| February 2007 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | |||
July 2007 Stats for The Big Picture.
According to Bob Woodward, he wants an open government:
"The real impulse is to make the government accountable so we do not get a secret government," Woodward said.
"The nightmare is that the president gets so closed off, so secretive, so convinced they are doing the right thing or just unable to face the possibility that they've made a very, very serious mistake," he said.
But his proposed method - of attacking everything the government does - works to achieve the thing he says he wants to avoid.
The celebrated Washington Post reporter said the media should have done more to verify whether Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had secret weapons as alleged by US President George W. Bush as a reason to go to war.
"We should have been much more aggressive," Woodward told a conference in Tokyo.
"I've thought what I could have done," he said. "The only way to find out if (weapons of mass destruction) really existed is to get on the ground."
...Woodward's latest book, "State of Denial," takes a critical look at Bush's invasion of Iraq.
By looking only for stories that attack the government, and ignoring stories that show good things the government has achieved, news strategies such as that advocated by Woodward cannot achieve the goal he claims to seek. MSM cannot do its part in having an open government by relentlessly attacking it, and ignoring its achievements.
To do its part in having a government that is open and accountable, the correct approach for MSM would be to print the good news as well as the bad. To take two specific examples, MSM needs to print the good news from Iraq, as well as the bad - and to print the good news about the economy as prominently as its significance deserves.
The government is accountable. The nightmare is that MSM, pursuing policies such as those advocated by Woodward, is not.
The Mafia works by meeting in closed rooms and assigning specific members to do specific crimes in specific ways. Law enforcement responded by bugging the rooms, getting the evidence on tape, and using it in court.
Islam has a different method. Imams speak in public, exhorting all Muslims to kill people. One example is the Green Lane mosque in Birmingham, England, which I've posted about previously. Another example is Imam Musa. Video of this imam was recently shown on Hannity and Colmes. A transcript is here:
[When] they go out and strike at the heart of Zionism, they are not suicide bombers; they are heroes.
If you don't stay out of our way and leave us alone, we're going to burn America down.
Additional video of Imam Musa, from Hannity and Colmes, is available on YouTube here:
Those people who have become fed up with Sharon, fed up with occupation, fed up with being trampled on, when they go out, and strike at the heart of Zionism, they are not suicide bombers, they are heroes. They are heroes. Is that right? It's a part of our being, it's a part of our religion. Let's not become weak-boned and apologetic.
They speak out in public, exhorting all Muslims, explicitly as part of the Muslim religion, to blow up buses, trains, planes, restaurants, etc. He says "it's a part of our religion."
And because he didn't ask a specific Muslim to do a specific killing in a specific way, it's not currently illegal.
When one of his followers does go out and kill people - as Muslims are well-known to do - he is not thrown in jail for it.
Should it really be legal for an Imam to ask all Muslims to blow up public places - rather than to ask a single specific Muslim to do it?
Our laws need to be updated to keep up with the times.
The very Liberal Bill Maher gets it about Islam. This is a huge indication that Conservatives and Liberals may find themselves in agreement on this tremendously significant issue.
But let me back up for a minute before I transcribe some of Bill's comments. Last week in an article titled, "'What Accounts For The Almost Psychotic Aversion To Knowledge About Islam?'", I noted:
Westerners believe that all major religions are about finding happiness. They find it almost incomprehensible that there may be a widely-followed religion that is a rejection of that - that is about rejecting happiness on earth - that tells you that the only way to achieve heaven is to attack those who do not share your religion -- to attack them in every way, including through physical violence. And indeed, it is almost incomprehensible to us that there could be a religion that teaches its followers to act so brutally against their own earthly happiness. But many who practice Islam describe it as being precisely that, and practice it in exactly that way.
A perfect example of this was provided by one of Bill's guests in the clip above - I believe it's the actor, Steven Weber.
Weber: But I mean, don't those people [terrorists] represent a more extremist view, of Islam? You know? Aren't religions at first, aren't they supposed to appeal to people's moderate tastes - moderate instincts? To win them over? And then aren't they co-opted by extremists - by radical extremists?
That's exactly what I was referring to. Americans believe that all religions teach peace, love, and understanding, and help people pursue success and happiness. Weber cannot yet begin to even consider the possibility that Islam may not conform to this description.
I should note that while I do not believe that Islam conforms to this description, I do agree that this is a description of a what the word "religion" means, in the Western sense of the word. This is why former Muslims I've quoted on this site state that Islam is not a religion in the Western sense:
In the film, Islam: What the West Needs to Know, former Muslim Walid Shoebat points out that Westerners consider religion to be about a person's relationship to himself and to God. Islam is primarily a political and legal structure, and is first and foremost about man's relationship to his fellow man, specifically, the relationship of enforcing Sharia law on all fellow men.
Wafa Sultan: "...Islam should not be considered a religion, but a political ideology that applies its policy violently."
Now, here's Maher's response to Weber, transcribed from the clip:
Maher: No! They're not all alike! It was extremist to begin with. Mohammed was a warrior. The big lie is that all religions are basically alike. They all preach the same thing. Well of course the Bible is full of a lot of violence. I mean, God in the Old Testament is a psychopath - he just kills, kills, kills, for no reason, good reasons, bad reasons, he's jealous, he just wants to kill. [Laughter]. He is. He's the rifleman. [Laughter]. But he doesn't seem to aim it so much at outsiders. He wipes out the Jews except for Noah because they were bad to him or whatever. But he doesn't keep saying, as the Koran, it seems to me [....] it seems to me that in the Koran god keeps saying, if you're not one of us, you're an infidel, and burning would be too good for you.
...And they still whack people. You know, every religion has elements in it that are very mafia-like. Godfather III, a movie I liked and nobody else did, but I thought it was a good movie, was about how the Catholic church, is very much like Michael Corleone's mob family. But the Catholic church has calmed down a lot since the 14th century. But, you know, [to Hirsi Ali], there's a death threat on you. There's a death threat on people in your country that still speak out, there's a death threat on Salmon Rushdie. They still whack people, in Islam. There's still a lot of, you disagree with me, we'll settle it by getting whacked.
When someone like Bill Maher, known for his very Liberal views, gets it, there is reason to believe that word may be getting out.
The Democrats are continuing in their effort to thwart our troops from accomplishing their mission. Legislation they are currently considering would turn our troops into ducks in a shooting gallery - unable to shoot back:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Four years ago, Congress passed legislation authorizing President Bush to go to war in Iraq. Now Senate Democrats want to take it back.
Key lawmakers, backed by party leaders, are drafting legislation that would effectively revoke the broad authority granted to the president in the days Saddam Hussein was in power, and leave U.S. troops with a limited mission as they prepare to withdraw.
Officials said Thursday the precise wording of the measure remains unsettled. One version would restrict American troops in Iraq to fighting al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces.
This horrific piece of back-stabbing legislation would mean that Sunnis, who have been using IEDs to kill U.S. troops, could continue to do so, secure that our troops were legally prevented from fighting them. U.S. troop deaths would increase.
This is one of the most shocking things I have ever seen from the Democrat party.
Almost every day, Muslims, acting in the name of Islam, blow up cars, buses, restaurants, etc. The leaders of Islam do not speak out to say that such Muslims do not go to paradise.
Yet it is not uncommon to see statements such as this, which appeared recently in the LA Times:
[Kody "Monster"] Scott had seemingly turned himself around, converting to Islam and telling people he was rejecting his violent ways.
Given that public places are blown up almost daily in the name of Islam, with the undeniable implicit sanction of global Islamic leaders, how is it possible for an organization such as the LA Times to make a statement like "Scott had seemingly turned himself around, converting to Islam..."?
Or, in the words of Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI):
What accounts for the almost psychotic aversion to knowledge about Islam?
Warner provides an insightful explanation. He finds that the thought pattern taught by Islam is so antithetical to that taught by non-Islamic cultures, that non-Muslims have difficulty even beginning to consider it. He finds that Islam rejects the following things, which are inherent to non-Islamic thought.
Logic:
...the Koran [...] is actually two books, the Koran of Mecca (early) and the Koran of Medina (later). The insight into the logic of the Koran comes from the large numbers of contradictions in it. On the surface, Islam resolves these contradictions by resorting to "abrogation". This means that the verse written later supersedes the earlier verse. But in fact, since the Koran is considered by Muslims to be the perfect word of Allah, both verses are sacred and true. The later verse is "better," but the earlier verse cannot be wrong since Allah is perfect. This is the foundation of dualism. Both verses are "right." Both sides of the contradiction are true in dualistic logic. The circumstances govern which verse is used.
For example:
(Koran of Mecca) 73:10: Listen to what they [unbelievers] say with patience, and leave them with dignity.
From tolerance we move to the ultimate intolerance, not even the Lord of the Universe can stand the unbelievers:
(Koran of Medina) 8:12: Then your Lord spoke to His angels and said, "I will be with you. Give strength to the believers. I will send terror into the unbelievers' hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fingers!"
All of Western logic is based upon the law of contradiction-if two things contradict, then at least one of them is false. But Islamic logic is dualistic; two things can contradict each other and both are true.
...To reiterate, all of science is based upon the law of contradiction. If two things contradict each other, then at least one of them has to be false. But inside of Islamic logic, two contradictory statements can both be true. Islam uses dualistic logic and we use unitary scientific logic.
The Shared Humanity of Man:
Let's examine the ethical basis of our civilization. All of our politics and ethics are based upon a unitary ethic that is best formulated in the Golden Rule:
Treat others as you would be treated.
The basis of this rule is the recognition that at one level, we are all the same. We are not all equal. Any game of sports will show that we do not have equal abilities. But everyone wants to be treated as a human being. In particular, we all want to be equal under the law and be treated as social equals. On the basis of the Golden Rule-the equality of human beings-we have created democracy, ended slavery and treat women and men as political equals. So the Golden Rule is a unitary ethic. All people are to be treated the same. All religions have some version of the Golden Rule except Islam.
FrontPage: So how is Islam different in this context?
Warner: The term "human being" has no meaning inside of Islam. There is no such thing as humanity, only the duality of the believer and unbeliever. Look at the ethical statements found in the Hadith. A Muslim should not lie, cheat, kill or steal from other Muslims. But a Muslim may lie, deceive or kill an unbeliever if it advances Islam.
Ethics:
There is no such thing as a universal statement of ethics in Islam. Muslims are to be treated one way and unbelievers another way. The closest Islam comes to a universal statement of ethics is that the entire world must submit to Islam. After Mohammed became a prophet, he never treated an unbeliever the same as a Muslim. Islam denies the truth of the Golden Rule.
By the way, this dualistic ethic is the basis for jihad. The ethical system sets up the unbeliever as less than human and therefore, it is easy to kill, harm or deceive the unbeliever.
Now mind you, unbelievers have frequently failed at applying the Golden Rule, but we can be judged and condemned on its basis. We do fall short, but it is our ideal.
There have been other dualistic cultures. The KKK comes to mind. But the KKK is a simplistic dualism. The KKK member hates all black people at all times; there is only one choice. This is very straightforward and easy to see.
The dualism of Islam is more deceitful and offers two choices on how to treat the unbeliever. The unbeliever can be treated nicely, in the same way a farmer treats his cattle well. So Islam can be "nice", but in no case is the unbeliever a "brother" or a friend. In fact, there are some 14 verses of the Koran that are emphatic-a Muslim is never a friend to the unbeliever. A Muslim may be "friendly," but he is never an actual friend. And the degree to which a Muslim is actually a true friend is the degree to which he is not a Muslim, but a hypocrite.
Westerners believe that all major religions are about finding happiness. They find it almost incomprehensible that there may be a widely-followed religion that is a rejection of that - that is about rejecting happiness on earth - that tells you that the only way to achieve heaven is to attack those who do not share your religion -- to attack them in every way, including through physical violence. And indeed, it is almost incomprehensible to us that there could be a religion that teaches its followers to act so brutally against their own earthly happiness. But many who practice Islam describe it as being precisely that, and practice it in exactly that way.
Westerners must look at Islam and find out what it is, not what we wish it was.
From HotAir.com:
Here's video of Hillary, speaking directly to the viewer. The word "victory" isn't in her vocabulary.
"Business is booming" in the French Quarter of New Orleans, for Mardi Gras.
From Christopher Hitchens:
All over the non-Muslim world, we hear incessant demands that those who believe in the literal truth of the Quran be granted "respect." We are supposed to watch what we say about Islam, lest by any chance we be considered "offensive." A fair number of authors and academics in the West now have to live under police protection or endure prosecution in the courts for not observing this taboo with sufficient care. A stupid term—Islamophobia—has been put into circulation to try and suggest that a foul prejudice lurks behind any misgivings about Islam's infallible "message."
Well, this idiotic masochism has to be dropped. There may have been a handful of ugly incidents, provoked by lumpen elements, after certain episodes of Muslim terrorism. But no true secularist or even Christian has been involved in anything like the torching of a mosque. (The last time that such a thing did happen on any scale—in Bosnia—the United States and Britain intervened militarily to put a stop to it. We also overthrew the Taliban, which was slaughtering the Hazara Shiite minority in Afghanistan.) But where are the denunciations from centers of Sunni and Shiite authority of the daily murder and torture of Islamic co-religionists? Of the regular desecration of holy sites and holy books? Of the paranoid insults thrown so carelessly and callously by one Muslim group at another? This mounting ghastliness is a bit more worthy of condemnation, surely, than a few Danish cartoons or a false rumor about a profaned copy of the Quran in Guantanamo. The civilized world—yes I do mean to say that—should find its own voice and state firmly to Muslim leaders and citizens that respect is something to be earned and not demanded with menace. A short way of phrasing this would be to say, "See how the Muslims respect each other!"
U.S. Court of Appeals: "Guantanamo Detainees Can't Challenge Their Cases in U.S. Courts, Appellate Panel Rules."
This is the right decision, and an extremely important one.
Pathetic Monday-morning quarterbacking from McCain. This guy lost my vote due to his responsibility for McCain-Feingold.
From an analysis piece in today's Washington Post:
...yesterday's vote signaled peril for the Democratic congressional leadership as well. Despite deep Republican discontent with the course of the war, Democrats were unable to persuade more than 17 members of the president's party to register that dissatisfaction with their votes. If Democratic leaders could not build a broader bipartisan coalition for a symbolic vote, it may prove much harder to attract Republican support for proposals to limit Bush's options in Iraq.
Many Democratic strategists remain allergic to repeating the finale of the Vietnam War, when Congress voted to cut funds for the South Vietnamese government and the nation fell to the North in 1975. For years afterward, Democrats have struggled to shed the image of being soft on defense, which is why they were so eager to bring along more Republicans yesterday.
...Administration allies warned about the precedent beyond Bush as well. "If Congress proceeds to throttle the president's strategy, then it will seriously undercut the ability of future presidents to do what they need to do to protect the nation in a time of war," said James Phillips, a foreign policy scholar at the Heritage Foundation. "It's a mistake to think you can effectively run a war by committee."
The Dems' plan seems to be that if they cut funds to our troops, our troops will get killed, leading to our army being forced to flee Iraq - defeated not by the enemies of freedom and democracy -- all of whom are on the run from us in Iraq -- but instead, defeated by a back-stabbing Democrat party -- a party that may destroy its own political future in the process.
Our troops have fought, and over 3000 of them have died, to accomplish a mission. For the Democrats to sabotage that mission, would be unforgivable. If the Dems thought that their actions in Vietnam harmed their own party, actions such as these, if taken in Iraq, could destroy it.
Update 2-17-07: The Senate Republicans today moved to continue debate on a bill similar to the one passed by Congress yesterday. (This bill condemns the troop surge, and is considered a precursor to a move by Dems to take funding away from our troops, even while they are in harm's way.) Democrats voted to halt debate and move to a vote on the bill. This action by Republicans is seen as having blocked passage of the bill. The Republicans stood for real support for our troops -- not lip service, but the real support of providing the funds our troops need for their mission. Every single Democrat voted to cut off debate and vote. These Democrats have risked disgracing themselves in the eyes of our military and their families, by their threats to cut off funding support to American troops who are in harm's way. The Dems must turn away from this path, that is so full of danger to our troops, to our nation, and to the Democratic party itself.
Joe Lieberman, today, on the Senate floor:
WASHINGTON, D.C. - In a statement on the Senate floor today concerning the non-binding Iraq resolution, Senator Lieberman stated:
"The non-binding resolution before us today, we all know, is only a prologue. That is why the fight over it - procedural and substantive - over these past weeks has been so intense. It is the first skirmish in an escalating battle that threatens to consume our government over many months ahead, a battle that will neither solve the sprawling challenges we face in Iraq nor strengthen our nation to defeat the enemies of our security throughout the world from Islamist extremists. That is to say, in our war against the terrorists that attacked us.
We still have a choice not to go down this path - it's a choice that goes beyond the immediate resolution before the Senate - a chance to step back from the brink and find a better way to express and arbitrate our opinion, and I hope we will seize the moment and take that chance."
Senator Lieberman called for nonpartisan cooperation:
"Whatever our opinion of this war or its conduct, it is in no one's interest to stumble into a debilitating confrontation between our two great branches of government over war powers. The potential for a constitutional crisis here and now is real, with congressional interventions, presidential vetoes, and Supreme Court decisions. If there was ever a moment for nonpartisan cooperation to agree on a process that will respect both our personal opinions about this war and our nation's interests over the long term, this is it.
We need to step back from the brink and reason together, as Scripture urges us to do, about how we will proceed to express our disagreements about this war."
Senator Lieberman argued that the non binding resolution, "proposes nothing. It contains no plan for victory or retreat... It is a strategy of "no," while our soldiers are saying, "yes, sir" to their commanding officers as they go forward into battle."
Senator Lieberman closed with a call for unity, "Whatever our differences here in this chamber, about this war, let us never forget the values of freedom and democracy that unite us and for which our troops have given and today give the last full measure of their devotion. Yes, we should vigorously debate and deliberate. That is not only our right, it is our responsibility. But at this difficult juncture, at this moment when a real battle, a critical battle is being waged in Baghdad, as we face a brutal enemy who attacked us on 9/11 and wants to do it again, let us not just shout at one another, but let us reach out to one another to find that measure of unity that can look beyond today's disagreements and secure the nation's future and the future of all who will follow us as Americans."
Congress passed the non-binding resolution condemning the troop surge - leading Pelosi to intimate that she hopes to block funding for the troops and force them to leave Iraq:
"The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home," she vowed after the vote, in which 17 Republicans joined 229 Democrats in a wartime rebuke to the president.
Citing recent comments by Democrats, Bush's Republican allies said repeatedly the measure would lead to attempts to cut off funds for the troops.
This is a back-stabbing move to our troops by the Democrat-led congress. Our troops have fought and died to accomplish a mission, a mission we are winning, with all of our enemies in Iraq on the run - and the Democrats are hoping to do what our enemies have not been able to, and prevent our troops from completing their mission. It's not often I'm this shocked by the actions of the Dems.
The Senate can still save this country from a constitutional crisis - and can enable our troops to finish their mission:
Republican senators said in advance they would deny Democrats the 60 votes needed to advance the resolution, adding they would insist on equal treatment for a GOP-drafted alternative that opposes any reduction in funds for the troops.
With the Democrat-led Congress considering an effort to fight the office of the President for control of the army, things are quite serious. Congress, by design of the Founders, moves slowly and deliberatively -- far too much so to successfully control the military in wartime.
For this country to be able to have a military that can move effectively, the Republicans in the Senate must block this resolution from advancing.
Al Qaeda in Iraq is being destroyed:
...most people believe al Qaeda in Iraq is finished. After boasting last Fall that they would establish a safe zone in western Iraq, and failing to do anything close to that, the Islamic terrorists lost whatever credibility they had left.
The Sunnis, who for years ran the country for Saddam and terrorized their countrymen - and who have been using IEDs to kill US troops, and bombs to kill Iraqi civilians - are fleeing:
Most of the five million Iraqi Sunni Arabs in Iraq have been driven from their homes. These people were the power base for Saddam Hussein and his Baath Parth. Since 2003, violence between Sunni Arabs, and the 15 million Shia Arabs, and five million non-Arab Kurds, has caused most of this population movement. The cause of all this has been the effort, over the last four years, by Sunni Arab terrorists, to regain control of the country. This effort has failed, but the numerous attacks on Shia Arabs has created a violent backlash.
The Iraq democratic government is led by Shias. The principal Shia leader opposed to democracy was Al Sadr, who was disrupting the government via military actions conducted by his militia. (Although his actions were not without some useful effect, given that he targeted the Sunnis who were using IEDs to target US soldiers, and bombs to kill Iraqi civilians.) After the announcement by GWB of the troop surge, Al Sadr has fled Iraq, and his militia is falling apart:
...the Iraqi Shia Arab militias, especially the Sadr forces (the Mahdi Army), have lost whatever unity and discipline they once had. Factionalism has taken over as several of Sadr's lieutenants compete for popularity and territory by driving Sunni Arabs out of Baghdad neighborhoods. Most of Iraq's Sunni Arabs have been chased from their homes since 2003, and that process has accelerated in the last year.
You won't hear much about this from MSM. They don't want to report news of US success. But the enemies of democracy and capitalism in Iraq are on the run.
P.S. Note the way ABC introduces its report of Al Sadr fleeing Iraq:
...the focus in Iraq is not on the arrival of more U.S. troops, but the departure of one of the country's most powerful men, Moqtada al Sadr and members of his army.
The story, declares ABC, is not the troop surge, but the departure of Al Sadr. ABC cleverly implies that Al Sadr was not fleeing precisely from the troop surge. ABC certainly hasn't interviewed Al Sadr to check with him about this -- and even if Al Sadr told ABC something like, "No, the troop surge had nothing to do with my decision to flee Iraq. I just felt like it was time for a little trip." -- I wouldn't be inclined to believe him.
GWB:
“I can say with certainty that the Quds Force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated I.E.D.’s that have harmed our troops,” Mr. Bush said, using the abbreviation for improvised explosive device. “And I’d like to repeat, I do not know whether or not the Quds Force was ordered from the top echelons of the government. But my point is, what’s worse, them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and its happening?”
Last Thursday I discussed a dramatic example of the LA Times hiding news that made GWB look good - specifically, the story headlined in publications such as USA Today as, "N. KOREA AGREES IN PRINCIPLE TO TAKE INITIAL STEPS TO DISMANTLE NUKE PROGRAM" - a story which didn't even appear on the front page of the LA Times.
Today the story about the deal with North Korea on nuclear disarmament has gotten so big that even the LA Times has it as a major page one story, in its print version.
So let's check the LA Times web site to see if they're also giving the story its due prominence on the web.
And let's also check, for comparison, the web sites of the NY Times and the Washington Post. Here's a screen shot from the NY Times web site:
The NY Times web site has the story featured in its top, most prominent spot.
Same with the Washington Post web site:
How about the LA Times?
The LA Times web site buried the story -- again!
In this time, when terrorists are trying to acquire nukes in order to use them on America, the potential importance of this story is hard to overestimate. Yet - in keeping with its usual policy of hiding good news that reflects well on GWB - the LA Times buries it on its web site.
