The American Election Result :one UK Newspaper Responds

[Allen Coniglio]

I do not know if this has appeared yet on these lists but, as it pretty much
sums up the situation, here it is. This was sent to me by another list
member. Thank God for the British, the Australians, the Poles, the
Bulgarians, Italians and many other members of the coalition in Iraq who
have contributed their support and soldiers. God bless the Iraqi people who
suffer at the hands of the vile terrorists who have perverted their religion
to murder in the name of a God who would never recognize them. All of those
who have joined this fight against terrorism are decent people trying to do
the right thing who have been and continue to be vilified by the elitist,
irrational and hateful left. The French, German and Russian governments
sabotaged the efforts of the Bush administration to bring the United Nations
into Iraq to disarm Saddam because all 3 of those nations as well as other
member states and individuals within the United nations were making so much
money by circumventing the UN oil for food program in Iraq. By doing this,
the sanctions which had been in place since the Gulf War of 1991 and which
began when Saddam invaded Kuwait and murdered thousands of people there,
were largely ineffective and Saddam continued to amass large amounts of
weaponry and billions of dollars while his people starved and died for lack
of medical attention. Saddam was warned repeatedly for several years prior
to being invaded but, he thumbed his nose at all warnings feeling that no
one was going to do anything as the West was effete, cowardly, greedy and in
his pocket. Bush surprised him and the world when he did what he did. He
knew that his so called "allies", the French and the Germans would not help
him as their governments were so corrupt and so he did what he had to do.
Those who do not know and understand history cannot comprehend such actions.
The historically illiterate and the passive are not allies of peace, they
are the ENEMIES of peace. WAR ALWAYS OCCURS BECAUSE OF THOSE WHO DO NOT PAY
ATTENTION. Were the world willing to make the effort to pay attention, none
of these things would have ever happened. Please read the enclosed article.
Please make an effort. Please pay attention. It is all up to you.
Allen
Current Viewpoint would like to share with our subcribers the following
Leader Editorial from 'The Daily Telegraph'

Please visit us:
http://www.currentviewpoint.com

****************************
No power on Earth can intimidate a free nation
(Filed: 04/11/2004)
Leader- The Daily Telegraph
London

In the end, it wasn't even close. George W Bush won a decisive
endorsement from the American people for the most radical presidency of
modern times. It was a vindication of his own idiosyncratic kind of
conservatism: folksy, evangelical, optimistic, unapologetic and, when
necessary, martial. The triumph of this Churchillian conservatism will
delight the President's friends and confound his critics, but it will
also strike fear into all enemies of America and the West.

For those enemies understand very well what the re-election of Mr Bush
really signifies. Following hard on the heels of John Howard's triumph
in Australia, it demonstrates that the leaders of the war on terror, at
least in the English-speaking nations, have enough support to persevere
in their task, and that our democracies are sufficiently robust to
withstand attempts by the terrorists to influence elections. The
President would have won even without Osama bin Laden's sinister
re-emergence in the last week of the campaign, but it is heartening to
know that the margin of victory was almost certainly widened by

al-Qa'eda's intervention. Americans voted in record numbers to return to
the White House a president who had been more reviled, at home and
abroad, than ever before. They have demonstrated once and for all that
no power on Earth can intimidate a free nation. This now takes its place
among those truths which Americans hold to be self-evident.

Not the least impressive aspect of the Bush victory was its unambiguous
rejection of the argument that carried so much weight on this side of
the Atlantic: that only a new president would be able to heal the wounds
left by the liberation of Iraq. Mr Bush has now been given the tools to
finish the job of helping the Iraqi people to create the first genuine
democracy in the Arab world.

He obtained his mandate without making irresponsible promises to
withdraw US troops by a certain date or to hand over the burden to
others, such as the UN, without the means to protect this fragile plant.
Afghanistan's first free election has established a precedent that Iraq,
with Britain's help, can hope to follow. Slowly but surely the tide may
be turning in Iraq, as the jihadis holed up in Fallujah will soon
discover.

The result has brought those in Europe who dreamt of a Kerry victory
down to earth. It ought to be a wake-up call for those European states -
above all Germany and France -which have held aloof not only from the
liberation, but also from the reconstruction of Iraq. There is no point
in hoping that the French and Germans will change their minds about Mr
Bush, or vice versa, but self-interest dictates that both sides should
draw a line under the past.

European leaders should not wait till next January to embrace the new,
democratic Iraq. Mr Bush, for his part, is also likely to adopt a more
conciliatory style in his second term - aware that his Administration's
public diplomacy has hitherto been its Achilles' heel. The President
will want to banish the unjust accusation of unilateralism, but, as the
leader of the free world, he needs to retain the flexibility to act
speedily and decisively. Pre-emptive military force is a last resort,
but a necessary one.

This raises the two issues that are likely to test the Atlantic
partnership over the next year: Iran and Israel. Teheran's imminent
acquisition of a nuclear capability and its role in the Iraqi insurgency
make Iran the most urgent item in Mr Bush's in-tray. He cannot ignore
this threat, but neither can he afford another Iraq on a bigger scale.
Britain, France and Germany have tried and failed to appease Iran.
Regime change is the only long-term solution, but Mr Bush is likely to
rely on backing the internal opposition, rather than military options,
to help bring this about.

Europeans should not repeat the mistake they made over Iraq, supporting
the insupportable and then crying foul when America kicked away the last
props. This time, Europe itself could provide the model for regime
change: in Iran, the ayatollahs are as unpopular as the communists were
in eastern Europe before 1989. Mr Bush should follow Reagan's example,
appealing to the Iranians over the heads of their leaders. If he does,
Europe should back him.

On Israel, there is a widespread expectation (voiced yesterday in the
Commons) that the President will now bully Ariel Sharon into giving the
Palestinians what they have failed to extort by terrorism. That is not
what Mr Bush believes, nor what he was elected to do. But he is uniquely
placed to reassure the Israeli public that a withdrawal from Gaza, and
ultimately most of the West Bank, could make Israel and Palestine more
rather than less secure. If Mr Bush can broker a two-state solution that
even Mr Sharon can live with, then there is a chance that it might
happen - especially if Yasser Arafat is no longer able to sabotage it.

What does the second Bush term mean for the United States? The economy
is in urgent need of rather more attention than the President has been
able to give it since September 11, 2001. The ballooning budget deficit
requires cuts in public spending; Arnold Schwarzenegger has shown what
can be done in California. Tax cuts are still the unique selling point
of Bush's brand of politics, but priority should now go to the taxpayers
of middle America rather than the corporate interests of Wall Street.
During his first term, "compassionate conservatism" was just a slogan;
now Mr Bush can make it happen.

This was not merely a vote for the status quo, but for an idealistic
vision of America as the land of life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. Terrorism threatens all three, and the electorate chose the
candidate whom it judged to be the best guardian of that patriotic
archetype. Americans do not expect their president to run their lives
for them, but to let them pursue their own, infinitely various, ways of
life. Yet they knew exactly what Mr Bush stands for. His opposition to
same-sex marriages, for example, was endorsed by constitutional
amendments in 11 states.

His attitude to embryonic stem cell research and abortion was equally
clear. Second-term presidents are often less radical, and it may be that
Mr Bush will appoint less abrasive colleagues in order to ameliorate
America's image abroad. But the country he leads is diverging from
Europe: it is younger, more self-confident, more prosperous, more
devout, more diligent, more democratic and, in short, more conservative.
Europe must come to terms, not only with Mr Bush, but with the nation
that has elected him. This is a president who really can speak for
America.

Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph
Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence.
For the full copyright statement see Copyright