It is my hope that this "Best Of" blog will prove useful to some of my loyal readers, and perhaps serve as an introduction to Radarsite for any new readers. All comments and suggestions are of course welcome - rg
Today it’s Texas. Tomorrow it could be your state.
Up before the Texas state legislature is another draconian bill designed to eliminate the “inattentive operation” of a motor vehicle. Well actually, the bill is designed to up the fines for accidents to at least twice the minimum fine applicable to any driving offense if “inattentive” behaviors are involved in the offense.
The bill lists a multitude of “inattentive’ behaviors including the consumption of food or beverage, tuning a radio, and even interacting with a passenger. Of course every imaginable behavior that could be deemed as “inattentive” couldn’t be included or the bill would have run on for hundreds of pages, so the sponsor added this little phrase to cover all bases: “engaging in another activity that prevents the operator from safely operating the motor vehicle.”
Since this bill makes every imaginable behavior beyond the act of breathing an “inattentive behavior” wouldn’t the sponsor have been more honest to simply write a bill that doubles all driving fines for offenses of reckless driving laws currently in effect?
Some say that this bill, if passed into law, would be unenforceable, but they are wrong. The police are not going to stop you just because they see you sipping your morning cup of Jo, but if you commit any minor driving violation with even an empty cup of coffee in your cup holder, you will get a double fine. Eventually you will either leave home without your coffee or you will be sure to dump the evidence at your first convenience. The unintended consequences – sleepy drivers and more highway litter!
What would be the point of sponsoring this bill? Perhaps the sponsor just wanted fifteen minutes of fame? Or perhaps this is one of many bills designed to test the waters? Getting people used to accepting seemingly ludicrous or unenforceable laws is a good Orwellian plan. Loading up state legislatures with repressive bills is a kind of socialist lottery. Eventually enough inattentive voters will discover that their own state legislatures actually passed such a bill and then other states will easily fall.
I first heard about this bill on Thursday night when our local TV stations were all a buzz and actually making fun of the bill. None of the news broadcasts mentioned the name or number of the bill or its sponsor.
Naturally, I began to ponder this question: “Who would sponsor such a bill?” My first thought was that it had to be sponsored by a National Socialist (NAZI) hell-bent on dishonest social engineering and someone who actually believes that more government regulation is the answer to all human problems.
I wouldn’t want poor Rep. Chente Quintanilla, Democrat, of El Paso, Texas to be disappointed that his name failed to get mentioned in many of the news broadcasts the other night. Let me give him the fame his bill, 81(R) HB 738, deserves!
If you are a Texan please be sure to drop your state representative a little note about this bill. Tell your representative to “Let it die!!!” If you live in another state check out the bills up before your state legislature today.
To allow CAIR access to members of Congress to discuss security issues would be like allowing the Mafia to discuss issues about organized crime with members of Congress.FBI Cuts Off CAIR Over Hamas Questions
by Mary Jacoby
January 29, 2009
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has cut off contacts with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) amid mounting concern about the Muslim advocacy group's roots in a Hamas-support network, the Investigative Project on Terrorism has learned.
The decision to end contacts with CAIR was made quietly last summer as federal prosecutors prepared for a second trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), an Islamic charity accused of providing money and political support to the terrorist group Hamas, according to people with knowledge of the matter.
CAIR and its chairman emeritus, Omar Ahmad, were named un-indicted co-conspirators in the HLF case. Both Ahmad and CAIR's current national executive director, Nihad Awad, were revealed on government wiretaps as having been active participants in early Hamas-related organizational meetings in the United States. During testimony, FBI agent Lara Burns described CAIR as a front organization.
Hamas is a US-designated foreign terrorist organization, and it's been illegal since 1995 to provide support to it within the United States.
The decision to end contacts with CAIR is a significant policy change for the FBI. For years, the FBI worked with the national organization and its state chapters to address Muslim community concerns about the potential for hate crimes and other civil liberty violations in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
But critics said the FBI improperly conferred legitimacy on CAIR by meeting with its officials, even as its own investigative files contained evidence of CAIR leaders' ties to Hamas.
Last autumn, FBI field offices began notifying state CAIR chapters that bureau officials could no longer meet with them until CAIR's national leadership in Washington had addressed issues raised by the HLF trial, according to people with knowledge of the notifications.
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper declined to comment Wednesday when the IPT called for comment. Before hanging up, Hooper said "We're more than happy to cooperate with legitimate media. But we don't cooperate with those who promote anti-Muslim bigotry."
In one letter obtained by IPT News, James E. Finch, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Oklahoma City field office, canceled a meeting of the local Muslim Community Outreach Program, a state-federal program designed to enlist Muslims in terrorism prevention and investigate reports of civil liberties violations.
"Regrettably, due to circumstances beyond my control, the meeting will be postponed until further notice as a result of the planned participation by the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations," Finch's Oct. 8, 2008 letter to Muslim groups in the Oklahoma outreach program said.
Finch made clear the Oklahoma office valued its relationship with local Muslims. He said the stumbling block to further outreach was CAIR's national leadership.
"[I]f CAIR wishes to pursue an outreach relationship with the FBI, certain issues must be addressed to the satisfaction of the FBI. Unfortunately, these issues cannot be addressed at the local level and must be addressed by the CAIR National Office in Washington, D.C.," the letter said.
A spokesman for the FBI's Oklahoma City office referred questions about the letter to the FBI's national press office. In Washington, FBI spokesman John Miller said, "We've certainly been in contact with CAIR chapters" about the un-indicted co-conspirator designation. "The letter speaks for itself."
Letters with similar wording were sent in other states, people with knowledge of the matter said. It is not known how many letters were issued, but the FBI has had strong working relationships with CAIR chapters in states including Ohio, Michigan, Arizona and Florida.
Hamas was formed in 1987 as the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, the global Islamic political movement that aims to spread the rule of Shariah, or Islamic law, throughout the world.
A North American branch of the Brotherhood supervised HLF, CAIR and other organizations to build political, financial and public relations support for Hamas, evidence at the HLF trial showed.
The U.S.-based Brotherhood formed a Palestine Committee, headed by Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzook, in 1988 during the first intifada uprising in Palestinian territories against Israel. Hamas's stated policy is for the destruction of Israel.
CAIR co-founders Ahmad and Awad were early active members of the Palestine Committee, evidence showed. Wiretaps recorded the two CAIR leaders participating in strategy meetings of the committee in the 1990s, and both were also on a phone list of its members, the evidence showed.
The first HLF trial in Texas ended in a mistrial in October 2007. In November 2008, the second trial resulted in convictions of five former HLF officials on all counts of providing material support to Hamas.
It is unclear what changed between the first and second HLF trials to make the FBI rescind its policy of outreach to CAIR. The un-indicted co-conspirator designations were made on May 27, 2007 in connection with the first HLF trial. Moreover, much of the evidence linking the CAIR officials to Hamas was aired in an earlier public trial in 2006.
CAIR, however, vigorously challenged the un-indicted co-conspirator designation as a violation of its First and Fifth Amendment rights, accusing the government of "demonization of all things Muslim" in a brief filed in the summer of 2007 with the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
The co-conspirator designation is "particularly insidious and ironic as CAIR is an organization dedicated to fostering acceptance of Muslims in American society and protecting the civil liberties of all Muslim Americans," CAIR's brief read.
The government filed a brief on Sept. 4, 2007 opposing CAIR's filing, arguing the group lacked standing to challenge the co-conspirator designation and that the matter was moot, as the evidence was already entered into the public record. The judge never ruled on CAIR's request.
The HLF trial showed that CAIR was formed to covertly influence US opinions of the Palestinian conflict and Islam, but without revealing its connections to Hamas.
Read the full article here.
By Maggie at Maggie's Notebook
A few weeks ago, some celebrities got together, made a video and made their pledge to do good and neighborly things.
Jason Bateman's pledge is to "flush only after a deuce and never after a single." An unknown young Black man (unknown to me - I'm sure he's wildly popular) pledges to consider himself an American and not an African American. Another pledges to sell a culture of intelligence instead of a culture of ignorance.
Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher, (husband and wife) pledge to fulfill the "200 year old promise to end slavery," "the abolition of 21st Century slavery" and "to free one million people from slavery in the next five years."
Moore and Kutcher end the video with: I pledge to be a servant to all mankind and to our President.
From the Sderot Media Center
Liraz Madmony with Israeli
Sderot Student, 23, Addresses UN Human
Rights Council in Geneva
Liraz Madmony, 23 of Sderot,
grew up under Palestinian rocket fire for eight years of her life. Although a
rocket has never directly hit her home, Liraz has experienced the terror of
rocket explosions countless times. "We don't have a bomb shelter in our house,"
she recently told SMC. "Every time, the Tzeva Adom is set off, our family races
to the shower, the only room that is most 'secure' from a rocket attack."
representative to the UN.
Liraz is a law student in a Ramat Gan college in central
Israel and is heavily involved with student organizations such as WUJS (World
Union of Jewish Students). "Many times I've missed my law classes and student
activities because of the rocket attacks. It's almost impossible to lead a
normal life when you are forced to live under with warning alerts and raining
While Liraz admits that balancing life as a college student
and a resident in a war-zone can at times be very difficult, she recently found
the time to share her story with the world community.
Thanks to a trip
coordinated by UN Watch two weeks ago, Liraz Madmony addressed the UN Human
Rights Council Special Session on Gaza in Geneva, on behalf of the European
Union of Jewish Students (EUJS) on January 12, 2009.
View at YouTube
"It was a very moving moment for me," says Liraz. "Here I was standing in
front of all these people--in Geneva, Switzerland--representing the people of
Sderot and all our years of suffering and terror."
Read the rest here.
Liraz is just a normal person, leading a normal life, wanting only the rockets to stop. In the last 8 years dozens of UN resolutions were passed condemning Israel. Not one has ever been passed condemning Hamas. And yet Israel is suppose to accept all the resolutions passed by the UN.
From 90210 to Sderot: Get the Story Right!
I just returned from a two week visit to Israel. I spent
my last weekend in Sderot and the Western Negev. One year out from volunteering
in Sderot, I have written this piece on the international media's lack of
context in covering the current conflict between Israel and Hamas.
Hundreds of journalists from all over the world just left Sderot and
the surrounding areas covering the current conflict between Israel and Hamas.
Where were they one year ago? Where were they four years ago, eight years ago? I
spent six weeks volunteering in Sderot exactly one year ago, and I can tell you,
the journalists were no where to be found.
Unfortunately for Israel,
it took eight years for the international community to understand that innocent
civilians in a western democracy live daily under the current threat of rocket
fire. During this time, the range of the threat expanded from a tens of
thousands to over one million innocent Jewish and Muslim Israeli citizens.
In these eight years, has the UN Security Council ever condemned
nearly a decade of rocket fire on innocent civilians of one of its member
states, Hamas’ use of human shields, and its use of schools, hospitals, and
mosques to store and launch rockets at Israel?
Are you laughing at
me for even thinking to ask such a question? Well you should be, because why
would anyone assume the international community to be, um, sensible?
Maybe they could be just a little rational? Nah, that’s just too silly!
Furthermore, has any news organization mentioned the fact Israel is the
only western democracy in the entire world that has a significant - let alone
any - part of its population living under the threat of daily rocket fire?
“Oh it’s just Israel, who cares right?” “They can take it?” Or rather,
“Maybe they deserve it, right?”
Well you know what I have to say that...
I’d also like to thank the international media for providing ZERO
context for the humanitarian issues of the Palestinian people.
describe to you a little bit of Israel’s commitment to helping the Palestinians
suffering from the wrath of their authoritarian, fanatical terrorist rulers,
From the beginning of Operation Cast Lead, December 27, 2008,
until January 12, 2009:
- 926 truckloads (22,046 tons) of humanitarian
aid were delivered to Gaza
- 449 dual nationals were evacuated from Gaza
- 3000 units of blood were donated by Jordan and transferred into Gaza
- 5 ambulances were donated by Turkey and transferred into Gaza
- 5 ambulances were transferred from the West Bank to Gaza on behalf of
the Palestinian Red Crescent Society
- 34 people were evacuated to
Israel for medical needs
On Jan. 7, 2009, the IDF decided it would
ceasefire for three hours each day in order to let humanitarian aid reach
civilians in the Gaza Strip.
I love when this gets mentioned, and they
say three hours is simply not enough. So, Israel should stop defending its
civilians all together, fully commit itself to giving aid to the other side, and
allow terrorists to fire rockets at it and threaten one million of its
Do you find it a tad bit odd that Israel is forced not only
to defend its own citizens, but those of its enemies as well? Well I don’t...I
mean, isn’t every western democracy supposed to do that during wars? Duh!
I got a question for you Mr. and Mrs. International Media.
Israel is the bad guy? Are you kidding me!
What does Hamas do
for Israeli civilians? Oh yeah, they’ve been terrorizing them with rockets for
the last eight years!
What other country, when immersed in a full scale
war, commits itself to providing humanitarian aid to their enemy? Oh yeah,
Read the rest here.
An Illusion of Normalcy?
An uncertain calm rests upon Sderot at the moment. The sounds of war have disappeared, replaced by the sounds of a city slowly coming back to life. The click of the intercom followed by the voice that repeatedly stated Tzeva Adom, followed by the rocket explosion a few seconds later seems to be something of the past.
But daily news reports on Palestinian terror activity from Gaza are constant reminders to Israelis in Sderot and the western Negev that the calm remains seemingly temporarily.
Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire on Saturday night, January 17 at 2:00 am, which ended Operation Cast Lead, a 3-week offensive against Hamas. It was Israel's longest offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, following two brief military offenses in the Gaza Strip in 2004 and 2006 in response to Qassam attacks that killed two Israeli girls, and wounded several other civilians.
Two day after the ceasefire was declared; Palestinian terrorists fired 8 mortar rockets at Israel on Tuesday morning, January 20. Palestinian militants also opened fire on IDF soldiers in Gaza. On Tuesday evening, the last of the IDF troops had pulled out of Gaza before the inauguration of US President Barack Obama at 6 PM. Israel time.
On Tuesday, January 27, Palestinian terrorists carried out the first deadly attack on Israel since the ceasefire concluded. An Israeli soldier was killed on Tuesday morning when an explosive device set at the Kissufim crossing along the Gaza Strip border exploded as an IDF force patrolled the area. Another officer was seriously injured, with one leg amputated and another severely damage. Two other soldiers suffered from extensive shrapnel wounds, but were categorized as lightly hurt. They remain hospitalized.
Read the rest here.
And on Wednesday, rockets again flew into Israel from Gaza.
IAF jets struck a weapon manufacturing site in the Rafah area late on Wednesday
night, in response to a Kassam rocket fired from the Gaza Strip at Israel
several hours earlier.
t was the IDF's first attack on a building inside
the Strip since the end of Operation Cast Lead.
The Kassam was fired at
southern Israel a day after Gaza operatives breached the cease-fire with a
deadly bomb attack along the border.
The rocket hit an open area in the
Eshkol region, causing no casualties or damage.
Hamas can violation a cease-fire and the world says nothing. Israel strikes back and there are riots in the streets. Can anyone see a double standard here? I do.
Like always, Israel will do what it has to do to survive. And like always I once again send out a plea for donations for the Sderot Media Center. The donation you give goes directly to the victims of the terror. To donate either click the logos on the top or bottom of the page or go here. The people of Sderot will be very grateful.
How [did] the previous [Clinton] administration fumble on bin Laden?
1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.
2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.
3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.
4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.
6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.
7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.
8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.
9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. In another little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.
10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.
11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.
12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.
15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.
16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole.
How do the maximalists perceive the threat of Islamic terror? Unlike their ideological opponents, the maximalists base their appreciation of the Muslim world threat on primary sources: the Koran, the Hadiths and the Sura; the writings of the terrorists and their mentors themselves; the clearly-stated objectives of the various Islamist terror organizations, such as Hamas, Hezbullah, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. The maximalists believe that the problem begins and ends with Islam itself; that the lure of victimization is bringing more and more Muslims to answer the call for Jihad. The maximalists believe that Muslim aggression against the Infidel, rather than being a logical reaction to some recent Western outrage, is an historical core precept of Islam. By its very nature, the free and democratic West is, was, and always will be the sworn enemy of Islam. This latest incarnation of Muslim holy war against the West is a continuation of this age-old war of pre-ordained conquest. Here is a relatively concise example of the maximalist's view of our Islamic enemies:
Ideology and Goals
The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.
According to bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious decree), it is the duty of Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews. Muslims who do not heed this call are declared apostates (people who have forsaken their faith).
Al-Qaeda's ideology, often referred to as "jihadism," is marked by a willingness to kill "apostate" —and Shiite—Muslims and an emphasis on jihad. Although "jihadism" is at odds with nearly all Islamic religious thought, it has its roots in the work of two modern Sunni Islamic thinkers: Mohammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Sayyid Qutb.
Al-Wahhab was an 18th-century reformer who claimed that Islam had been corrupted a generation or so after the death of Mohammed. He denounced any theology or customs developed after that as non-Islamic, including more than 1,000 years of religious scholarship. He and his supporters took over what is now Saudi Arabia, where Wahhabism remains the dominant school of religious thought.
Sayyid Qutb, a radical Egyptian scholar of the mid-20th century, declared Western civilization the enemy of Islam, denounced leaders of Muslim nations for not following Islam closely enough, and taught that jihad should be undertaken not just to defend Islam, but to purify it.
Here is more from the eminent Brigitte Gabriel.
During this first month of the New Year 2009, we have seen some stunning
developments that, considered together, should leave absolutely no doubt about the rising radical Islamic threat on our doorsteps in America.
I have been warning Americans since 2002 about this threat, and that the threat is not just confined to terrorism. This is not a "war on terror." Terror is a tactic, one of many in the arsenal of radical Islamists.
I have been declaring, to anyone who would listen, that Islamists are well on their way to subverting and transforming Europe, and they are riding that wave here to America.
I have told my personal story, of how Islamists, step by step, took over my country of Lebanon. How they used our freedoms and commitment to tolerance and multiculturalism against us to further their ultimate ends. And how they are using the same strategies and tactics against us in the West. In just the past three weeks we have seen:. A violent Islamic protest in Britain, where an angry mob shouting "Allahu Akbar" chased - yes, chased - dozens of British policemen for blocks. You must see this video to believe it! (Please be warned - there is offensive language and profanity). Click here<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97hyDRjdXCE> to see this shocking video.
Pro-Hamas, anti-Israel Muslims conducting demonstrations here in America, shouting praises to Hitler for what he did to the Jews, yelling "go back to the ovens," and at times physically attacking counter-protestors. The Amsterdam Court of Appeals ordering the prosecution of Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders because he has made statements
deemed "insulting" and harmful to "the religious esteem" of Muslims. Austrian parliamentarian Susanne Winter convicted of "incitement," <http://www.investigativeproject.org/ext/2255> because of public statements she has made, including the claim that the prophet Mohammed was a pedophile.
Muslim protest marches in Italy that ended with the protestors, in an obvious act of intimidation, conducting mass prayer vigils directly in front of Catholic places of worship.. The release of an official U.S. government report<http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/01/23/top_stories/doc49781a64e0d2b381984861.txt> stating that Hezbollah is forming terrorist cells here in the U.S.that could
The UN continuing to move ahead with the "Durban II" conference and its document that is little more than an anti-Israel rant that calls for suppressing public "defamation" of religion - notably Islam. This has
run parallel to an effort by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to get the UN Human Rights Commission to pass a resolution condemning public"defamation" of Islam.
My friends, the handwriting is clearly on the wall. Radical Islam is on the march, and it is growing stronger and bolder with every passing day. What elected official in Europe or the UK will now have the courage to speak out against this threat? Certainly the actions against parliamentarians Wilders and Winter will ultimately have a chilling effect on American elected officials as well. How many more "no-go zones," Muslim enclaves here non-Muslims and even police officers fear to go, will appear in Europe? We're already seeing such enclaves develop here in America right now. There's a reason why Dearborn, Michigan, is frequently referred to as "Dearbornistan."
What will happen in America when 50,000 ranting, chanting Islamist
demonstrators attempt to aggressively back down and chase police officers trying to maintain order? Will the police use the force necessary? If they do, we can expect howls from groups like CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations).
How will government officials respond? And if the police back down and run, as they recently did in Britain, what message is being sent to radical Islamists?
With the recent announcements by the Obama administration regarding ending the use of certain coercive interrogation practices, will this administration have the courage and use the tools necessary to protect us from Hezbollah, Hamas and al Qaeda terrorist cells in our midst?It is becoming crystal clear that 2009 is going to be a critical year in our effort to roll back the rising tide of Islamofascism.
Obviously, Brigitte Gabriel is a maximalist.
While, as we have seen, for the minimalists, less is better, the maximalists see the present GWOT in a much larger frame of reference. The combat in which we are presently engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, is perceived to be just battles in this monumental Clash of Civilizations, this existential war of barbarism against civilization. The repercussions of this great clash are truly global. Our enemies, and our allies alike, are watching this great contest unfold and shaping their future foreign policy on how they perceive our strengths and weaknesses. It is no accident, that by our wavering on our military commitment in Iraq, we are showing these watchers our weaknesses, our adolescent impatience, and our lack of will, and consequently the Russians, the Chinese, and even the puny potentates of the world, like Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong Ill are beginning to rattle their sabers. Thus, we maximalists view this GWOT as an immense struggle with huge stakes involved. In our view, this great struggle has just begun, and our collective future will be formed by the efficacy of our response.
A few final thoughts.
Unfortunately, the line between the maximalists' worldview and that of the minimalists is often blurred and indistinct. It cannot be neatly delineated by party affiliation. There are maximalists and minimalists on both sides of the aisle. Immediately following 9/11, President Bush himself described Islam as a "religion of peace", hijacked by a few fanatics -- a perfect expression of minimalism. Thus, even this brave president who brought the GWOT to the terrorists ( and paid a huge political price for doing so) has, by his often inscrutable statements, helped to muddy the waters, and drain our collective will to fight.
Is it any wonder then that the American public is so torn apart and confused? When our own leaders have so often shown an astonishing ignorance of the true nature of our enemies, how can we expect more from a grossly-misinformed, or purposely-manipulated public?
Finally, however, there is such a thing as personal responsibility. It is no longer feasible to claim ignorance; there is just too much information out there. It is no longer a valid excuse to say that you are too busy to study the issues involved. It is no longer morally conscionable to walk the fence between these two diametrically opposed views of our world. We must understand the differences between the two and we must choose. Our future will be determined by which path we take.
Ominously, by our choice this past November, we have, it seems, embraced the dangerous delusions of the minimalists. Is it too late to change course? Is it too late for the Western World?
God only knows - rg
Comment to this article transposted from StopThe ACLU:
AirborneVet on January 29th, 2009 6:16 pm
As a person with a degree in Middle East Studies, and over 10 years experience teaching and dealing with this subject and with Islam, I very much enjoyed your assessment here concerning minimalists and maximalists. It fits the GWOT concept very well. Only in the end, will we find out which approach was best. Personally, I agree with the Maximalist point of view.
Blinded by your own egos, you have made an enormous mistake. You are not what you perceive yourselves to be. You are not the courageous defenders of our imperiled Constitution, or of our endangered Civil Liberties, our Freedoms of Speech, or our Freedoms of Religion; you are not the noble champions of the poor and oppressed victims of racism and intolerance in America and the world.
You are simply fools and traitors.
From Radarsite: A post-election update. It's the end of January, and the American people have voted. All of our dire warnings have been ignored, and a majority of voters have spoken. 49% of those voters polled during the last days of this election cycle placed the economy at number one on the list of threats America faces. The next level of threat below the economy was the threat of terrorism, which came in at an incredible 9%. So it will be more delusion and denial, appeasement and conciliation. By this fateful vote we have just confirmed our national weakness. We have accepted responsibility for the ills of this world and we have vowed to change. And what of our implacable foes? How have they responded to this olive branch? With cynical exploitation. In our enemies eyes, we have just formalized and validated our national lack of will and strengthened their resolve. Close Gitmo. Withdraw our troops from Iraq. Reach out to our bloodthirsty adversaries. Abandon Israel to her fate. This is just the beginning. Blinded by hope, abandoned by reason, we have stepped off the cliff.
Here, as reported today, 1/28/09, in Reuters is Iran's official response to our limp-wristed outstretched hand.
Members of al-Aribiya, the Arab Dubai-based satellite network entered the White House and President Obama "sat" for an interview...in the White House.
"...IF America is ready to initiate a new partnership [with the Muslim world] based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress."This borders on treasonous. What kind of "partnership" can America have now, how can we believe Islam wants a "partnership," and what broke an assumed "partnership" in the first place?
All too often the United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these issues -- and we don't always know all the factors that are involved," Obama told al-Arabiya. "So let's listen. He's [George Mitchell] going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response."
President Barack Obama presented a humble and conciliatory face of America to the Islamic world Monday in the first formal interview since he assumed office, stressing his own Muslim ties and shying away from any hint of belligerence even when asked if he could “live with” an Iranian nuclear weapon.