Subject: RE: BS: Odds on US getting booed at Olympics?
From:
pdq
Date: 11 Aug 04 - 10:22 PM
...Bruce Walker writes for the Christian Science Monitor, and others...
Lance Armstrong, the Olympics and the Election
August 10, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Bruce Walker
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The contemptible treatment some French gave Lance Armstrong in his sixth victory of the Tour de France and the potential for equally bad manners by the world toward Americans in the Olympics offers the potential to place politicians like John Kerry, whose antipathy toward American exceptionalism is profound, in a well deserved terrible position.
Hatred of America seeps out, like any other poison, into all aspects of life. Ameriphobia to the post-Cold War world is as totalitarian as Judephobia was to Nazi Germany. So Canadians booed the Star Spangled Banner when an American ice hockey team played there so after we ended the democidal regime of the sociopath euphemistically called "President of Iraq."
Can these totalitarians restrain their fear, envy and fury when Americans compete in the Olympics? If they can, then it will do much to dispel the idea that international cooperation is impossible because of President Bush. The goodwill which the Olympics generally produce will produce a warm feeling going into November, which can only help President Bush.
What if the rest of the world acts "French" and treats our athletes with scorn, ridicule and abuse? At first blush, this might seem likely to hurt President Bush - he has "alienated" America from the rest of the world - but on closer inspection it will almost certainly help President Bush and put Senator Kerry in a bind.
If Ameriphobes cannot even treat our athletes, who represent no party or policy, respectfully, then it will be obvious to everyone that this hatred is of America and not of any American leader. How can President Bush expect cooperation and help from people who have a visceral dislike of America? Why should we trust such people with our security interests?
The same dynamic works regarding terrorism at the Olympics. If the Olympics take place without any significant problems with terrorism (something we should all fondly hope) then we know that the strategy of preemption is working: al-Qaida and its odious allies lack the ability to create violence where violence would do the most damage.
But assume the worst happens. Assume that something like the 1972 Olympics occurs, where Israeli athletes are the victims of calculated murder. This would reveal, more than anything since September 11, 2001, the true nature of our enemy. The totalitarian pseudo-Moslems, whose principal victims are true Moslems, would be unmasked.
Violence against American athletes would disprove all the propaganda about terrorists championing the rights of black Americans against white Americans. Athletic competition has been the most effective ladder for blacks in America to climb up the social and economic ladder and savaging international athletic competition would hurt blacks more than any other group of people.
What would Senator Kerry say about anti-American violence at the Olympics? Would he say this was caused by the policies of President Bush? If so, then just how much kowtowing would Americans expect him to make toward regimes in Damascus, Teheran and P'yongyang in order to allow our athletes to compete in future Olympics?
If Kerry admitted that the violence had no legitimate connection to President Bush, then he would also be admitting that appeasing monsters is bad policy and trying to win simultaneously world wars and popularity contests is tricky - and perhaps impossible - business. Sometimes doing what is right makes people mad.
Senator Kerry would almost certainly do nothing at all, except make mild comments and opine that he has a secret formula, which he will grace us with only if we elect him president, for stopping all this murder and mayhem. His reputation is a millionaire do-nothing would be powerfully reinforced.
President Bush, however, could do much. He could call Congress back into special session, make a major address to the nation, and ask for a declaration of war against those nations which intelligence indicated sponsored the terrorism. This declaration would pass the House of Representatives quickly and go to the Senate, where bipartisan sponsorship by Senator McCain and Senator Miller would put it prominently before the nation.
Would Democrats filibuster such a declaration? Would they allow a vote, but vote "no"? Or would they vote "yes" and then immediately say that a declaration of war was a bad idea and that we should have gone to the United Nations and that the French were the key to success, etc. ad nauseam? Or would they rally behind a strong, tough president and make the reelection of President Bush a mere formality?
Bruce Walker
|
sj
