Welcome! You are reading the archives. Click here to visit the Home page and see the latest articles.

March 31, 2004

Another Muslim Cleric Preaches Openly For the Killing of Americans… and the False Compartmentalization in the Logic of the Left.

CNN reported it—no one’s making this up.

GLOBAL JIHAD

Iraqi cleric: 9-11 ‘miracle from God’
‘Proof’ of divine plan seen in ‘fall of the American Twin Towers’

The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S. were “a miracle from God,” and Israel’s assassination of Hamas’ terrorist leader was a “dirty crime against Islam,” says a prominent Shiite cleric in Iraq.

During Friday prayers at a mosque near the holy city of Najaf, Moqtada al-Sadr praised the attacks that killed some 3,000 Americans, reported CNN.

... “They have planned and paved the ways for a long time, but it is God who is the real planner and the proof of this is the fall of the American Twin Towers.”

The more Americans are exposed to information on this subject, the more out of touch the left is going to appear. We’re in a war.

Of course, the left likes to do their “false compartmentalizing” thing with stories like this. Quote the above story to a liberal friend, and he or she will likely say, “Oh, that’s just in Iraq. Of course Muslims there are angry with us, because we invaded. You can’t generalize from that to other Muslim clerics.” This is one kind of false logic used by the left: claiming that two related things have nothing to do with each other. The only thing wrong with this logic is that it isn’t true. Clerics throughout the middle east are preaching exactly the same thing. As Giacomo, a reader from Bolzano, Italy, noted in a recent comment here:

Wahabbism is the teaching of the Saudi Arabin State (which got the most islamistic and radical rules after Taliban Afghanistan), it spread it all over the islamic world in building coran schools an mosques in which the terrorist teaching are broad to the muslims.

I was talking to a friend the other day who was telling me there was no connection between Hussein and terrorism. I asked, what about the money he paid to suicide bombers? “Oh—that’s just Israel,” she said.

That’s another perfect example of false compartmentalization. In my friend’s opinion, terrorists in the mideast who want to kill Americans, have nothing to do with terrorists in the mideast that want to kill Israelis. The only thing wrong with this logic is that it isn’t true. They all live in the same part of the world, coincidentally share a religion, coincidentally are all terrorists, and of course they all hate America.

Moxie’s got a great post here on a conversation she had with a friend who’s voting for Kerry, and who literally can’t continue a conversation when Mox raises the subject of Kerry’s policy of increasing taxes. It violates the false compartmentalization he’s got in his head that keep his opinions on Kerry from bumping into his opinions on taxes.

False logic is to the brain what heroin is the body. It makes you think you feel good for the moment; it makes you think you’re the smartest person in the room; it makes you think you’re winning all the arguments; and it can get you killed. Animals in the jungle know that if you zig when you need to zag, you’re lunch. If we don’t act with every means at our disposal to oppose terrorism and bring freedom to the oppressed people of the mideast, we will meet with more and more terrorist actions directed against our people.

March 30, 2004

Kerry Claims Power To Curb Opec: Yeah, Right!

This is rich:

Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who has been under fire from Republicans for advocating higher gasoline taxes in the Senate, would “arm twist” members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to increase production.

“A Kerry administration would act immediately to exert pressure on OPEC to abandon its cut in output quotas and instead increase oil supplies,” the aides said.

Isn’t that something? On the campaign trail, Kerry suddenly claims the wonderful ability to “arm twist” Opec. This is something the government’s been dealing with for 30 years, and Kerry suddenly, out of the blue, claims he has the unique ability to take care of it.

How transparent is that? Kerry just says whatever he thinks people want to hear.

March 28, 2004

A Discussion with a Reader in Bolzano, Italy, About the War in Iraq.

This comment came in this morning:

I don`t speak English very well, so i ask you to apolgize my bad grammar and spelling. I don`t agree with your position towards the Iraq war. It was a good thing for the iraqi people, but in context of the war on terror and the crisis in the middle east, this war was one of the most stupid things politicans did in the last few years. The argument to find wepons of massdestruction was proved wrong, there werent anyone. And if there would have been one, we could have found them with the UN inspectors. To implent an functioning western style democracy is also a nonsense. Because all these people in the islamic world, who search for freedom, are inspired by polical religion of Islam. For the people in the middle east a democracy, a state must be based on the Islam. (of course this is not true for non-arab cultural diffrent nations= albanians, bosnians, kurds , turkish maybe also caucaisan muslims). But fighting the terror with invading Iraq is the biggest nonsens. Sadam was a saecular anti-islamistic dictator ( he killed all lot of "muslim brothers" ) he was ideological an enemy of Al Qaida. He kept Iraq Al Qaida free(they were a danger for his reign), now terrorists are free to come to the Iraq. If you search a country, which helped al quaida, you will fing Saudia Arabia. All this terrorists are wahabbi muslims. Wahabbism is the teaching of the Saudi Arabin State (which got the most islamistic and radical rules after Taliban Afghanistan), it spread it all over the islamic world in building coran schools an mosques in which the terrorist teaching are broad to the muslims. Who do you think financed the coran schools the Taliban (=coran students) came from? Not the Iraq

Hi Giacomo,

Thanks for your excellent comment. It's great to hear the opinions of someone in Bolzano, Italy (the city you noted in one of the personal info fields). To be able to exchange opinions with you is remarkable. The Internet is changing the world. I'm not sure you're right that democracy and freedom can't be established in Iraq. The same argument was made about the Japanese after World War II. That was a nation in which the Emperor was considered to be God. Yet that nation was able to embrace freedom and democracy. You note that the Iraq war was good for the Iraqi people. Yet you consider the war stupid. How can it be considered stupid when it's already had so many good results for the United States?

• Libya has revealed and renounced its WMD program. This in and of itself partially fulfills the goal of keeping WMD out of mideast terrorists.
• Pakistan and India are resuming relations after a period in which war threatened between them.
• Demonstrations for democracy are taking place in Iran -- indicating that Muslims may be willing to accept Democracy.
• Syria has stopped threatening the U.S.
• Hussein is no longer paying money to the families of terrorists who commit suicide bombings.
• Hussein is no longer providing safe harbor to Al-Qaeda, as you state he was doing.

And regarding Saudi Arabia, even the funds to the madrassas, which you mention, have been reduced due to our efforts in Iraq:

While there have been bombings [in Saudi Arabia], what is new is that many members of the royal family realize that the world is changing, and that they may well be dragged by al Qaedists into an 11th-century abyss. Surely the scheduled withdrawal of American troops from the kingdom, the curtailment in Saudi funds sent abroad to fuel the madrassas, the reexamination of Saudi-sponsored charities, and the beginning of some democratic awakening among vocal elites, all suggest that the tough approach of the United States toward the sponsors of terror and the victory in Iraq made things far better.

The war's achieved many great successes, not only for the Iraqi people, not only for the United States, but for the whole world. Giacomo, thanks again for the chance to discuss this with you. I appreciate your thoughts and hope to hear from you again. -Vik

March 26, 2004

How Clarke’s Monday Morning Quarterbacking Will Help Bush.

What no one seems to be noticing about all this fuss Clarke is making, is that it endorses a very pro-active, aggressive approach to taking out terrorism, and that strongly favors Bush over Kerry. Kerry’s approach is to take a very limited approach to fighting terrorism.

As LGF points out, speeches made by leading Democrats at the recent “unity dinner” for Kerry didn’t even mention terrorism.

Everyone’s talking about how Clarke is attacking Bush on his strong suit. He’s doing nothing of the kind. He isn’t claiming that Bush did nothing after 9-11. Clarke’s arguments boost Bush’s current strategy, and slam Kerry’s.

March 25, 2004

Richard Clarke: Monday Morning Quarterback.

The lead LA TIMES headline today is:

Terror Not a Bush Priority Before 9/11, Witness Says

Thanks for blowing the lid off that story, LA TIMES! Al-Qaeda was a higher priority for everyone after 9/11.

In implying that it wasn’t a priority at all at the Bush administration prior to 9/11, Richard Clarke is contradicting his own public statements, as widely documented here, here, and here.

This deep investigative journalism in the TIMES is also known as monday morning quarterbacking and 20-20 hindsight.

March 24, 2004

Dick Morris: The Presidential Race May be “A Blowout in the Making.”

You heard it here first—in my article of a week ago, “Kerry’s Gonna Get Hammered in the Election.” In today’s NY Post Online, Morris says:

A BLOWOUT IN THE MAKING

...I have doubted the conventional wisdom that this election would be close. If Bush continues to stay on the offensive and Kerry’s responses remain as inept as they’ve been, the Massachusetts Democrat will go downhill faster than he is now doing on his skiing vacation.

I’m proud to be in sync with one of our leading political analysts.

Here I posted that “Kerry is not Presidential material.” Morris states:

This Democrat is not ready to run for president, and the more the Republicans press him, the more he will self-destruct. His campaign advisers are hoping that a few hours extra sleep on his ski trip will restore his political judgment, but they ignore the fact that he never had a lot to begin with.

I noted that:

The Democrats knew Bush was unbeatable and that’s one reason why all their presidential candidates have been so lame.

Morris has this fascinating insight:

Kerry only won the nomination because Dean lost it and Edwards was hobbled by Clark so he could not get the momentum he needed to mount a real challenge. With the front-loaded process, decreed by financial-wizard-but-political-amateur Terry McAuliffe, the party is united but saddled with a nominee who can’t handle prime time.

March 23, 2004

9/11 Panel Preliminary Report: Red Hot.

The Panel’s preliminary report vindicates the Bush approach of using military action to combat terrorism.

WASHINGTON (AP) – Lacking the intelligence information they needed to strike directly at Osama bin Laden, Clinton and Bush administration officials fruitlessly sought a diplomatic solution to get the al-Qaida leader out of Afghanistan, a federal panel said Tuesday.

Not until the day before the Sept. 11 attacks did U.S. officials settle on a strategy to overthrow the Taliban Afghan government if a final diplomatic push failed. That strategy was expected to take three years, the independent commission investigating the attacks said in one of two preliminary reports. U.S. officials feared that a failed attempt on bin Laden could kill innocents and would only boost bin Laden’s prestige. And the American public and Congress would have opposed any large-scale military operations before the September 2001 attacks, the report said. In the end, it said, pursuing diplomacy over military action allowed bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders to elude capture.

So the Kerry approach, of using diplomacy and police action to oppose terrorism, led to 9-11:

The Clinton administration had early indications of terrorist links to bin Laden and future Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as early as 1995, but let years pass as it pursued criminal indictments and diplomatic solutions to subduing them abroad, the commission’s report said.

And this appears to throw out Richard Clarke’s claim that he was all over Al-Qaeda prior to the Bush administration taking office.

Pentagon counterterrorism officials prepared a strategy urging the Defense Department in September 1998 “to take up the gauntlet that international terrorists have thrown at our feet.” But the paper was rejected by a deputy undersecretary as “too aggressive.”

March 22, 2004

LIB-WATCH—WHAT’S THE LEFT SAYING TODAY?

There’s a big article about blogging in the current VANITY FAIR. VF being a very liberal publication, the article praises leading liberal weblogs. So I thought I’d check them out. See if they’re saying things that those on the right may be missing.

First up is the Daily Kos. While the name is very well-known to me, I’d never read it. Today he’s all about boosting this Richard Clarke charge that the Bush administration has done little on terrorism before or after 9-11:

The folks over at the Center for American Progress have put together a damning timeline, built upon official government memos, that paints the utter failure of this administration to take effective action against al Qaeda—even AFTER 9-11.

The “utter failure,” says Kos. So far there’ve been no more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9-11. Yet Kos considers that an utter failure. Isn’t that interesting? Kos doesn’t consider the defense of our people to be a success at all. It’s not even worth mentioning. What exactly would Kos consider a success?

It’s interesting that the Left never defines what it would consider a success, or what it would do to achieve it.

Then there’s the little item that Clinton had 8 years of terrorist attacks on the U.S., and did nothing—yet Kos blames Bush for not dismantling Al Qaeda in the 9 months he was in office prior to 9-11. Rush nails this one:

I mean, for eight years the Clinton administration did nothing…1994 Al-Qaeda plotted to assassinate Pope John Paul II during his visit to Manila; 1995 they plotted to kill President Clinton during a visit to the Philippines; 1995, had a plot to bomb simultaneously in midair a dozen U.S. transpacific flights and it was discovered and thwarted at the last moment.

1998 conducted the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania killed at least 301 individuals and injured more than 5,000 others. I forget 1993 that World Trade Center bombing; 1999, another millennium plot, bomber caught en route to LAX, and in 2000, they bombed the USS Cole in the port of Aden in Yemen, killing 17 U.S. Navy members and injuring another 39. So all of those events and more taking place during the eight years of Bill Clinton, and the media today not interested in asking any Clinton administration, that’s appearing on TV about any of that. All they want to know is why didn’t the Bush administration in nine months do anything to stop 9/11? Why weren’t they focused on it? It is to the point here, ladies and gentlemen, of being absurd to the point that everybody can see this!

This has been a fun post. I’ll do some more lib-watching later this week.

March 20, 2004

I’ve Gotta Say, I’m Very Proud of This Weblog.

Prior to a week ago I hadn’t posted much (perhaps one or two posts a week) for a month or so. It’s been a relatively slow news time. Today I checked my system logs, expecting to see greatly reduced traffic, and I was very surprised to see that traffic has been excellent. So far this month this site has had 18,186 hits, including 7,072 visits from 3,512 unique visitors. I really feel this blog gives me a chance to make a contribution to the general debate. And to my visitors I’d like to say, thanks so much for stopping by! I really appreciate it.

March 19, 2004

Another Kerry Blunder Reveals More About his Character.

On his first full day off, though, Mr. Kerry awoke determined to hit the slopes of Mount Baldy.

The image-conscious candidate and his aides prevailed upon reporters and photographers to let him have a first run down the mountain solo, except for two agents and Marvin Nicholson, his omnipresent right-hand man.

His next trip down, a reporter and a camera crew were allowed to follow along on skis just in time to see Mr. Kerry taken out by one of the Secret Service men, who had inadvertently moved into his path, sending him into the snow.

When asked about the mishap a moment later, he said sharply, “I don’t fall down,” then used an expletive to describe the agent who “knocked me over.”

Let’s count the ways this is wrong:

• Extremely mean-spirited.
• Loses his temper and lashes out at others over trivialities.
• Curses as a matter of course even when running for President and surrounded by reporters.
• Loses control easily to the extent of forgetting that cursing out an agent is bad for his campaign.

And this is within a week of his ‘unnamed foreign leaders support me’ blunder. Kerry is not Presidential material.

“Our Ancestors Didn’t Die at Gettysburg, Iwo, or Pusan to Give into [the Islamofascist’s] Pathetic Dark Age Fantasies.”

Let me break out for you one of the juiciest quotes from this interview with Victor Davis Hanson.

[The Islamofascists] do sense that they have failed and want the West they hate. It is our duty not to facilitate that hatred by appeasement or multicultural goobly-gook, but instead offer the carrot of reform and help-and the stick that lets them know in no uncertain terms our ancestors didn’t die at Gettysburg, Iwo, or Pusan to give into their pathetic Dark Age fantasies. They must accept that the next regime, rogue nation-call what you will- who has any remote connection with those who commit a 9-11 like attack on the United States will learn that their complicity is synonymous with their utter destruction.

March 18, 2004

Next time you hear the ridiculous argument that Haliburton is being favored by the Bush administration, note this:

Halliburton has worked with the Department of Defense for 12 years, and did a substantial amount of work under the Clinton administration. Investor’s Business Daily recently wrote:

... Halliburton won its services contract from the Pentagon back in 1992 – three years before Cheney became CEO. Then-Defense Secretary Cheney wasn’t the one who awarded the contract; career Pentagon officials did … By the way, Halliburton worked under the same basic deal in the Balkans under President Clinton.

Another great point from Larry Elder.

Let’s not forget the obvious: the Spanish are depending on us,

the United States, to eradicate the terrorists for them.

They want to be left alone by the terrorists. If the Islamofascists were to succeed, it would be only a matter of time before terrorists demand that militant Islam be imposed on all of Spain. So the Spanish need us, are counting on us, are depending on us to do the hard work for them, to save them.

That is true cowardice: to pretend to agree with the enemy who wants to destroy you.

Americans should not be fooled by Spanish rhetoric that they don’t support the war in Iraq. With us doing all the hard work, it’s easier for them to take the cowardly way out. But they can’t come out and say, “we’re a bunch of cowardly slackers.” No, of course not. They have to pretend they’re opposed to the war on the terrorists who just killed hundreds of them and wounded close to a thousand. They have to pretend they’re opposed to a war on those to whom they’ve just raised the white flag in fear.

Ha. As if. If they don’t turn themselves around on this, the cowardice of the Spanish could become a punchline for generations.

March 17, 2004

Ann Coulter as always makes a great point:

Before he was put into office because he supported policies favored by al-Qaida terrorists, appeasement candidate Zapatero said: “I want Kerry to win.” Kerry is also supported by North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, who broadcasts Kerry speeches over Radio Pyongyang with favorable commentary.

So now Kerry really does have two foreign leaders on record supporting him: a Socialist terrorist-appeaser and a Marxist mass murderer...

Kerry’s Gonna Get Hammered in the Election.

That’s my opinion. He can’t stand up to stuff like this:

...Cheney said: “Of the many nations that have joined our coalition, allies and friends of the United States, Senator Kerry speaks with open contempt.

“Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland, and more than 20 other nations have contributed and sacrificed for the freedom of the Iraqi people,” Cheney said in a speech at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. “Senator Kerry calls these countries, quote, ‘window-dressing’. They are in his words, a coalition of the coerced and the bribed. Cheney went on: “How would Senator Kerry describe Great Britain? Coerced, or bribed? Or Italy, which recently lost 19 citizens killed by terrorists in Najaf. “Was Italy’s contribution just window-dressing?”... Kerry has since said that the president decieved Congress into passing the vote. But Cheney said: “Had the decision belonged to Senator Kerry, Saddam hussein would still be in power today in Iraq. “In fact, Saddam Hussein would almost certainly still be in control of Kuwait.” The vice president said: “The American people will have a clear choice in the election of 2004.” Refering to the September 11, 2001 attacks and the ensuing war on terror, Cheney said that the Republican president “has built a national security record of his own.” “He saw America through tragedy. He has kept the nation’s enemies in desperate flight. And under his leadership, our country has once again led the armies of liberation, freeing 50 million souls (in Afghanistan and Iraq) from tyranny and making our nation and the world more secure.”

Kerry’s got nothing but complaints. He’s got no answers and he’s on every side and no side of every issue except terrorism, the fight against which he wants to abandon.

The Democrats knew Bush was unbeatable and that’s one reason why all their presidential candidates have been so lame.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >