Unlike the previous article where she started off brightly but slumped towards the end, this time the starting paragraphs of her article look like a lament over the cruel fate of the poor, misunderstood George Dubya, as one goes furhter the piece is being filled with astute observations and spot-on conclusions up to the point where she contradicts earlier paragraphs. Let me illustrate this with an example. Glick first writes that:
...by recognizing the threat that the global jihad constitutes for the Free World, Bush sought to shake the US and its allies out of their collective flight from reality in the 1990s and force them to contend with the world as it is.
but later, we see a different picture:
...But while Wilson's vision was unrealistic, he has to be credited for his unstinting devotion to it. In contrast, Bush never completely matched his visionary rhetoric to his actual policies.
But then, since the September 11 attacks, for every rhetorical step the president has taken towards reality, he has taken two policy steps back to delusion.
WHILE UPHOLDING Islam as a religion of peace, the administration courted Islamic preachers of war. So it was that at the post-September 11 memorial service at the National Cathedral, the administration invited Muzammil Siddiqi to speak for Muslims. Siddiqi, who heads one of the largest mosques in North America, was the man who converted Adam Gadahn, the American Taliban, to Islam.
Glick rightfully acknowledges the illogical behaviour of the Bush administration towards the islamists. But such behaviour is not inconsistent with the administration's rhetoric. The fact is, that Bush has never claimed he was fighting global jihad and always went out of his way to dissasociate islam completely from the war against Al Qaeda, even when many muslims weren't doing so. The war, for Bush, was always about democracy and freedom and it's spreading around the world, and such was the war in Iraq from the begining. Whereas the jihadists proudly embrace the religious and cultural component of their fight they imposed on the world, the USA and European ruling classes are carefull to stamp down on any display of religious and cultural pride and refuse to acknowledge the real nature of the conflict and the profound differences between the two blocks and indulge themselves in multiculturalist fantasies of the "ordinary moms and dads". Any measures the west has taken against jihadists were entirely self-serving and limited, no real multi-lateral effort exists and even if it does it's thanks to personal initiatives and improvisations not spurred as an official policy. As a result the resources needed to fight the global jihad are squandered on the utopia called "democracy in Iraq" and the failure of that project will seriously hamper any future efforts since it gives a perfect argument to those in the west denying the danger altogether and that might lead to the exact isolationism Glick fears.
West's behaviour is illogical, however, in a sense that they are cooperating with people that openly hope for it's destruction. And until a break with multiculturalism occurs to a full extent and the USA and Europe return to it's traditions and heritage it is hardly going to change.
It is a welcome development that Glick is finally seeing there is nothing one can get out of George Bush. The question is what took her so long? The disillusionment came right after my criticism(a little boasting never did any harm, didn't it?) but Dubya's incnsistencies have been there for a some years. Also, it hasn't dawned on Glick yet that the "Bush vision" was an ill-concieved concept from the start based on premises detached from reality in the same way the west has been in the 1990-ties. Hopefully, that too will come around to her as well.