Posted on 09/13/2006 9:00:08 AM PDT by MNJohnnie
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700725/posts
The enemy within -- and it's not who you think (David Warren nails Islamofascism's 5th column)
Ottawa Citizen - Canada ^ | September 13, 2006 | David Warren
Posted on 09/13/2006 10:43:18 AM CDT by GMMAC
The enemy within -- and it's not who you think
Ottawa Citizen September 13, 2006
COMMENTARY: DAVID WARREN
Listening to President Bush speak, on Monday's anniversary of 9/11, after a day of distastefully sentimental memorials, my question was not what have we achieved in the last five years, but rather, what have we learned? Bush and Blair -- the captain and vice-captain of Team West in the war against "the terrorists" so far -- are both now in the twilight of their political careers. Both have recently broken with habitual discretion, and made attempts to name the enemy. This has, if anything, added to their unpopularity, for when they mention that the enemy presents himself as Islamic, there are shrill cries not only from radical Muslims, but across the spectrum of the Left in the West.
Mr Bush, much the less eloquent of the two, has now retreated from his use of the term "Islamofascist" -- which as I said in a previous column, is a fairer label than "Islamist" for an enemy that spreads a palampore of traditional Islam, over a stuffing from the Western-bred totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century. As I wrote Aug. 27, from Ahmadinejad to Zawahiri, we hear rhetoric that uses an Islamic vocabulary and crude grammar, but animated with a syntax that owes more to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, than to the Prophet and his traditional interpreters. The term is thus meant to suggest a skewed Islam, an Islam "adapted to our age" by psychopathic men, whose own Islamic learning is purposefully politicized, and aggressively de-spiritualized. Since the alternative would be to say that Ahmadinejad, Zawahiri, et al. do speak legitimately for Islam, I don't see why anyone should object to the term "Islamofascist".
Mr Blair gave an interview worth reading to the Israeli daily, Haaretz, published Monday. The editors present characterized it as "sombre". The British prime minister was still going through the motions of advocating the "peace process", and the "two-state solution" for Israel and Palestine, without (according to me) any real conviction that it could work. It is just something Western politicians do to please the figurative "Arab street", and it does not please anyone, any more. With much more conviction, he said leaders throughout the West have grasped that we are in a truly "global struggle", for which the people of the West are not prepared. The politicians have failed to explain to us how much is at stake, and how much will be lost if we are not resolute in defence of Western values.
For all its uncharacteristic awkwardness, Mr Blair's answer to a question about British home-grown terrorists donged the bell:
"It's not necessarily what have we done wrong, because part of the problem of what you have in Western opinion is that Western opinion always wants to believe that it's our fault and these people want to have a sort of, you know, grievance culture that they visit upon us and say it's our fault. And so we have a young British-born man of Pakistani origin sitting in front of a television screen saying I will go and kill innocent people because of the oppression of Muslims, when he has been brought up in a country that has given him complete religious freedom and full democratic rights and actually a very good job and standard of living. Now, that warped mind has grown out of a global movement based on a perversion of Islam which we have to confront, and we have to confront it globally."
I frankly admire both Bush and Blair, as courageous politicians, with open minds, doing their best within the limits of what is politically possible in their respective spheres. They are both towering figures, in comparison to the little men who oppose them. We won't know what trouble is, until the little men replace them.
I continue optimistic about what can be done, should we summon the will to do it. I have written repeatedly that a robust and unified Western response to "Islamofascism" could fling it quickly onto the trash-heap of history, to join Nasserism and Baathism and other earlier manifestations of Arab nationalism and socialism. Smack it hard, without apology.
My pessimism is founded in the fear that this robust and unified response cannot be mobilized. We have a huge fifth column in the West, and it is not the Muslim immigrants. They become radicalized only because our "victim culture" encourages them to nurture their grievances. Yet most, despite temptation, remain good, decent people, doing their share of the West's work.
Our real enemy is within us, in the immense constituency of the half-educated narcissists pouring from our universities each year -- that glib, smug, liberal, and defeatist "victim culture" itself, that inhabits the academy, our media, our legal establishment, the bureaucratic class. The opinion leaders of our society, who live almost entirely off the avails of taxation, make their livelihoods biting the hands that feed them, and undermining the moral order on which our solidarity depends.
My Dad loved Flip!
Let's not forget the media not reporting slaughter and the imposition of Shariah law rolling along all through Africa. A country telling people to 'vote' whether they want Sharia... in Amsterdam? The rapes and killing by muslims in Denmark and Sweden. Indonesia fighting constantly, the Phillipines as we speak. All the banks blown up...
No follow up on some of the releases of those who 'purchased' many cell phones and stripped them, or the shooter at the Jewish Center, or the guy who plowed into the crowd at college down south, or the one recently...
I bet you most got off.
How many terror financiers are in court as we speak in this country, the bombings and bomb materials discovered at many of our colleges covered up... no follow up.
Instead we get Brad Pitt, hollylibs, Tom's baby, dancing with the stars, partisan hackery... and CAIR, ACLU are changing and using our first amendment and our courts to serve the enemy in impose islamic law little by little; Whether it's headscarves, islam taught in schools (public, paid for by you), Bally's only for islamic women, they have more rights than us... soon, like the UK, we will have the burka scrubs (always wondered what happened when muslim women are injured... how could they let doctors treat them... my bad, a special muslim doctor I guess).
And I am sick and tired of our administration constantly stating there are no ties re: AlQ and Saddam... that's a lie. We know he didn't invade Iraq because of it... there were many reasons, but there are huge links.
These stalinists come out even on the anniversary saying... oh well, we haven't done enough; And are till this second still blocking what must be done. They have to be shut up.
I saw a clip of Nixon on laugh in.
He said he MIGHT do a 4 hour show tomorrow for the EIB subscribers.
Rosie ODonnell, the new host of "The View," restrained herself for exactly one week before letting fly with her extreme liberalism. On the September 12 edition, in response to fellow co-host Elisabeth Hasselbecks comment that militant Islam is a grave threat, ODonnell stated that "radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America." The comedienne also attacked Americas response to 9/11:
ODonnell: "We were attacked not by a nation. And as a result of the attack and the killing of nearly 3,000 innocent people we invaded two countries and killed innocent people in their countries."
The segment, which aired at 11:16AM EDT, saw Ms. ODonnell open up and, for the first time as a View host, express her true outlook. The piece began with Rosie inquiring as to whether anyone watched President Bushs address to the nation. She then read from the speech:
ODonnell: "He had one sentence that I thought struck me. I thought, what did everyone think? The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad. And I would say the outcome, really, of America really depends on the battle in the streets of New Orleans, that that city is still decimated and $303 billion have been spent fighting this war. If, literally, a third of that money was put into Katrina and facilitated with honest people who knew how to do it, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in."
ODonnell may be unaware of this, but $110 billion has been designated for the Gulf Coast clean-up. My math could be wrong, but I believe thats at least a third. Co-host Joy Behar, a fellow liberal, chimed in with this question:
Behar: "Dont you think its clear at this point that they dont care about New Orleans? If they cared about it, they would have fixed it already."
The fact that she believes New Orleans should be completely "fixed" in a year is besides the point. The View, a program that is supposed to represent the perspectives of women, is now almost completely in the control of Move-On-type liberals. Elisabeth Hasselbeck, the shows token Republican, meekly submitted to the liberal onslaught. She replied simply, "They should give more."
ODonnell saved her harshest comments for the war on terror. After Hasselbeck had the temerity to mention the threat of extreme Islam, Rosie responded with her slap at Christianity:
ODonnell: "And just one second, radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America."
This proved too much for even Behar. She replied, in a somewhat bewildered manner:
Behar: "But, but Christians are not threatening to kill us. Theres that difference. This group is threatening to kill us."
Hasselbeck also appeared surprised by ODonnells comment. She maintained, "We are not bombing ourselves here in the country." The comedienne had a clever retort for this:
ODonnell: "No, but we are bombing innocent people in other countries. True or false?"
There are two points to be made here. First, apparently Rosie believes that the federal government is a branch of "radical Christianity." Secondly, has she never heard of World War II and the innocent civilians that unfortunately died in the struggle against Nazism? Was that war wrong? Showing a loose grasp on international politics, ODonnell stated that "Iraq and Afghanistan never threatened to kill us. Ever." Again, perhaps Ms. ODonnell is unaware of exactly where the Taliban trained and plotted. Finally, on the subject of terrorism, no Rosie segment would be complete with out left-wing, bumper sticker rants. She informed her audience of these grand pronouncements:
ODonnell: "We will never bring peace at the hands of war....As a species we have to rise above it."
ODonnell: "But in life, you have two choices always, faith or fear. A government should lead by faith, never by fear."
ODonnell quickly added that, when she said faith, she didnt mean Christianity, but faith in "humanity" and "equality." It appears as though the honeymoon is over. Viewers should expect more hard-left, blame- America comments from Rosie ODonnell, "The Queen of Nice."
I can't recall Laugh-In being political at all, it was just hysterically silly. But I was a dopey adolescent, so I could be wrong!!
Rush is assuming facts not in evidence.
I'm sure Bill waved his finger at her?
But Rush, you'll notice the POTUS doesn't use the term "Islamofascist" any more.
Rosie should get her a tent to wear and take her lesbianism over to a country ruled by Sharia. Let her speak out there.
Bill was pissed.
Rush
"Rosie O'D: A Glittering Jewel of Colossal Ignorance"
We use the term Coolie for the Ars.
Geraldine!
Rosie, and I say this with love, time for your meds...
I'd forgotten that one!
Flip WIlson cracked my dad up too. Everyone had their favorite. Arte Johnson could reduce me to hysterics before he even asked "Want a Walnetto?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.