September 12, 2006
Patriotic Dissent: We lose
Let's not even ask why Gadsden Flag is reading the Daily News, but he emails this article by Colonel Harland Sanders Richard Cohen, who concludes that we've pretty much already lost this war with Islamonutjobs. Cohen can almost hear OBL laughing at us, savoring his "glorious victory" over the hapless US effort.
Dirka, dirka.
Posted by bill at 04:15 PM | Comments (1)
September 11, 2006
The media's war on the war
Gadsden Flag emails this story, reporting that "The percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington has risen from almost a third to almost half over the past four years." I responded by asking what could've changed people's minds since 2002, to which GF responded by emailing a Media Research Center's study released today that's subtitled, "How ABC, CBS, and NBC Attack America's Terror-Fighting Tactics as Dangerous, Abusive and Illegal." It concludes that "the networks have chosen to highlight the complaints of those who paint the Bush administration as a danger equal to or greater than the terrorists themselves. Reporters could have spent the past five years challenging the administration with an agenda most Americans share, demanding that the government do everything within its lawful powers to protect the public and prevent another attack. Instead, liberal reporters have opted to join the ACLU in fretting that the War on Terror has already gone too far.
'Nuff said.
Posted by bill at 03:00 PM | Comments (0)
July 25, 2006
Out of the deep, deep blue
In the Hamptons, where the Bill Clinton and Barbara Streisand are regarded as deity, it's not often - especially from June through September - that umambiguous pro-American ideas can pierce the venom of unthinking, reflexive W-o-phobia, not to mention the Zoloft-made haze. Despite this, Jerry Della Femina of The Independent, an East End Long Island staple, has written a clear-headed piece on the challenge - the war - America faces, and the cost of losing. He begins by excerpting a speech by Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF Retired: "Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII)," he begins. "The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means."
Read the whole thing (URL is for site only; column is under "Jerry's Ink").
Posted by bill at 09:33 AM | Comments (0)
June 30, 2006
Digesting Hamdan
There's nothing quite like a 185-page US Supreme Court decision, comprised of Parts I through "VI-D-iv," to shut me up. Short of a double-shot of Ritalin, my eyes would be bleeding and/or have popped clear out of my head had I tried to read, even peruse the Hamdan decision on the eve of my much-needed vacation. Fortunately, people who are (a) smarter; (b) more knowledgeable; and (c) better writers than me (I?) analyzed the decision overnight -- God bless 'em -- so we state school types don't have to bother doing so, at least for now:
- B.U. Law Professor Ronald Cass (the Court "found jurisdiction in the face of a statute directly taking jurisdiction away from the Court. It second-guessed the President on the need for particular security features in trials of suspected al Qaeda terrorists. And it gave hope to One-World-ers by leaning on international common law to interpret U.S. federal law. If that weren't enough, the (left, lefter, and far left) turns were executed in the course of giving a court victory to Osama bin Laden's driver.
- U. Cal. Law Professor John Yoo (the majority "tossed aside centuries of American history, judicial decisions of long standing, and a December 2005 law ordering them not to interfere with the military trials").
- J. Peter Mulhern says Hamdan is the "most arrogant and unprincipled judicial assertion of power since Hammurabi promulgated his code."
- The ACLU is ecstatic.
Posted by bill at 09:37 AM | Comments (0)
June 05, 2006
About that "aggressive tone"
More via Gadsden Flag...Earlier today we pointed out the "aggressive tone" footnote to the AP story on the lead Canadian terrorist. For more on what you're not hearing from the US media about the Mississauga bust, we evidently must rely on The Mississauga News here ("Suspect's angry rants shocked MP"):
Streetsville area MP Wajid Khan was so concerned with the radical preachings of a Mississauga terror suspect that he visited a storefront mosque in Meadowvale last year to hear him speak.
Khan visited the Ar-Rahman Islamic Centre, a storefront mosque sandwiched between a Hasty convenience store and a beauty salon in a small Meadowvale strip mall, to hear the angry rants of 43-year-old Qayyum Abdul Jamal.
"I was concerned that he had found a bunch of young kids and he was able to influence them," Khan told an American newspaper yesterday. "I think we have to be extremely vigilant in the Muslim community. We have to watch out for people who are trying to teach disaffected youths that it's the Muslims against the rest, a war of civilizations."
...Jamal's belief that the West is at war with Muslims, boiled over at the mosque, others say. His preaching was so strident it startled Khan, who said he stopped at the mosque last year on his regular rounds of his riding."
...and here ("Terror suspect preached to youth"):
Sources say that during the 2004 federal election campaign, Jamal told members that Islam "forbid" participation in politics and more recently accused Canadian soldiers of going to Afghanistan to rape women....When asked by reporters yesterday why he was so certain of the men's innocence, Lela said, "Because these people are so obvious, they are here all the time. Terrorists tend to be hidden...underground...Although many have described Jamal as soft-spoken, it was his outspoken Wahhabist views..."
...and here ("Six suspects attended Meadowvale mosque"):
"[Jamal] spent a lot of time with youth," said Faheem Bukhari, a director of the Mississauga Muslim Community Centre who attends prayers at the Ar Rahman mosque. He said Jamal never openly embraced violence, but was "very vocal and ... could incite these young kids for jihad."
Posted by bill at 03:56 PM | Comments (0)
Drowning in eupehmisms
Via Jules from down the Hall, it looks as though Islamapologists around the US and Canada are predictably dismissive of this weekend's terrorist bust in Canada. The AP turns in a canned "religon of peace" lecture, relying on Imam Qamrul Khanson of the Al-Rahman Islamic Center for Islamic Education (sounds so harmless, doesn't it?) -- the staging area for the Canada 17. Khanson earns the award for sheer absurdity with this gem: "Here we always preach peace and moderation. I have faith that they have done a thorough investigation. But just the possession of ammonium nitrate doesn't prove that they have done anything wrong" [emphasis mine] (the AP calls it "potential bomb-making material").
Gadsden Flag notes, "True, possession by itself doesn't mean they did anything wrong. Maybe they had an enormous farm in Mississauga that needed to be fertilized. Let's look at what Wikipedia says about that town...Oh, wait--Mississauga isn't farm country but an urban/suburban area that sprawls into Toronto with mostly tract housing and high-rise condos? Maybe their mosque had a really, really big garden." And, what, exactly does the Imam mean when he says the language of [suspect]"Jamal's Friday night prayers had a more aggressive tone than other prayer leaders', but there was never any talk of terrorism or violence"? Aggressive tone?
Posted by bill at 02:38 PM | Comments (0)
April 27, 2006
File under: "Unsurprising"
Somehow it's not surprising that the US military is having difficulty recruiting Arab-Americans, as Reuters almost gleefully reports.
Reuters doesn't mention that Muslims are a tiny minority of the US population (3.5 million as of the 2000). But Reuters does blame US policy: "Many Arab-Americans also have felt singled out for heightened scrutiny by U.S. law enforcement and other authorities after the 2001 attacks, and may feel reluctant to work for a government they feel has discriminated against them. "A lot of policies seemed to focus on Arab-Americans after 9/11 so people asked: 'Why should I be part of an entity that is inflicting injustices or a selective approach on my own community?"' said Imad Hamad, head of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee's Dearborn office.
That is, Reuters buys into the mendacious lie that Muslim antipathy for the US is a product of the Bush administration. Let's face facts: Many Muslims in America may not feel any loyalty to the US - especially the engrained love of country required to join the military. A disproportionate share hope and pray for more 9/11-style attacks on the US; they cheered when the towers fell; they believe in "moral equivalency." Are we supposed to believe all of these dots are isolated, and inconsequential? Many Arab-Americans are Muslim first, Arabs second, and pretend to care about America when they need to.
Don't believe me? Ask around.
(H/T: Gadsden Flag, who adds: "Why were some Arab-Americans dancing in the streets with glee on Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn on 9/11? It couldn't be because they "felt singled out for heightened scrutiny by U.S. law enforcement and other authorities after the 2001 attacks.'")
UPDATE (4/28): The above post was posted at RedState and I was accused of posting something "racist," and banned from the site. Take a look at the comments and the Mods' reaction - evidently, even among "conservatives" we must abide speech regulations. I only wish the comments could've been posted here, where speech is virtually unregulated.
MORE: Pamela at Atlas Shrugs voices her support.
Posted by bill at 04:26 PM | Comments (0)
January 19, 2006
bin Laden to Democrats: Keep at it!
Assuming it is authentic, Osama bin Laden's message today to the US people is a stunning message to the US that the notion the left's attempts to undermine President Bush "emboldens our enemies" is far from cliche. Says bin Laden:
It was not my intention to talk to you about this, because those wars are definitely going our way.
But what triggered my desire to talk to you is the continuous deliberate misinformation given by your President [George] Bush, when it comes to polls made in your home country which reveal that the majority of your people are willing to withdraw US forces from Iraq.
"We know that the majority of your people want this war to end and opinion polls show the Americans don't want to fight the Muslims on Muslim land, nor do they want Muslims to fight them on their (US) land.
"In response to the substance of the polls in the US, which indicate that Americans do not want to fight Muslims on Muslim land, nor do they want Muslims to fight them on their land, we do not mind offering a long-term truce based on just conditions that we will stick to."
(Emphasis mine.) And is it coincidence that it comes just after we hit some more AQ leaders?
Posted by bill at 12:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 05, 2006
"...ready with my candies and my rockets and praying to Allah that Sharon dies"
More from the "religion of peace". Wonder what Steven Spielberg is thinking.
Posted by bill at 10:25 AM | Comments (0)
January 04, 2006
Required reading for the day
...is Mark Steyn's magnus opus - and it would be a fitting epilogue to Tony Blankley's The West's Last Chance. Read the whole thing.
Posted by bill at 02:32 PM | Comments (0)
January 01, 2006
France rings in 2006 with surrender
France's "troubled neighborhoods" ("rowdy revelers" and "youths") rang in 2006 by torching 400 more cars. Chirac clings to "diversity" for its own sake, and no "clashes" between rioters and police. What's that about cheese-eating surrender monkeys?
Posted by bill at 08:37 PM | Comments (0)
December 27, 2005
Idiotarian Bloviation
No doubt John Kerry would've been way more deliberative than W when it comes to wiretaps, to the heartfelt applause of folks like Eugene Robinson. Robinson's view of things doesn't, of course, tackle the legal issues, except for the usual bleating over the rule of law he treasures so.
Robinson reminds me of two freshman wrestlers recruited by my high school coach in 1991 when he realized the 98-pound spot was empty. Neither had any experience but they were exceedingly scrawny and hence on the roster, and before the first match they scrimmaged. Despite their sporadic effort over the preceding week or so, within 15 seconds it became clear neither of them knew a thing about wrestling. We knew this because at the opening whistle the two 98-pounders ran toward each other, vaguely, and began hissing and fighting like two 12 year-old girls. It was pure entertainment, but it wasn't "wrestling." Which brings me back to Eugene Robinson, who like many on his side of the aisle seems determined to funnel liberalism down the intellectual sewer. Sure, there are reasonable arguments to be made against Bush's wiretapping, but no liberals to make them.
And no, I wasn't one of those 98 pound kids.
Posted by bill at 04:25 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
December 20, 2005
Debating NSA Surveillance
Once again conservatives are demonstrating they are far more capable of serious debate - especially among themselves - than liberals. This time it's NSA Domestic Surveillance. Orrin Kerr offers an analysis and introduces the issues (the kind only the blogosphere can give the reach it deserves):
Was the secret NSA surveillance program legal? Was it constitutional? Did it violate federal statutory law? It turns out these are hard questions, but I wanted to try my best to answer them. My answer is pretty tentative, but here it goes: Although it hinges somewhat on technical details we don't know, it seems that the program was probably constitutional but probably violated the federal law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. My answer is extra-cautious for two reasons. First, there is some wiggle room in FISA, depending on technical details we don't know of how the surveillance was done. Second, there is at least a colorable argument - if, I think in the end, an unpersuasive one - that the surveillance was authorized by the Authorization to Use Miltary Force
Read the whole thing. George Will weighs in, balancing government's wartime needed "capacity for swift and nimble action" and the "inescapable corollary," "the danger of arbitrary power." He decides Bush's action was a mistake, though only "on the assumption that Congress or a court would have been cooperative in September 2001, and that the cooperation could have kept necessary actions clearly lawful without conferring any benefit on the nation's enemies."
John Hinderaker's in lawyer mode, too, deciding that "as we understand the facts" "intercepts outside the United States that coincidentally sweep in messages sent from America would seem to be obviously within the President's inherent Article II powers."
Even Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter agreed.
The WSJ which asks Senators to "please stop stripping the Presidency of its Constitutional authority to defend America." Atlas Shrugs says, "The left counts on an America that does not pay attention." Newsbusters asks the NY Times to get its NSA stories straight.
Meantime, Arab News and Democrats seem to be on the same page. And the MSM is working itself into a another brainless tizzy. More leftard brainlessness here, as always.
Posted by bill at 08:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 19, 2005
Dems - Boxed in
Is W back? The President's message on Iraq is finally getting through, thanks to straight talk and his recent acknowledgements that war is costly, he knows it, he appreciates the consequences of his decisions, and that he wouldn't change very much of what he's done.
Bravo to the White House for turning the debate on the Democrats; John Podhoretz puts it best: "President Bush graciously gave his critics their proper due -- even as he was putting them in a strategic and ideological box from which they will not be able to escape." Today Bush stayed on message, sticking it to Dems who fillibustered the Patriot Act and the phony wiretap "scandal." Writes CJ alum Flip Pidot: "what impressed me about the back-and-forth was Bush's ability (and willingness) to smack down or sidestep all the flawed premises, poisoned wells, and loaded questions that saturated the press corps' barrage."
Word. Bush sounds more like the President I voted for - compassionate but unapologetic; the Dems sound more and more like the ACLU.
Posted by bill at 08:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 16, 2005
PATRIOT Axed: Genuflection & Rejection On Senate Floor
By 52-74 the Senate rejects extension of the PATRIOT Act, once so lovingly instated in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Key information? "Feingold, Craig and other critics said that wasn't enough, and have called for the law to be extended in its present form so they can continue to try and add more civil liberties safeguards. But Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert have said they won't accept a short-term extension of the law."
Choose, armchair Congressmen, one of two absolutisms: eternal death for the Act or eternal life. Which is the condemnation? Why not short-term extensions, reviewed annually or even semiannually? The questions, and reason, are left dangling in the breeze.
Posted by James G. Poulos at 04:10 PM | Comments (0)
Another non-scandal
It's always entertaining to see the NY Times report what they clearly perceive as scandalous, but which clearly is not. The latest is their report today that in the wake of 9/11, the NSA "has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda."
Good.
Posted by bill at 09:15 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
December 06, 2005
Media alert
My cousin Kieran Lalor and his self-acknowleged "face for radio" will be on Fox News Channel around 12:45 today, discussing issues raised in his recent NY Post article. Be sure to tune in if you're able.
Posted by bill at 10:55 AM | Comments (0)
December 05, 2005
Enemy propaganda?
Nope, just Democrats. Their message: You've effed everything up, now come home, you terrorist losers.
Posted by bill at 06:31 PM | Comments (0)
December 03, 2005
Another non-scandal
Evidently the Wash Post views war propaganda as scandalous, or is at least committed to portraying it as such. Citing "concern" for "journalist standards" by "media experts" and "private" comments of military brass. Then there's Ted Kennedy:
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, sent a letter to the Defense Department's inspector general asking for an investigation into the program and the Lincoln Group contract. Kennedy called it "a devious scheme to place favorable propaganda in Iraqi newspapers."
The White House should confront this issue rather than dodge it. They might be surprised at the share of Americans for whom "journalistic standards" would place a distant second to winning the hearts of minds of Iraqis. Certainly our enemies in Iraq engage in propaganda, and while Iraq is a "non-traditional" conflict, the US has a legitimate interest in seeing that the American version of things is heard. This is an opportunity for the White House to stand behind America's war footing, and I hope it's treated as such.
Posted by bill at 06:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Remembering the Flypaper Strategy
Captain Ed, commenting on a report yesterday that "U.S. counterterrorism agencies have not detected a significant al-Qaida operational capability in the United States since the 2003 arrest of a truck driver who was in the early stages of plotting to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge," reminds us that we have the Iraq "flypaper strategy" to thank for it:
That flypaper strategy that has almost disappeared from debate over the past two years apparently worked as planned. We drew AQ into the open in Iraq, because they understand (better than some American politicians) that establishing a democracy in the crossroads of Southwest Asia represented an existential threat to Islamofascism. The AQ 'philosophy', such as it is, argues that the only legitimate way of life for Muslims is to live under brutal and intractable tyrannies appointed by Allah himself, and so are unchallengeable and unaccountable for their brutality. Once democracy shows that Arabs can choose their own leaders and hold them accountable for their actions and simultaneously practice their religion without interference, they will overwhelmingly choose democracy. AQ could not allow that example to establish itself.
Posted by bill at 05:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 02, 2005
Apples To Apples?
"We are not open to blackmail. We cannot relent in the fight against international terrorism. It targets that which is important to us and forms the core of our civilization. It targets our entire value system. It targets freedom, tolerance and respect for human dignity, democracy and the rule of law. If we were to surrender these values we would surrender ourselves." (Merkel, before the Bundestag)
"This is an enemy without conscience -- and they cannot be appeased. [...] Against this adversary, there is only one effective response: We will never back down. We will never give in. And we will never accept anything less than complete victory." (Bush, before the Naval Academy.)
Three cheers for transatlanticism.
Posted by James G. Poulos at 04:58 PM | Comments (0)
Telling all on "don't ask don't tell"
My cousin Kieran Lalor at EVS makes a splash in the NY Post today with an important article exposing the academic left's obscene contempt for the military. Kudos and congrats.
Posted by bill at 09:32 AM | Comments (0)
November 29, 2005
More on the most sensitive war ever
Al-Jazeera went to see its attorneys (of course it did!) after revelations the White House may have considered bombing AJ's headquarters. Color me unsurprised; even though Wadah Khanfar, the station manager, all but acknowledges AJ's strategic importance as a wartime propagandist (it's "not just a TV station," he sapped. "It has become something people are very attached to"), such things are of little importance in this war.
Posted by bill at 09:05 AM | Comments (0)
November 26, 2005
War or not a war?
Evidently President Bush discussed whether to bomb Al Jazeera , a revelation the propgandist network called "both shocking and worrisome" and one from which the WH is already scurrying. As this story develops, most on the left will offer similar outrage, and most of that will be genuine. But the NY Sun's Daniel Johnson says W and Tony Blair wouldn't have been wrong to consider the option:
That shutting down Al Jazeera would be desirable from the Anglo-American point of view is obviously true. And if Qatar, a Gulf state that is nominally an ally of America (on which it relies for its independence), has allowed its capital to become Al Qaeda's principal propaganda base, it has no right to expect America automatically to refrain from punitive action on its territory.
The wider issues raised by the Bush-Blair Al Jazeera exchange are two. First, how far can the West tolerate the dissemination of Islamist propaganda intended to poison the minds of Muslims against Jews and "Crusaders"? Second, how much information are Western governments obliged to give about their internal decision-making process, and are they justified in suppressing sensitive information, even if this means penalizing the press, to protect Western interests?
Read the whole article.
Posted by bill at 06:17 PM | Comments (0)
November 22, 2005
Finding Murtha
Congressman Murtha is a war hero, but the left's parlaying of that fact, and Murtha's bad ideas on Iraq, into a call for retreat is anything but heroic. TTLB exposes the myth that "Murtha didn't actually call for an immediate redeployment, and that any statement to that effect is simply a Republican smear tactic." Murtha said "immediately," and he meant "immediately." That liberals are scurrying exposes the folly of the "withdraw now" meme. Even they think it's extreme.
Meanwhile, Captain Ed notes that Murtha "has a history of demanding retreats," citing a Newsmax report that:
After terrorists attacked U.S. troops in Mogadishu, Somalia 12 years ago, anti-Iraq war Democrat, Rep. John Murtha urged then-President Clinton to begin a complete pullout of U.S. troops from the region.
Clinton took the advice and ordered the withdrawal - a decision that Osama bin Laden would later credit with emboldening his terrorist fighters and encouraging him to mount further attacks against the U.S.
Let's face it: As much as we'd like to treat Murtha with kid gloves, because we respect his heroic service, the man shouldn't be insulated. He's a Congressman, he represents the people, and he should be held to account.
Posted by bill at 11:41 PM | Comments (0)
Reading between the lines
The teaser for the WP story on Jose Padilla story sniffs, "Held for three years as an enemy combatant, Padilla has been indicted on charges unrelated to any potential terrorist attack in this country." (Poor guy.) But wait - the charges were related to some sinister stuff - not least of which, notes Counterrorism Blog, is that Padilla "traveled overseas filled out a terrorist training camp application and went to Afghanistan to so train" - one run by OBL.
So back to the WP - "unrelated to any potential terrorist attack"? - sure, until it happened. Padilla wasn't at Fat Camp, for God's sake.
More: with his fellow indictees, Padilla "operated and participated in a North American support cell that sent money, physical assets, and mujahideen recruits to overseas conflicts for the purpose of fighting violent jihad. This North American cell supported and coordinated with other support networks and mujahideen groups waging violent jihad." The defendants' beneficiaries included Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (of the 1993 WTC bombing).
CTB notes the indictment was made possible by the Patriot Act, which is a postitive spin, but Michelle Malkin wonders if the indictment means the Bush adminstration is reverting to Clintonian stylings on the war on terrorism, namely that it's best fought in courthouses, by lawyers (and isn't really a "war at all, etc.).
Posted by bill at 04:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 21, 2005
Just remember: One man's terrorist...
...is another man's freedom fighter. Chris Matthews goes the way of Reuters. "The period between 9-11 and (invading) Iraq was not a good time for America. There wasn't a robust discussion of what we were doing," Matthews told students at the University of Toronto. "If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil. They just have a different perspective."
Posted by bill at 09:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 20, 2005
George Galloway, unplugged
I live in New York City so I've been told a number of times that "dissent is patriotic." Same goes, presumably, over in Great Britain, although free speech in the U.K. ain't what it is in the U.S. Anyway, I was thinking about this when I read this post on a recent speech by George Galloway. At some point doesn't dissent morph into treason? (H/T: Alarming News.)
Posted by bill at 02:28 PM | Comments (0)
November 13, 2005
Embrace the Delusion
In "Who Is Lying About Iraq?" Norman Podhoretz, apparently driven by the naive assumption that the truth is a valuable asset in politics, leaps to the aid of the Bush administration and seeks to completely discredit the claim that President Bush and those in his administration lied about the war in Iraq. For his work Podhoretz should be banned from Republican functions for at least a year, because he is diligently attacking a claim that is of only minor annoyance to Republicans now, and could be of considerable benefit to them in the future.
Before we know the Democratic and Republican nominees for 2008, we already know that 1/3 of the electorate will vote for each party, either out of party loyalty or in agreement with a basic ideological view that party supports. The remaining 1/3 of the electorate, the swing voters, will determine who is sworn in in January 2009. This reminder of the basic facts of national politics in the U.S. is necessary, because Podhoretz seems to have forgotten that the audience for claims of Bush Administration dishonesty surrounding the Iraq War are not going to vote Republican anyway. Republicans don't buy the claims, and I think it is fair to say that neither do independents such as myself. All Norman Podhoretz has done in his exhaustive essay is seek to abolish a claim that could sow the seeds for swing voter disillusionment with the Democratic Party. I can't stand Bush, and I thank Podhoretz for the gift he has given my former party, but those who want another Republican in the White House when Bush leaves should tell Norman to shut up.
Posted by Audi Partem Alteram at 10:14 PM | Comments (0)
November 10, 2005
Dispatch from World War III
This is absurd. This morning I walked past a Marriott in lower Manhattan - one of no real significance to anything or anyone - and there were 1,2,3,4,5,6 - 7 - NYPD standing around, drinking coffee etc., no doubt thwarting the next terrorist attack. Or maybe the terrorists would just walk down the street to another hotel, or wait until tomorrow. I probably shouldn't ridicule the police, but if we didn't laugh at the NYPD's approach we might all cry.
Posted by bill at 03:42 PM | Comments (0)
November 02, 2005
Take The Key And Lock Them Up: Not That Easy
One can read the Washington Post and conclude that thirty detainees can probably be handled in a less counterproductive way than keeping them locked in a Romanian dungeon supervised only by CIA phantoms.
But then one can move on to the New York Times and grasp fairly quickly that the linchpin of the question of detention and interrogation is the legal matter of specificity in standards.
Detainee policy is policy not because a cabal of sadists enjoy the bedtime fantasy of America's swarthy captives taking the lash halfway around the world. The CIA holds its victims in "secret prisons" because it's unclear what else to do with them, and detainee policy "sharply divides" administration lawyers and staff because the necessity of clear guiding language is as elusive as it is paramount. State Department officials, military top brass, Pentagon staff, and even White House loyalists understand the stakes and dilemmas...
Posted by James G. Poulos at 09:46 AM | Comments (0)
November 01, 2005
Eurabia?
My, oh my! Whatever is happening in France? Could it be that Tony Blankley is correct in his new book, The West's Last Chance...Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations? Blankley contends the crush of Muslim immigration in Western Europe could very well be its downfall since the new immigrants have little or no interest in assimilation and are intent on creating a "Eurabia" in Europe. The recent riots in Paris and its environs could very well be a reflection of the future.
Posted by Gene Blogger at 10:35 AM | Comments (0)
October 12, 2005
Deconstructing Zawahiri
Austin Bay offers the definitive look at the Zawahiri letter. Writes Bay:
Zawahiri vacillates. At one level he knows Al Qaeda's losing. But the US may buckle, folks, cut and run like Vietnam. Heck, Boxer, Sheehan, Kennedy, and the DailyKos, give Zawahiri hope.
Zawahiri understands that Iraq is now the critical battleground, and he hasn't given up on the vision of the caliphate......
The genius of the war in Iraq is a brutal but necessary form of strategic judo: It brought the War on Terror into the heart of the Middle East and onto Arab Muslim turf.
More here, via Michelle Malkin.
Posted by bill at 01:14 PM | Comments (0)
October 07, 2005
Joel Hinrichs
The latest (video) on the Oklahoma U bomber, Joel Hinrichs.
(H/T: Mike S. from Chicago.)
Posted by bill at 02:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 04, 2005
Joel Hinrichs
Call me insensitive, but is there something odd about this kid's beard? Let's get this straight: a suicidal young man opts to blow himself up in the vicinity of tens of thousands of people, in Oklahoma, and he wears an awkward beard? Hmm.
Posted by bill at 10:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 03, 2005
Islam "exists to destroy"
Mark Steyn on "Islamist way or no way":
I found myself behind a car in Vermont, in the US, the other day; it had a one-word bumper sticker with the injunction "COEXIST". It's one of those sentiments beloved of Western progressives, one designed principally to flatter their sense of moral superiority. The C was the Islamic crescent, the O was the hippie peace sign, the X was the Star of David and the T was the Christian cross. Very nice, hard to argue with. But the reality is, it's the first of those symbols that has a problem with coexistence. Take the crescent out of the equation and you wouldn't need a bumper sticker at all. Indeed, coexistence is what the Islamists are at war with; or, if you prefer, pluralism, the idea that different groups can rub along together within the same general neighbourhood. There are many trouble spots across the world but, as a general rule, even if one gives no more than a cursory glance at the foreign pages, it's easy to guess at least one of the sides: Muslims v Jews in Palestine, Muslims v Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims v Christians in Nigeria, Muslims v Buddhists in southern Thailand, Muslims v (your team here). Whatever one's views of the merits on a case by case basis, the ubiquitousness of one team is a fact....
So even Muslims v (your team here) doesn't quite cover it. You don't have to have a team or even be aware that you belong to any side. You can be a hippie-dippy hey-man-I-love-everybody-whatever-your-bag-is-cool backpacking Dutch stoner, and they'll blow you up with as much enthusiasm as if you were Dick Cheney....
The reality is that there are more Muslim states than a half-century ago, many more Muslims within non-Muslim states, and many more of those Muslims are radicalised and fundamentalist. It's not hard to understand. All you have to do is take them at their word. As Bassam Tibi, a Muslim professor at Gottingen University in Germany, said in an interesting speech a few months after September 11, "Both sides should acknowledge candidly that although they might use identical terms, these mean different things to each of them. The word peace, for example, implies to a Muslim the extension of the Dar al-Islam -- or House of Islam -- to the entire world. This is completely different from the Enlightenment concept of eternal peace that dominates Western thought. Only when the entire world is a Dar al-Islam will it be a Dar a-Salam, or House of Peace."
That's why they blew up Bali in 2002, and last weekend, and why they'll keep blowing it up. It's not about Bush or Blair or Iraq or Palestine. It's about a world where everything other than Islamism lies in ruins.
Sort of bone-chilling, when you think about it, and I felt this article deserved plenty of space. Read the whole thing. (H/T: Rob from down the hall.)
Posted by bill at 07:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 28, 2005
Down goes the IFC
Sanity prevails in Lower Manhattan, as it appears the hideous "International Freedom Center" may have met its end. [Takebackthememorial.org's full press release is below the fold.] NY's governor, the feckless George Pataki, pulled the IFC from the site and did so with his usual lethargy (and one week after Hillary Clinton lead the way): "Freedom should unify us. This center has not," Pataki said.
Today there remains too much opposition, too much controversy over the programming of the IFC. ...We must move forward with our first priority, the creation of an inspiring memorial to pay tribute to our lost loved ones and tell their stories to the world."
Pataki cannot bring himself to acknowledge the IFC was an internationalist, anti-American fraud (What's wrong with "Goodbye and good riddance," as NY Rep. Vito Fossella said?) but that's okay. Kudos to Debra Burlingame, whose Paul Revere impression brought the IFC "hijacking" into the national dialogue, and the countless bloggers (especially Michelle Malkin) without whom the IFC might very well be alive and well.
From Takebackthememorial.org.
We are very pleased to announce that Governor Pataki has announced the removal of the International Freedom Center (IFC) from Ground Zero. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/28/AR2005092801849.html for details.
Every since June 8, 2005 when Debra Bulingame's op-ed, The Great Ground Zero Heist, appeared in the Wall Street Journal, we have fought together for the preservation of the dignity of Ground Zero. With your help, we have achieved a major victory toward that goal.
We will continue to monitor the plans for Ground Zero to ensure that a fitting and proper memorial is built; one that is respectful of the victims murdered that day, their families, the first responders, and the American people.
A press release on the removal of the IFC from the 15 family member groups is expected in the next 24 hours and we will post it @ www.takebackthememorial.org as soon as it becomes available.
Thank you again for your support, prayers, and dedication. We simply could not have done this without you.
Posted by bill at 09:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 28, 2005
"A War to be Proud Of"
A must-read: Christopher Hitchens offers a "positive accounting" of "A War to be Proud of."
Posted by bill at 08:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 24, 2005
Department of nonsensical political grandstanding and CYA-ism
DHS Chief Michael Chertoff is an idiot. At he least he sounded like one yesterday, as reported here. Addressing border control issues that have concerned Americans for years, especially the last four, Chertoff proclaimed:
"We have decided to stand back and take a look at how we address the problem and solve it once and for all," Mr. Chertoff said at a breakfast meeting with reporters. "The American public is rightly distressed about a situation in which they feel we do not have the proper control over our borders."
"We are moving forward quickly and aggressively to fashion a comprehensive plan with real solutions," Chertoff reportedly wrote to Arizona's Governor.
Why the sudden interest? (Psst: political ass-covering.) What a laugh. DHS wants to "fashion" a plan (when?) before it actually does anything (when?)? Now that's the federal government we know and love. How about this plan, Mr. Chertok: Stop the jib-jab, stop worrying about Hispanic Republicans and enforce the law.
Posted by bill at 11:22 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Silly or Prophetic?
Parachutes signal the beginning of World War III in the "teen classic" film, RED DAWN (1984,PG-13.)Soviet and Cuban forces are invading an unidentified U.S. town and it is up to a bunch of high school kids to repel them, initiating an insurgency--named for the school mascot, the Wolverines--and bedeviling the invaders. These teens are an amazing bunch as they quickly learn what it takes the military months to teach recruits--rifle and sniper skills, using machine guns and RPG's, even anti-tank tactics. They put our Rangers and Special Forces units to shame with their military acumen and I was surprised they didn't learn to fly Hueys and to man Soviet versions of the Abrams tank! So, ok, it's a silly film but also, perhaps, prophetic.
The band of teenies wreak havoc on the brutal Soviet-Cuban occupational forces but, of course, there's no Soviet Union today and Castro can barely feed his people. But, a few references in the film make the viewer think a bit. It's revealed that "six hundred million screaming Chinamen" are supporting us (a population 40% decimated by nuclear attacks) as is England, which will be "gone soon." What of the rest of Europe? Nope. Having had two wars (in the twentieth century) "they're sitting this one out." Though the film is filled with improbables and unlikelies, the thought of Western Europe "sitting out" the next conflict--if it only involved the United States--is very probable and likely. After all, prior to 1989 and the U.S.S.R. collapse, they needed us; now they don't and in fact seem to detest us--since they don't need us. The other scenario in RED DAWN that's chilling is that the invasion initially comes from the south, as Cuba, "the army of Nicaragua," and other forces--Mexican, perhaps?--infiltrate untold thousands of forces and seize much of the country.
The film ends indecisively with a standoff, and the United States still occupied. An impossible scenario for our future? Of course.
But not all of it, if we just change some of the invaders nationalities and alliances. As for the entry point at the Rio Grande, no problemo!
Posted by Gene Blogger at 10:12 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 17, 2005
Brantley Smith - on Cindy Sheehan
I don't usually make much reference here to CJ articles but this one is worth an exception.
Posted by bill at 02:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 14, 2005
The Beginning of World War III?
It can be argued that World War III began in 1993 with the first attack on the World Trade Center by Islamic terrorists, but that would leave too many years between battles, such as the Khobar Towers attack and the attacks on our African embassies and September 11, 2001. But, then again, these were all just cowardly attacks on us, not battles we waged. Regardless, we are at war, whenever it started, and this was made all to vivid to this writer--vivid, once again--with the publication last week of the police, fire, and EMT dispatches, plus the publication of oral histories by hundreds of rescue workers.
It is these oral histories--written by NYPD, NYFD, and EMT personnel in the weeks that followed-- which most thoroughly reflect the horrific nature of that day. These are not recommended for the squeamish. We should never forget because, by remembering, we may prevent another like it. Hope springs eternal.
Posted by Gene Blogger at 03:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 11, 2005
How long will we put up with these politicians?
Mark Steyn's latest, "Trust politicians to do nothing useful," is priceless. It begins:
Responding to Islamist terrorism in Britain and elsewhere, Germany is considering introducing a Muslim public holiday. As Mathias Dopfner, chief executive of Axel Springer, put it: "A substantial fraction of Germany's government - and, if polls are to be believed, the German people - believe that creating an official state Muslim holiday will somehow spare us from the wrath of fanatical Islamists."
Great. At least the 1930s' appeasers did it on their own time. But, in recasting appeasement as yet another paid day off, the new proposal cunningly manages to combine the worst instincts of the old Europe and the new.
Posted by bill at 12:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 09, 2005
Cindy Sheehan
Don't miss Michelle Malkin's post on Cindy Sheehan and the "Grief Pimps." Malkin links to Byron York, who has an incredible picture showing the administration's attention to Sheehan ("The man sitting on the pavement is National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, while the man sitting in the chair to the right is White House Deputy Chief of Staff Joe Hagin. They discussed with Sheehan at length the president's thinking in the decision to go to war in Iraq, and Sheehan simply refused to believe that they might have been sincere").
Posted by bill at 04:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 02, 2005
"Friends like these"
Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy reminds of us of Saudi "Double Games":
under the leadership of King Fahd (actual or nominal), Saudi Arabia demonstrated that it was possible to be with us and with the terrorists. Far from being regarded as a hostile regime, the United States has described the Saudi government as a valued "partner" in the war on terror, notwithstanding abundant evidence that it continues to harbor and support terrorism around the world - including inside the United States.
Indeed, under Fahd, whose death was officially announced on Monday (although he has been effectively incapacitated for years following a severe stroke), the Saudis perfected their double game: simultaneously being considered in Washington a friend of America while behaving all over the world as a supporter and financier of America's enemies
Posted by bill at 09:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
At last...
NYC elected officials speak out in favor of profiling.
Posted by bill at 08:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 01, 2005
Is Saddam money still funding terrorism?
Victor Comras at Counterterrorism Blog reports that Iraqi insurgent funding
...comes principally from wealthy private donors in the Middle East and elsewhere, as well as former elements of Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime. Many of Saddam's cronies fled to Syria, Jordan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other countries, he said, where they have established financial bases to support the insurgency.
This writer also believes that Saddam's hidden money continues to fund many of the diverse groups engaged in terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere. This includes Jihadi groups, as well as Baathist insurgents in Iraq. Some experts speculated at the time of the first Gulf War that Saddam had over $5 billion stashed away in addition to the $5 billion Iraqi assets located at that time. Since then, Saddam and his cronies may have raked in more than $7-10 billion through various schemes, kickbacks, extortions, and other illicit methods. The oil for food scams were only one such source of Saddam's money.
Posted by bill at 09:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 29, 2005
Un-progress
Yesterday I suggested the tide might be turning against "Islamapologism" but pointed out "a few bright spots probably do not signal a 'trend.'" Today, Steve Emerson at Counterterrorism Blog suggests one of those spots isn't so bright. The fatwa announced yesterday against "terrorism and extremism," which had the endorsement of major Muslim groups:
...is bogus. Nowhere does it condemn the Islamic extremism ideology that has spawned Islamic terrorism. It does not renounce nor even acknowledge the existence of an Islamic jihadist culture that has permeated mosques and young Muslims around the world. It does not renounce Jihad let alone admit that it has been used to justify Islamic terrorist acts. It does not condemn by name any Islamic group or leader. In short, it is a fake fatwa designed merely to deceive the American public into believing that these groups are moderate. In fact, officials of both organizations have been directly linked to and associated with Islamic terrorist groups and Islamic extremist organizations. One of them is an unindicted co-conspirator in a current terrorist case; another previous member was a financier to Al-Qaeda.
He continues:
I spoke with Judea Pearl, father of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl who told me that the fatwa was “vacuous because it does not name the perpetrators of Islamic terrorist theologies and leaders of Islamic movements like Yousef Al Qaradawi, Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahari, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.” Pearl told me that these groups are “trying to perpetrate a deception on the American public."
This makes me think: What's worse? The old - silence for which we didn't want to know the explanation - or the sham fatwa, which is all but an acknowledgement that the old silence meant what we'd hoped it didn't?
Posted by bill at 04:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 28, 2005
At last...
Is the tide turning against Islamapologism? Andrew Sullivan writes that "self criticism is becoming the order of the day," citing a few editorials - finally - from moderate Muslims condemning Islamofascism, even going so far as to suggest "reform." A friend of mine emailed me this, too:
A council of Muslim scholars in the United States has issued a religious ruling, or fatwa, against terrorism and extremism.
The Muslim scholars released the ruling during a press conference in Washington, saying that Islam condemns terrorism, religious radicalism and the use of violence.
The scholars serve on the Fiqh Council of North America, an association of Muslim jurists who interpret Isalamic law.
The council's chairman, Muzammil Siddiqi, read the fatwa, which says "targeting civilians' life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is forbidden, and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not martyrs."
A few bright spots probably do not signal a "trend." But there's hope.
Posted by bill at 08:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Quiz
If we didn't laugh at this, we'd have to cry.
Posted by bill at 03:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 26, 2005
Tancredo not backing down
I've already posted about Pat [UPDATE: Tom; dang it] Tancredo's comments on nuclear tit-for-tat, and I was pleased to see he isn't backing down. Instead, he gives a big "up yours" to the namby-pambies.
Few can argue that our current approach to this war has deterred fundamentalists from killing Westerners - nor has it prompted "moderate" Muslims and leaders of Muslim countries to do what is necessary to crack down on the extremists in their midst who perpetuate these grisly crimes.
That being the case, perhaps the civilized world must intensify its approach.
Does that mean the United States should be re-targeting its entire missile arsenal on Mecca today? Does it mean we ought to be sending Stealth bombers on runs over Medina? Clearly not.
But should we take any option or target off the table, regardless of the circumstances? Absolutely not, particularly if the mere discussion of an option or target may dissuade a fundamentalist Muslim extremist from strapping on a bomb-filled backpack, or if it might encourage "moderate" Muslims to do a better job cracking down on extremism in their ranks.
A local Muslim group denounced the politician (as did, I'm sure, many other Islamapologists). But they didn't denounce the five Arab men who were arrested today on account of an apparent plot to kill and kill and kill and kill. Or this guy.
Posted by bill at 07:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
"Jihad" is NOT a harmless concept meaning "decaf latte with skimmed milk and cinnamon sprinkles"
Mark Steyn delivers another doozie, this time on multiculturalist nonsense in the most sensitive war ever:
Bomb us, and we agonise over the "root causes" (that is, what we did wrong). Decapitate us, and our politicians rush to the nearest mosque to declare that "Islam is a religion of peace". Issue bloodcurdling calls at Friday prayers to kill all the Jews and infidels, and we fret that it may cause a backlash against Muslims. Behead sodomites and mutilate female genitalia, and gay groups and feminist groups can't wait to march alongside you denouncing Bush, Blair and Howard. Murder a schoolful of children, and our scholars explain that to the "vast majority" of Muslims "jihad" is a harmless concept meaning "decaf latte with skimmed milk and cinnamon sprinkles".
Meantime, Ricky Martin seeks to end Arab sterotypes by wearing a Palestinian kaffiyeh that blares: "Jerusalem is Ours."
Posted by bill at 08:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 22, 2005
What she said
Michelle Malkin on window dressing security measures in NYC.
Posted by bill at 10:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 21, 2005
Absurdity
Apparently in response to today's bombings in London, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that 83 year-old caucasian women carrying purses will be treated with the same degree of suspicion as young Arabic men carrying backpacks. This, we know, is because we'd prefer inoffensiveness to safety.
UPDATE: Some will probably chastise me for interchanging "purse" and "backpack"; let's amend them both to "bag" for their sake.
Way to go, New York!
Posted by bill at 01:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 20, 2005
Why don't we just send flowers and apologize?
"Red Ken" Livingstone says we're just asking for terrorism:
Asked on Wednesday what he thought had motivated the four suspected suicide bombers, Livingstone cited Western policy in the Middle East and early American backing for Osama bin Laden.
"A lot of young people see the double standards, they see what happens in (U.S. detention camp) Guantanamo Bay, and they just think that there isn't a just foreign policy," he said.
Police say they believe there is a clear link between bin Laden's al Qaeda network and the four British Muslims who blew up three underground trains and a double-decker bus on July 7.
"You've just had 80 years of Western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of a Western need for oil. We've propped up unsavoury governments, we've overthrown ones that we didn't consider sympathetic," Livingstone said.
"I think the particular problem we have at the moment is that in the 1980s ... the Americans recruited and trained Osama bin Laden, taught him how to kill, to make bombs, and set him off to kill the Russians to drive them out of Afghanistan.
"They didn't give any thought to the fact that once he'd done that, he might turn on his creators," he told BBC radio.
Posted by bill at 11:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 19, 2005
In Defense of Tancredo
Talk show host Pat Campbell asked the Littleton Republican how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons.
"Well, what if you said something like -- if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.
"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.
"Yeah," Tancredo responded.
The congressman later said he was "just throwing out some ideas" and that an "ultimate threat" might have to be met with an "ultimate response."
I don’t bother to read Kos anymore (although I find myself skimming the headlines) because he simply doesn't add anything reasoned to a debate. If he's taken a breather from his Rove/Plame hysteria, he’s probably calling Tancredo/Republicans as sinister, evil bastards.
But I think some conservatives have it wrong this time, too. Two examples:
Michelle Malkin wrote that the “right thing” would be to retract the comments and added: “The controversy does raise a very serious issue: What should we do to deter the jihadist threat, nuclear or otherwise?”
For one thing this isn’t the issue Tancredo "raises"; we’ve been talking about “deterrence” for nearly 4 years (though it’s debatable whether that dialogue’s been an honest one). To his credit, Tancrendo introduced the unimaginable, before it happens, into the public debate (and we often read that unimaginable will happen).
Then there's Ed Morrissey ("Captain Ed"), who seems queasy with the bravado:
The idea that the US would retaliate in such a manner should be repulsive to any rational person, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum….Besides, who is Tom Tancredo to make these threats anyway? He doesn't have anything to do with the military chain of command or the national security systems that would make those kinds of recommendations. He certainly doesn't speak for the President, who has to make the final determination in loosing those weapons on any target.
For starters, “repulsive to any rational person” isn’t debate – it’s name-calling. And Tancredo didn’t even imply he’d be involved with the decision - he made no “threat." To his credit, Morrissey responds to some readers, and this is where we can tackle substance. Among his them (to a reader who likened a Mecca bomb to those used against Japan): “we were at war with Japan and both cities had significant military production facilities. We also gave them plenty of warning on both and an opportunity to surrender each time.”
This is a "distinction without a difference"; if Mecca’s a strategic hit in an asymmetric war, so it goes. And we'd give notice (did Tancredo imply otherwise?). The point, after all, wouldn’t be to kill people. As in ending WWII, it would be to save American lives, even if at the terrible expense of enemy civilian lives. I'm not sure why Morrissey goes on to buy into the silliness about "creating enemies," which is textbook liberal-think: a fearsome military engenders hatred. Lest we forget: Our enemies already hate us. (And so long as Japan is a point of reference, let’s not forget they hated us, too, but somehow that dissipated, at least to the point Japan recognized that peace was theirs for the asking, which wouldn't have happened hadn't they realized the US wasn't weak and feeble, as they'd been taught.)
Morrissey goes on to say what we should do if terrorist were to carry out the unthinkable:
1. Take out the air forces of the two nations we know to support terrorists -- Syria and Iran; 2. Destroy all nuclear facilities in Iran, to the best of our intelligence; 3. Bomb all known militarily-related manufacturing facilities.
And our enemies would laugh and laugh and laugh. (I thought we aren't at war with any one country - what of the civilians?) And what on earth would this do to prevent a militant, non-statist terrorist from acquiring and detonating another nuclear bomb?
That is the uneasy question Tancredo brought up, and I'm glad he had the stones to do so. Is anyone willing to talk about it?
Posted by bill at 10:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack