Holding Democrats' Feet to
the Fire
July 8, 2008
Mary Anastasia O'Grady, in a July
7 Wall Street Journal Editorial Page article entitled, "FARC's 'Human
Rights' Friends," makes a convincing case for what many have known
for a long time: That so-called "humanitarian" groups around
the world are more often than not blinds for terrorist supporters. Under
the pretense of monitoring human rights violations, these groups all too
often initiate actions that benefit terror groups and work to the disadvantage
of, particularly, the United States.
Indeed, one of the questions we must
ask, not only of humanitarian groups but of everyone making policy and
legislation proposals, is "Who stands to gain from this proposal?"
But even more important, we must ask, "Who does this proposal hurt?"
The answers to this question lead us to some disturbing conclusions, not
just about human rights organizations, but about many in our own government,
especially Democrats.
That's because so much of what Democrats
propose, if enacted, would harm not only America's business and national
security interests, but the interests of a significant majority of American
citizens. In every significant legislative and policy action they've taken,
and in the many they've managed to defeat, Democrats aren't only acting
against big corporate interests, they're acting against America's security
interests and the interests of the very middle-class Americans they purport
to help.
Among the things O'Grady reveals
in her article is that Nancy Pelosi is said to have been working closely
with Colombian Senator Piedad Cordoba, a well-known terrorist supporter
who has a close working relationship with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Pelosi was, prior to the dramatic rescue of six FARC hostages last week,
consulting with Ms. Cordoba to negotiate a swap of hostages for FARC prisoners,
something that Chavez desired because he saw it as a likely public relations
coup for anti-American interests. Pelosi had even recruited U.S. Congressman
Jim McGovern to help in this effort.
Now Pelosi, along with a number of
other prominent Democrats, including Senator Chris Dodd, has long opposed
the free-trade agreement between the U.S. and Colombia, something which
would strengthen Colombia's position as a leading South-American democracy
and ally of the United States. Pelosi even went so far as to short-circuit
the "fast track" path for trade legislation, essentially commandeering
House legislative procedure in the service of anti-Colombian interests,
in order to insure that this pro-American legislation wouldn't see the
light of day.
Who benefits from her highjacking
of this legislation and from her support of Ms. Cordoba's pro-Chavez agenda?
Hugo Chavez and international terrorism, of course. And a stalwart ally
in the ongoing war against terrorism and in favor of democracy, Colombian
President Alvaro Uribe, would have been the loser. The freeing of the
hostages, accomplished in no small part because FARC terrorists readily
believed that the "human rights" group under whose auspices
the daring operation was ostensibly conducted were on their side. It's
not a stretch to assert that Ms. Pelosi was right there with the terrorists
as well.
The pending energy legislation in
the U.S. Congress is another example of Ms. Pelosi's and her party's working
against the interests of the United States. Once again, Democrats prevented
legislation that would have paved the way for oil drilling in the ANWR
region of Alaska and off America's coasts (pending approval by the people
of the states affected by such drilling) from even being presented for
a vote. The legislation would also have made less cumbersome the process
for approval of new nuclear plant construction.
Who stands to benefit from the Democrats'
refusal to even allow a vote on this important legislation? First, economies
such as those of Venezuela, Russia, and Iraq, oil producing countries
who decidedly do not have America's best interests at heart. But other
beneficiaries of this legislative tyranny are the anti-environmental interests.
The United States is by far the most responsible country in the world
in its drilling practices. American oil companies know how to minimize
risk and environmental damage, and they would do the cleanest job possible
in exploiting our oil reserves. To leave the job of drilling off our coasts
(which is happening now) to other less technically sophisticated operators
representing governments whose interests often run directly counter to
ours, is not simply irresponsible, it's anti-American.
When you add Democrats' relentless
(although, thankfully, unsuccessful) two-year assault on funding for the
War in Iraq and La Pelosi's ill-advised, not to say embarrassing, Middle
East meeting for the purpose of making nice with Syrian Dictator Bashar
Assad, the answer to the question of who benefits becomes even clearer:
In both of these cases, had Pelosi and the Democrats achieved their implicit
objectives, tremendous victories for terrorists around the world would
have been won.
We've got to begin to hold Democrats'
feet to the fire regarding the consequences of their actions. At best,
many of the legislative and policy initiatives they've proposed have been
irresponsible. At worst, they reflect Democrats' insistence on giving,
however indirectly, aid and succor to our international terrorist enemies.
|