September 2006

Lawrence Auster at View from the Right links to an op-ed by Andrew Greeley, a left-liberal Catholic priest, published a few short months after 9/11. Greeley starts:

Instead of dropping bombs and killing innocent people, the cliche insists, the United States should deal with the “underlying causes” of anti-American resentment in the Muslim world. It should ask what are the reasons that so many Muslims all over the world hate and resent us. Americans should ask whether American injustice and oppression have created such emotions. If we back off from these underlying causes, then the hatred will abate.

This is the constant mantra of pseudo liberals, clergy (especially priests in England and Ireland), academics, journalists, European intellectuals, and wise men and women all over the world. Such comments are cheap grace, a strategy for sounding both profound and superior in dinner party chatter, faculty lounge posture, and outraged letters to the editor. It is innocent of thought and meaning. There is but one way that Americans could stop being the target of virulent hatred from Islamic extremists: We would have to stop being infidels and convert to Islam. They want to kill us because the United States is the most powerful nation in the world and is a nation of infidels. The power of America by right belongs to Islam.

Therefore death to the infidels! Death to Americans!

Go read the rest.


Just saw Lt. General Paul Van Riper (USMC Retired) on Fox News Bret Baier’s Rumsfeld interview. He was publicly calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation. He joins a list of ex-Generals who have gone public. Their actions undermine the US military chain of command during a war. Their actions give aid and comfort to the enemy. Their actions give aid and comfort to the Democrats, which amounts to much the same thing.

Ex-Presidents are supposed to stay out of the political arena and avoid criticizing their successors. Ford did this. Reagan did this. Bush 41 did this. They showed the appropriate respect for the office of the Presidency. Strange that they are all Republicans.

Jimmy Carter has not. Carter was the worst President in modern US history. He is the worst ex-President in US history. He has worked against America’s interests in the Middle East, in Korea and in Venezuela. He is neither a gentleman nor a patriot. Carter must have misheard “My country, right or wrong” as “My country, always wrong”. He sure acts that way.

It seems a bunch of disgruntled Generals (Major General Paul D. Eaton, General Anthony C. Zinni, Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, Major General John Batiste, Major General John Riggs and Major General Charles H. Swannack Jr) have decided to forgo honor and loyalty and join the Democrats in piling onto the Secretary of Defense, and by extension, the President, during a time of war. That makes them the Jimmy Carter Generals.

Ann Coulter is right on the money sometimes, and off the planet other times. Here she’s dead right:

The belief that we can impress the enemy with our magnanimity is an idea that just won’t die. . . . But being nice to enemies is an idea that has never worked, no matter how many times liberals make us do it. It didn’t work with the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, Hitler or the North Vietnamese — enemies notable for being more civilized than the Islamic savages we are at war with today.

Hat tip to Chuck Muth, who also gives us another relevant quote from Cliff May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies:

Many commentators have noted the apparent irony: The Pope suggests Islam encourages violence – and Muslims riot in protest. . . . Many commentators are missing the point: These protestors – and those who incite them — are not asking for mutual respect and equality. They are not saying: ‘It’s wrong to speak ill of a religion.’ They are saying: ‘It’s wrong to speak ill of our religion.’

“They are not standing up for a principle. They are laying down the law. They are making it as clear as they can that they will not tolerate ‘infidels’ criticizing Muslims. They also are making it clear that infidels should expect criticism – and much worse – from Muslims. They are attempting nothing less than the establishment of a new world order in which the supremacy of what they call the Nation of Islam is acknowledged, and ‘unbelievers’ submit – or die.

If that’s the choice they present then they’ll be doing all the dying. Actually, it looks like we’ve made a good start in Iraq. Captain’s Quarters notes that:

The leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, released an audiotape that tries to recruit more radical Muslims to the Iraqi jihad. In doing so, Zarqawi’s replacement shows why the US considers Iraq a central ground for the war on terror and how effective our effort there has been against the terrorists. Unbidden and apparently thinking it an attraction, Masri told his followers that the US-led Coalition has killed over 4,000 terrorists in Iraq.

The attraction must be the 288,000 virgins they were promised.

The House and Senate have agreed that Muslim nutjobs caught trying to kill infidels (that’s us) should not be granted the rights of US citizens. I don’t think they should be allowed to practice their demented version of Islam while in custody, either, but that’s just my view. We didn’t give German POWs copies of Mein Kampf or Hitler’s version of the Bible. Why give Muslim nutjobs the source of their inspiration? Acting like their religion is acceptable doesn’t seem like a good strategy.

This entry at Investors.Com sums it up quite nicely:

When the World Trade Center was attacked in 1993, you [Clinton] went to court. When it was attacked in 2001, President Bush went to war.

The Democrats want to return to the Clinton era. Until they wise up they will continue to lose.

Consider where we would be if Saddam was still in power (in no particular order):

1. Palestinian terrorists would still be rewarded for killing Jews.

2. The sanctions regime would have collapsed, under pressure from our allies, the French, the Russians and the Chinese.

3. Weapons inspectors would still be excluded from Iraq.

4. The US and Britain would still be tied down policing the no-fly-zones.

5. Saddam would still be supporting terrorists – never forget that he sheltered some of the worst, including the WTC bombing ringleader.

6. Iraqis would be dying in far greater numbers than today.

7. Kurdistan would be living under imminent threat.

8. The marshes would still be waterless.

9. Saddam’s weapons program would have been restarted, possibly with aid from AQ Khan’s network.

10. Libya’s nuclear weapons program would be closer to producing a nuclear weapon.

11. The resources that Islamic fascists have had to pour into Iraq would have been diverted to targets closer to home.

News flash: (courtesy of The Strata-sphere)

BRITISH troops in Iraq said they had killed one of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden’s top global lieutenants, who escaped from a US prison in Afghanistan last year.

Omar Faruq was shot dead while resisting arrest during a pre-dawn raid by about 200 British troops in Iraq’s second biggest city, Basra, British military spokesman Major Charlie Burbridge said.

US leaders have described Faruq as the top al-Qaeda operative in South-East Asia.He was caught in Indonesia in 2002 and held at a high-security detention centre at Bagram airbase, north of the Afghan capital Kabul, until his escape last year.

Why was Faruq in Iraq? It’s no longer a safe haven for terrorists, as Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi discovered.

12. Saddam’s continued flouting of UNSC resolutions would leave the UN even more impotent than it is now.

13. The US would not have Iran bordered by US allies to the East and West.

14. As Richard Clarke noted, Osama may well have “boogied to Baghdad” after theTaliban was removed from power.

15. The 500 tons of yellowcake that Saddam had stockpiled would be in the process of being converted into nuclear weapons material.

16. Lots of terrorists would still be alive.

17. An odious regime would still be killing its citizens.

18. Saddam’s loathsome sons would still be in line to take over.

The costs of invading Iraq include:

1. The US has lost over 2000 good men and women.

2. The US has spent a lot of money on the war.

3. The war has made the US unpopular with Muslims outside of Iraq and Afghanistan.

4. The war has split the US domestically when it needs to be united.

5. The war has made the US unpopular in Europe.

6. Parts of Iraq are still beset by sectarian violence.

7. The left wing of the Democratic party has taken over the party and condemned it to the political wilderness.

Two more things to ponder:

Does anyone think Saddam would stand idle while Iran built nuclear weapons?

After the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, the United States attacked the Vichy French in North Africa in its first offensive action of WW2. Heck, the French had lost their colonies in the Far East to the Japs. Why hit them? Simple answer: because the US could and because it weakened the Axis. If you accept that the West is once again fighting the expansionist forces of Islam in a war that has waxed and waned over the centuries, then driving a stake into the heart of the Middle East makes strategic sense. If you think that Muslim terrorism is a minor annoyance and the terrorists are little more than common criminals, then Iraq looks like a mistake.

Captain’s Quarters responds to the NIE report leaked to the NYT (where else) that claims that the Iraq war has “created a new generation of jihadists”.

I’m willing to bet that the Japanese military exapanded its ranks when America reacted to Pearl Harbor by attacking the Vichy French in North Africa. I’m willing to bet the Nazis expaanded their ranks when England fought back after Dunkirk.

All Muslims are latent Jihadists. Their “religion” expands by force and glorifies those who die expanding dar al-Islam (that’s them) and contracting dar al-harb (that’s us). As non-Muslims resist Muslim aggression, the Muslims will issue calls to arms and gullible young “men” will flock to the cause. Why the scare quotes? Would a real man slit a hostage’s throat? Would a real man kill innocents civilians on his way to paradise? Would a real man use places of worship as a figthing postion? So sure, more Muslims are following Muhammed’s instructions:

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

The good news is that we are doing a good job of killing and capturing their leaders and experts. We face a greater threat of pinprick attacks but a lesser threat of a large scale attack like 9/11.

Danegerous posts about a crescent shaped 9/11 Memorial in Arizona. This one is replete with politically correct but idiotic platitudes such as “You don’t win battles of terrorism with more battles”. So what are we supposed to do? Roll over and play dead?

This memorial follows the cresent design for the Flight 93 Memorial that Error Theory exposed.

God knows what outrages will be perpetrated on the site of the World Trade Center.

Next Page »