Are They the Enemy or Not?

The way some Americans are treating members of the Iranian government makes one wonder whether they know that Iran is seeking our destruction.

When Nitika Kruschev of the Soviet Union visited the United States during the Eisenhower administration, Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson, recognized him for what he was--the enemy. He fulfilled his assigned tasks in giving Kruschev tours of various government agriculture facilities, but he would not shake Kruschev's hand. One does not kiss the enemy's backside.

More recently, when President Bush personally signed off on former Iranian president Mohammed Khatami's visa and visit to the United States, I wondered if Bush had lost sight of his enemies. This is further proof that Bush is doing a terrible job in prosecuting the war on terrorism.

The elite in this country have often had a soft spot in their hearts for dictators. Fidel Castro has often been welcome in our country, despite his horrific persecution and torture of Christians and others in Cuba who wish they could vote him out of office. More recently, wannabe and possibly soon-to-be Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez was wined, dined, and salivated over by several elite Americans who ought to know better, including religious groups.

Many times the truth is black and white. The truth regarding Iran falls into this category. Any country that can officially claim that the Jewish Holocaust never happened and that Israel should be pushed back into the sea or otherwise destroyed must be taken seriously as an enemy of liberty, and thus an enemy of the United States.

One who can clearly see the enemy in Mohammed Khatami is Massachussetts governor Mitt Romney, who called Khatami "a wolf in sheep's clothing", and, although he can't prohibit him from coming to Harvard for a speaking engagement, he does have the authority to withhold public security for the terrorist sympathizer, which he has done. Bravo for Mitt Romney.

That Harvard would invite Khatami to speak at its campus on the eve of the 5-year anniversary of the greatest terrorist incident on American soil is beyond contemptuous. The Harvard administration should be embarrassed. But then liberals never are embarrassed about being stupid with regard to reality and history. 'All we need is dialogue,' they claim over and over again, failing to remember that all the previous attempts at 'dialogue' were fruitless.

That 60 Minutes' Mike Wallace would throw easy question after easy question at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on a recent episode is silly and counterproductive as well. It's probably safe to say that liberals are gutless wimps. Whenever anyone starts to bluff and bluster at them, their first reaction is to make friends with them so they don't get beat up. It's much like the crocodile referred to by Winston Churchill when Neville Chamberlain obsequiesced to Adolf Hitler--that we treat appeasement as feeding the crocodile in the hopes that he will wait until the last to eat us.

President Bush would do well to be consistent and predictable in the war on terrorism. His quasi-befriending of Khatami is confusing, to say the least. Which makes me wonder--if a better republican candidate in the last presidential election--Alan Keyes--had been elected, how much safer would we--and the Middle East--be today? Much safer, I suspect. I suppose it's good that GW Bush cannot run again. As it stands, I like Romney's stance (and chances to become the next United States president), because he clearly knows his enemies.