the term of George W. Bush Liberals would constantly say that he was eroding the positive views of America from around the world and, as a result, he was putting the country in danger.  The logic of this statement is that if people around the world love the U.S. then they would be less likely to try and harm the country.  There is some validity to this line of thinking as a general statement but, aside from a generalized notion, does it make sense? 

Before we can answer the question of the world’s overall view of America we need to first look at human nature.  It is human nature to look for excuses in others before we look for reasons within ourselves why we do the things that we do (and thus have the consequences that we create).  Long before George W. Bush was president we had terrorist actions against America.  In fact, during Bill Clinton’s term we had 6 terrorist attacks against America (5 if we exclude Timothy McVeigh).  Liberals often cite Clinton’s presidency as the “good old days” and we never heard about “world opinion.”  Liberals knew Bill Clinton loved everybody and they, in return, must have loved us back. 

Why, then, were American embassies bombed, the World Trade Center was attacked, and the U.S.S. Cole was nearly sunk if Bill Clinton wasn’t so “divisive” as George W. Bush was? 

Good luck getting an answer on that question (because Liberals refuse to make the connection between “world opinion” and “actions”). 

Liberals cite several things as harming the United States under Bush’s term: 

1. Guantanamo Bay
2. Military Tribunals
3. Cowboy Diplomacy
4. Foreign Wars (Iraq and Afghanistan)

FDR's tactics make Bush's methods look tame.

Guantanamo Bay was the result of 9-11.  Once the camp was opened the Bush Administration tried to find a way to close it but it proved to be an impossible task.  On President Obama’s first day in office he promised to close the camp within one year.  There is no date for when Gitmo will be closed, the task has proved so difficult. 

Liberals seem to think having the camp in Cuba somehow makes it worse but, the fact is, wherever Gitmo was placed it would still be Gitmo and always will be Gitmo.  The method of securing and handling those prisoners will be the same no matter where they are.  Bush was correct in keeping these dangerous men off American shores.  But citing Gitmo in itself as a reason is absurd as some form of the camp will always exist. 

Liberals cite having justice meted out by the U.S. military as somehow showing the world that justice does not apply equally to all.  The problem with this assertion is that it has happened man times before on American soil.  For example, George Washington used military tribunals (during the Revolutionary War) as did Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, and FDR.  In the case of FDR, 6 captured Germans were sent to the electric chair in Washington, D.C. in 1942 (Upheld by the courts in Ex parte Quirin). 

Liberals may protest these facts by saying the military tribunals differ from earlier ones because the current crop were brought here from different countries.  The problem with this defense is that tribunals were conducted by the U.S. in the Philippines after the Spanish-American War. 

So military tribunals by themselves are little reason for alarm. 

Liberals often talk about Bush’s so-called Cowboy Diplomacy and his skirting of the law.  How were Bush’s actions really any different from those of FDR who went around the back of an isolationist Congress and bent the law to get arms to England, which was under attack from Nazi Germany?  For example, FDR gave England destroyers in exchange for British bases in Newfoundland and the Caribbean (or the Lend-Lease Act)?  FDR even sent American troops to occupy Iceland in July 1941 during the time in which America was supposedly “neutral.” 

The fact is, during a time of war (and after 9-11 we were at war) presidents take extreme actions to try and safeguard their country (unlike Clinton’s 6 terrorist actions against his country).  To say “Cowboy Diplomacy” without referencing the time, the place, or precedent is meaningless. 

Finally, Liberals say that going into Iraq and Afghanistan harmed America.  This topic could easily consume a book and not answer all of the questions but suffice it to say that were al Qaeda not in Afghanistan, there would have been no invasion of that country.  Bill Clinton refused to capture or kill bin Laden no fewer than 3 times while he was president.  Afghanistan was a fight the United States needed to have unfortunately. 

As for Iraq, the situation is less clear.  A vast majority of Democrats publicly stated both before and after 9-11 that Saddam Hussein had or was trying to have, WMDs.  For this inconvenient fact please look at Snopes.com. 

Some selected quotes are below: 

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” – President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. 

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. 

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. 

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. 

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. 

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” – Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 

Obviously many thought Saddam had WMDs or why would they make those statements?  Liberals will, however, not want to answer the next logical question… how was the Iraq invasion all George W. Bush’s fault if so many prominent Democrats agreed that Saddam had or was trying to get WMDs?  Is it simply that some Democrats were unwilling to connect the dots and do something or that they simply were interested in letting somebody else make the big call? 

As we have seen in the article above, the issues that Liberals use to show that the standing of the United States has somehow been lowered by the evil, America-hating Republicans are without merit.  Either Democrats have changed their stories, ignored historical facts and precedent, or simply employed wishful thinking. 

Liberals assume that if the world loves America because we act the way they would like us to, only good things will flow into the U.S.  Liberals ignore the fact that during Bill Clinton’s terms in office al Qaeda declared war against America no fewer than 3 times and this country was attacked by foreigners 5 times.  What kind of “love” is that? 

There will always be things terrorists can find to “hate” America.  Short of having the country convert to Islam and have everybody live as if it were the 14th Century, there is no way to appease al Qaeda or any other terrorist group. 

The fact that a dictator was deposed in Iraq and that country handed back to its people should show that the United States is not overseas to only protect itself but also to allow people to live freely so that, hopefully, they will be less likely to harm us.  And that is all we can hope that freedom, not appeasement, brings peace.

Did you like this article? If so, get new articles every day for free via RSS or Email

Related posts:

1. Obama and International Institutions: How's That Working Out?
2. Spaced Out
3. Democrats Give the Land of Lincoln Gitmo Detainees
4. President Obama's Disgraceful Nobel Prize Speech
5. 5 Signs of Liberal Co-Dependency