And we think we have problems.
Dafydd makes sense of some of the parties in the collapse of the Italian government and he also makes an interesting observation:
But I'm less interested in the intricacies of Italian coalition politics than I am in the fact that the Communists broke with Prodi, not over the Iraq war, but in a dispute whether Italy should participate in the non-controversial Afghanistan war... where the defeated Taliban are trying -- without any success so far -- to stage a resurgance.
Even the French and the Canadians participate in Iraq as part of their NATO commitment to the International Security Assistance Force: 1,700 from the former and 2,500 from the latter. At the moment, there are 1,950 Italian troops in Afghanistan... but evidently, the so-called "pacifists" in Italy (perhaps taking their cue from Russian President Vladimir Putin) now almost openly side with the anti-liberal, anti-woman, anti-gay, Moslem-fundamentalist terrorists in the Taliban.
I have argued for some time (since at least 1996 in print) that the global jihadis are the natural heirs of the Communists; that when push comes to pull, totalitarians of a feather stick together. Over and over, in virtually every corner of the globe (well, you know what I mean!), Communists ally with jihadis:
* Russia, swiftly re-Communizing under Putin, and despite fighting for years against Chechen separatists, is clearly allied with Iran against the West;
* Red China is also allied with Iran against the West;
* North Korea conducted nuclear and missile trades with Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq;
* Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has formed a virtual partnership with Hezbollah and Hamas;
* And the Godfather of Latin American Communist revolution, Fidel Castro, formed a deep bond with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979, launching a connection between Cuba and Iran that exists to this day.
The slow drift of Communists supporting jihadis has dramatically accelerated in recent years. It appears that the party of atheist empire has more in common with the fighters for global theocracy than with any supporter of freedom and liberty.
This may well explain the mounting rejection by the Democratic Party here in America of a serious war against global jihad: it's not that the Democrats are anti-war; a major part of their leftist base has simply become pro-jihad. Recall Michael Moore referring to the Iraqi al-Qaeda terrorists as "Minutemen," and note the embrace by the Democratic Party of noted apologists for jihadist terrorism, such as CAIR, the Nation of Islam, and Sami al-Arian.
This is a very scary development, but I wonder how far it can possibly go: the mass of Democrats in the United States are certainly not supporters of jihad or jihadists. At what point will they suddenly wake up to what the party leadership is doing -- something that formerly Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT, 80%) realized some time ago -- and actually begin doing something about it? Either by voting against future Keith Ellisons in primary elections, or even by starting to vote Republican, as many did during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.
We are not Italy. And as AJ notes the Democratic leadership might well have overplayed their hand:
The Democrats are in a world of political hurt. Their radical (and not entirely sane) anti-war base wants to surrender to Iraq as soon as possible, but brand new poll is out confirming an earlier poll showing Americans are in not in the mood to quit Iraq, but they instead want to win Iraq as soon as possible (H/T to MacRanger on the latest poll).
By a 53 percent - 46 percent margin, respondents surveyed said that Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw troops from Iraq.
By identical 57 percent - 41 percent margins, voters agreed with these statements: I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security and the Iraqi war is a key part of the global war on terrorism.
As I stated previously, if Bush gets continued traction with the Surge plan (beyond chasing al Qaeda and the Mahdi leaders out of the country or into hiding - which is already a result) thden the Dems will be a deep, long political price as the party that tried to quit on America when she needed resolve and confidence in her armed forces. And it is clear that Americans understand the ramifications:
By a wide 74 percent - 25 percent margin, voters disagree with the notion that “I don’t really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves, I just want the troops brought home.”
For a bunch of people who like to talk about nuance sometimes the Democrats really are the bull in the china shop.
When Hitler didn’t meet Churchill
1 hour ago