We are positively thrilled with the job the Mainstream Media has done to downplay Kerry’s characterization of the military as dumb. If anything, their attempt at damage control for their party of choice lays bare their liberal bias.
And it looks like the MSM has something in common with terrorists–they both want the Democrats to win. From WorldNetDaily (Hat Tip: James Taranto):
Senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND . . . say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party’s position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.
The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are “tired.” . . .
“Of course Americans should vote Democrat,” Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity, told WND.
“This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud,” said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.
We’ll give terrorists this much, at least they’re honest about their liberal bias.
Londonistan is both a term and a book. Last week we got a haircut at a Muslim barbershop around the corner from our flat. While sitting in the chair, al-Jazeera playing on the tv in the corner, we watched as 4-5 young Muslim men left a small room in the back. We’ve watched several seasons of The Unit and as a result, various terror plotting scenarios ran through our head–like the successfully foiled plot last August.
The haircut was fine, but we declined the shave with a straight edge razor. Though open to greater cultural understanding, we didn’t want to push our luck.
The attacks of 7/7 in London and the response that followed did nothing to diminish our admittedly irrational fear. London is a city with a large muslim population. As with any terror act, only a few people were involved. But polls after the bombing showed a relatively large percentage of the Muslims in London were sympathetic to the actions of the 7/7 terrorists and thought they were justified. That attitude and the live and let live response of the London multiculturalists who appease them are explained fully in the aforementioned book.
Then there’s this article (subscription required) describing the fertile recruiting ground that are British institutions of higher education.
Just when we were getting discouraged about the resolve of our British allies, we attended a debate hosted by the UCL Debating Union. The proposition up for debate was whether or not the the War on Terror should continue. They followed British debating style inviting first one speaker in favor and one opposed which were in turn followed by floor speeches. The floor speeches were given by members of the audience (as opposed to the more formal speeches given by pre-selected members of the debating unition) and consisted of one in favor, one opposed, and one in abstention–usually critical of both positions. They followed this format for four rounds. At the conclusion they took a vote.
When we first saw the advert for this event we assumed that it would simply be an opportunity for the Brits to badmouth Bush, Iraq, and American foreign policy. We were pleasantly surprised to hear passionate, well reasoned arguments in support of the War on Terror, America, and President Bush.
Though the proposition lost, the margin was not what one might have expected: 44 opposed, 38 in favor, and 17 in abstention. All things considered–anti-American sentiment, liberal student body–the outcome was encouraging.
And finally, a quote from a recent speech by Tony Blair.
the global struggle against terrorism… will last a generation and more. But this I believe passionately: We will not win until we shake ourselves free of the wretched capitulation to the propaganda of the enemy–that somehow we are the ones responsible. This terrorism isn’t our fault. We didn’t cause it. It’s not the consequence of foreign policy. It’s an attack on our way of life. It’s global. It has an ideology. It killed nearly 3,000 people, including over 60 British, on the streets of New York before war in Afghanistan or Iraq was even thought of… If we retreat now, hand Iraq over to al-Qaeda and sectarian death squads and Afghanistan back to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, we won’t be safer; we will be committing a craven act of surrender that will put our future security in the deepest peril. (emphasis added)
American war history demonstrates clearly that no conflict is easy. No war is without its setbacks and sidetracks. Mistakes have and will continue to be made in Iraq–though we hope we are learning from past ones. This much is not new.
Unfortunately, this election does not give us a choice between two different strategies on how to win the War on Terror. There is the strategy outlined by President Bush, that seeks to stabilize Iraq with the intention of withdrawal only after Iraq can protect and maintain itself. Then there is the non-strategy of the Democrats which includes withdrawal by whatever name they happen to concoct on a given day, and nothing else.
We don’t know the best way to hasten the stabilization of Iraq. But we do know that retreating in an attempt to apease the islamofascists is the surest way to embolden the terrorists and hang a defenseless Iraqi citizenry out to dry.
Our recommendation: Vote to stay in Iraq.
If you have questions, comments, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at email@example.com.