Recommended reading

This article by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman is quite telling. He tells of Europe's sadness over the re-election of George W. Bush, and the growing divide between the views of Europe and America.

He then goes on to tell of how the election will likely cement the European desire to build a Euro super-state to counter the influence and power of the United States.

One must wonder what the United States of Europe would stand for. The end of Christianity at all costs? Support of tyrants around the world and opposition to removal of these tyrants? A consensus to do nothing to tackle dangerous problems such as those in Iran and North Korea? Continued corruption at the UN? One must only look at the French President to see what they stand for. It is quite possible that, should Jacques Chirac lose power, he would end up behind bars. As it turns out, French politicians are above the law.

On the other hand, I am proud to have Bush as my President. As the French President is quite possibly a future convict, our President exudes conviction. He has his flaws, but he also has a rare courage among politicians.

The Europeans despise our removal of Saddam. But I ask: would I rather belong to the kind of nation that saw a tragedy replaying itself day after day in Iraq and created a bigger mess by refusing to stand by and do nothing, or a nation that sees this tragedy playing out time and again and turns its back? Which is more likely to eventually have a happy ending?

Back to the article, Thomas Friedman goes on to mention that the people of Iran, in their desire for freedom, are Bush supporters.

I suspect there is more to the European disdain of the liberation of Iraq. My suspicion is that at some level the Europeans simply feel bad about themselves because they knew it was wrong to ignore Saddam's atrocities year after year, and yet lacked the courage to do anything about it. This explains why so many would want the liberation to fail. They would feel that their cowardice was justified.