Michael Totten writes about who we are at war with, and who they are at war with:
The overwhelming majority of Islamist killers aren’t terrorists. They are soldiers and members of state-sanctioned death squads. Most victims of Islamists violence aren’t Westerners…they’re the Islamists’ fellow Muslims. It’s easy to forget this — or not even be aware of it — if you aren’t interested in what happens inside the Muslim world when George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and the rest in the West aren’t involved.
Andrew McCarthy has some more good questions about Able Danger and Sandy Berger that the press doesn’t seem very curious about. He finishes with this one:
Why has the public not been told at this point what was in the classified documents that Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger illegally pilfered from the archives during preparation for his Commission testimony (as well as President Clinton
Well, here’s a huge story that the MSM won’t want to touch. At least not until they can conjure up some insane angle on it that will somehow make it Bush’s fault.
I never cease to be amazed that the same media that continues to give Cindy Sheehan wall-to-wall coverage, and help her promulgate the lie that the president hasn’t met with her, is so incurious about the fecklessness of the Clinton administration, and Sandy Burglar’s reckless acts.
I should add that I’ve never been able to be as impressed with the “bipartisan” 911 Commission as the press wanted me to be. When Jamie Gorelick wasn’t required to recuse herself on those things being investigated in which she was directly involved, it lost all credibility with me. The sad thing is all of the legislation that was rushed through on its flawed (and perhaps, as we see now, duplicitous) advice.
[Update at 9:37 AM EDT]
John Podhoretz isn’t impressed with the commission, either:
The 9/11 Commission staff did hear about intelligence-gathering efforts that hit pay dirt on the whereabouts of Mohammed Atta — in 1999 — and deliberately chose to omit word of those efforts.
And why? Because to do so might upset the timeline the Commission had established on Atta.
And why is that significant? Because the Mohammed Atta timeline established by the Commission pointedly insisted Atta did not meet with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague.
And why is that significant? Because debunking the Atta-Iraq connection was of vital importance to Democrats, who had become focused almost obsessively on the preposterous notion that there was no relation whatever between Al Qaeda and Iraq — that Al Qaeda and Iraq might even have been enemies.
Well, here’s a huge story that the MSM won’t want to touch. At least not until they can conjure up some insane angle on it that will somehow make it Bush’s fault.
I never cease to be amazed that the same media that continues to give Cindy Sheehan wall-to-wall coverage, and help her promulgate the lie that the president hasn’t met with her, is so incurious about the fecklessness of the Clinton administration, and Sandy Burglar’s reckless acts.
I should add that I’ve never been able to be as impressed with the “bipartisan” 911 Commission as the press wanted me to be. When Jamie Gorelick wasn’t required to recuse herself on those things being investigated in which she was directly involved, it lost all credibility with me. The sad thing is all of the legislation that was rushed through on its flawed (and perhaps, as we see now, duplicitous) advice.
[Update at 9:37 AM EDT]
John Podhoretz isn’t impressed with the commission, either:
The 9/11 Commission staff did hear about intelligence-gathering efforts that hit pay dirt on the whereabouts of Mohammed Atta — in 1999 — and deliberately chose to omit word of those efforts.
And why? Because to do so might upset the timeline the Commission had established on Atta.
And why is that significant? Because the Mohammed Atta timeline established by the Commission pointedly insisted Atta did not meet with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague.
And why is that significant? Because debunking the Atta-Iraq connection was of vital importance to Democrats, who had become focused almost obsessively on the preposterous notion that there was no relation whatever between Al Qaeda and Iraq — that Al Qaeda and Iraq might even have been enemies.
Well, here’s a huge story that the MSM won’t want to touch. At least not until they can conjure up some insane angle on it that will somehow make it Bush’s fault.
I never cease to be amazed that the same media that continues to give Cindy Sheehan wall-to-wall coverage, and help her promulgate the lie that the president hasn’t met with her, is so incurious about the fecklessness of the Clinton administration, and Sandy Burglar’s reckless acts.
I should add that I’ve never been able to be as impressed with the “bipartisan” 911 Commission as the press wanted me to be. When Jamie Gorelick wasn’t required to recuse herself on those things being investigated in which she was directly involved, it lost all credibility with me. The sad thing is all of the legislation that was rushed through on its flawed (and perhaps, as we see now, duplicitous) advice.
[Update at 9:37 AM EDT]
John Podhoretz isn’t impressed with the commission, either:
The 9/11 Commission staff did hear about intelligence-gathering efforts that hit pay dirt on the whereabouts of Mohammed Atta — in 1999 — and deliberately chose to omit word of those efforts.
And why? Because to do so might upset the timeline the Commission had established on Atta.
And why is that significant? Because the Mohammed Atta timeline established by the Commission pointedly insisted Atta did not meet with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague.
And why is that significant? Because debunking the Atta-Iraq connection was of vital importance to Democrats, who had become focused almost obsessively on the preposterous notion that there was no relation whatever between Al Qaeda and Iraq — that Al Qaeda and Iraq might even have been enemies.
(Former?) Democrat and radio ventriloquist Phil Hendrie has a blog. With a surprising name. He’s not impressed with Cindy Sheehan.
James Lileks has some suitably arch commentary about the moral obtuseness of certain Presbyterian church leaders:
The Presbyterian church – not the members, but the learned elders – has announced it will use the church
I’d like to see this woman try this trick in her homeland, say, protesting Syrian support for the Iraqi “insurgents.”
And I wonder why these nutballs think that watching mental defectives do a strip tease and covering their naked selves with dumb graffitti is somehow going to make us hit ourselves in the forehead, forget all of the logic and facts that got us to our positions, and say “Of course! The war is Iraq is wrong!”
Only in America.
…ago we employed the first nuclear weapon ever used in war on the city of Hiroshima, Japan. A few days later, we dropped another on Nagasaki. Neither we, nor anyone else has done so since. Let’s hope that it remains that way.
Jonah Goldberg writes about the hypocrisy of the morons who are trying to kill us (occasionally, sadly, successfully), and how they’re aided and abetted by the victimologists among us:
… idiots are often very useful in illustrating the appeal of fascistic cults. Intellectuals are too good at covering their real psychological motivations with verbiage. It turns out that the famously “homegrown” terrorists of the London bombings were much more like John Walker Lindh or even the Patty Hearst types of the 1960s and ’70s. Radical chic may be as a big a part of the story as radical Islam.
We’ve always understood this was the case to a certain extent. Osama bin Laden’s prattling about the Crusades, for instance, merely shows how poisoned Islamism is by Western Marxism and anti-imperialism. Muslims used to brag about winning the Crusades. It was only after the West started exporting victimology that Islamic and Arab intellectuals started to whine about how poorly they’d been treated.
To a certain extent, radical Islam in Europe has taken the place of third-world Marxism