Newsweek compares South African blacks to terrorists

The title of the commentary is "Where is the Outrage". You can almost taste the disappointment that yet another attempt to harm Bush politically is fizzling. You can almost picture the author Arlene Getz looking under the Christmas tree for some sign of Bush's demise only to see his poll numbers rising and the Democrats looking like chumps ... again. Panic sets in. What can she do! What can she do? I know, what is the baddest thing I can compare this to: Aparteid! Remember the scene in the movie "The Hitcher" where the kid gets the gun and tries to shoot the hitcher, but the bullets had been taken out. The "poor baby" look on the hitcher's face comes to mind here.

Getz tries to compare Bush to the white South African leader justifying spying on the blacks, the problem is that comparison leaves the blacks he is spying on compared to today's terrorists. Just think if a conservative made that link, what howling from the politically correct we would hear.

To make it clear, this is the commentary page, so I have no problem with the political bias dripping from her every word, but you can tell Arlene is pulling out all the stops to gin up some outrage against Bush. She begins talking about how the South African newspapers stopped reporting items such as detaining thousands of blacks, torture including children, hit squads killing political opponents and shooting into crowds of blacks. Arlene then quotes the white woman opening her newspaper empty of these things and stating, "It's so nice, not to open the papers and read all that bad news."

Getz completely sidesteps the fact that the Clinton and Carter administrations had similar policies. I also find it interesting that at the end she launches into a completely unrelated topic of Desmond Tutu's reaction to Bush being reelected. Tutu completely misunderstands the term "free speech" and blames a lack of it on Bush being reelected and being shocked over it. Somehow Tutu thinks free speech is being able to say anything without being challanged. According to him when Bush was attacked during the campaign, he should just have taken it. I guess Tutu thinks free speech is a one way street and that Bush or his supporters don't have the right.

So where is the outrage? Getz is trying to misdirect it at Bush. I have outrage over this issue. It is directed at the terrorists and the liberals around the world not working to help erradicate them. I am outraged against liberals who created an atmosphere with the 9-11 commission that terrorist attacks will mean opportunities to score political points. I am outraged at the liberals who want to shackle and handcuff all efforts to thwart terrorism, while making it clear if attacks occur blame will be laid at Bush's doorstep.

If it were a clear, majority, bi-partisan decision that we would fight terrorism without coming close to treading on civil liberties and if we are attacked, then we did what we could while clearly preserving our rights. If that were an option, we as a country could decide that attacks are better than wire tapping, etc. and deal with the consequences. But that is not an option being given. The options for Bush are stop all terrorist attacks or pay politically, but every tool to stop them is withheld from you; if you use them anyway you will pay politically. Getz asks where is the outrage she was so much looking forward to seeing. I say her outrage and the outrage of the left is significantly misplaced.