Al-Qaeda knew that targeting Spain would cause a pullout of Spanish troops from Iraq – and the Spanish governnment was more than happy to oblige. Al-Qaeda knows what our weaknesses are, and aren’t afraid to do what they can to exploit them.
One wonders, how much money, if any, is flowing from groups like Hamas, Hizb’Allah, and al-Qaeda to groups like ANSWER, MoveOn, or Michael Moore. After all, why bother attacking the United States to weaken it when you have a pool of "useful" idiots to do it for you? Given that the North Vietnamese and Soviets helped bankroll the anti-war movement, it wouldn’t at all surprise me to learn that the terrorists were doing the exact same thing.
UPDATE: Bat Ye’or gave an important address to the French Senate on the rise of Islamofascism in Europe and how appeasement only makes things worse. A selection:
The dhimmitude of Europe began with the subversion of its culture and its values, with the destruction of its history and its replacement by an Islamic vision of that history, supported by the romantic myth of Andalusia. Eurabia adopted the Islamic conception of history, in which Islam is defined as a liberating force, a force for peace, and the jihad is regarded a “just war.” Those who resist the jihad, like the Israelis and the Americans, are the guilty ones, rather than those who wage it. It is this policy that has inculcated in us, the Europeans, the spirit of dhimmitude that blinds us, that instills in us a hatred for our own values, and the wish to destroy our own origins and our own history. “The greatest intellectual swindle would be to allow Europe to continue to believe that it derives from a Judeo-Christian tradition. That is a complete lie,” Tariq Ramadan has stated. And thus we despise George Bush because he still believes in that tradition. What simpletons those Americans…
The spirit of dhimmitude is not merely that of submission without fighting, not even a surrender. It is also the denial of one’s own humiliation through this process of integrating values that lead to our own destruction; it is the ideological mercenaries offering themselves up for service in the jihad; it is the traditional tribute paid by their own hand, and with humiliation, by the European dhimmis, in order to obtain a false security; it is the betrayal of one’s own people. The non-Muslim protected dhimmi under Islamic rule could obtain an ephemeral and delusive security through services rendered to the Muslim oppressor, and through servility and flattery. And that is precisely the situation in Europe today.
And that is precisely the problem faced by the left. If they wish to uphold democracy, they have to acknowledge that the concept of the premacy of international law does not and should not override basic human rights. Something is not right because the UN decides it is, something is right because it acknowledges the rights of all human beings to live in freedom. The arguments against the war are arguments of process — that the invasion was wrong not because it was wrong in itself, but it was wrong because it didn’t get rubber stamped by the same bureaucrats that were making a mint off of Saddam’s tyranny.
But of course that whole argument undermines the concept of human rights. Either human rights are universal and absolute or they are not. If one accepts the two premises that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who was oppressing and murdering his people on a nightmare scale and that the world has the moral obligation to safeguard human rights, one can’t argue against the removal of Saddam Hussein. One cannot argue that collateral damage is enough to argue against the war — beyond a doubt more people would have been killed by Saddam’s secret police and sanctions than died in the war and subsequent unrest. To make that argument is to argue that not all deaths are the same — that those killed by Saddam are of less value than those killed by the coalition.
And that is precisely what the left argues. Fahrenheit 9/11 paints Saddam’s Iraq as a kind of Arabic nirvana where there are no rape rooms, no mass graves, no secret police. Moore doesn’t deign to mention Halabja or the Anfal campaign. No word of tongues being cut out or hands chopped off. The only deaths that matter are those that have propaganda value for his anti-Bush line.
Which is why I argue that the Islamofascists have allies in the anti-war left. By diminishing the morale of our troops, by spreading lies, and by glossing over the horrors of the enemy, the left does absolutely no service to this country. Dissent is not automatically brave or wise. A Holocaust denier is a dissenter, they spread their views at great personal risk (including the risk of arrest in Europe), and they question the status quo. Would one then argue that denial of the Holocaust is a good thing? What about white supremicists? They dissent, and they do so often at great risk. (If you don’t believe me, try walking around with a sign that says "I support white people" and see what reaction you get.) Does that make them brave? Does that make them worthy of having their voice be heard at every possible opportunity?
Dissent is one thing, but irresponsible and politically charged rhetoric that deliberately undermines the morale of troops serving abroad and aids tyranny is another. Dissent is not patriotic, informed and respectful debate is. The rhetoric coming from even mainstream Democrats is often neither informed nor respectful, and serves only to propagate fear, uncertainty, and doubt – FUD that plays right into the hands of America’s enemies. Speech comes with consequences, and the left urgently needs to consider what the consequences of their demands would truly be.
What good is free speech with people like you around suggesting that those who object to the government’s fraudulent warmongering are on the enemy’s payroll? Why don’t you just lobby to make free speech illegal and be done with it? Then and only then will you be safe, right?
Mark: I guess your support of free speech doesn’t apply to our criticism of liberal groups, does it?
No one is suggesting an end to free speech, except perhaps for you…
But we are exercising our free speech to point out some obvious truths about left wing organizations past and present…and you obviously have a problem with our exercise of free speech…
Mark has a rather immature thesis: if you criticize someone’s speech, then you must be against freedom of speech…
He fails to realize that freedom of speech allows for criticism of other’s speech…
By Mark’s definition, Bill Cosby shouldn’t have criticized profane speech because that is implying he is against freedom of speech…
Mark fails to realize that for some freedom implies responsibility…and that for some, freedom of speech implies speaking out to hold others accountable for irresponsible speech…
And yes, Mark, the tenet of freedom of speech does in no way imply that all speech is responsible or beneficial…
Let’s not forget that Hezbollah is helping to promote Moore’s movie in the Middle East, and that the Chinese Communists want to show it as well…I guess we see what kind of support Michael Moore attracts…
Fascinating question! As a political action committee, isn’t MoveOnPAC required to disclose the sources and amounts of all contributions? I think it would be very illuminating if you were to look up and report any contributions coming from Middle Eastern organizations or people with Semitic names.
Mark: Freedom of speech in no way implies that all speech is beneficial, or that some speech cannot be anti-American or against the interests of the country, or cannot give encouragement to our enemy…
Speech is like anything else…it can be used for good and for bad, and everything in between…
No one has argued for repeal or restriction of the First Amendment; I challenge you to find one such suggestion from any conservative critic of liberals…
However, it is legitimate to point out that there are consequences of the political left wing movements…
Freedom does not imply zero consequences…
So we have every right to note that anti-American forces overseas have in the past supported left wing political movements over here to help their own cause…
Look at some of the sponsors of the antiwar protests: they were avowedly Marxist groups who support dictators like Kim Jung Il in North Korea and Fidel Castro in Cuba, and who are openly anti-Semitic…that is documented…on cannot deny that…
Now that doesn’t mean we want to revoke the right to protest, but we do want to reveal the truths behind some of the motives behind those protests…
Mark: I guess your support of free speech doesn’t apply to our criticism of liberal groups, does it?
The whole “I can say anything I want, it’s free speech” thing is an oversimplification of the issues behind the first amendmant. Yes, absolutely, anyone should be free to say anything they like about anyone anywhere. What that does is shift responsibility from the Government to say what someone can and can’t say (a good thing IMHO) onto John Q. Public.
To quote spidey’s uncle… “With great power comes great responsibility.” Therefore it’s incumbent upon the individual to use that power wisely.
I think Jay’s posting, while certainly exercising his free speech, is offbase and skewed. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have said it, I fully support his right to say what he likes. However, discourse should be allowed, and in fact encouraged. This is what many in the Bush administration don’t understand.
Getting back to Jay’s commentary… there’s no substantiation of anything there, and in fact, by stating:
One wonders, how much money is flowing from groups like Hamas, Hizb’Allah, and al-Qaeda to groups like ANSWER, MoveOn, or Michael Moore.
… it implies that there is some form of connection, without bothering to find out if that’s true.
Personally, I’d like to know if the answer to the question as well, but as Tim said above, there’s ways of checking that. I would be very surprised if there’s any money of any significant quantity coming from those organizations into MoveOn et al.
A common and good tack in this discussions is to turn the subject around, what if these comments were directed at [insert my group here]? I’ll posit this then:
Given that the main reason that Al Qaeda and others are in the public eye so much is because the republican administration raises the word ‘terrorist’ and ‘Al Qaeda’ and the like at any turn, I wouldn’t be surprised if the terrorist groups are funding republican groups. Those groups are driving huge numbers of people into Al Qaeda’s ranks, as hatred of the US grows with every unilateral action that Bush takes.
Both of these comments, IMHO, are ridiculous and far fetched, and don’t impact one whit on the actual financing or operation of the groups. But commentary in the public such as this -does- impact things, and I believe that a fair ly balanced, informed view does more to help the world be a safer place than any mudslinging or rumormongering can ever accomplish.
dbs: Point well taken. My original wording implies a connection that has not been proven. The statement has been amended,
Jay is implying that anyone who criticizes George Bush is in bed with terrorists ideologically and financially. That’s a blatant attempt to stifle dissent. For most of the last two years, this tactic has been effective for the right. The success of “Fahrenheit 9/11” and Bush’s sinking approval ratings have proven that is no longer is so effective, and people like Jay feel like they’re losing control of a debate they used to be able to shut down simply by declaring their opponents unpatriotic America-haters. Anyone who tries to intimidate dissenting speech into submission by inferring a connection to terrorist killers doesn’t believe in free speech. Keep that in mind as you wave your little flags this Fourth of July weekend pretending that you love and understand America better than the people across the tracks.
Freedom of speech is not a prima facie good. For instance, we accept limitations on freedom of speech in the cases of libel and slander. I can’t say "John Kerry eats babies while masturbating to child pornography" without risk of lawsuit.
Likewise, in war restrictions on freedom of speech are necessary. I can’t legally tell Osama bin Laden where our troops are in Afghanistan. It’s actually against the law to stand next to a recruiting office and tell recruits not to join. (Although people have done so and not been arrested.)
What Michael Moore and other groups are is spread deliberate and malicious lies that undermine our soldiers in the field. The fact that Moore celebrates this is absolutely disgusting. Making direct and specious lies that are deliberately designed to undermine the moral of our troops abroad is not a patriotic act in any sense of the word. It may not be illegal, but it is damn sure unethical, immoral, and anti-American. Many (but not all) elements of the anti-war movement aren’t just against the war, they’ve become cheerleaders from the other side. Some have even admitted as such.
Anyone who thinks that taking actions that hurts our troops by undermining and constantly badmouthing their mission can’t in any honesty say that they are being patriotic and supporting our troops.
Fortunately our troops don’t give a good goddamn about blowhards like Michael Moore or the biased reporting that comes out of the American media. They’re too busy saving lives and rebuilding a shattered country to bother with that crap.
Mark writes “Jay is implying that anyone who criticizes George Bush is in bed with terrorists ideologically and financially. That’s a blatant attempt to stifle dissent.”
Mark: Your logic does not add up…leveling any criticism at a person or persons, no matter how harsh, is in no way an attempt to stifle dissent…it is in fact, the nature of free speech. By your logic the fact that criticism is harsh diqualifies it.
It is you who come across as trying to stifle speech with your absurd leaps of logic…
dbs writes “Given that the main reason that Al Qaeda and others are in the public eye so much is because the republican administration raises the word ‘terrorist’ and ‘Al Qaeda’ and the like at any turn, I wouldn’t be surprised if the terrorist groups are funding republican groups.”
Rebuttal: So I guess, dbs, that you are in the crowd who believes the terrorist threat is overstated…perhaps you weren’t watching on 9-11-01…
Also, you seem to believe that the terrorists would rather we acknowledge their threat and focus on stopping it, rather than ignore them, where they could be more effective. Again, an absurd conclusion. I think any terrorist would rather support the party that downplays their significance and hence fails to address the problem.
dbs writes “Those groups [Republicans] are driving huge numbers of people into Al Qaeda’s ranks, as hatred of the US grows with every unilateral action that Bush takes.”
Rebuttal: First, dbs, no one can accurately gauge at this point the number of people in Al Qaeda, unless you know more than intelligence analysts across the world.
Second, news flash: Al Qaeda grew in strength and numbers all during the Clinton administration, which did very little to attack back and which did everything to try to appease Arafat.
Third, another news flash: Al Qaeda hated us before Bush ever took office, and would hate us no matter what. You seem to think that terrorists exist as some sort of just reaction to the evils of the US. You don’t realize they exist because them embrace an evil fascist philosophy antithetical to ours, just like the Nazis or Communists. You fail to recognize the independent existence of evil in this world.
Fourth, Bush has I believe at least 33 nations helping us in Iraq…and now Jordan has said it would help out, a real breakthrough. When you call the US “unilateral” you mean without the approval of France, which is laughable as they were the ones with corrupt motives for trying to keep Saddam in power. Also, we are seeing the UN for what it really is with its involvement in the oil for food scandal, it’s lack of action in Sudan, and it’s failure in Kosovo. So it’s good the US has done things our way, because the UN would only have done it far worse…
Also, dbs, you fail to acknowledge the fact that Bush busted up the base of operations Al Qaeda had in Afghanistan, has captured or killed 2/3 of its leadership, has Osama dead or on the run, at least marginalized in his command and control capacity…
I’d say that Bush has done far more to hurt Al Qaeda than Clinton ever did…
BTW, I’m fairly puzzled why so many folks post anonymously. Makes replying difficult and hard to keep who is saying what straight.
But moving along:
One of the anons posts: Also, dbs, you fail to acknowledge the fact that Bush busted up the base of operations Al Qaeda had in Afghanistan, has captured or killed 2/3 of its leadership, has Osama dead or on the run, at least marginalized in his command and control capacity…
I’d say that Bush has done far more to hurt Al Qaeda than Clinton ever did…
At any point in any of my postings did I -not- acknowledge this? This is part of the problem in these arguments. I believe what was done in Afghanistan was true, correct, and appropriate. It hit the number one enemy, the root of the threat. After Afghanistan operations, Al Quaeda was basically destroyed, it’s leaders either captured, dead, or scattered. The world rejoiced in the US’s operations and their decisions.
Then we went further. We invaded Iraq. There is, and I’ve said this before, only the flimsiest of connections between Iraq and 9/11. If you are to truly make an argument about invading Iraq, then do so without the word Terrorism, because it is a red herring. A distraction from the real issues.
Once again, I say that the administration has taken a horrific situation – the attacks on 9/11, done what was appropriate for any sitting president to do (retaliate appropriately), then wasted the opportunity via unilateral action in Iraq. (and yes, other anonymous poster, it is Unilateral. Compared to the number of nations and political support garnered by 9/11 and used in Afghanistan, the operations in Iraq have done nothing to improve our image and gain allies in the world.
*dbs:* I think Fareed Zakaria said it best:
bq. There is no connection between Saddam’s regime and the _terrorists_ of September 11. But there is a deep connection between his regime and the _terrorism_ of September 11. The root causes of Islamic terrorism lie in the dysfunctional politics of the Middle East, where failure and repression have produced fundamentalism and violence. Political Islam grew in stature as a mystical alternative to the wretched reality—secular dictatorships—that have dominated the Arab world. A new Iraq provides an opportunity to break this perverse cycle. The country is unlikely to become a liberal democracy any time soon. But it might turn out to be a pluralistic state that gives minorities limited protections, allows for some political participation, and has a reasonably open society. That would be a revolution in the Arab world.
We’re not just fighting al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is a symptom of a larger disease. We have to end the conditions in the Middle East that breed terrorism, which means introducing democracy and pluralism. We can’t assume those things will grow there naturally. They have to be exported.
That means upsetting the apple cart. The UN, most of the Arab world, and the EU all have their vested interests in “stablity” rather than democracy and freedom. They think that terrorism won’t effect them (although they’re now finding out they were wrong.) They want to apply the same old tools to entirely new problems.
If being “multilateral” (and calling a coalition of dozens of nations “unilateral” is absolutely ridiculous) means abandoning this essential task, then the government has an obligation to tell the UN to go to hell. The only way to end terrorism is to drain the swamp of authoritarianism and tyranny in the Middle East, and following the dictates of the appeasers in New York and Brussels will only lead to a perpetual cycle of terrorism that will eventually lead to the deaths of millions in a chemical, biological, or nuclear attack.
I can’t say “John Kerry eats babies while masturbating to child pornography” without risk of lawsuit.
Actually I think you can. The courts have generally ruled that public officials enjoy a considerably weaker protection from libel and slander, because their position of authority allows them a greater ability to defend themselves on their own.
Moreover, the claim has to be believable for it to be damaging, and that’s hardly a beliveable claim.
dbs still asserts our action in Iraq was unilateral, in spite of support from 33 nations, and growing…
dbs compares it to our support in Afghanistan…well, we have countries helping us in Iraq who are not in Afghanistan…and no matter what, you cannot declare something unilateral if it is multilateral but less multilateral than another operation…that is silly…
dbs writes “the operations in Iraq have done nothing to improve our image and gain allies in the world.” Again, a preoccupation with the wrong metrics…when you talk about our “image” what exactly does that mean…people still want to immigrate to the US, still want to do business with the US, even France and Germany and Russia are still cooperating with us in many ways and so we still have the same allies to the same degree we did…your fallacy is in assuming all was so great before Iraq…the reality is that the same nations are pursuing the same courses of action according to their own self interests as before…
The goal is not to get other nations to “like” us…it is to get them to “respect” us…and especially to get the Middle East to “respect” us…even bin Laden understands the strong horse gets the respect, and so whether they admit it or not we now have more respect in the region than before…
dbs: It is well known a formula for failure in life as an individual is to be preoccupied with trying to please everyone and get everyone to “like” you…that is immature.
It is equally as disastrous a formula for nations…we need to do the right thing and all else will work out…
Taking out Saddam was morally justified; it ended the rule of a brutal tyrant and liberated 25 million people.
Taking out Saddam was legally justified: he was in defiance of 17 UN resolutions.
Saddam was definitely a part of international terrorism.
Case closed…it is a wonderful thing that we have done in Iraq and the liberals are not going to deny us our victory or our just satisfaction of a job well done.
The Bush administration lied to get support for the war in Iraq. That is a slam dunk. His support is eroding because he did lied. I was one of the people who supported going to war in Iraq because I knew that Saddam was a bad guy. I believed the administration when they said WMD was the reason for taking the Iraqi government down, but they lied and changed their tune about why they pursued this war. Where does that put our country? What does it do to our moral authority if we ‘need’ to act in the future? I hope Bush loses the election. I’d rather have someone in office who lied about sex, than someone who lies to start a war.
-Rick
PS- You silly people are attacking dbs’s hypothetical like it was an actual assertion. Also, the US’s action in Iraq was not fully endorsed by the security council, which was the start of the claims that the US was acting unilaterally so I think that although it makes it sound nicer to say the war in Iraq is a multilateral effort, in the context of actual events the move was unilateral. Esp. since i’m pretty sure we said we were going in regardless of support from other nations. In other words, “We’re doing this and we don’t care what you other guys know or what you think, we are doing it” that pretty much defines unilateral IMO.
As to the false meme that Bush lied, I think any reasonable person must conclude that regardless of what the real facts were with regards to WMD, everyone across the world for over a decade, including the French, including Dems like Bill and Hill Clinton, and even Kerry, all believed Saddam had WMDs..heck, even Saddam believed he had WMDs…
And again, one cannot reasonably assert that the US action was unilateral as we have 33 countries with us, and more joining…to assert that we acted unilaterally is simply moving the goalposts…
No matter how one looks at it, what we have done in Iraq is a wonderful thing…we have removed a genocidal dictator and terrorist sponsor, we have liberated 25 million people, we have planted the seeds of democracy in the heart of the Middle East.
Libs keep trying to deny us this victory…but they won’t and it only shows their moral bankruptcy.
Shame on the libs who cannot celebrate the removal of a tyrant like Saddam from power, who cannot celebrate the fact that the mass graves are no longer being filled…I thought liberals were supposed to be the compassionate ones…instead, modern day liberals on Iraq come across as surprisingly cold hearted…
The reasoning did not “change” – go back and look at the public statements made before the war, especially Bush’s AEI speech. While everyone fixated on the WMD issue, the humanitarian issue wasn’t something that was created as an ex post facto argument – it was there from the beginning.
Unfortunately with the liberals it’s not a matter of what is true or honest, it’s a matter of finding any way to beat Bush, even if that means foisting a lie on the American public.
Ironically, it is the liberals who are lying, even as they accuse Bush of the same sin…
The libs have just decided to throw everything at Bush and see what sticks…
For those of us not in this loony left camp, we need to make sure our message of truth gets out better than the liberal lies…
I think any reasonable person must conclude that regardless of what the real facts were with regards to WMD, everyone across the world for over a decade, including the French, including Dems like Bill and Hill Clinton, and even Kerry, all believed Saddam had WMDs..heck, even Saddam believed he had WMDs…
Right, but none of those people started a unilateral, ill-concieved, and poorly-planned war that’s at best a distraction and at worst an outright hinderance to the war on terror, putting American citizens and interests at risk for the next 10 years.
That’s the thing, you see. When Clinton lied, no one died.
As far as the “compassion of conservatives” and “humanitarian reasons” go, when’s the War in Sudan scheduled? I mean, we have to go in for humanitarian reasons, right?
Oh? What’s that, Powell? Even though ” some 1.2 million blacks have so far fled this campaign of burning, looting and murder,” it doesn’t count as genocide?
I find it disgusting how you conservatives would rather this horrific situation continue than do what needs to be done. Yeah, Saddam’s gone, and boy that’s a good thing. But let’s not act like he was the only, or even the worst, dictator in the world, ok? There’s a lot to do but Bush’s actions so far have made it a lot harder to get to it.
Once people see in 10 or 20 years the tremendous and positive fruit of liberating Iraq, people will look back and ask “How could anyone have been against this?”
Michael Moore and his type will look like the idiots they are…
the war in Iraq was hardly unilateral…to say so shames our allies who have sacrificed there…
Yeah, both of ’em.
The US seems to be the only one serious on helping the situation…but it all takes time
It’s disgusting hearing you make apologetics for the genocide in Sudan.
by your reasoning we should never tackle one problem because we can’t tackle them all at once…how ridiculous!
No, by my reasoning we should prioritize. You give to the Foundation for Blind Kids who Get Beat Up before you give to The Italian-American Society for the Elimination of Mafia Stereotypes.
Iraq wasn’t a priority in the War on Terror. Our actions might have made it that now, but that’s not a good thing. Afghanistan was a priority, but we’ve more or less abandoned that country to warlords – basically, setting up the conditions that led to the rise of the Taliban (remember them?) in the first place.
To liberate Iraq was a stroke of genius…to start a wave of transformation in the Middle East that will benefit millions and put an end to terrorist breeding grounds in the long run…
Afghanistan is in the Middle East. We were already there. Why not do some nation-building there?