They’re just on the other side. Christopher Hitchens, who knows these creatures as well as anyone who’s no longer one of them, explains:
To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another. It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as “antiwar” when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side. Was there a single placard saying, “No to Jihad”? Of course not. Or a single placard saying, “Yes to Kurdish self-determination” or “We support Afghan women’s struggle”? Don’t make me laugh. And this in a week when Afghans went back to the polls, and when Iraqis were preparing to do so, under a hail of fire from those who blow up mosques and U.N. buildings, behead aid workers and journalists, proclaim fatwahs against the wrong kind of Muslim, and utter hysterical diatribes against Jews and Hindus.
Some of the leading figures in this “movement,” such as George Galloway and Michael Moore, are obnoxious enough to come right out and say that they support the Baathist-jihadist alliance. Others prefer to declare their sympathy in more surreptitious fashion. The easy way to tell what’s going on is this: Just listen until they start to criticize such gangsters even a little, and then wait a few seconds before the speaker says that, bad as these people are, they were invented or created by the United States. That bad, huh? (You might think that such an accusation
They’re just on the other side. Christopher Hitchens, who knows these creatures as well as anyone who’s no longer one of them, explains:
To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another. It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as “antiwar” when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side. Was there a single placard saying, “No to Jihad”? Of course not. Or a single placard saying, “Yes to Kurdish self-determination” or “We support Afghan women’s struggle”? Don’t make me laugh. And this in a week when Afghans went back to the polls, and when Iraqis were preparing to do so, under a hail of fire from those who blow up mosques and U.N. buildings, behead aid workers and journalists, proclaim fatwahs against the wrong kind of Muslim, and utter hysterical diatribes against Jews and Hindus.
Some of the leading figures in this “movement,” such as George Galloway and Michael Moore, are obnoxious enough to come right out and say that they support the Baathist-jihadist alliance. Others prefer to declare their sympathy in more surreptitious fashion. The easy way to tell what’s going on is this: Just listen until they start to criticize such gangsters even a little, and then wait a few seconds before the speaker says that, bad as these people are, they were invented or created by the United States. That bad, huh? (You might think that such an accusation
They’re just on the other side. Christopher Hitchens, who knows these creatures as well as anyone who’s no longer one of them, explains:
To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another. It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as “antiwar” when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side. Was there a single placard saying, “No to Jihad”? Of course not. Or a single placard saying, “Yes to Kurdish self-determination” or “We support Afghan women’s struggle”? Don’t make me laugh. And this in a week when Afghans went back to the polls, and when Iraqis were preparing to do so, under a hail of fire from those who blow up mosques and U.N. buildings, behead aid workers and journalists, proclaim fatwahs against the wrong kind of Muslim, and utter hysterical diatribes against Jews and Hindus.
Some of the leading figures in this “movement,” such as George Galloway and Michael Moore, are obnoxious enough to come right out and say that they support the Baathist-jihadist alliance. Others prefer to declare their sympathy in more surreptitious fashion. The easy way to tell what’s going on is this: Just listen until they start to criticize such gangsters even a little, and then wait a few seconds before the speaker says that, bad as these people are, they were invented or created by the United States. That bad, huh? (You might think that such an accusation
Hugh Hewitt has a good idea (not to imply that this isn’t often the case) about federal funds for Louisiana:
Senate Republicans should insist that as part of the package, reforms in the federal Endangered Species Act–similar to this that are poised to pass the House–be included in the appropriation so that the notoriously expense-increasing and private-property-rights destroying ESA not delay or increase the costs of these projects or other Corps projects across the country. A simple tightening of deadlines widely abused by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when the Corps “consults” with that agency under the ESA would be a huge step forward.
While they’re at it, the National Environmental Protection Act could use an overhaul as well. These two laws are one of the bigger barriers to private space launch, now that some of the FAA issues have been resolved.
If this Republican spending binge and the hurricanes result in real federal reform, such as this and a line-item veto, they will be shining silver linings in the clouds.
Hugh Hewitt has a good idea (not to imply that this isn’t often the case) about federal funds for Louisiana:
Senate Republicans should insist that as part of the package, reforms in the federal Endangered Species Act–similar to this that are poised to pass the House–be included in the appropriation so that the notoriously expense-increasing and private-property-rights destroying ESA not delay or increase the costs of these projects or other Corps projects across the country. A simple tightening of deadlines widely abused by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when the Corps “consults” with that agency under the ESA would be a huge step forward.
While they’re at it, the National Environmental Protection Act could use an overhaul as well. These two laws are one of the bigger barriers to private space launch, now that some of the FAA issues have been resolved.
If this Republican spending binge and the hurricanes result in real federal reform, such as this and a line-item veto, they will be shining silver linings in the clouds.
Hugh Hewitt has a good idea (not to imply that this isn’t often the case) about federal funds for Louisiana:
Senate Republicans should insist that as part of the package, reforms in the federal Endangered Species Act–similar to this that are poised to pass the House–be included in the appropriation so that the notoriously expense-increasing and private-property-rights destroying ESA not delay or increase the costs of these projects or other Corps projects across the country. A simple tightening of deadlines widely abused by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when the Corps “consults” with that agency under the ESA would be a huge step forward.
While they’re at it, the National Environmental Protection Act could use an overhaul as well. These two laws are one of the bigger barriers to private space launch, now that some of the FAA issues have been resolved.
If this Republican spending binge and the hurricanes result in real federal reform, such as this and a line-item veto, they will be shining silver linings in the clouds.