Monday, 10 September 2007
This is from the Associated Press. Take a look:.
VMA losses spark another Kanye
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
"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,
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
"...give a Black man a chance"? THIS is what the idiot turns into a
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
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
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
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
Who told you see, I told you to do something up lifting
trynna get you out here with these white people and this how you gone do
You know what us a nigga
And I dont mean that in no nice way
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
Mutha what you gone do now
THE LAMB ATTACK ON DAVID HOROWITZ
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
(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 www.radioequalizer.blogspot.com,
is what I'm talking about:.
BULLS VS HOROWITZ
Exposing Academic Extremists Unleashes
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
the News Hounds post on this
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
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 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
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
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
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 www.frontpagemag.com. I urge you to read it
today, and every day.
THE AMERICAN EVITA
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 www.sweetness-light.com, are a couple
of excerpts from the book and their reaction to them.:.
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
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
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
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
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
That's a damn good question at the end, isn't it?
Do YOU really want these people back in the White House?
CHRIS MOUTHEWS LIES. AGAIN
I put MSNBC on for just a few seconds just now, to see how they were
spinnin...er, 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
GO IKE GO
Red Skelton was a great, great comedian. And one who never used bad
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
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
In any case, Ike Skelton, like Red, is human, and he finally had
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
NOW THE MEDIA WILL REPORT ABOUT THE HILLARY SCANDAL
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
Sep 10, 7:52 PM
By LARA JAKES JORDAN
|(AP) Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary
Clinton speaks during a Democratic forum hosted
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
GENERAL PETRAEUS, IN HIS OWN WORDS
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
Petraeus Talks of Troop
Sept 10 02:20 PM US/Eastern
By ANN FLAHERTY
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
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
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
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
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
He cited Anbar province as an example of Iraqis turning against
terrorists, adding, "we are seeing similar actions in other locations as
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
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
A TASTE OF THE FUTURE: PART 22
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 www.breitbart.com (a very, very worthwhile
site for general news, it should be noted):..
|Iran steps up crackdown against
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
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
"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
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,
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..
GUEST COMMENTARY: JEFF JACOBY ON TERRORISM
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
Read his latest column, below, and see for yourself:.
War on terror is
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
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
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 -
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
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
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