Monday, 10 September 2007


Ken Berwitz

This is from the Associated Press.  Take a look:.

VMA losses spark another Kanye tantrum

Sun Sep 9, 11:48 PM ET

Sour grapes from Kanye West again. Shut out at the Video Music Awards, Kanye West threw a tantrum Sunday night in front of media and crew backstage as the MTV show was ending.

West, waiting for an elevator in a crowded hallway, began yelling about losing all five categories for which he was nominated.

"That's two years in a row, man ... give a black man a chance," West said, stomping around his entourage and directing his comments at a reporter. "I'm trying hard man, I have the ... number one record, man."

West said he never will return to MTV.

The rapper was nomination for five awards, including male artist of the year. This is the latest in a series of awards show outburst for West. Last year, he crashed the stage at the MTV Europe Awards after not winning for best video. .

Just for a moment let's forget the absolute crap this kanye west puts out as "music", and how many, many millions of dollars he has made foisting it on children.

"...give a Black man a chance"?  THIS is what the idiot turns into a racial incident? 

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know "give a Black man a chance" is used as a sarcastic expression.  But it says what it says. When I went to Saint Louis University in 1963-64 I often heard people refer to bargaining on a purchase price with someone as "Jewing them them out of" it.  I get a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach every time I think of that, even today.  And one of the main reasons is BECAUSE it was thought of as "just an expression".

Expressions like this reinforce stereotypes.  And that is 100% as true for Blacks as it is for Jews or anyone else.

Another point:  if you ever watched the MTV's video music awards show you would know that it is loaded with Black performers and Black winners.

But for the idiots of the world, for the professionally oppressed, if they don't get what they think they should, racism must be the reason. 

This is a disgrace and a dishonor to every Black person in the country.  Why?  Because, however unfairly, idiotic comments like this are all too often projected to the general Black population - even those who are as appalled by someone like kanye west as I am.

If west were a nondescript performer not getting anywhere, his idiotic racist raving wouldn't be that hurtful.  But since he is an undisputed superstar, particularly to Black audiences, his comments are taken to represent opinion beyond his own. 

What the al sharptons of the world aren't doing to damage Black people the kanye wests of the world are.

How sad for Black people.  How sad for all of us.


Oh, one other thing:  in case you haven't had the pleasure of hearing Mr. west's "music", here is the first "verse" to his song titled "Graduation Day".  Be sure to gather your children around -- if they're between, say, 12 and 18 they probably can sing along:


What in the fuck was that Kanye
I told you to do some shit for the kids
You can give me your muthafucking graduation ticket right now
You will not walk across that stage, you wont slide across that stage
A muthafucka cant pull you across that stage Kanye
Who told you see, I told you to do something up lifting
Im trynna get you out here with these white people and this how you gone do me
You know what us a nigga
And I dont mean that in no nice way
Had little kids sing about the shit, the jokes on you
You throw your mutha hands in the air, and wave good-bye to everybody
Cause you getting the fuck out of this campus
Mutha what you gone do now




Ken Berwitz

David Horowitz is a LAMB's worst nightmare.  He is a former communist campus leader who saw the light, rejected his previous life and has for many years turned his considerable intellectual capabilities towards fighting the LAMB crowd.

(For anyone who doesn't know by now, a LAMB is a member of the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade). 

Here, courtesy of Brian Maloney of, is what I'm talking about:.


Exposing Academic Extremists Unleashes Anti-FOX Squad

When it comes to criticism of the extreme left's collegiate strongholds, our so- called "progressive" friends sure have thin skins.

Merely for denouncing one of America's most outrageous examples of taxpayer- funded campus radicalism gone amok, Frontpage founder and ex- leftist author David Horowitz has stirred up a mini anti- FOX attack squad.

First, here's the clip of Horowitz appearing on Hannity & Colmes Friday night, placed on YouTube by News Hounds, an anti- FOX News Channel website:

And from the News Hounds post on this segment:

In a true moment of McCarthyism, admitted traitor David Horowitz, who has NO academic credentials, joined college drop-out Sean Hannity to declare the University of California at Santa Cruz as the worst school in America. Not because the students arent learning but because Horowitz felt its faculty and courses were too anti-capitalism and pro-communism. Unfortunately for Horowitz, his hypocritical bias was exposed by Alan Colmes.

Horowitz treasonous past was not revealed to viewers, nor were they informed that the evaluation of UCSC was coming from someone without any credentials and being endorsed by a co-host who never finished college, either. Nevertheless, FOX News presented Horowitz as an expert without any balancing guest who might have cast doubt on his credibility.

Horowitz cared not a fig about the schools academic capabilities. He even acknowledged that the UCSC has a world class astronomy department, its got a first rate physics department, its got professional schools which are terrific. The problem at UCSC is the liberal arts college which is just an indoctrination and recruitment center for far left ideologues.

In other words, politics trumps scholasticism in Horowitz evaluations.

Horowitz proffered evidence that the liberal arts college is an indoctrination and recruitment center was the fact that the womens studies department has been renamed the Feminist Studies Department. Horowitz claimed that the departments guiding light and architect, Bettina Aptheker, is a well known American communist who supported the Soviet Empire until after the fall of the Berlin Wall. A quick look at their website makes it clear that Aptheker is not the chair of the department. Nevertheless, Horowitz, who just proved that academics took a back seat to politics in his own standards, complained, Its politics conducted by other means.

By focusing on personal attacks against Horowitz and Hannity, News Hounds is clearly attempting to skirt the issue itself. Is UCSC a hotbed for campus extremism, indoctrination and taxpayer- funded radicalism?

Our lefty friends believe Hannity and Horowitz aren't qualified to answer that question. But the latter has been studying the left for decades, since his own personal conversion from that philosophy, writing extensively about UC- Santa Cruz and other extremist strongholds in academia.

In fact,
in a new FrontPage piece, Horowitz and Jacob Lacksin provide a number of excellent examples of just why the campus has gone off the deep end.

And during the segment, it was Colmes that was confused, not Hannity or Horowitz. What he thought was "redbaiting" on the part of Horowitz was in fact a mere statement of fact, since some of UCSC's professors have quite openly been members of the Communist Party USA in the past.

As a UCSC grad, your Radio Equalizer not only knows that Horowitz was right on the mark with every point he made, but can also answer Alan's question as to whether courses with a radical political agenda are actually required of students in order to graduate.

The answer, of course, is a big YES, since incoming freshman are forced to take "core courses" sponsored by their particular colleges, regardless of one's intended major. These courses seem built around re-education, working to convince students that everything they've learned to that point in their lives is dead wrong.

In the Hannity & Colmes segment, however, a major point was missed: why hasn't
Governor Schwarzenegger done anything to clean up the mess that has become the University of California system? Between widespread corruption in executive compensation to taxpayer- funded radicalism, Arnold has been asleep at the switch.

And here's one for everyone in this debate: why does the public sector insist upon rewarding poor performance? UC- Santa Cruz, for example, has added thousands of students in recent years. In response, the city of Santa Cruz is aggressively fighting further campus expansion, which has led to a lawsuit by the university.

In the end, this is the key question: why are taxpayers on the hook for what Horowitz correctly labels one of America's worst universities?

There is no greater enemy to this sorry, USA hating bunch than someone who has been where they are and taken notes.

David Horowitz has, and did.  His website is  I urge you to read it today, and every day.


Ken Berwitz

Quick:  Name something that The Today Show isn't about to do any features on:  Here are your choices:

-Why you should consider voting for Hillary Clinton

-Why Hillary Clinton is preferable to any Republican

-An interview with Christopher Anderson, author of "American Evita - Hillary Clinton's Path to Power"

Stopped laughing yet?

Since Today, and the networks, and people like Chris Mouthews and keith olbermann wouldn't give this author the time of day, I think I will.

Here, courtesy of the indispensible website, are a couple of excerpts from the book and their reaction to them.:.

The Hillary Files - Attacking Bin Laden, Saddam

September 10th, 2007

From "American Evita: Hillary Clintons Path to Power," by Christopher Andersen, pp 168-9:

Hillary never made a secret of the fact that she, more than anyone, loathed Ken Starr. At a strategy session held in the White House solarium, Paul Begala, James Carville, the Thomasons, and a few others gathered to determine what the President should say that night in his televised apology to the nation. Hillary broke her silence long enough to say that she wanted him to go after Ken Starr. But othersincluding Give em Hell Carville cautioned him to be contrite and not appear combative. When Bill turned to Hillary to ask her what she thought, she pushed hack her chair and got up to leave. "Well, Bill, this is your speech, she said. Youre the one who got yourself into this mess, and only you can decide what to say about it."

In the days before her husband came clean, Hillary had already helped put into motion one series of events conveniently timed to distract the public from the Lewinsky affair and at the same time make her husband look, well, presidential. She had already pointed out that Saddam Husseins refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors into Iraq might require military action. But then, just two weeks after Al Qaedas bloody bombing attack on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, intelligence reports put Osama bin Laden and his deputies at a training camp in Afghanistan. Hillary concurred with Bills foreign policy team that now was the time to strike.

The convenient timing of the missile strike seemed truly remarkable, especially since, on several other occasions when U.S. intelligence had pinpointed bin Ladens whereabouts, no action had been taken. "It struck a lot of us as odd," says a retired Pentagon official, "that the President had suddenly awakened to the threat of terrorism and was willing to take bold military action. Word filtered down that Mrs. Clinton kept saying that her husband should do something because the President of the United States should not appear weak to the rest of the world. That wasnt exactly consistent with what shed been saying for the last thirty years."

Just hours after the President attacked Ken Starrmuch to Hillarys delightin his noticeably less-than-penitent four-minute speech to the nation, missiles were launched on the Al Qaeda training camp where Bin Laden was supposed to be hiding. But by then, bin Laden had gotten word of the assassination attempt and moved on.

And from the same work, pp 174-5:

By this point, impeachment was a foregone conclusion. in what was yet another remarkable Wag the Dog coincidence, intelligence experts were supposedly telling the President that now just as the impeachment debate was about to begin in the Housewas precisely the right time to order air strikes on Iraq. This, despite the fact that Saddam Hussein had been defying the UN on weapons inspections for years.

Bills advisers knew full well that he would be criticized for putting the lives of American pilots at risk just to divert attention from impeachment. But Hillary, now very much back at the fulcrum of both domestic and foreign policy, insisted that her husband seize any opportunity to appear strong and presidential. One adviser felt Hillary seemed "almost too eager" to see her husband give the order to launch an attack.

Reaction, as predicted, was swift. Joel Hefley echoed the sentiments of his fellow Republicans in the House when he blasted the Presidents use of the military as a "blatant and disgraceful" at tempt to distract the nation from what was about to take place In the halls of Congress.

Hillary had expected a backlash, but none so ferocious as this. The President, on the verge of impeachment, could ill afford a further erosion in his credibility. Over the next six months, there would be no fewer than three opportunities to take out Osama bin Ladenin the Afghan city of Kandahar that December, at a hunting camp in western Afghanistan in February 1999, and again in Kandahar three months later. In each case, officials either doubted the accuracy of the intelligence they were getting, feared that civilians would be killed, or both. "We had a round in our chamber, former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey would later say, "and we didnt use it."

Think for a moment how about these two actions, and how they came about and how the failure in each instance had so many ramifications for our country.

Do we really want these people back in the White House?.

That's a damn good question at the end, isn't it?

Do YOU really want these people back in the White House?



Ken Berwitz

I put MSNBC on for just a few seconds just now, to see how they were, reporting General Petaeus' statement.

I came in at the point where he said that Congresswoman Ross-Lehtinen suggested committee members disassociate themselves from an apparently nasty ad that came out against General Petraeus today (I haven't seen the ad yet) and someone yelled out they didn't say it so they don't have to disassociate themselves from it.  Mouthews said that Ross Lehtinen yelled back that the person should lighten up.

Well, I was watching her at that time and she didn't yell a thing.  She said it in a normal, even quiet tone.  But Mouthews is so eager to turn this into something it isn't, he just casually lied about her reaction. 

What a sorry spectacle Mouthews is.  Lucky so few people bother to watch him.


Ken Berwitz

Red Skelton was a great, great comedian.  And one who never used bad language.

The closest he ever came to doing so that I know of was when, in a skit, he told another character that "I used to think of you as a pain in the neck.  But my opinion has lowered". 

Despite Red Skelton's insistence upon keeping it clean on stage, I have always assumed he at least occasionally used blue language in private.  Hey, he was human.  Everyone has their moments.

This leads me to Red's political namesake, Ike Skelton - a Democratic congressman from Missouri and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Congressman Skelton chaired the hearing today in which General David Petraeus reported about Iraq.  And it was continually interrupted by protestors who found ways of getting into the chamber so they could disrupt it (I have strong feelings about how they were able to do so, but I don't know for sure so I'm keeping them to myself). 

In any case, Ike Skelton, like Red, is human, and he finally had enough. 

How do I know?  From the following video. Click on it and you'll know too, I guarantee it.  Just hang on for his last two sentences.  Let's just say they are short and to the point:

Sometimes the wrong words fit just right.

Go Ike Go


Ken Berwitz

Now you can bet that mainstream media will report on the Norman Hsu/Hillary Clinton scandal. Why?  Because instead of having to nail her for taking all that money from a dirtbag fugitive from justice, they can report - benignly - that she's returning the money. 

Oh, that Hillary.  A regular saint on earth.

Here are the specifics, courtesy of the Associated Press:.

Clinton to Return $850,000 Raised by Hsu

Sep 10, 7:52 PM (ET)


(AP) Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton speaks during a Democratic forum hosted by...
Full Image

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign said Monday it will return $850,000 in donations raised by Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu, who is under federal investigation for allegedly violating election laws.

Clinton, D-N.Y., previously had planned only to give to charity $23,000 she received from Hsu for her presidential and senatorial campaigns and to her political action committee, HillPac.

The FBI is investigating whether Hsu paid so-called straw donors to send campaign contributions to Clinton and other candidates, a law enforcement official said Monday.

"In light of recent events and allegations that Mr. Norman Hsu engaged in an illegal investment scheme, we have decided out of an abundance of caution to return the money he raised for our campaign," Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said in a statement Monday night. "An estimated 260 donors this week will receive refunds totaling approximately $850,000 from the campaign."

Wolfson said the Clinton campaign also will vigorously review its fundraisers, including thorough criminal background checks, in the future. "In any instances where a source of a bundler's income is in question, the campaign will take affirmative steps to verify its origin," he said.

The amount that the campaign identified as raised by Hsu would make him one of her top fundraisers. During the first six months of this year, her presidential campaign raised $52 million from individual contributors, second to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who raised $58.5 million.  .

Remember when the story was that it was $23,000?  Then it turned out it was closer to $50,000, with $23,000 direct from Hsu to Hillary and the rest through third parties.

Now it is $850,000 -- and who knows how much more to come -- of dirty money from a dirty source.  A source whose dissolute background would have been entirely obvious with even the most nominal vetting procedure. 

An honest media would be reporting this.  To the New York Times' credit, they have actually done so.  Since it is so uncharacteristic these days for the Times to treat news as news, instead of as partisan fodder, I must give them credit here.

But the rest of the media, for the most part, have shielded, sheltered and otherwise protected Ms. Clinton from being tarred by her association with this slimebag. 

Nothing to see here.  Move on sheeple, move on.

The only acquaintance these people have with the word "neutral" is when they see it on their stick shift.


Ken Berwitz

Here, courtesy of the Associated Press, is General Petraeus in his own words --- not the words put in his mouth by the hopelessly compromised New York Times or any of their bosom buddies in the "Bush-can-do-no-right-so-we can't-report-anything-good" media..

Petraeus Talks of Troop Withdrawal


Sept 10 02:20 PM US/Eastern


Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) - Gen. David Petraeus told Congress on Monday he envisions the withdrawal of roughly 30,000 U.S. combat troops from Iraq by next summer.

In long-awaited testimony, the commanding general of the war said last winter's buildup in U.S. troops had met its military objectives "in large measure."

As a result, he told a congressional hearing and a nationwide television audience, "I believe that we will be able to reduce our forces to the pre-surge level ... by next summer without jeopardizing the security gains we have fought so hard to achieve."

Testifying in a military uniform bearing four general's stars and a chestful of medals, Petraeus said he had already provided his views to the military chain of command.

Rebutting charges that he was merely doing the White House's bidding, he said firmly, "I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by nor shared with anyone in the Pentagon, the White House or the Congress."

Petraeus said that a unit of about 2,000 Marines will depart Iraq later this month, beginning a drawdown that would be followed in mid- December with the departure of an Army brigade numbering 3,500 to 4,000 soldiers.

After that, another four brigades would be withdrawn by July 2008, he said. That would leave the United States with about 130,000 troops in Iraq, roughly the number last winter when President Bush decided to dispatch additional forces.

Petraeus said a decision about further reductions would be made next March.

Using charts and graphs to illustrate his points, Petraeus conceded that the military gains have been uneven in the months since Bush ordered the buildup last winter.

But he also said that there has been an overall decline in violence and said, "the level of security incidents has declined in eight of the past 12 weeks, with the level of incidents in the past two weeks the lowest since June of 2006."

Petraeus also said the Iraqi military is slowly gaining competence and gradually "taking on more responsibility for their security."

He cited Anbar province as an example of Iraqis turning against terrorists, adding, "we are seeing similar actions in other locations as well."

Petraeus' testimony came at a pivotal moment in the war, with the Democratic-controlled Congress pressing for troop withdrawals and the Bush administration hoping to prevent wholesale Republican defections.

Bush and his political allies have worked forcefully in recent weeks to shore up Republican support. One organization with ties to the administration has spent millions on television advertisements, and Bush traveled to Anbar province last week to highlight improved security in the vast western stretches of Iraq.

Bush also called Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in the hours before Petraeus spoke, and is expected to deliver a nationwide address on the war in the next few days.

Despite the administration's efforts, fresh polls reflected significant public opposition to the war. A USA Today-Gallup poll taken in the past few days found that 60 percent of those surveyed favor setting a timetable for removing troops. Only 35 percent favor keeping the troops in Iraq until the situation improves.

Petraeus was one of two witnessesAmbassador Ryan Crocker was the otherat a nationally televised hearing punctuated by numerous protests by anti-war demonstrators in the audience.

Over and over, Rep. Ike Skelton, the Missouri Democrat presiding, ordered police to remove the demonstrators. "This is intolerable," he said at one point.

Skelton and fellow lawmakers spoke first, as is customary in Congress, and Petraeus listened to more than 45 minutes of political rhetoric. His testimony was delayed another 10 minutes by a malfunctioning microphone, but when he began to speak, the lawmakers arrayed on the dias across from him listened intently.


Did you happen to read the New York Times pre-reality article this past Friday about what General Petraeus was going to say today?  If not, do yourself a favor;  Go to the Times' website and scare it up.

The level of dishonesty at the Times, and among their kindred pals, is stunning.


Ken Berwitz



Here is another in the ongoing series of insights into how your world will be if radical islam wins the global war it is fighting and ends western civilization.  This story comes to us from Agence France Presse, through (a very, very worthwhile site for general news, it should be noted):..


Iran steps up crackdown against 'immoral' activity
Sep 10 04:29 AM US/Eastern
Iran is pressing on with one of its toughest moral crackdowns in years, warning tens of thousands of women over slack dress, targeting "immoral" cafes and seizing illegal satellite receivers, local media reported on Monday.

The Iranian police launched the crackdown in April in a self-declared drive to "elevate security in society" that encompassed arrests of thugs, raids on underground parties and street checks of improperly dressed individuals.

Reza Zarei, commander of police in Tehran province, said that since the drive began police in his region have handed out 113,454 warnings to women found to have infringed Iran's strict Islamic dress rules.

"Of these 1,600 cases have been given to the judiciary" for further investigation, he said.

He added that 5,700 people -- including 1,400 men -- have been sent to "guidance classes" on how to behave in society.

Zarei said police have been targeting billiard halls and coffee shops -- the latter hugely popular in Tehran as a meeting place for men and women -- as certain establishments promoted immorality.

"One of the main grounds for the creation of social and ethical crimes are billiard halls and coffee shops," he said.

The student news agency ISNA and the Kargozaran newspaper quoted Zarei as saying that police had shut down 3,000 coffee shops and billiard halls although the official IRNA news agency said the establishments had merely been given warnings.

"I am pleased to have carried out this plan to elevate security in society," Zarei said.

Watching satellite television is illegal in the Islamic republic as it is deemed to spread decadence and has long been the target of periodic crackdowns by the police.

Zarei said police had closed down 68 warehouses selling satellite equipment, seized 27,000 receivers and arrested 535 people linked to the underground industry.

Some reformists in Iran have argued that the authorities would be better off combating poverty or traffic rather than moral laxity but conservatives have applauded the police for seeking to restore revolutionary Islamic values.


Take a good look.  Because this is what will replace western civilization if we allow it to.  And it will be the way YOU live.

If we fight against radical islam we may win and we may lose.  If we do not, we will most assuredly lose because, either way, they will continue fighting.  And if they win, our culture and our civilization is over, to be replaced by what?  A society that tells us how we must dress, and disallows us satellite TV because we might expose ourselves to what our leaders don't want us to know about?  What they have decided, for us, is decadent?      

God help the people who want to live this way.  I know I'm not one of them.  Are you?

We play political games with this lunacy at our own peril..


Ken Berwitz

Jeff Jacoby, the always-worth-reading columnist of the Boston Globe, has written an excellent column about terrorism.

Jeff is the house conservative for the (New York Times-owned) Boston Globe;  The paper's one very visible columnist who is not appreciably to the left.

There used to be an indelicate expression for companies that wanted to "prove" their racial diversity without actually hiring almost any Black people for positions of significance.  They would hire one token Black and place his/her cubicle where it would be fully visible to anyone visiting the office.  The expression was "The spook who sat by the door".  It was a joke, a farce, an insult to Blacks.

These days, conservative thinkers like Jeff Jacoby at the Globe and David Brooks at the Times are the journalistic equivalent of "spooks who sit by the door". 

And that's too bad because, at least in Jacoby's case (I'm not that hot on Brooks), it puts an asterisk on the quality of most of what he writes.  For Jeff,  "well researched, brilliant and insightful" is par for the course.

Read his latest column, below, and see for yourself:.

War on terror is working

IF THERE WAS one thing we all knew after Sept. 11, 2001, it was that another massacre was coming. The next terrorist attack on US soil, it was asserted time and again, was not a matter of if, but of when.

Americans weren't the only ones who expected Al Qaeda to commit another slaughter. Al Qaeda did, too. Earlier this year, terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed that in addition to 9/11, he had been planning to attack the Sears Tower in Chicago, the New York Stock Exchange, and the Empire State Building, and to blow up US embassies and nuclear power plants.

None of those attacks occurred. In the six years since 9/11, Islamist terrorism has led to scenes of horrific carnage in, among other places, Madrid, London, Bali, Istanbul, Israel, and Russia. Yet there has been no catastrophic attack on the American homeland - something no one would have predicted in 2001. What explains such good fortune?

There is no definitive answer to that question. But surely the place to begin is with the belated recognition that we were at war.

The jihad against us didn't begin on 9/11. It had started long before, with the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979. Years of Islamist bombings, hijackings, and hostage-takings followed, but few Americans recognized that war was being waged against us by a determined enemy that cried "Death to America!" and meant it. In a New York Times column two months before 9/11, the former deputy director of the State Department's counterterrorism office pooh-poohed as "fantasies" the belief that "the United States is the most popular target of terrorists" and that "extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism."

The attacks of 9/11 ripped away such comfortable misjudgments. President Bush declared at once that we were at war with terrorism, and likened it to the global wars against Nazism and Communism. The US government overhauled its counterterrorism operations, moving aggressively to disrupt and damage Al Qaeda's maneuvers abroad and to uproot would-be jihadists at home. After years in which terrorism was regarded as a legal crime to be prosecuted after the fact, the Bush administration made preemption the overriding goal. Instead of waiting for terrorists to strike, the government - armed with expanded powers to seize records, monitor communications, and search homes and businesses - would strike first.

An all-but-unanimous Congress enacted the Patriot Act, which authorized many of those expanded powers and tore down the wall that had barred federal law enforcement and intelligence agents from sharing information. Terrorist funding channels were choked off. Reliance on human intelligence was dramatically expanded. American counterterrorism officers worked closely with their counterparts in friendly countries to identify jihadists and - as with last week's arrests in Germany - prevent attacks.

Taking the war to the enemy in Afghanistan deprived Al Qaeda of a secure base and crippled its leaders' ability to travel and communicate. Many Al Qaeda operatives have been killed; others have been seized by US troops and forcefully - sometimes too forcefully - interrogated. In all these ways and more, the United States has indeed been fighting a war on terrorism, a war more intense, more unrelenting, more sophisticated, and - as six years of domestic safety suggest - more successful than anyone could have conceived before 9/11.

But if the terrible events of that day finally concentrated American minds on the deadly threat from radical Islam, the US response to those terrible events may have had a similar effect on the minds of Osama bin Laden and his allies. It is one thing to launch spectacular attacks against a paper tiger that doesn't have the spine to fight back. It is something very different to attack a superpower that reacts with fury and a terrible swift sword.

Had Al Qaeda known that 9/11 would lead to the toppling of its Taliban protectors, the strangling of its financial network, and the death or detention of thousands of its lieutenants and foot soldiers, would it have gone forward? Having reaped the whirlwind once, would it be more inclined to risk it again? Or less so?

It is a contrarian thought, but Daniel Pipes, a noted expert on Islam and militant Islamists, argues that "terrorism does radical Islam more harm than good." That is partly because "it alarms and galvanizes Westerners," stiffening their resolve and intensifying their counterterrorist efforts, and partly because "terrorism obstructs the quiet work of political Islamism" - it impedes the radicals' long-term goal of making Islam ever more dominant within Western society.

What is in the enemy's mind we cannot know for sure. What we do know - what 9/11 made brutally clear - is that we are at war. The enemy is in this till the finish. We had better be, too..

Jeff is dead-on correct.  While there is no guarantee that we won't be hit again - hard and soon - it is a fact that 6 years have gone by without a major attack on the USA, either here or abroad. 

It's not like they haven't tried.  Just this year, for example, an attack was foiled at JFK airport in New York, that would very likely have incinerated more innocent people than we lost on 9/11. 

Attacks against the USA have been foiled in other places around the world too - Last week in Germany being the latest.  Ramstein air force base and a number of places frequented by US personnel were the targets.

During the previous administration, Bill Clinton's way of "fighting" terrorism was to wait until we were hit and then, if any of the terrorists survived, to seek them out and put them in jail.

Do I object to terrorist murderers being punished?  Of course not.  But now ask me if I object to this being characterized as fighting terrorism. 

To believe that incarcerating successful terrorists is fighting terrorism is beyond stupid and ignorant.  

You don't fight terrorism by jailing the guys who do it after the fact.  That is the equivalent of blowing your nose and thinking it cures a cold.

If you're not taking medicine for what CAUSED your nose to stuff up, you're addressing the symptom but doing nothing about the cold itself.  Similarly, if you aren't going after the groups that SEND terrorists to kill our innocent civilians, you are doing nothing to fight terrorism.

You might like or dislike President Bush, you might think he has made good or bad decisions in his fight against terrorism, and that's fine.  But never ever forget that he is the guy who IS fighting terrorism.  Not biting his lip and opening his zip.

And Bush is the guy who is pursuing this fight in the face of a Democratic leadership that would rather see us fail than succeed if it generates more cheapshot ways of getting votes in the next election -- not to mention a minority of his own party members who are more afraid of losing their seats in congress than standing tall. 

You want a profile in courage?  Theres one for you.  A big one.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!