Dems prefer stable dictators to freedom

Democrats and other domestic nuts are claiming that it is Bush’s Middle East policies or lack there of that are creating all of the “instability” there. You know the stability that Saddam brought to Iraq by killing everyone who crossed him or had the wrong last name. The stability that the Taliban brought to Afghanistan with Al Qaida help was undeniable. The country was very stable. The stability in Gaza under Yasser Arafat is as undeniable as the billions of aid dollars he siphoned off. Lebanon under Syrian control was a so stable Hezbollah could operate in the south with impunity. Then along came that damn cowboy hat wearing Bush and destabilized everything.

Now there are fledgling democracies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and even Gaza. What an idiot. Couldn’t he have just left tyranny, oops I mean, “good enough” alone. Why not have Yasser into the White House to talk peace? Why destabilize all of Afghanistan because of a few thousand American deaths. What was the problem with Iraq under Saddam other than rape rooms, mass graves, financing of terror cells in Gaza, shooting at US war planes enforcing a no-fly zone that he had agreed to, thumbing his nose at 18 or so UN resolutions, and yes continuing a WMD program? Now Bush’s refusal to reign in Israel as it deals Iranian and Syrian surrogates in Lebanon and Gaza another heinous arss whipping is causing even more instability.

Can’t we just return to the status quo-anti were Hezbollah and Hamas fire a few hundred or so Syrian and Iranian supplied rockets a year into Israel from the sanctuary of southern Lebanon and Gaza? Isn’t that stability what the Middle East needs right now? Well I hope and pray that Bush gives Israel the green light to go after the real troublemakers and destabilizers in all of this - Syria and Iran. That of course will desbilize those two terror supporting countries. All while droning on about peace and “stability” of course.