Critics of the war on terror want to lay all the responsibility for continuation of the war on the Bush Administration. Can someone tell me how it is the policies of George Bush that caused the terrorist threat to the Taj Mahal? The Taj Mahal is not a symbol of the West. Does this not disprove the lie that Islamic militants are simply responding to the supposed aggression and colonization by the West in general and the US in particular?

The terrorists threatening us want one of two goals to be realized. Non-muslims can convert to islam or they can die. I certainly do not intend to do either. Terrorists organizations regularly call for the destruction of Israel and the US. Secondarily, submission to islam is offered as an alternative, which, to my mind, it is not.

Approximately a month ago, we also saw the train bombings in Bombay. If any one can demonstrate the linkage between these terrorist actions and US policies, I would certainly like to read the argument. Otherwise, I have to continue to support the fight against terrorism, wherever it may lead.

This is what passes for intelligent thought among the left.  I especially love the embracing of Hezbollah in a supposed peace march.  Did they miss the part where Hezbollah openly advocates the extermination of the Jews?  I guess that is a recipe for peace among the Looney Left.

"Nasrallah did not say where the money were coming from but the group receives most of its money from oil-rich Iran. "

In case anyone was unaware, the terrorists won this one.  The rebuilding will be performed by an acknowledged terrorist organization.  Hezbollah is not even the majority party in Lebanon, but they will certainly be gaining in the "hearts and minds" of the people that they used as human shields. 

We can certainly expect three things from the rebuilding effort.  1) Weapons will be smuggled in with the money and material from Iran.  2) The new construction will be built with an eye toward using every square inch as a potential battlefield.  And 3) there will be a continuation of this war.  Sadly, the peace-at-all-costs crowd are in denial of this reality and they have far too much sway in the current "resolution" of the conflict.

Spare me the argument of Timothy McVeigh.  When are we going to start profiling?  How many terrorists and suspected terrorists with a certain type of name and certain type of racial makeup need to be arrested before we realize my 70-year old mother is not a likely terrorist?!

Congress needs to pass legislation that exempts TSA agents, federal law enforcement and local law enforcement from civil lawsuits in the performance of their duties with regard to terrorism detainments.  Although Congress would never have the spine to do so, unless these first responders can perform their jobs to detain and question possible terrorists, we will only be spinning our wheels in preventing terrorism. 

Certainly there should be procedures to sanction TSA or law enforcement that oversteps their bounds and common-sence.  Certainly, we should not target arabs/muslims to the exclusion of possible other actors of other racial or cultural makeup.  But to foolishly ignore that the vast majority of terrorists are male within a certain age group and certain racial/cultural makeup is sticking our damn heads in the sands.

I make this argument knowing full well that my racial background visually puts me within the suspect group.  But so what?!  I would rather answer a few more questions when boarding a plane than have my family and friends lives in danger due to foolish policies.

 

Bill Clinton, who campaigned for Joe Lieberman was recently quoted thusly:

"But that's not quite right. That is, there were almost no Democrats who agreed with his position, which was, 'I want to attack Iraq whether or not they have weapons of mass destruction.'"

"His position is the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld position, which was, 'Does it matter if they have weapons? None of this matters. … This is a big, important priority, and 9/11 gives us the way of attacking and deposing Saddam.'"

With friends like these, who needs enemies? We all know that Bubba wants to be loved. So now one of Lieberman's supposed friends wants to throw him under the bus to get back his street-cred with the Lamont wing of the Democratic party. Joe had to water down many of his long-held positions just to share the dais with Al Gore in 2000. Maybe now, as an independent, he can get back to his more conservative roots -- unlike the party to which he used to claim allegiance.

 Of all the unmitigated gall. British muslims and certain elected leaders, including three MP’s want to blame the UK government for the risk of terrorism in their country and worldwide. In related news, muggers in Central Park are blaming their victims for carrying wallets and wearing watches. This is ludicrous.

The West has been making concession after concession to muslim extremists for decades. Now, when western governments, chiefly the US and UK, begin to push back, we hear that the civilized world is to blame for the actions of fascistic forces of 7^th Century barbarians with 20^th Century weapons.

These same backward aggressors have been threatening peaceful muslims within their own countries and communities. Maybe these British muslim “leaders” ought to open their eyes and understand that their only hope for a peaceful world is to work with the US and UK governments to root out these barbarian fascists and KILL them before they in turn are killed by the savages they want to protect. The terrorist forces worship death and will not accept peaceful multi-religion democracy to exist.

Just as we should not allow the mugger to blame us for him taking our wallet, we should not allow terrorists or their defenders to blame us for their savagery.

How does one go from being a former Vice Presidential candidate to party outcast in one election cycle?  One could argue that it happened quickly with the rise of the lefty bloggers and the Democratic  opposition to the war.  Another argument could be made that this is the result of a decades long transition of the Democrats from the party of FDR, Truman and JFK to the party of Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore and George Soros. 

Prior to this election, the Democratic party was beholden to the unions and abortion rights crowd.  In recent years, the party has seen the rise of the anti-war crowd.  These forces want to bring our troops home.  Or at least they want to bring them home from Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.  They apparently had little complaint about our troops being in Germany, Spain, and other countries where conflict is not an issue.  That would force the realilzation that a military is used for the projection of force and the advancement of security goals.

I prefer to call it anti-American.  I do not use anti-American epithet to mean unpatriotic.  I believe these people simply want the US diminished.  They are uncomfortable with the US as the world's sole superpower and want more power given to international alliances such as the UN.  They are, however, no less dangerous than if they were unpatriotic.  A diminished America will mean that there is no power in the world that can address violent hegemonic actors such as Saddam, bin Laden, the wackjob(s) from Iran, the nutjob dictator with a bad haircut from North Korea, etc.  The UN has clearly demonstrated in their decades of futility that they are incapable of effectively using military force to achieve clear, moral goals.

The ousting of Lieberman from the Democratic fold is emblematic of this trend.  Leiberman was the closest to an old-style Democrat the party had as the party leaders move further and further to the left.  If this primary election portends the fate of the Democrats in general, the choice at the ballot box will soon become more and more stark.  A voter can choose a party that wants a strong military that can protect, preserve and defend our values, whereever that may lead, or a party that wants a diminished military that only goes abroad wearing pretty blue helmets, participating in meals-on-wheels programs. 

Ever wonder why much of the footage of Palestinian strife appears staged?  Probably because much of it is.  The video shows, from raw footage, how the footage you see on the nightly news can very easily be a staged event.  It would be comical were it not so tragic. 

I do not doubt that there is loss of life going on in Lebanon, but the blame should be put where it is due.  Iran and Syria is using the population of Lebanon as human shields for their proxy war against Israel.  It is no secret that Hezbolloah does the bidding of these foreign powers.  Palestinians have long been treated as the red-headed step-child of the Middle East.  This treatment has come from their muslim brethren, not Israel.  If it is so horrible to be Palestinian in Israel, why are they able to hold elected office in the Knesset? 

An arab-muslim has far better prospects in Israel than in the rest of the Middle East.  They are certainly treated better in Israel than an Israeli (meaning Jew) would be treated in their countries.  At least they did until this recent round of hostilities.  Palestinians and Lebanese are becoming their own worst enemies in this stupid and futile conflict.

I keep hearing about how we need the involvement of the French in Lebanon, Iraq, etc.  Can anyone tell me what foreign policy success the French have had?  I seem to draw a blank after the blockade assistance they gave us during the Revolutionary War...

Given their stellar successes since that time, it boggles the mind why they are accorded any respect on the world stage.  And I am further stymied as to why we need their consent for anything. 

 to paraphrase Golda Meir, there will never be a rational response to worldwide terrorism until journalists love their country more than they hate George Bush

Always the sage, Victor Davis Hanson clearly outlines the parallels between the response in the 30's to creeping facism to the steady advance of Islamo-facism/nazism today.  World leaders then as world leaders now have their blinders set on full to the threat that is advancing.  Claims of Islam being a religion of peace are useless when the "peaceful" contingent of Islam does nothing to reign in the violent and rabid minority in their midst.  What middle-American shopping mall, sporting event, or elementary school must be attacked before complacency is replaced with outrage and action?

Hillary Clinton must be trying to burnish her street cred with the Dailykos crowd.  Using her contrived indignation with the Secretary of Defense, Candidate Hillary can say she was for the crowd before she was against it.  Jed Babbin demonstrates for us how the willing media is working with her to reformulate her war position to get the support of the looney left. 

Now watch for Hillary to use her assault on the adminstration to have her cake and eat it too.  She has her vote for the war to play one side and now her attacks on the SecDef to get back into the good graces of the left wing that has consumed her party.  Not only does she improve upon Kerry's lame "for it before I was against it" strategy, but she can triangulate (remember her husband) her war position to play all sides.

The unions strike one more blow against the poor.  The city of Chicago mandates a "living wage" at the behest of the unions.  Anyone with a marginal grasp of economics can figure out that Walmart, Target, et al will leave the city by the target date of 2010.  The retailers will either close the city stores or reduce their exposure to the city's asinine mandate.

The retailers will move to the suburbs, which means the poor in the city of Chicago will lose access to jobs and the goods these stores provide.  Additionally, the city will lose the tax revenue, further reducing programs avaiilable to the poor.  

This is a success for the unions.  The unionized employees in the city will use this for future contract negotiations to up their wages, just like they use minimum wages elsewhere to boost their contracts. I think it is notable the clergy serving the poorer residents of the city opposed this measure. One has to wonder if the Chicago Council believes they serve the interests of their voters or the unions. Chicago unions 1, poor residents of Chicago 0.   

Setting aside my disgust at getting Albright's views on North Korea, why do I keep seeing Zbigniew Brzezinski's name pop up for interviews on how to handle Iran?  Isn't that like asking Elmer Fudd about his success at hunting wabbits?

Funny, funny, funny.