9:08 PM Central/6:08 AM Iraq

Goodbye and good riddance. My beer tastes extra sweet tonight.

More at CNN.

Iraq: What it meant, what it means, what it could mean

One may disagree with war, one may disagree with this current war, but ignorance of its history, of the surrounding political environment, and of the potential consequences of our actions can be very harmful, not only to any reasonable discussion of the war, but also to the troops bearing the direct cost of war, the future of Arab and Islamic peoples, and the future of this conflict between Islam and the West. It is not conducive to either side of the debate to demonize this president or his administration; mistakes do not make one evil. And while mistakes may be made during the course of a war, they do not negate the original goals, even if those goals are not met.

To say that this war was about oil is a vast oversimplification of all the considerations in the decision to go to war and does not take into account other more important factors. In a sense, it was about oil, but not in the way that argument has been presented. France and Russia had already cut oil deals with Saddam and as recently as the summer of 2001 had been pressuring the United Nations to lift the sanctions on Iraq. If all the United States wanted was to secure Iraq’s oil supplies, Bush could have easily cut a deal with Saddam. It had been done before and would have been much cheaper than waging any war. Iraqi government documents even suggest that Saddam expected the US to eventually cut a deal. With normalized relations between Iraq and the US, Saudi Arabia could have rested a little easier and Saddam’s opposition to Iran would have been strengthened. Several short-term policy goals could have been achieved at relatively little cost to the United States (obviously, this does not take into account the costs of further oppression of the Iraqi Shi’as and Kurds who would have felt the brunt of Saddam’s renewed strength).

If one defines “terrorism” down to “operational support to Osama bin Laden,” then, no, Saddam probably wasn’t involved in terrorism. But it is important to understand that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are not, and have never been, the be-all, end-all of terrorism. Saddam sent money to Palestinian terrorists, for a time sponsored the Abu Nidal terrorist organization, and the Iraqi Intelligence Service had trained Yemenis, Syrians, Palestinians, Egyptian and Sudanese operatives in explosives and marksmanship training. He certainly wasn’t on good terms with governments of Egypt or Syria so what else would he be training them for? In addition, the IIS had a special operations department dedicated to conducting assassinations both inside and outside of Iraq’s borders. So while Saddam might not have been in bed with Osama, he was definitely involved in terrorism.

Many people believe the absence of an active Iraqi WMD program to be “proof” that Bush lied us into war. But Bush had every reason to believe Iraq had an active WMD program. We knew Saddam had used chemical weapons before, against both the Iranians and the Kurds. He kicked out the weapons inspectors assigned to verify the UN-directed dismantling of his weapons program. Possible dual-use facilities were active. While the British intelligence report of Saddam attempting to buy uranium from Niger was dismissed by Ambassador Joe Wilson, the British still stand behind that report and for good reason. Niger has some of the world’s largest uranium deposits and uranium accounts for the vast majority (72%) of Niger’s exports, followed by livestock in a distant second. Furthermore, the intelligence agencies of every major nation concurred that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Russian President Vladimir Putin both personally warned President Bush that if he invaded Iraq, he would be attacked with chemical weapons (I personally was delayed by several weeks in my deployment to Iraq because the Ft. Dix central issue facility had run out of the protective gear deemed necessary to deploy). Even the Iraqi generals were surprised that Saddam did not launch chemical attacks against the invading Americans. Frankly, it would have been irresponsible in the extreme for Bush to not believe Iraq had WMDs. The apparent absence of an active program only proves that our intelligence agencies are woefully inadequate. Without the proper human resources on the ground in Iraq, we, along with everyone else, were reduced to depending on the word of Iraqi exiles and defectors who have their own motivations and agendas. It is a decline in the effectiveness of the operations side of our intelligence agencies that was begun under the first President Bush, accelerated under President Clinton, and has not been stopped under this President Bush. To paraphrase the ridiculed statement of Donald Rumsfeld, you never go to war with all the intelligence you want, you go with the intelligence you have. That makes President Bush neither evil nor irresponsible and it is of the highest irony that people who ridicule this president as an idiot then argue that he was able to dupe the whole world into believing Iraq had WMDs. If that’s true, who’s the bigger idiot?

Oil, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction…What was this war really about? Many, if not most, people forget that during the summer of 2002, there was much criticism of the Bush Administration for not pushing one single cause as the justification for a conflict with Iraq. To “democratize” Iraq was deemed impossible by many. Terrorist connections were not as blatantly obvious as Afghanistan. However, weapons of mass destruction were a concern to all leading politicians, both Republican and Democrat. The possible transfer of weapons of mass destruction to terrorists was the potential danger that was most easily grasped by our political leaders as well as the general public. If Bush lied, it is because of this political expedient that allowed him to garner the most support possible for a war that could be very costly both in dollars and lives.

But there is a much greater potential danger that the Bush Administration was really trying to combat. It is a danger that will threaten the West and moderate Muslims alike for decades as well as any other neighboring culture near the Middle East. It requires understanding if we are to have any hope in defeating it. It is one of Bush’s biggest failures that he has not defined and convinced the American people of this threat.

There exists within Islam a highly virulent, puritanical form of Islam known to the West as Wahhabism. Wahhabis themselves would object to this term as it somewhat implies a religious reverence for the movements founder, Muhammad ibn abd al-Wahhab, and is therefore contrary to their religious views on polytheism. Wahhabi Islam is the state religion of Saudi Arabia and is energetically spread through Saudi-supported religious schools throughout the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Europe, and even in the United States. “Puritanical” is used to describe the sect only because the Puritans were the only relatively comparable movement in Western Christianity. In truth, Wahhabis make the Puritans look like California liberals. Whereas the Puritans crushed a few witches to death and made Hester Prynne wear a red “A”, the Wahhabis have waged widespread war against Shi’a Muslims for being polytheists and enthusiastically stone suspected adulteresses to death (note that it is only the female offender that is subject to stoning). Historically, Wahhabis were confined to the Arabian Peninsula but with the advent of the Saudi oil industry, Wahhabi influence has been spread around the globe. Many Wahhabis live peacefully in their communities, looking at the Western world in revulsion. But it is this ideology that motivates Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and the Islamist terrorist movements worldwide. It is this ideology that encourages Muslims in Europe to segregate themselves from wider European society. It is this ideology that demands Europeans in Europe conform to Muslim custom. It is this ideology that seeks a return to the Islam they envision was practiced by Muhammad and his followers. It is this ideology that seeks the reestablishment of the Caliphate, through violent means. And it is this ideology that intimidates moderate Muslims into silence. It is an ideology that does not value life not lived according to their values, does not tolerate dissent, does not acknowledge the validity of other Muslim sects, and does not compromise its very strict beliefs. It is Wahhabist teaching that promotes the historically inaccurate command that Muhammad’s face not be depicted. It is they who demand that those who insult Islam be beheaded. Wahhabis are willing to cooperate with and use other inferior Muslims only so far as it serves their purposes and are not open to any pan-Islamic or ecumenical movement that seeks reconciliation among the various Islamic sects. Wahhabis are driven by the single-minded pursuit of glorifying Allah by converting the world to their brand of Islam, through death and destruction as necessary.

Coupled with this virulent form of Islam are the conditions that most Western observers agree drive desperate individuals to terrorism, conditions which are prevalent throughout the Middle East. Namely these are the abject poverty, chronic unemployment, and brutal oppression found in most of the autocratic regimes of the Middle East. In a highly convoluted understanding of Middle East politics, the United States is blamed by common Arabs for supporting Israel as well as the brutal regimes that oppress them while at the same time those regimes stoke the fires of hatred against Israel in order to deflect blame for their failures away from themselves. It is a tragedy that can be justly blamed on the Arab governments that the Palestinian plight has been used as a political pawn for nearly 60 years without any substantial efforts on their part to relieve Palestinian suffering. There is some consensus that were these conditions to change – if adequate social welfare could be provided, if economic development offered meaningful jobs and careers, and if some sort of representative, responsive government was in place – then many of the motivations for terrorism would disappear, benefiting the West as well as Muslims. This is the original analysis behind the Bush Administration’s decision to go to war and one most liberals should honestly share if they are consistent in their support for human rights and progressivism.

Faced with the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration very quickly perceived the need to confront the threat of Wahhabi Islamism. The first and obvious target was Afghanistan and that battle in the War on Terror quickly diminished al Qaeda’s operational capabilities. But Afghanistan has always been on the periphery of the Islamic world, it has never set historical precedents within Islam and could not be the catalyst for progressive change throughout the Islamic world. Also, Afghanistan is not ethnically Arab and Arabs in general have had a historical distrust of other ethnic groups. For similar reasons, regime change in Iran could also not provide the catalyst for change. In addition to being Persian, an ethnicity Arabs have historically feared, Iranians also belong to Shi’a Islam, a minority sect comprising only 15% of the world’s Muslims that is viewed as somewhat heretical by most Sunni Muslims. On top of that, defeat of the Shi’a religious regime in Iran would be viewed as a victory of the world’s Wahhabis, further strengthening their influence. There are only a few Muslim states with an historical role in influencing and setting trends for the Arab and Islamic world: Egypt with the historic Arab capital of Cairo is one, Syria, Turkey (the historical successor to the Ottoman Empire), and Iraq are the others. Saudi Arabia is ruled out even as a potential target because any attack there would be viewed by all Muslims worldwide as an attack on Islam outright, no matter what justification we had. Turkey’s influence had declined even under the Ottomans and in any case is not Arab. Egypt’s government is too friendly to the West and without the resources needed to fund a successful transition. Likewise, Syria is relatively resource-poor. That leaves Iraq and the historic Arab and Islamic capital of Baghdad.

Not only where there the legal justifications for regime change in Iraq, the conditions in Iraq offered more potential for successful regime change, peaceful or otherwise, than do the other states listed. Iraqis are better educated and more secular than their neighbors. The basic infrastructure needed to rebuild the Iraqi economy was present although degraded from twelve years of sanctions. Iraqi oil wealth could be used to fund the transition to a modern economy and at the same time provide the basic necessities of life to the poorest Iraqis. If Iraq, with its ethnic and religious diversity (approximately 60% Shi’a, 35% Sunni, 80% Arab, 20% Kurdish and other minorities), could make a genuine transition to a stable representative government, it would provide a positive model of change for the other Arab states as well as the non-Arab Islamic states. This would benefit not only Western nations that want stability in the Middle East, it would be an extremely beneficial development for the 1.3 billion Muslims worldwide. It was not to be about “forcing democracy on backwards Muslims,” it was to be about giving brutally oppressed Muslims the opportunity develop governments that are represented by and responsive to their people. It would not be necessary for a new government to be democratic along the American or British models, but only that it would be representative and accountable to its people.

To effect this regime change, military action was necessary. Only very rarely do dictators voluntarily give up their power. Francisco Franco prepared Spain for the change to democracy but would not allow the transition until after his death. The dictatorships of Eastern Europe only fell after the withdrawal of Soviet troops and the Soviet Union itself imploded into economic ruin. Taiwan and South Korea are two remarkable exceptions to this rule and both had adopted market-oriented economies before their military regimes allowed themselves to be replaced by freely elected governments. Military coup and popular uprising had both been attempted in Iraq before only to be brutally put down by Saddam’s regime. The repercussions of the Shi’a uprising following the 1991 Gulf War included the massacre of an estimated 500,000 Shi’as, the displacement of two million more, and the draining of Iraq’s southern marshes, an ecological disaster that is considered one of the world’s worst.

There are many people who argue that Islam is incompatible with democracy. While there are strains, such as Wahhabism that are very undemocratic, the historical origins of Islam do not suggest that the religion itself is inherently incompatible. The Bedouin tribes of Arabia had an egalitarian tradition, whereby tribal leaders were chosen by consensus and only held sway as long as they had the support of their tribe. It was not what most Americans would understand as democracy but it was a system with a leader accountable to his tribe. This tradition even continues today in the unlikely form of the Saudi royal family, where succession rests not on hereditary right, but on the consensus of the senior princes of the family. The family “tribe” exercises restraint over the king and even deposed of one irresponsible king in 1964. Millions of Muslims have successfully integrated into the countries of Europe and the United States and are involved in the democratic processes in their adopted homes. The United Kingdom has several Muslim Members of Parliament and the United States has just elected its first Muslim Congressman. It is very easy to say that a people who have been living under a dictatorship and oppression which they did not choose are incompatible with democracy. It is much harder to help them make the change to decent government. It is impossible to say what type of government any people would choose if they have never chosen freely for themselves before. Iraqis did not choose to live under Saddam’s brutality; he violently forced himself upon them. A loose, but appropriate, analogy would be blaming the rape victim for the rape. Saddam certainly raped Iraq of her wealth and his sons and his security services literally raped her daughters. It is very troubling that groups of people who otherwise proclaim their dedication to human rights seem to accept the idea that this is the only form of government suitable for Arabs and Muslims.

This was the goal of the Bush Administration. It is an admittedly high goal, to be sure, but one whose long-term benefits vastly outweigh the cost of three thousand, five thousand, ten or even twenty thousand American lives. Successful representative government in Iraq means waves of change throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds. It means peaceful relations between the nations of the Middle East and the West. It means a moderate and democratic Islam that can successfully counter the influence of Wahhabi Islamism. Ultimately it means marginalizing an ideology that will otherwise threaten moderate Muslims and Western society alike for the rest of the 21^st Century. This is what American servicemen and women are fighting and dying for. This is what their sacrifice can buy for America’s future and the future of the world. It is a fight our soldiers and Marines can and should be proud of.

It is both unfortunate and regrettable that the Bush Administration failed to adequately define this conflict and failed to prepare the American public for the sacrifices necessary to achieve success. Not since Vietnam has America been involved in a conflict this long or this costly in lives. Americans have become accustomed to quick, painless victories and it seems this attitude had infected the political leadership as well. War should never be expected to be quick and painless and should never be promoted to the public as such. The administration acknowledged the religious divisions between Sunnis and Shi’as and thought it could use those divisions to its advantage. However it failed to adequately take into account the divisions within Iraqi Shiism, divisions which are responsible for many of the problems in Iraq now. It has bungled political decisions as well as personnel decisions in both the American and Iraqi militaries. These failures do not make the war unjust or immoral. These failures do mean success will be more difficult to achieve.

Failure in Iraq is not a cost only Americans will bear. In addition to the soldiers’ lives lost in vain, withdrawal would cause Iraq to descend into further chaos and outright civil war causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands more Iraqis. If the extremist elements win out over the moderates who are even now fighting for decent governance, Iraq could easily split into two or three separate mini-states. A fully autonomous Kurdistan would be viewed as a threat by both Iran and Turkey, nations which both have large Kurdish minorities agitating for more rights and political autonomy. A Wahhabist-dominated mini-state in the Sunni areas would be a terrorist haven and one that would export instability throughout the region. A weakened Shi’a state, rife with its own internal divisions would be even more open to Iranian dominance, a development that would be highly threatening to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. American failure in Iraq would be perceived as a victory for Wahhabism and strengthen its influence worldwide. This would include increased influence in the Muslim communities of Europe whose populations are rapidly increasing while the surrounding European populations actually decline. Increased Muslim populations in Europe, combined with increased extremism, will result in demands for recognition of Islamic law. European society will be fundamentally changed in ways American liberals only dream about in their most dreadful nightmares about the “religious right.” Or perhaps Europe will revert to a reactionary anti-Muslim fascism that seeks to drive Muslims from their midst. There is already a strong anti-Muslim element within Europe and it is not inconceivable that increased Muslim presence there will drive more Europeans into the anti-immigrant parties. In either case, the potential for more death and war in Europe will become very real.

America cannot simply retreat peacefully to her shores. Whether we want this responsibility or not or whether other nations want us to have this responsibility or not, the fact is we have it and we must act accordingly. It is painful for the families who have lost soldiers and it is painful for soldiers who have been wounded. It is frustrating to those who have served to hear their efforts dismissed as “not worth it.” It is frustrating to not see an end in sight. But these are sacrifices that should be, must be, made. Criticize bad decisions and mistakes made during the war (there are plenty). Criticize policies that strengthen the extremists at the expense of Iraq’s moderates. But do so constructively. Denigration of the American mission in Iraq simply because of personal distrust of the president will not bring success in any meaning of the word. It will bring only failure which will be paid at a cost much more dear than the lives already lost.

Cadets respond to Kerry...

Not content to let their comrades already serving in Iraq have the only say, Army and Air Force cadets at the Army-Air Force game send their own message to John Kerry:

Stuck in Iraq

Upon learning of John Kerry's interest in their plight, some soldiers in Iraq send a desperate plea!!!

Disgusted

I admittedly take a dim view of most Democratic politicians, but in the wake of John Kerry's comments yesterday, and his pathetic attempt to justify them today, my opinion of Democrats could charitably be described as "disgusted" or "loathing."

For anyone who doesn't know, Kerry said yesterday to a group of students that if they worked hard, studied hard, and did their homework, they could do well in life. If not, they could end up getting stuck in Iraq.

When I first heard about these remarks this morning, I was willing to believe Kerry had been misunderstood, misquoted, or somehow had his words taken out of context. That was before I watched his televised response damning those who had the gall to question his words. His angry outburst included this indignant gem:

"It disgusts me that a bunch of these Republican hacks who've never worn the uniform of our country are willing to lie about those who did."

A few points:

First, it seems directly quoting a politician's words is only considered a lie when that politician is a Democrat who now wishes he had not said those words.

Second, Senator Kerry's service nearly forty years ago in no way makes him immune to criticism now. It disgusts me that a man who last wore a uniform in 1970 now hides behind that uniform as a justification to say whatever he wants. It seems to me that after a career of working against the security interests of the United States and after slandering fellow servicemembers as Kerry did before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, one negates any debt of gratitude the country may owe.

Third, this outburst is highly indicative of Kerry's and most Democrats' true feeling towards our servicemembers and the general disregard towards all things military. Not only does Kerry question the motivation of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines serving in uniform, he dismisses that service as equivalent to a dead-end job suitable to high school dropouts. It is characteristic of a disgusting elitism that disdains patriotism and looks down on those who choose a life of service to their country.

Democrats insult our soldiers, insult their efforts overseas, and then insult Americans by blaming "Republican hacks" for criticizing the insults.

Senator Kerry, as a soldier who served in Iraq and as a student preparing for a further career as an officer, let me state unequivocally that it is you, not President Bush, who should be ashamed and it is you who owe American soldiers an apology.

Muhammad Cartoon Lawsuit Dismissed!

I, for one, am very pleased that the Danish courts have thrown out a lawsuit by Danish Muslim organizations seeking compensation from the editors of the Jyllends-Posten newspaper for depicting Muhammad "as belligerent, oppressing women, criminal, crazy and unintelligent."

Unfortunately, the official ruling is that the publishing of the cartoons was not done to intentionally insult Muslims. The court should have had the conviction to overturn the laws criminalizing speech that may be considered racist or blasphemous. Such laws are highly subjective, open to abuse, and dangerous to the concept of free speech.

In any case, the suit should have been thrown out immediately on the grounds that truth should be an absolute defense to libel.

The Hunger Site

A worthwhile site to visit daily is The Hunger Site. They have a group of sponsors who, for every click, donate a certain amount of staple food to two charities that then distribute it to the hungry throughout the world. It costs nothing to click and donate and there are links to similar sites that donate to fund free mammograms for poor women, provide medicine for poor children, promote literacy, preserve rainforest land, and donate to animal shelters. Again, it is completely free to click and all you are asked to do is view the sponsors' advertising banners.

University Star's Sloppy Attack on President Bush

The august newspaper of record at my school, Texas State University, is well-known on campus for a liberal bias, sloppy writing, and a galling lack of research. One of the University Star's left-leaning writers wrote this screed in today's edition.

Here's my response:

To the editor:

Tuesday’s column by Stephanie Silvas (“Death toll, statistical facts denied by Bush administration”) displayed a worrying lack of journalistic research as well as an irrelevant attack on President Bush. Without much investigation into the Johns Hopkins study she cites, Silvas pulls her figures and arguments out of thin air.

As to her assertion that President Bush estimates only 30,000 Iraqis have been killed, Silvas seems to be referring to a speech he gave in December 2005, almost a year ago. This estimate was in line with the numbers published at that time by the website IraqBodyCount.net, hardly a mouthpiece of the Bush administration. Since that December 2005 speech, the President has not made any public references to estimated civilian casualties. As of Tuesday October 17, 2006 Iraq Body Count estimates between 43,937 and 48,783 deaths since the beginning of the war. According to their website, “the count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks). It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion.”

Silvas quotes the Hopkins study as saying “eighty-four percent of the violent deaths were reported to be cause by the actions of Coalition forces and 95 percent of those deaths were due to air strikes or artillery.” This quote is not taken from the October 2006 Hopkins study and in fact comes from an October 2004 press release on the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health website. The 2006 study estimates the “deaths attributable to the coalition accounted for 31% of post-invasion violent deaths.”

Furthermore, the authors of the study try to put the Iraq conflict in perspective, comparing it to the Vietnam War (3 million civilian deaths), civil war in the Congo (3.8 million civilian deaths), and the crisis in Darfur (200,000 deaths).

Serious observers can have legitimate differences in their estimates of war casualties. (The Iraqi Ministry of Health offers an estimate of at least 50,000.) This is a war and in war civilians will die, no matter how unpleasant that fact may be. The United States removed a brutal dictator whose atrocities were overlooked by the world for 35 years and were perpetuated by a religious minority on a violently repressed religious majority. Freed of their oppressors, that majority is now exacting revenge for 35 years of rape, torture, mass murder, and ethnic cleansing. There is little the US military or President Bush can do to stop that however Silvas seems eager to believe the President is either ignorant or unaware of that human cost. Whether 650,000 or 50,000, Iraqis will continue to die until Iraqis decide to embrace decent governance.

At best, this is sloppy journalism on the part of Silvas and sloppy editorial standards on the part of the University Star. At worst, Silvas is attempting to portray the President and US military as bloodthirsty and having a callous disregard for human life. Mark Twain is often attributed as saying “there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.” Silvas is content to cite statistics, without any effort at balance or research in her attacks. Silvas and the University Star should be embarrassed this column made it to print.


Sincerely,

Coleman Kneisley
International Relations Senior

The Nobel Committee makes a good decision...

...for once and awards the 2006 Peace Prize to a deserving winner.

Christmas Gift Ideas

Muhammad Bobbleheads anyone?



I know I want one.

Looking at Ourselves

Three seemingly unconnected events - Pope Benedict XVI's speech angering Muslims, the three Republican Senators opposing rigorous interrogation of terrorists, and the United Nations speeches by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - and our reactions to them say much about the state of Western and American society today. Thomas Sowell connects the three events in a way that should give pause to those who doubt the seriousness of the threats our nation faces.

First, media coverage and reaction to the Pope's speech has focused on criticizing him for driving a wedge between Christianity and Islam, trashing the inter-faith dialogue of his predecessor, or for uttering words that he should have known would cause outrage and violence. Very little coverage has focused on or criticized the obvious - that criticism of Muslim violence cause more Muslim violence. It is not the responsibility of Westerners nor Christians to censor themselves to prevent others from reacting to their free speech with violence. The condemnation lies solely with those Muslims that reacted to Pope Benedict's speech with violence or threats of violence.

Second, self-indulgence lies at the heart of opposition to President Bush's efforts to vigorously interrogate terrorist suspects. The feel-good rhetoric of not wanting our soldiers (of whom I am one) to be subject to harsh treatment from terrorists is misleading and false. We already know how our soldiers and civilians are treated by the enemy. Extending Geneva Convention protections to terrorists who are not signatories to the Conventions does not protect our soldiers. Sowell makes the point that moral one-upmanship is dangerous in a struggle for our society.

Lastly, when leaders of states are condemning the United States and the West, we should not be asking how to placate our critics. We should be asking how to defeat them. If we are not ready to oppose them now, we will be forced to oppose them later and then it may be too late.

In Defense of the Pope...

Thankfully, at least some journalists have the honesty and courage needed to come forward and defend the comments of Pope Benedict XVI regarding the Islamic propensity towards violence:

William Rees-Mogg of The Times of London,

Michelle Malkin,

Mary Katharine Ham does a comprehensive analysis of the Pope's remarks and subsequent pressured "apologies",

David Warren, writing in The Ottawa Citizen,

And miracle of all miracles, London's The Sunday Times has taken an official stance in an editorial that Pope Benedict should continue to explore the theme that violence and reasonable religion are incompatible.

It is heartening that at least some journalists and newspapers are defending Pope Benedict. There should be more. Any journalist who believes in freedom of speech, any academic that believes in academic freedom, and any politician who cares about the serious problems of Islamist violence should do so as well.

Angry Muslims Upset at the Pope

What better way to demonstrate that you belong to a "Religion of Peace" than to riot and burn effigies of the Pope?

Admittedly, I am no big fan of Islam but I am at least willing to buy the argument that the majority of Muslims are peaceful, decent people. However it is increasingly difficult to hold this politically correct opinion when any perceived slight against Islam is met with angry demonstrations, calls for personal apologies, burning effigies, attacks on churches, murder, and warnings of more violence.

I continue to be disgusted with these displays of anger that should not be tolerated in a civilized society, much less a civilized religion. Muslims continue to assert Islam is a peaceful religion, the revealed truth of God, and that the West should not fear Islam, but if any discussion of Islam which includes any criticism, no matter how remote, cannot be openly held without fear of retaliation, then maybe we should.

What is it with Middle Easterners' Sensitivity Levels?

I have before mentioned the Muslim problem of not being able to laugh at themselves but sometimes they take their face-saving efforts to ridiculous levels. The latest slight to Muslim and Middle Eastern sensibilities is the new Sacha Baron Cohen movie, "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan." Borat is a fictional Kazakh journalist made popular in Cohen's "Da Ali G Show" and loathed by the Kazakh government, which has previously removed the Borat website from Kazakhstan's official .kz domain.

The latest protest against the Borat character is expected to be brought up in upcoming discussions between President Bush and Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev. It astounds the mind that the Kazakhs would make such a big deal out of this. Not only will they waste President Bush's time on such a trivial matter, the Kazakh government plans to buy television air time to show educational pieces about the "real" Kazakhstan in order to save the country's reputation. Wasting millions to prevent embarrassment by a fictional movie character says more about that country's leaders than it does about a made-up journalist.

Five Years. What Do Our Enemies Say?

The Middle East Media Research Institute does an invaluable job of translating Arabic, Farsi, and Turkish media, schoolbooks, and mosque sermons into English so that we do not have to rely on the mainstream Western media that is so quick to censor politically incorrect information. They have recently released this collection of documents and video recording the Arab and Iranian reactions to the horrific events of September 11, 2001. I urge you to watch the film, if only to remind you of what we are facing.

Canadians Blame US for 9/11...

This report astounds me. I know many Canadians take a dim view of US cultural influence as well as US policy, but it must be sheer animosity towards America that 77 percent of Quebecers and 57 percent of Ontarians would blame the United States and not Islamic extremism for the most deadly attacks on American soil.

It is not US policy, domestic or foreign, that is responsible for terrorism. It may upset fundamentalist Muslims that we favor a religious tolerance that their brand of Islam forbids, but it is they who are entirely responsible for terrorist attacks, whether here in the United States, in Toronto, London, Madrid, Bali, Jerusalem, or Baghdad. It is high time for Westerners to stop blaming themselves for a problem rooted in the religious hatred of extremist Islam.

I am tempted to quote the South Park movie regarding Canada, but shall refrain from doing so in the interest of keeping my site free from profanity.

Remember "Those Sixteen Words"...

...from President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address?

Not only was it determined those words were true, it also turns out the official that disclosed Valerie Plame's name was Richard Armitage, a State Department official that was opposed to Bush's Iraq policy. In addition, Armitage, Colin Powell, and George Tenet were all in position to end this contrived controversy and all neglected to do so. What reasons could they possibly have in undermining the administration? Perhaps it boils down to the incompetent heads of the State Department and CIA desiring to deflect attention from their poor performance.

Tribalism Versus Globalism

Ralph Peters makes some very interesting points in the new issue of The Weekly Standard, including the observation that one of the most powerful forces preventing the spread of Islamism is the traditional animistic beliefs of millions in the developing world. In many societies, the spread of Islam (and Christianity as well) has been tempered by continuing, persistant faith in the local traditional beliefs. If we are to successfully combat the spread of militant Islamism, it is necessary for our leaders to both acknowledge and respect these local beliefs, even knowing they may be just as at odds with our desire for the spread of American-style democracy. A long article, but very much worth the time to read.

Humorless Religion

Moses, Jesus, and Muhammed walk into a bar...

I know Muslims have a sense of humor because I have personally seen Muslims laughing. If only some of that humor could be aimed at Islam...

Let Them Win...

...stop the endless calls for peace. Stop the condemnation of Israel. Stop the "victimization" of Palestinians and Lebanese who brought this war on themselves.

Let Israel finish the job.

Lynch the Marines!!!

Ralph Peters is not happy with the media, Democrats, our generals, or the President. Neither am I. Someone needs to stand up for our soldiers and Marines and our so-called leaders are doing a pathetic job of it.

Saddam Defense Attorney Abducted, Killed...

Via BBC.

When I first saw the headline, I had hoped it was Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General and Dictator Defender Extraordinaire. But I doubt he spends much time in Baghdad.

I do feel sorry for Mr. Obeidi's family though.

Back to Hadji Girl...

Apparently after being subjected to media and official harassment, Marine Corporal Joshua Belile has apologized for his song "Hadji Girl". Karen Zautyk, in the New York Daily News reiterates the point that there's nothing wrong with our soldiers responding to the stresses they are put under in combat with humor, dark or otherwise.

This is one apology I would love to see retracted.

For more comprehensive coverage see Michelle Malkin's Military Musical Double Standard.

Quote for the day...

...from Thomas Sowell.

"The beauty of doing nothing is that you can do it perfectly. Only when you do something is it almost impossible to do it without mistakes. Therefore people who are contributing nothing to society except their constant criticisms can feel both intellectually and morally superior."

Hitler Quotes

A high school in New York state is upset two senior chose quotes from Hitler's Mein Kampf for their senior quotes. Supposedly the high school's administration is even considering whether or not these students should be punished. Let me say unequivocally that they should not be.

First and foremost these students have a right to free speech and if a school publication solicits these students' personal maxims, it has no right to punish them for their choice.

The first maxim mentioned in the article, "Strength lies not in defense, but in attack", is nothing more than a rephrasing of "the best defense is a good offense". Hitler said it? So what? This is a problem with too many debates today. Someone of dubious character (or in this case, no character at all) is sympathetic to a similar position so now it's automatically disqualified from any serious consideration. Time and time again, one will find that the saying "strength lies not in defense, but in attack" has historical validity.

The second quote, "The great masses of people...will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one", is historically true as well. Witness the masses that suffered under the lies of socialism and communism throughout the twentieth century and continue to suffer under the regimes of the People's Republic of China, Cuba, and North Korea.

The origin of the quotations do not diminish their accuracy, no matter how evil the source.

CAIR Craps its Pants....

The PC police seek to deny our soldiers and Marines a sense of humor.

Get over it!

Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines have to deal everyday with a hostile civilian population that cannot be consistently counted on to look after the safety and well-being of our own troops, not to mention the Iraqi forces. If our guys seek to find some kind of comedic relief in a ridiculous song, so what? I say let them have their fun.

Gay Marriage

Charles Krauthammer has a column on the subject out today. I agree with most of his points. It seems ridiculous to me to have an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America on an issue such as marriage - gay, straight, or whatever. Should there also be an amendment lowering the national speed limit to 55 mph? Or banning the sale of cigarettes? No. The purpose of the Constitution is to guarantee to the people certain rights and priveleges and to prevent incursions on those rights by the government. It should not be used to enshrine or prevent whatever concept is trendy or fashionable at the time.

Personally, I have no problem with the concept of "civil unions". I don't think it would cause an implosion of the republic to allow a person to designate another as his or her legal beneficiary whatever the other person's sex may be. This can be done in a regulated way, requiring applicants to meet whatever standards are deemed legally necessary. The larger problem that I see is that of the government performing a religious sacrament, marriage, in the first place. Should the government also conduct the Eucharist? Or issue five daily calls to prayer? No. That is and should be the domain of religious institutions.

Intelligence Problems

The media demands the public has a right to know. Intelligence officials need to brag to satisfy their egos. Neither pay any attention to operational security and it ends up hurting our efforts in Iraq and elsewhere.

Those Democrats are such Clean Campaigners...

...Yep, it's the Republicans that are all Mean-Spirited

Dog feces? Are we in junior high? Apparently, the Democrats think so.

Ding Dong! Zarqawi's Dead!!!

Looks like for real this time.

Michelle Malkin.
CNN.
Houston Chronicle (from AP).

I hope and pray that the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi will make Iraqis' opportunities for a peaceful and decent society more likely and quicker to happen. We can only hope Osama bin Laden suffers the same fate soon.

More on Global Warming

Stop. Freaking. Out. Al Gore is taking the issue way too serial. Super serial.

The hysteria about "global warming" really annoys me. As always, College Republicans are doing their best to piss off campus liberals.

Algore....

....And "A Convenient Lie"

So if the cause is good enough, it's now okay to lie? President Bush is constantly denounced as a liar for presenting evidence the he (as well as the CIA, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and most intelligence agencies worldwide) believed to be true but for Al Gore, who believes in the righteousness of his cause, is praised for a movie in which he admits to having an "over-representation of factual presentations..." in order to scare people into worrying about global warming.

Now Back With More to Come...

I should get a substantial post up sometime this week.

Meanwhile, this weekend I received a contribution solicitation from the Democratic National Committee with one of those surveys that are nothing more than a come-on for money. So I filled out the survey and added a few answers of my own that they had not offered such as suggesting vouchers as a possible solution to our schools' performance and that we should not get out of Iraq until 2010 (the latest the DNC apparently thinks we have any business there is 2007). I'm sending back to them in their postage-paid envelope without my own stamp (which they suggested in order to "help save [them] much-needed funds").

I sincerely hope that by responding the DNC will be encouraged to send me more solicitations in the future - the more postage they spend on sending envelopes back and forth the better!

The Blind Leading the Blind....

....isn't always a bad thing. This happened near my hometown and highlights the type of character we need more of.

The Houston Chronicle has more. Apparently, it's not even the first time he's saved her life.

Socialists are Soooo Progressive...

The latest socialist bigotry comes from London Mayor Ken Livingstone. The mayor recently compared a Jewish journalist to a Nazi prison guard and this week told two Jewish brothers to "go back (to their own country) and see if they can do better under the ayatollahs". The two are developers that are working on facilities for the London 2012 Olympics and were actually born in India to Iraqi Jewish parents.

Currently Reading....

....several books:

"Conquests and Cultures" by Thomas Sowell
"The Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek
"Underground London" by Stephen Smith
"The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam" by Bat Ye'or
and
"The Arab-Israeli Wars" by Chaim Herzog

I've read several books by Thomas Sowell and if you want to learn about anything from the effects of the Roman conquest of Britain to basic economics to worldwide application of affirmative action programs, his are some of the most thoroughly researched and well-written books I've ever read. I highly recommend them.

Socialism...

...rots your soul. Also it paves the way to economic and political servitude.

Whackjob Dictators Abound

I always thought North Korea's Kim Jong-Il had the nutjob market cornered but it looks like Turkmenistan is offering some comptetition. President-for-life Saparmurat Niyazov is offering assured admittance to Heaven for readers of his philosophical writings. The collection is called "Rukhnama" or "Ruhnama" and your very own ticket to eternal bliss may be viewed and purchased here.

This seems to follow a trend that flourishes among dictators who apparently fancy themselves literary prodigies. Kim Jong-Il is an expert on cinema, Fidel Castro analyzes current geopolitics and economics, Saddam Hussein wrote a romance novel before he was deposed, and Hugo Chavez wrote the introduction to a biography of Simon Bolivar.

Iran has No Nuclear Weapons Program...

...and there are no Americans in Baghdad.

I realize that in the diplomatic world, you're not always able to say out loud that the emporer has no clothes (such as the "One China" policy regarding Taiwan) but how long does that charade have to go on? If your opponent boasts of fooling you, how long do you have to put up with it? Or do we go along just because no one can stomach the thought of the alternatives? Much like the situation with Hitler in the 1930s, I fear Europe's leaders are keeping their heads in the sand regarding Iran's nuclear program. When the Iranian president calls for "wiping Israel off the map", when he says it is Iran's right to have a nuclear program, when Iran is referred to the UN Security Council by the International Atomic Engergy Agency for failure to cooperate in the inspections process, a light should be going off in the heads of Europe's leaders.

Europe's distaste for confrontation, China's desire for assured oil access, Russia's noncommittal attitude, and the United States' commitments in Iraq and elsewhere have seemingly left Iran in a position to do whatever it wants. While the continued conflict in Iraq may have everyone's attention at the moment, it is Iran's nuclear potential that could seriously undermine the fragile stability of the Middle East.

Part of being a leader is making decisions and sticking with them in the face of criticism. President Bush has done this with the war on terror and the war in Iraq though he has had to make political compromises that have complicated our position there. Europe however is seemingly content to let decisions be made by others. The nuclear standoff with Iran is soon approaching a point where decisions will have to be made by the US and Europe or those decisions will be made by Iran and Israel. I hope our leaders have the will and determination to act before others do the deciding for us.

170 Years...

...Since Texas declared its independence from Mexico. One of my ancestors, Martin Parmer, was there, along with the 57 other signing patriots who refused to continue to submit to the despotic rule of Mexican dictator Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. It is because of these men that Texas became not only a place but a state of mind and a way of life.

Democratic Philosophy

This pretty much sums it up:

A West Texas cowboy was herding his herd in a remote pasture when
suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced out of a dust cloud towards him. The driver, a
young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, Ray Ban sunglasses and YSL tie,
leans out the window and asks the cowboy, "If I tell you exactly how
many cows and calves you have in your herd,will you give me a calf?"

The cowboy looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his
peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, "Sure, Why not?"
The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects
it to his AT&T ! cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet,
where he calls up a GPS satellite navigation system to get an exact fix
on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans
the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo.

The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and
exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany. Within seconds,
he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed
and the data stored. He then accesses a MS-SQL database through an ODBC
connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a
few minutes, receives a response.

Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his
hi-tech,miniaturized HP LaserJet printer and finally turns to the
cowboy and says, "You have exactly 1586 cows and calves."

"That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves," says the
cowboy. He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on
amused as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.

Then the cowboy says to the young man, "Hey, if I can tell you exactly
what your business is, will you give me back my calf?"
The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, "Okay, why
not?"

"You're a consultant for the National Democratic Party." says the
cowboy.

"Wow! That's correct," says the yuppie, "but how did you guess that?"


"No guessing required." answered the cowboy. "You showed up here even
though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already
knew, to a question I never asked; and you don't know anything about my
business........ Now give me back my dog."

Military Funeral Protests

No matter what views you may have on the war in Iraq or any other issue that gets you riled up, funerals, especially those of fallen soldiers, are no place for protesting against those issues. It is disheartening to see funerals used as political props both by those on the extreme left such as at the Coretta Scott King funeral or by those on the extreme right as has been done by the church of Fred Phelps. Thanks to the Patriot Guard Riders, some measure of dignity can be restored to soldiers' funerals disrupted by the antics of Phelps's followers. It is sad that groups such as the Riders are needed but at the same time encouraging to see continued support for our soldiers and their families.

More Fallout from the Muhammad Cartoons; Muslims ask for Suppression of Press Freedoms

Watching Fox's Special Report with Brit Hume tonight, I was shocked by the Grapevine segment. About 1:25 minutes into the segment, we learn that the Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, is comparing the Muhammad Cartoons to the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11. Not only this, he compares the condition of Muslims in Europe to that of European Jews during World War II. Meeting with Javier Solana, the High Representative of the European Union for Common Foreign and Security Policy, in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia on February 13, Ihsanoglu also called for changes to European law including the outlawing of blasphemy. It should be noted that the OIC is a representative body of all Muslim nations that is a permanent delegation to the United Nations. Ihsanoglu is not some radical imam; he is considered a respected Islamic scholar and a reformer. Is this the voice of moderate Islam?

Other than the spectacle of Muslims responding to allegations of violence with actual violence, this call for European and Western submission to Islamic law is the most troubling aspect of the "Cartoon Jihad". Among Ihsanoglu's proposals:

• To adopt necessary legislative measures by the EU against Islamophobia through the European Parliament.
• To make joint efforts by the EU and the OIC for the adoption of a Resolution by the United Nations on the lines of existing UN Resolution 60/150 (Combating defamation of religions) which should prohibit defamation of all Prophets and faiths.
• To adopt code of ethics for the European media. The code of ethics should take into account the sensitivities of the Muslims and defamation in any form or manifestation and the core beliefs of the religions including mocking and criticizing Prophets and it should be considered as an ethical offence in the European media code.
• To adopt an International Communication/Media Order by the United Nations defining the freedom of speech with regard to religious symbols.
• To include operative provisions prohibiting blasphemy and defamation as well as incitement to hatred in the text of the resolution on the Statute of the Human Rights Council presently being considered at the UN.

Needless to say, these proposals to make Europe conform to Islamic law should be extremely troubling to anyone who values the rights of a liberal (small "l") society. This is not simply Western misunderstanding of Muslim intent. This is a long-running and gradual attempt at assigning Europe and the West a dhimmi status. Last month as the "Cartoon Jihad" flared up, Ihsanoglu asked "for a suppression of press freedoms" (Turkish Zaman, halfway down in the story "Bloody Cartoon Protest Kills 3 in Pakistan"). Under the guise of respecting all religions, Muslims are seeking to establish a legal basis in Europe for deference to Islam. This step towards establishing Islam as having preeminent legal status is the tool of repression used to spread Islam during its early expansionist phase.

America does not conform to Mexican law when Mexicans immigrate to the US. Canada does not conform to Chinese law when Chinese immigrate to Canada. Nor should Europe conform to Islamic law, kowtowing to intolerant Muslim immigrants. Europe has had the grace to take in these immigrants from the hells of the Islamic world; Muslim immigrants should respect the societies among which they live.

Muslims hack Cartoon websites, send threatening emails

Michelle Malkin has the details. I for one would love to get an email like these, if only for the hilarious Engrish. In any case, there is something seriously wrong with a people that think this is an appropriate response to the cartoons. How ironic that people who object to their religion being depicted as violent respond with violence. But come try that in Texas. Don't these people know that Americans enjoy something called the Second Amendment?

Finally, some sense from a Muslim group

I am glad the Islam-Archiv-Deutschland Central Institute is taking this position. It's about time someone did. Hopefully more Muslim groups will follow suit. I think it would be better if a group leader had attached his name to the statement but the longest journey begins with one step so I'll take this as good news.

It's sad that a religion gets painted with the views and voices of a few, such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I think many Americans and Europeans would certainly welcome more statements such as this from Muslim groups.

Muhammad through the centuries

Just like the statement the Islam "respects all religions", the contention that Islam has always condemned and opposed the depiction of Muhammad is either based on ignorance or lies. Take a look here for Zombietime's Muhammad Image Archive.

Another Muhammad Cartoon

Just found this cartoon and thought it was hilarious (if that's in any way appropriate to the situation).

Why?

In response to my posts on the Muhammad-cartoon controversy, I received this email from "Muslim":

What was the point of making these pictures of our beloved prophet Muhammad peace be upon him?

In Islam we dont make pictures of any other prophets. We respect all prophets, Jesus, Moses, Abraham. In our religion, even if you made pictures of these prophets, it would be considered a big sin.

We respect all religions, yet why dont the people who drawed what they did respect ours?

Moreover, why not write about our prophet peace be upon him from true sources? if you really learn about this Prophet, you will see what a mercy he was to mankind.

Where to start? The point of these cartoons was not to insult your beloved prophet. In the Western world, we have a rich tradition of social and political commentary and criticism expressed through satirical and editorial cartoons. In this case, the artists are criticizing several disturbing aspects of the Islamic world. Terrorism in the name of Islam, justified and glorified by millions of Muslims worldwide, is a perfectly legitimate topic to criticize. The fact that terrorists justify their acts with the words of Muhammad means he is a legitimate target of criticism. We have seen the violent reactions to these cartoons. We have seen schoolchildren killed. We have seen people beheaded. We have seen planes flown into buildings. Would Muhammad approve? Or does the religion of peace condemn such outbursts? If so, where is the condemnation? Where are the millions of peaceful Muslims who should be outraged that people do this in the name of their religion? Are they outraged?

Pictures? Muslims are threatening death and slaughter over pictures. They are burning embassies over pictures. Can you see how Westerners may be slightly puzzled or shocked? Artwork depicting humans is considered fairly benign in the Western world. We do have a commandment that says we shall not worship any graven images but I don't think anyone is suggesting a drawing of Muhammad should be worshipped.

I think I'll have to call your bluff on "respect[ing] all religions." Islam has a horrible record regarding the respect of other religions, especially in the modern period. Christians face regular persecution throughout the Arab and Muslim world. Jews are virtual nonentities in Muslim nations and are certainly not allowed to worship openly. It is not Christians that are trying to impose religious law on everyone in northern Nigeria. It is not Christians that are committing genocide in the Sudan. In the Western world, you are free to practice any religion you see fit, be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Wicca, or Scientology. You can have any nutjob beliefs you want and try to convince others of their divine inspiration as well. The Islamic world does not extend the same courtesy to any others. Until that happens, any suggestion that Islam respects all religions is either laughable ignorance or an outright lie.

Muhammad may have been a wonderful man but as long as Muslims eagerly kill people in his name, Westerners will have a hard time believing that. Islam has made many contributions to world civilization in the past. Unfortunately, it seems to have become stagnant over the last several hundred years. One of the strengths of Christianity, Judaism, and Western society in general is an ability to question and criticize ourselves. For those that believe in God, that can often strengthen our faith. For everyone, that can lead to a better society. We do not see the same thing in Islam.

The galling hypocrisy shown in the photos of the protest outside the Danish embassy in London is that while Muslims are free to protest and even condemn their governments in the Western world, they could never do the same thing in the Islamic world.

The Controversial Cartoons

Here they are, the cartoons that are causing so much trouble all over the world right now. Are they really that offensive? Meanwhile, Tony Blair responds to an Australian paper's characterization of the issue as a clash between civilizations saying, "No, that would require two civilizations."

Abu Bombza

For more complete coverage of the Muhammad-cartoon controversy, I would suggest checking out Michelle Malkin's site. Neil Boortz also has a good column on the subject.

Julian Bond, Race-Baiting Huckster

In a speech last night NAACP Chairman Julian Bond compared Republicans to Nazis and called Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell "token" blacks. He once again compared Republican policies to the Taliban continuing a theme he's expounded on since the beginning of the Bush administration. Along with demeaning those who suffered under Nazi Germany or Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, Bond also continues to make the case that Republicans should not take black "leadership" in America very seriously. The "Nazi", "Taliban", and "token" rhetoric only further diminishes any interest Republicans may have in whatever points "civil rights" organizations are trying to explain. You want to have a dialogue with a Republican? Good luck if you start off by calling him a Nazi.

Furthermore, calling Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell "tokens" is a sign of willful ignorance, incompetence, or an unskillful attempt at labeling them as race-traitors. I think we can assume that Bond did not rise to NAACP Chairman through ignorance or incompetence so it must be something else. The main point that lies behind Bond's assertion is that any black American that does not adhere to the Democratic or NAACP line is a traitor to the black race and a willing pawn of racist Republicans. Without going into why the Republican agenda is not racist (which would take much more space and time than I care to take right now), Bond also ignores the approach that President Bush has had toward minorities in his administration. Not only has Bush appointed more minorities and women to federal positions, he has appointed more to more significant positions than any of his predecessors, including President Clinton. Officials such as Rice, Powell, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales were not chosen because they were minorities, they were chosen because they were highly qualified individuals who share a common political philosophy with the President.

Chairman Bond is simply upset that any black would dare to disagree with the NAACP. Were the NAACP to foster discussion between blacks of differing political persuasions, black Americans would exercise much more political power in the United States. As it is today, civil rights "leaders" such as Bond, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson have much vested interest in keeping the vast majority of blacks in the pocket of the Democrats. The party keeping blacks on the plantation is the one that takes 90% of the black vote for granted.

More on Muhammad

Praise Allah that some people in Europe are willing to stand up to Muslim reactionary pressure. Our rights to express satire and criticism (in the case the most explicit being the drawing of Muhammad wearing a bomb as a turban) cannot be sacrificed on the altar of religious sensitivities, especially those of a religion that is intolerant of others. As Germany's Die Welt says, "There is no right to be shielded from satire in the West." There shouldn't be in the East either.

To see the cartoons that have caused such outrage, click here.

Muhammad maligned; Muslims collectively crap themselves

In yet another incident of Muslim religious hypocrisy, masked gunmen in Gaza seized control of an EU office in Gaza, demanding apologies from the governments of Denmark and Norway for a newspaper cartoon depicting the prophet in an unflattering way. In addition to this violent outburst, Danish and Norweigan aid workers have been physically threatened and Arab nations are calling for an economic boycott of Danish and Norweigan goods.

Can Muslims be any more hypocritical? Muslim nations routinely trample the rights of others to worship as they please, outlawing Christianity and Judaism, prohibiting the ownership of property by non-Muslims, legalizing discrimination against Muslims of unorthodox sects, and spreading outrageous lies against Jews. What makes Islam so special, so inviolate, that it cannot be criticized in any way, shape, or form?

This hypersensitivity is truly disturbing. Almost as disturbing is the pandering which some politicians and businesses are doing in order to ingratiate themselves with a people that would restrict their rights to express themselves as they choose. Arla Foods (a Danish company affected by the boycott) and the Danish Socialist People's Party should be hiding in shame for their calls for public censorship. This voluntary dhimmitude should be condemned by anyone and everyone who is appalled by the glaring lack of basic human rights present in the Muslim world. Muslims should be more concerned about the enormous failings of their own culture and civilization before they clamor for changes in ours. Muslims can worship freely in Denmark, Norway, or the United States. Christians and Jews cannot do the same in Saudi Arabia or Libya.