Thursday, March 13, 2008

Hussein's minister

This video speaks for itself.

That Hussein has associated with this person for 20 years speaks for itself.

Nothing else needs to be said.

An old bud from my TalkLeft days...

...well if not a bud, at least someone I think would be a bud if we got to know each other, chastised me for calling Hussein, Hussein. He also accused me of demonstrating a lack of class in this matter.

As I noted to him, the issue to me is this. If he can dictate what he can be called, he can also dictate what questions he will answer.

That's BS.

If Hussein has a problem with his name, he should change it. He won't because he thinks that would offend the Muslim vote. I tend to agree. And I think that defines him.

Hussein to JFK

Tonight at dinner the light of my life noted that:

"What we need now is Harry Truman."

"If not Truman," I replied, "at least Ike."

"Do you remember Mamie?" she asked in reference to Ike's First Lady.

"Of course," I answered.

"Tell me," she said. "Could you compare Mamie to Michelle?"

I didn't then, but about an hour later I thought of the perfect comeback.

"How about Billy Graham to Hussein's minister??"

Wayne comes back.

I think it’s unwise, and morally reprehensible BTW, to declare war on multiple fronts against a whole class of people – Islamic Muslims in this case – when most of them have not attacked us and present no danger to us.

Of course most of them haven’t attacked us. After all, there are 4 billion Muslims in the world.

Is there a magic number involved here? Okay, surveys show that 50.1111% have attacked us so it is okay to respond??

Wayne’s point, one often made by those on the Left, ignores the fact that radical Muslims have been attacking us for years.

This site provides a list. Also note that it does not show the attacks in Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, London subway attacks in London, car bombs found outside nightclubs in London, Glasgow airport attack, etc., etc. Also not mentioned was the attack on the El Al ticket counter at LAX, the foiled attack on LAX by capture of the terrorists at the Canadian border, etc., etc.

So I say that Wayne has a point, but blames the wwrong side, a rather usual position of the Left in general. It is reprehensible for the radical Muslims to attack the west.

Of course I am sure that Wayne will say that it was okay to attack Afghanistan but not Iraq and that we should have treated them as criminals and arrested them for trial in the US. Of course we tried that. We surrounded Iraq and told Saddam to step down. He chose to shoot it out. And that was a very bad career choice.

Above all the Left chooses to ignore this interview of Osama bin Ladin with Peter Arnett, then of CNN in March’97.

REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

BIN LADIN: The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the US aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will.So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

In other words, let us do what we want to do, or be attacked.

This is a clear declaration of war against the US, and the western world in general. It is unbelievable that it is ignored. The western world’s leaders, especially Clinton who had knowledge of this in 1997, makes Chamberlain’s actions look good.

So the war started long before Bush invaded Iraq. Long before.