Ako je bilo za vjerovati medijima, George Bush, Tony Blair i John Howard bili su pred krajem svojih političkih karijera zbog svoje podrške ratu u Iraku i općeg nezadovoljstva njihovog biračkog tijela.
Kao što znamo, sva trojica su pobijedili na novim izborima.
Zanimljivo.
Istovremeno, glavni protivnici intervencije u Iraku, su odlepršali ili će odlepršati sa svojih mjesta. Schroeder je izgubio izbore i zamijenila ga je Angela Merkel, koja je brže bolje požurila u Ameriku objasniti Bushu kako će biti bolja od Gerharda, ali ne prije nego što ju je Condoleezza oprala u vezi Guantanama.
Chirac je već sad politička podrtina, a tek kad završi sa predsjednikovanjem, očekuje ga suđenje zbog korupcije.
Liberalna kanadska vlada će 23. siječnja izgubiti izbore i takodjer odletjeti u povijest.
A, demokrati još uvijek lupaju u isti bubanj - Irak - potpuno zaslijepljeni vlastitim sloganima.
Pitajte Teda Kennedyja.
Nepostojeći skandal oko prisluškivanja islamskih terorista da ne spominjemo.
Prenosimo cijeli tekst iz The Spectator-a, budući da se članak nalazi u izdanju za pretplatnike.
There’s no alternative to Bush Mark Steyn
Just because Ted Kennedy is busy working on a children’s book about a lovable anthropomorphised character called Splash (that’s the name of his Portuguese water dog, not his car) doesn’t mean he’s not playing his usual incisive role on the Senate judicial committee. Last week he attacked Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito for having been ‘influenced by the Goldwater presidency’. This week he was back from his alternative universe and more concerned with actual presidencies. ‘Undeterred by the public outcry,’ he fumed, ‘the President vows to continue spying on American citizens.’
What ‘public outcry’? Senator Kennedy is referring to the latest scandal du jour: the National Security Agency has been conducting ‘warrantless surveillance’ of communications between al-Qa’eda types overseas and their contacts in the US. And though the polls on the subject vary a bit, all have produced majorities in favour of the administration. That’s to say, if I’m getting calls in New Hampshire from Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, the American people see nothing wrong with the NSA eavesdropping on such calls. Back in President Goldwater’s day, there might have been a public outcry. But there isn’t now. As George W. Bush put it, with disarming straightforwardness, ‘If somebody from al-Qa’eda is calling you, we’d like to know why.’
At this stage, many Democrats will be tearing their hair out: ‘You’re missing the point, you Bush shill! He’s acting unconstitutionally! If he wants to know why al-Qa’eda’s calling you, he needs to go through the FISA court’ — the court that authorises wiretaps and the like.
Actually, it’s the poor old Democrats who are missing the point. Whether or not the President is required to go through the FISA court (and I don’t believe he is) is an arcane point of law. In the broader political narrative, the shorthand of the story is that for the umpteenth time the Dems are keener to extend lavish legal protection to America’s enemies than to hunt them down and kill them. Every time you switch on the news, some bigshot Democrat like Ted Kennedy is effectively proposing yet another generous addition to the al-Qa’eda Bill of Rights. Hence, no ‘public outcry’.
That big splash you hear isn’t Ted Kennedy’s dog doing a promotional stunt for the book but yet another Democrat dead horse belly-flopping into the Potomac. Undaunted, Senator Barbara Boxer is considering bringing impeachment proceedings against the President. For intercepting the phone calls of terrorists?