Let's accept, for purposes of discussion, that such appearances are as important as the Left tells us and for the very reasons they say. Then let's consider their behavior in light of that concern.

We all know -- and the Left is part of the "we" here -- that America is consistently the most generous nation in the world using any measuring yardstick. And aside from the Left's disingenuous criticisms of President Bush for not reacting quickly, sympathetically, and forcefully enough, they know we will be abundantly philanthropic toward the tsunami victims, in both our public and private capacities.

Well, if it's appearances they are concerned with, especially as they relate to convincing Muslims of the world of our benevolence, then can someone tell me why on earth they all lined up to condemn President Bush and the United States for being stingy? There is scarcely any possibility that their orchestrated condemnation of Bush and America as stingy didn't do immeasurably more damage to our relationship with Muslims than anything President Bush did in the days immediately following the disaster.

What's the lesson here? It is that the Left's goal is not to show America cares or to curry favor with the Muslim world, but to discredit President Bush and Republicans.

And while we're on the subject of wooing Muslims to believe in American benevolence, how do we explain the Democrats' public flailing of President Bush's Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales for internal legal memos that addressed the legal scope of torture against enemy combatant prisoners and detainees? These people know that Mr. Gonzales was not condoning torture even against this barbaric enemy. And they know how specious are their claims that these memos created a climate conducive to "Abu Ghraibs." Yet they are clearly implying otherwise in public hearings that will be heard loudly and clearly throughout the Muslim world and probably used as a terrorist recruiting tool. Again, nothing must interfere with their mission to discredit the Bush administration.

How about the Democrats' formal objection to certification of the presidential election results? They know that there was no widespread voter fraud by the GOP. But even if they deny that, many of them, including Barack Obama, have admitted that whatever irregularities may have occurred, there weren't enough to have altered the outcome of the election. Yet they are engaged now, as they were in 2000, in publicly undermining the integrity and reputation of our electoral system, based on trumped up, absurd, conspiracy theories of voter fraud with no substantiating evidence. Here again, they are dragging this nation through the mud for base partisan gain.