Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 10:01 AM ET, 03/ 9/2011

The Muslim community needs to end the stonewalling

By Jennifer Rubin

As I noted Tuesday, a great many liberals have gone bonkers over the Islamic radicalization hearings that are to begin Thursday. A delightful exception is Ruth Marcus, who writes: "To ignore the religious nature of the terrorist threat is to succumb to politically correct delusion. To ignore the homegrown religious nature of the terrorist threat is to succumb even further."

There is no doubt that al-Qaeda is recruiting American Muslims. It isn't recruiting Reform Jews or Christian evangelicals, so let's stop pretending there is no basis for focusing on the problem, namely the nexus between an international Islamist network and American Muslims. But that's an inconvenient fact.

As Marcus notes in her column, the letter by critics of the hearings is instructive. Let's look at the signatories, for starters. We see a bunch of American Muslim groups (American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Council on American-Islamic Relations - New York, Muslim Advocates, Muslim Consultative Network, Muslim Peace Coalition USA, Muslim Public Affairs Council) and many far-left groups on the George Soros gravy train (Alliance for Justice, Common Cause, Jewish Funds for Justice, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, People For the American Way). Next, throw in an assortment of groups with agendas that are entirely unrelated to this issue (Greater New York Labor-Religion Coalition, Feminists for Free Expression, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health) but that feel free to use their donors' money for the left-wing action item of the week. And, finally, add in groups that are in the ethnic-grievance mongering business (Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Japanese American Citizens League, South Asian Americans Leading Together). Together it's a remarkable example of the degree to which the far left's agenda now has embraced opposition to the war on Islamic terror (which it doesn't want to identify as "Islamic").

The letter itself is long on emotion and short on -- in fact, devoid of -- any facts:

We are organizations that support the fundamental American values of civil rights and civil liberties for all. We write to strongly object to the House Homeland Security Committee's plans to hold hearings on the "radicalization" of American Muslims. Our concern is that these hearings will serve to further promote the demonization and scapegoating of millions of American Muslims, while providing little valuable insight into the prevention of domestic terrorism.

While we all take the threat of terrorism seriously, we see no productive outcome in singling out a particular community for examination in what appears to be little more than a political show-trial. American Muslims, like all Americans, want to keep our country safe, and to cooperate with law enforcement when they are aware of criminal activity. Yet many elected officials have chosen to demonize all American Muslims, denigrating their religion and questioning their patriotism. We fear that these hearings will only add to this toxic climate of suspicion toward American Muslims and may hinder the important efforts to maintain trust and mutual respect between American Muslims, law enforcement, and public officials.

Do they take the threat of terrorism seriously? Well, those who do want to know why and how American Muslims are recruited. Is learning about that subject not a "productive outcome"? Who is demonizing "all American Muslims"? The only ones suggesting this are opponents of the hearing, in a massive PR effort to scare Muslim Americans.

And as for that "trust and respect," there isn't nearly enough in the form of cooperation between the Muslim community and law enforcement. The New York Daily News reports:

Cops and federal agents agree with Rep. Pete King that they don't get a lot of tipsters from the Muslim community -- but they say that's true of many other communities.

Counterterrorism and intelligence sources from the NYPD and FBI say law enforcement faces the same problem with the Mafia, drug cartels and the MS-13 gang.

The Daily News notes the case of "Bryant Neal Vinas, who allegedly spoke at Long Island mosques about jihadist aspirations. No one told cops, and Vinas admitted to participating in Al Qaeda attacks on U.S. soldiers after his 2008 arrest in Pakistan."

But let's not assume that the Muslim groups that signed the letter speak for all American Muslims. The Post's On Faith blog features a thoughtful piece by Asra Q. Nomani, the author of "Standing Alone: An American Woman's Struggle for the Soul of Islam." It should be read in full -- at the hearings, if possible.The Georgetown University journalism professor writes, in part:

When I heard that Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) was going to hold hearings on the issue of radicalization inside our American Muslim community, I thought: It's about time.

As those hearings begin on Thursday, all of us need to grab a front row seat. This is a discussion we desperately need to have as a nation because for far too long we have lived in a culture of denial, fueled in part by Muslim community leadership that -- like just about any community tends to do until prodded -- denies our problems rather than admits them.

I arrived in this country in 1969 as a four year old from India and, after 42 years as an American-Muslim, I can say without a doubt: an ideology of extremism has crossed across our borders, and radicalization is a real threat inside our communities in the U.S., often times unchallenged because members of our Muslim community are intimidated to speak out against it. We have brave leaders and activists who do, but usually at great cost to their social standing in the community.

She urges:

Instead of circling the wagons with a public relations campaign of victimization, Muslims should rise to the occasion and honestly discuss what we all know: there is a very real interpretation of Islam inside our communities that threatens to convert our youth and others to extremism. It is expressed through publishing houses, imams, YouTube videos, websites and arm-chair ideologues.

We need to have ... open conversations about how extremist Islam gets into the heads of Muslims such as would-be Time Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hassan and so many others. We need to own up to the fact that some within Islam have a problematic interpretation, and we need to have the moral courage to be honest about it. We will not shame ourselves. We will not shame Islam. There is no shame in honesty. In fact, I think we would engender more good will -- and invite less anger and rage by folks frustrated by our stonewalling.

Now that's speaking truth to power. Maybe she should be on the witness list.

By Jennifer Rubin  | March 9, 2011; 10:01 AM ET
Categories:  National Security  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Bowles and Simpson vs. do-nothingism
Next: Rafsanjani leaves

Comments

As usually, missing the point.

It is one question - what the Muslim community should do - yes, it should fight terrorism inside itself it wants to have a chance of survival and prospering in this country.

A different (!) question is whether or not the US Congress should hold a public hearing on the declared topic. An investigation of the growth of radical islam in USA - yes, definitely. A public hearing on the whole community? - definitely not. For a simple practical reason - denouncing the community will turn it away and deny US irreplaceable intelligence on possible terrorist activities.

Leaving the moral issue aside, either kick them all out - or work with them, don’t humiliate those whose help you need.

Posted by: MR-CRMS | March 9, 2011 10:15 AM | Report abuse

I think if Jennifer actually read what Ruth said, she'd note that Ruth said

"Certainly, the best evidence against King is King. His manner is blustering verging on crude. His language has been loose, crossing the border to offensive, as when he told the Associated Press last month, "There is a real threat to the country from the Muslim community, and the only way to get to the bottom of it is to investigate what is happening."

Islamic radicalism: The questions that Rep. Peter King is right to ask
Stoking irrational fears about Islam
Rep. Peter King's hearings on Islamic radicalization: Fuel for the bigots
In an area that calls for careful choice of words and frequent expressions of respect, King has too often been willing to paint with a broad brush that alienates the very community whose help he seeks."

And while I agree with Ruth regarding the need to discuss Muslim radicalization, King is a poor messenger to discuss that issue, and probably undermines the worthwhile goal of having a discussion on the issue.

Though kudos to Jennifer for finding a way to bring up George Soros in a column about Muslim radicalization. I see her obsession with him continues unabated.

Posted by: mustangs79 | March 9, 2011 10:23 AM | Report abuse

TO MR-CRMS: I think you are the one missing the point.

When Bill Cosby started a discussion on more responsible parenting in the black community. Was he denouncing the community or hoping to improve it?

When Eric Holder said the U.S. is afraid to have an open discussion on race, was he denouncing the communities or hoping to improve the overall situation?

I don't know whether the King hearings will produce anything useful or merely be another exercise in partisan politics - BUT -I agree with Marcus, Rubin, and especially Ms. Nomani that the discussion needs to start and continue until the threat of Islamic radicalism fades away.

Posted by: pilsener | March 9, 2011 10:31 AM | Report abuse

BRAVO. JENNIFER !!!!
The National Center For Lesbian Rights!!???
These people are to unreal!!
They would enable violence by people who kill or jail lesbians>
Useful idiots!

Posted by: MartinChuzzlewit | March 9, 2011 10:48 AM | Report abuse

BRAVO. JENNIFER !!!!
The National Center For Lesbian Rights!!???
These people are too unreal!!
They would enable violence by people who kill or jail lesbians.
Useful idiots!

Posted by: MartinChuzzlewit | March 9, 2011 10:49 AM | Report abuse

No serious person contends that ALL Moslems are terrorists, but by the same token no informed person would try to deny that 90% of all terrorists ARE Moslems!
This is certainly true internationally and is becoming more and more true inside the United States. This is because the Moslem terrorist groups like Al Quaida and the Muslim Brotherhood now know they cannot infiltrate their foreign born members easily into America and thus are forced to recruit home grown terrorists from American citizens of the Moslem faith and from radical Moslem groups like CAIR.

Posted by: Beniyyar | March 9, 2011 10:53 AM | Report abuse

The individuals who are being radicalized are people who probably would have a tendency toward violence anyway. Adrenaline and self-righteousness are a potent blend. Even if Islam didn't exist at all, I believe these people would find some excuse to act out.
The Dalai Lama said, and I'm paraphrasing here from "Ethics for the New Milennium", that "you can no more have one true religion than you can have one true medicine. You would not give heart medication to a liver patient. The true test is whether the practice of religion produces a better individual. If it does not, then that person is practicing the wrong religion."

Posted by: Capn0ok1 | March 9, 2011 10:56 AM | Report abuse

What we really need is a new and kosher 911 investigation. We need to know who rigged the buildings of LARRY SILVERSTEIN with NANOTHERMITE and other DEMOLITION CHARGES to make a FALSEFLAG event.

http://911blogger.com

Pentagon Papers Whistleblowers, Congressman Who Saved Headwaters Forest, and 9/11 Commissioners Themselves Call for a New 9/11 Investigation

The two main players in releasing the Pentagon Papers were Daniel Ellsberg and United States Senator Mike Gravel.

Senator Gravel is the person who read the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record. This act made the papers public record, so that they could not be censored by the government. He was the only member of Congress courageous enough to do so.

Both Ellsberg and Gravel - like many other high-level former officials in the government and intelligence services (including many well-known whistleblowers) - support a new 9/11 investigation. Ellsberg says that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers". (Here's some of what that whistleblower says.) He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11.

Posted by: BuildingSeven | March 9, 2011 10:57 AM | Report abuse

King is a hypocrite like Newton Gingrich who was an adulterer.

Like Roman Plansky who is a rapist.

Like Bernard Madoff who is the biggest fraudster.

We need to investigate FBI for RACISM, Bush, Cheney, Neocons etc.

Posted by: BuildingSeven | March 9, 2011 11:01 AM | Report abuse

In the Internet Age, it's sad to see the American public confronting Muslims in our midst in total ignorance when there's so many good informative blogs on the true nature of the threat, such as Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Brigitte Gabriel, and the Historyscoper. Muslims who immigrated from the Muslim world have a totally alien mindset to Americans, because in their world Islam is the official religion, and Islam is proclaimed as superior to all other religions, demanding total control of society and govt., with anybody even criticizing or insulting Islam subject to death. When these people come to America they see freedom and separation of church and state, and either freak or see an opportunity to make America part of the Muslim world for their Allah. Hence they probably should never have been allowed to immigrate. Sadly, sinister organizations such as CAIR, which has connections with the Muslim Brotherhood, have allied with leftists who are either Islam ignoramuses or who see Islam as a way to weaken America's global power, which they see as worthy of temporary cynical alliances, even though none of them would want to live in the Muslim world under Sharia that takes away their freedoms and rights. Hence being afraid of what Islam can do to America is not just a rightist or leftist cause, and Peter King is a hero and all Americans should back him. No surprise, he's been getting death threats from Muslims, which he claims are mainly from the Muslim world. The Muslims in America know they're on probation and are determined to put on the wolf in sheep's clothing act now, in the hopes that more immigration combined with high birthrates can allow the sheep's clothing to come off, as in Lebanon or Palestine. King's hearings are nice, but where are the hearings on declaring a moratorium on immigration from the Muslim world unless/until it drops Islam as the official religion and joins the human race? Until then, there's battle lines, and to ignore them can be suicidal for our grandkids.

Posted by: tlwinslow | March 9, 2011 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Fascists like you should find a way to go back to Nazi Germany, where you belong, instead of destroying this country that I love!

Posted by: thomasmc1957 | March 9, 2011 11:15 AM | Report abuse

The hearings if done correctly can be a positive thing. There is a risk of damaging the moslim community relations with the rest of America. However I feel there is a greater risk if nothing is done and the problem is allowed to fester. We should not wait to address the situation until the first suicide bomber blows himself up in a movie theatre. All fair minded people know the vast majority of moslem americans are good people. Also all fair minded people can say more self policing and cooperation is needed to keep everyone safe. Hopefully these hearings will raise awareness within the moslem community without spawning irrational hatred.

Posted by: eddiehaskall | March 9, 2011 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Actually, it really is pretty hypocritical for a liberal neo/non-con to champion an investigation dealing with people who want to kill Americans when the neocon's UNCONSERVATIVE policies have killed more Americans than 9/11. Thanks to Rubin and her ilk, 4,000+ Americans are dead trying to bring hopey-changey to Iraq while Bin Laden prances around free as a bird. Thanks Mz. Rubin!

Here's the neocon formula - Sanction, set up a no-fly zone, invade, occupy, die and rape us of our tax dollars for liberal fantasies.

Maybe it's time for us REAL conservatives to set up a ledger account and see how many dead bodies neocons have racked up and how many dead bodies radical muslims have racked up. I'm sure Kristol & Rubin easily have as much blood on their hands as a suicide bomber, except we're still stuck with these people bastardizing our conservative movement into something completely different. At least the suicide bomber dies, neo/non-cons live forever and use other people's children to do the dying.

Posted by: mfray | March 9, 2011 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Pilsener, by your logic, Peter King should not be holding this hearing, Cong. Ellison should. Now try to imagine Peter King voluntarily ceding the gavel so this could happen. In the real world, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that King is engaged in counterproductive grandstanding.

Posted by: oldabandonedbeachhouse | March 9, 2011 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Mfray I apologize for yesterday. I think you and iI would agree on moast things.

Posted by: eddiehaskall | March 9, 2011 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Eddie, not a problem at all, I think so too.

Posted by: mfray | March 9, 2011 11:37 AM | Report abuse

@mfray wrote: "Maybe it's time for us REAL conservatives to set up a ledger account and see how many dead bodies neocons have racked up and how many dead bodies radical muslims have racked up."

Actually, someone has and it isn't pretty. Stephen Walt, the Zionassers recent favorite whipping boy, has a matrix of those numbers at the site below and it isn't pretty. He summarizes:

"I have deliberately selected "low-end" estimates for Muslim fatalities, so these figures present the "best case" for the United States. Even so, the United States has killed nearly 30 Muslims for every American lost. The real ratio is probably much higher, and a reasonable upper bound for Muslim fatalities (based mostly on higher estimates of "excess deaths" in Iraq due to the sanctions regime and the post-2003 occupation) is well over one million, equivalent to over 100 Muslim fatalities for every American lost."

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/30/why_they_hate_us_ii_how_many_muslims_has_the_us_killed_in_the_past_30_years?wpisrc=obinsite

No doubt there are a considerable number of uneducated, fanatically religious Muslims in the world, much like there were and still are a few fanatically religious Christians, Hindus, and Jews in the world who have yet to experience a Reformation. But rather than demonstrate by example that one can be modern, tolerant, and religious without condemning other people we in the West have allowed ourselves to be used as a weapon against Muslims trying to defend themselves from a small, aggressively imperialist country in the Mideast that steals their land and keeps them in captivity.

So, to reiterate, Congressman King would serve the country better if as a major part of his investigation he tried to find out WHY Muslims are a threat, if they are, and what has been done to cause them to strike out against others. They have told us why, e.g., the 9/11 attackers, Ben Laden, many others, but the powers that be want to keep that quiet.

Don't hold your breath waiting for King to do what he should. The establishment will crucify him, plus Jennifer might never recover from her chronic apoplexy should he do so.

Posted by: Lazarus40 | March 9, 2011 11:56 AM | Report abuse

mfray: Let me see if I have this right. The decision whether to invade Iraq was thoroughly debated for over a year by the UN, the House, the Senate and the public. The House passed the Iraq War Resolution 297-133, including 82 votes from Dems. In the Senate the Resolution passed 72-33, with 29 Dem votes -- 58% of the Dem Senate conference, including party leaders Clinton, Kerry, Daschle and Reid. In other words, the decision to invade Iraq had overwhelming bipartisan support. Clearly, many reasonable people from across the political spectrum had cause to support the action.

However, according to you, any commentator who publicly stated support for the invasion has as much if not more blood on his or her hands than a suicide bomber who deliberately murders innocent civilians, including children.

This makes sense to you?

Posted by: paco33 | March 9, 2011 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Clearly, many reasonable people from across the political spectrum had cause to support the action.

However, according to you, any commentator who publicly stated support for the invasion has as much if not more blood on his or her hands than a suicide bomber who deliberately murders innocent civilians, including children.
********************************
Who cares if "reasonable people from across the political spectrum had cause to support the action?" Is that supposed to provide cover for what turned out to be bad intelligence and a poor invasion/occupation plan which led to many military and civilian deaths?

I wouldn't compare those who supported the war with suicide bombers, because those are two different things, but it seems like common sense that if you supported the War in Iraq, you obviously have to accept the consequences of that support.

Posted by: mustangs79 | March 9, 2011 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Well said, Beniyyar. Also, there is no hope this will disappear until the religion is reformed and it stops telling the faithful that murder/suicide is a ticket to paradise.

Posted by: Inagua1 | March 9, 2011 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Simply amazing. the liberals are just like pavlov's dogs. They hear a bell and the drooling begins.

First and foremost let's ask the liberals an important question: what do these hearing have to do with the Iraq war?

the simple answer is NOTHING. But liberals hear a bell and are compelled, autonomically it seems, to exude saliva. They have built-in, ready-to-wear talking points about the war and any tangential reason to spew these is acceptable.

My firm belief is that the liberals love Islam because both they and the muslims seek the same thing: the destruction of America and capitalism. So they fellow travel, as Ms Rubin's list of signatories proves.

We ultimately prevailed in Iraq, but we had to overcome two enemies: one foreign. One domestic.

Don't like this characterization lefties? Let me quote mustangs79 "Who cares...?"

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 9, 2011 12:34 PM | Report abuse

The apoligists for the Iraq invasion are like used car salesman when you try to return a lemon: you drove the car I sold you off the lot, you live with the consequences.

Posted by: oldabandonedbeachhouse | March 9, 2011 12:56 PM | Report abuse

to oldabandonedbeachhouse:

The Democrats could have scheduled these hearings anytime since Jan 2007, they chose not to.

King is the chairman of the committee, but their are a number of Democrats on the committee who will be fully participating. A number of American Muslim groups have already expressed an interest in participating.

As I said, I don't know whether these hearings will be productive, but to try wish the problem away strikes me as short-sighted. The true Islamophobia is being afraid of offending someone because of the fear of being misunderstood.

Posted by: pilsener | March 9, 2011 12:58 PM | Report abuse

The left is often linked with support for women's rights, gay rights, freedom of speech and expression, "Mother Earth"-related stances such as environmentalism, animal rights and keeping the world population in check, and secularism, to name a few. As a mostly-conservatve person, I am in agreement and support pretty much the entire list I just stated.

Yet, for the life of me, I can't figure out how the left more often than not seems to come down on the side of defending Islam. Let's try and square Islam with the above list. Women's and gay's rights? Freedom of speech? Try standing in the square of any Islamic country shouting to anyone and everyone that you are an atheist, or that you converted from Islam to Christianity and see what that will get you. On second thought, if you value your life, don't. Keeping the world population in check? Hard to do with multiple wives who are essentially baby factories. And secularism? See above under "freedom of speech."

In short, one would be hard-pressed to find a worse representative poster child for liberal charity and empathy than those who practice Islam, and yet that seems to be the case. If one attends a Tea Party rally to protest the government's seemingly insatiable urge to spend our tax dollars (and borrow even more), the left loves to find the lone wacko or two carrying an uncivil sign and paint everyone using that brush, but when it comes to radical Islamic terrorism, well, pay no attention to the taking of our embassy in Iran in 1979, the bombing of our embassy in Lebanon in 1983 killing 63 Americans, the Beirut bombing also in 1983 killing 241 marines, the 1984 bombing of our embassy annex outside of Beirut killing 24, - well, I could go on and on for pages, but you get the point.

Core values of the left and Islam go together like oil and water. What am I missing?

Posted by: coffeetime | March 9, 2011 1:36 PM | Report abuse

If sane Muslims don't want to be lumped- in with the insane ones, they need to exhibit some personal responsibility for helping to expose the radicals in their midst. I don't buy for a moment this inter-religion, Muslim intimidation argument that I'm hearing. This is a freedom-of-religious-choice country. If your religion or its leaders condone or practice intimidation, then I assert that you are practicing a bad religion and/or are practicing it in a bad church. There is no law in this country preventing you from changing your religion or church. Vote with your feet.

The sooner the Muslim radicals are rooted-out, the safer we will all be. They will be most quickly rooted-out by those who share a prayer mat with them.

Posted by: flintston | March 9, 2011 1:38 PM | Report abuse

coffetime,

Kudos. Very well said! Thanks.

Posted by: flintston | March 9, 2011 1:48 PM | Report abuse

It is perpetually amazing, but not surprising, that many comment-ers on a WaPo blog should have such willful blindness; instead of recognizing any existential threat that requires explication, they imagine that the US target is the causal problem. Their hysteria is woefully ignorant at best and many leagues beyond national suicide at worst.

Posted by: d5547k | March 9, 2011 1:51 PM | Report abuse

@ coffetime:
you said:
===============
Core values of the left and Islam go together like oil and water. What am I missing?
=======================

there is, believe it or not, a common bond between the two. Both seek the destruction of America and the end to capitalism. They fellow travel because of this common goal.

It is anybody's guess what might happen when they achieve their goal and their common enemy is vanquished. I seriously doubt that the muslims will suddenly "see the light" and stop stoning gays and imprisoning their women. But for the moment the liberals rely on this sad and cynical view point: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 9, 2011 1:51 PM | Report abuse

" Both seek the destruction of America and the end to capitalism."

Would it be safe to put your name in the "Disciples of Glenn Beck" column?

Posted by: Lazarus40 | March 9, 2011 2:05 PM | Report abuse

mfray, As someone who supports a healthcare system where coverage is mandated by the govt, as is the income tax to support that govt mandate (Israel), I'm not sure you're the best candidate to repeatedly lecture others that their conservative chops aren't up to par.

-------------------------------------------

"Even so, the United States has killed nearly 30 Muslims for every American lost."

Lazarus40 - For staters, anyone looking to Stephen Walt for objectivity should probably look elsewhere. Walt admits to using "back of the envelope analysis" to get those numbers of American/Muslim deaths. What are they based on? His own prejudices is my guess. For one, I don't buy for a second that there were 100,000+ deaths *due* to UN sanctions.

Regardless, let's say that these numbers are correct for the sake of argument. Where's the context? How many Muslims have been *saved* by the actions of America? How many people now and in the future are (or will be) alive now that their murderous oppressors are gone or severely weakened (Taliban/Saddam/Bosnia/etc...). And as for those 30 Muslims, how many of them were terrorists that should be targeted and killed? 29 perhaps?

And as for Walt claiming that the circumstances don't really matter, it's just the number of deaths that matter (a lot for Muslims, not so much for Americans) - sorry, no sale. If someone in the Middle East is going to be irrational and blame American policy for any Muslim death, but pay absolutely no attention to the number of Muslim lives America has saved or that the Muslims that were killed may well have been hardened terrorists, then their opinion should be categorically dismissed.

The same goes for the claim that policies that we supported "caused" the deaths of Muslims, as it is also often fatuous. We supported sanctions on Saddam, and he in turn decided to deny the Iraqi children of their baby milk and build a palace instead - and then the Iraqi children die of starvation! Presto!!! The US is responsible for killing those children!!

This all may be convenient so you can gratuitously bash the Right. But it's specious.

Posted by: RitchieEmmons | March 9, 2011 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Remember when Obama was elected, and the right predicted he would be soft on terrorism, and there would soon be another 9-11? It hasn't happened, and the right is starting to worry that voters will begin to compare results between Presidents. That is why these hearings are being held.

Posted by: oldabandonedbeachhouse | March 9, 2011 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Jennifer, I am rapidly becoming your biggest fangirl.

Posted by: WashingtonDame | March 9, 2011 2:15 PM | Report abuse

"How many Muslims have been *saved* by the actions of America?"

So the Vietnam era "We had to destroy the village to save it" mentality still survives.

Even Donald Rumsfeld admits that our actions in the Mideast have created more terrorists than we have taken out. What is it about digging oneself into deeper holes that some people just can't understand?

Posted by: Lazarus40 | March 9, 2011 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Stonewalling? They either know the truth, or they know the truth is unpalatable. Guess you could call that stonewalling. Great column. And I must say a surprising one to find at the Washington Post.

Posted by: ColinFlaherty | March 9, 2011 2:31 PM | Report abuse

in response to this:
===================
Would it be safe to put your name in the "Disciples of Glenn Beck" column?

==================

Sadly, here is yet another example of the left's bigotry. The assumption made by lazarus is that those who oppose the liberal agenda are simply incapable of original thought. The left's sneering cynical view of their opposition is on display in the above. how nice.

Simple fact: I don't listen to Glenn Beck. I have neither the time nor the interest.

but I do call them as I see them. And as I see it the left is determined to destroy America and capitalism. This isn't a secret, it is a well known fact. The collusion between the socialists and the islamists is just a marriage of convenience.

If you don't like being lumped together with mass murders do darned bad. I don't care what you think, but I do care what the left does.

Like Islam, liberalism is as liberalism does.

thanks for the illustration of your bigotry. It is instructive.

have a nice day.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 9, 2011 2:36 PM | Report abuse

this requires proof:
================
Even Donald Rumsfeld admits that our actions in the Mideast have created more terrorists than we have taken out. What is it about digging oneself into deeper holes that some people just can't understand?

====================

Kindly provide proof of this assertion or withdraw it.

Thank you.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 9, 2011 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Ritchie said:
"mfray, As someone who supports a healthcare system where coverage is mandated by the govt, as is the income tax to support that govt mandate (Israel), I'm not sure you're the best candidate to repeatedly lecture others that their conservative chops aren't up to par."
-------------------------------------------Never said I supported it, just suggested that it be looked at since Israeliis who post on this blog claim it is one of the finest in the world.

" For one, I don't buy for a second that there were 100,000+ deaths *due* to UN sanctions."

Of course not. However I would think most who support sanctions are smart enough to realize that it's a method of collective punishment used to cause an internal uprising to overthrow the current government by making life miserable for the population, you know, starvation, death, disease, etc. Probably not a very moral Christian position full well knowing Saddam Hussein wouldn't suffer AT ALL.

Conservative pro-life? Nope. Neocon hypocrisy. 100,000, 50,000, 10,000. If it was YOUR child I'm sure it would be fine.

2 million Iraqis displaced. That sounds like fun too. I'm sure they're thanking you for all those lives saved.

Look Ritchie, I understand the psychology of it all. Once you realize the hell on earth havoc the liberal neocon policies have unleashed and that you fully support it, you have to continue to justify it otherwise you realize you are culpable for those deaths.

You see, neocons are not REAL pro-lifers like true conservatives.

But hey, at least it was worth draining us of a trillion, eh? Spending a trillion on Iraqis - now THAT'S change we can believe in.

Posted by: mfray | March 9, 2011 2:58 PM | Report abuse

coffeetime, Don't underestimate the urges of multiculturalism and identity politics the DNA of the Left. To admit that there is a problem that is almost exclusively within the Muslim community contradicts the very multicultural worldview that the Left holds as gospel. When that worldview bumps up against the reality that it's bogus, the Left will contort itself into the most impossible of shapes to justify its stance that multiculturalism IS the correct worldview.

Identity politics is like mother's milk for the Left to perpetuate that multicultural worldview. Because no religion or ethnicity can be better than any other, it follows that when a certain religion like Islam has extremist adherents that are spearheading a global terrorist movement to a degree well surpassing any other religion, it is awfully inconvenient for the multicultural worldview. Therefore, the Left screams "Islamophobia!" in Saul Alinsky style in the hope that such an accusation puts the Right defensively on its heels. Thus avoiding actually having a sober and rational discussion on the topic.

Posted by: RitchieEmmons | March 9, 2011 3:07 PM | Report abuse

"Like Islam, liberalism is as liberalism does." "And as I see it the left is determined to destroy America and capitalism."

Don't forget liberal neoconservatism - the evil twin of liberalism that's cut from the same cloth. Both LOVE spending trillions destroying our great country.

Neocons are NOT capitalists - they love shoving trillions of our tax dollars into ME countries such as Iraq, Libya, Iran, Kuwait, UAE, Egypt and Jordan.

Posted by: mfray | March 9, 2011 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Jennifer, how about that Koch Brothers' far right gravy train, including the Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, and the entire Tea Party apparatus?? George Soros is peanuts and you know it. Mention your lord and saviours the Koch Brothers occasionally.

Posted by: danw1 | March 9, 2011 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"I arrived in this country in 1969 as a four year old from India and, after 42 years as an American-Muslim, I can say without a doubt: an ideology of extremism has crossed across our borders, and radicalization is a real threat inside our communities in the U.S., often times unchallenged because members of our Muslim community are intimidated to speak out against it. We have brave leaders and activists who do, but usually at great cost to their social standing in the community."


Both parties -- all liberals and all conservatives -- should agree that we need to encourage more American Muslims to speak out against the radicals. We need to deride rather than encourage the Muslim and left wing groups that promote the lie of victimization.

America has been remarkably welcoming of Muslims, and that should be celebrated. But it's suicidal to close our eyes to the threat of homegrown jihadism and those who incubate it.

Posted by: eoniii | March 9, 2011 3:18 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing

You are partially correct. Rumsfeld took the 5th Amendment on the question, he asked himself the question and then lied to himself as a war criminal would (he also denied authorizing torture). Of the many interviews he has participated in while hawking his book, I have seen him pinned down where he did not deny that truth.

"Are more terrorists being created in the world? We don't know. The world doesn't know," said Rumsfeld, adding that there are no good ways to measure "how many terrorists are being trained at camps around the world."

But the question has been correctly answered on many occasions by many people including on the same site:

"To Paul Pillar, who produced National Intelligence Estimates on terrorism during his years at the CIA, this latest estimate answers a question Rumsfeld asked in an internal memo nearly three years ago: Is the Muslim world turning out terrorists faster than the United States can kill or capture them?

...."With particular reference to the impact of the Iraq war, the unfortunate answer is yes, we are creating them faster than we capture or kill them," Pillar, who is a former national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia....."

Rumsfeld of course received and was briefed on the NIE.

History has been recorded. Bush (and Rumsfeld) lied and people died and some radical Muslims are intent on revenge. Stop arguing with the facts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/28/terror/main2050710.shtml

Posted by: Lazarus40 | March 9, 2011 3:19 PM | Report abuse

paco33 said:
"The decision whether to invade Iraq was thoroughly debated for over a year by the UN, the House, the Senate and the public. The House passed the Iraq War Resolution 297-133, including 82 votes from Dems. In the Senate the Resolution passed 72-33, with 29 Dem votes -- 58% of the Dem Senate conference, including party leaders Clinton, Kerry, Daschle and Reid. In other words, the decision to invade Iraq had overwhelming bipartisan support. Clearly, many reasonable people from across the political spectrum had cause to support the action."
-------------------------------------------

Well tath's great Paco, we'll make sure we tell the thousands of Iraqis who died and the 2 million displaced those amazing facts and how they should realize when they go to their loved ones' graves that this was all done legally.

You see, true conservatives have empathy are PRO-LIFE, neocons(FAKE conservatives) don't give a darn about those they kill, including the 4.000+ brave REAL Americans who were killed.

Slavery was once legal. I'm sure you would have done a great job explaining the legality of why it was alright for them to be owned and considered property.

So, you're siding with all those liberals who voted for the war? Good for you Mr. neo/non-con.

Posted by: mfray | March 9, 2011 3:34 PM | Report abuse

I have been intimately involved with prominent Muslims in the USA for more than thirty years. Most of my Muslim friends love America and love our lifestyle and our freedom. However, if you ask them if the fatwa against Salman Rushdie is valid, and they trust you, they will tell you that it is valid. That is, they will tell you that every Muslim has a duty to kill Salman Rushdie and everyone who contributed to the creation and marketing of his book. As a private citizen, I have a right to petition my representatives in the House and Senate to investigate these matters. As a private citizen, I have a right to question Muslims about such beliefs. I have the right because I discovered, quite inadvertently, that such beliefs are widespread in the Muslim community and taught at many mosques. If you deny me this right, by opposing a congressional investigation and by imposing political correctness on me, what justifies your actions?

Posted by: JohnMarshall3 | March 9, 2011 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I have been intimately involved with prominent Muslims in the USA for more than thirty years. Most of my Muslim friends love America and love our lifestyle and our freedom. However, if you ask them if the fatwa against Salman Rushdie is valid, and they trust you, they will tell you that it is valid. That is, they will tell you that every Muslim has a duty to kill Salman Rushdie and everyone who contributed to the creation and marketing of his book. As a private citizen, I have a right to petition my representatives in the House and Senate to investigate these matters. As a private citizen, I have a right to question Muslims about such beliefs. I have the right because I discovered, quite inadvertently, that such beliefs are widespread in the Muslim community and taught at many mosques. If you deny me this right, by opposing a congressional investigation and by imposing political correctness on me, what justifies your actions?

Posted by: JohnMarshall3 | March 9, 2011 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Well tath's great Paco, we'll make sure we tell the thousands of Iraqis who died and the 2 million displaced those amazing facts and how they should realize when they go to their loved ones' graves that this was all done legally.,,,So, you're siding with all those liberals who voted for the war? Good for you Mr. neo/non-con.

Posted by: mfray | March 9, 2011 3:34 PM
---------------
Except, as you well know, this was neither the point of your grotesque post equating mere public support for the invasion of Iraq with suicide bombers nor my response to such nonsense.

Posted by: paco33 | March 9, 2011 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Lazarus, that's just dumb. You say Rumsfeld is lying when he says he doesn't know if terrorists are being created faster than we can capture or kill them, just because a guy who used to prepare National Intelligence Estimates says that they are. Do you think about what you type?

Read what Dianne Feinstein said today about the pitiful quality of our Middle East intelligence. Rumsfeld is right to be skeptical. Have you forgotten about our prewar intelligence that Saddam still had his WMD? "Slam dunk"? NYT front page stories about Iraqi WMD? Hillary on the floor of the Senate? They were all wrong.

Posted by: eoniii | March 9, 2011 4:02 PM | Report abuse

JM3/every Muslim has a duty to kill Salman Rushdie

I saw him on a TV show recently;a billion Muslims failed to get him. The Muslims need to hire the Mafia or the IRA(King's Buddies) LOL

Posted by: rcaruth | March 9, 2011 4:07 PM | Report abuse

"Except, as you well know, this was neither the point of your grotesque post equating mere public support for the invasion of Iraq with suicide bombers nor my response to such nonsense. "

You're debating point was that the invasion was legal. I'm debating that it was wrong morally, financially and politically based on unconservative/liberal values.

Killing is killing my friend. Wasting a trillion is wasting a trillion. Neocons and liberals both take it from us and pass it along to others. It ain't conservative.

Grotesque? See what your liberal neocon policies have done to our great country and to Iraq - THAT's what's grotesque.

Posted by: mfray | March 9, 2011 4:10 PM | Report abuse

eoniii: :"Have you forgotten about our prewar intelligence that Saddam still had his WMD? "Slam dunk"? NYT front page stories about Iraqi WMD? Hillary on the floor of the Senate? They were all wrong."

**************************************************
No I haven't forgotten and millions of words have been written about how Bush and Cheney worked over the CIA run by that incompetent syncophant George Tenet , Rumsfeld's Doug Feith "intelligence" shop (read Karen Kratkowski who worked there), Curveball, yellow cake, Downing Street Memos "the intelligence is being used to fit the policy," drone aircraft off our shores loaded with biological poisons, Judy Miller and the New York Times, Tom Friedman admitting that there wouldn't have been an invasion of Iraq without the efforts of friends of Israel within a few blocks of his office, the Times, Washington Post, and Fox News beating the war drums, the craven Congress following their sponsor's orders, ad naseum. It's enough make one ill and embarrassed for my country all over again.

Posted by: Lazarus40 | March 9, 2011 4:22 PM | Report abuse

I see no reason to accept an "estimate" contained in an NIE over the word of Mr Rumsfeld.

You are calling him a war criminal and a liar. Why should I believe you either?

Ah yes, the NIE, taken as gospel when we were told that Iran had abandonned its nuclear program. That turned out to be completely wrong.

The fact is no one knows how many terrorists there are. Nor do we know how many decided to become mass murderers based on America's actions.

In the final analysis it matters not. If we decide not to do something because it might enrage the muslims, we'd wind up doing nothing. After all these are the folks that killed EACH OTHER over a bogus story in newsweek about koran flushing.

Further Paul Pillar is little more than a lefty hack. Here is Stephen Hays in the Weekly Standard:
"Think about that: A senior, unelected CIA official--Paul Pillar--was given agency approval to anonymously attack Bush administration policies less than two months before the November 2, 2004, presidential election. That Pillar was among the most strident of these frequent critics--usually in off-the-record speeches to gatherings of foreign policy experts and business leaders--was well known to his colleagues in the intelligence community and to Bush administration policymakers. His was not an isolated case; CIA officials routinely trashed Bush administration policy decisions, often with official approval, in the months leading up to the Iraq War and again before the election. Pillar, who had complained to a CIA spokesman that someone had violated the ground rules by providing his name to Novak, simply got caught"

Soooo, what we have hear is a question of "who do you trust". Frankly I trust Rumsfeld and not Pillar. It is just that simple. but it is just plain wrong to make assertions about Mr Rumsfeld's ethics based on such thin gruel. This, sadly, is just typical of lefties these days. Every one who disagrees with them is branded a liar or a racist or both. We know that not to be true, but liberals keep pounding away at it.

The claim you make remains unsubstantiated, but I thank you for your clarification.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 9, 2011 4:27 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing

"CIA officials routinely trashed Bush administration policy decisions..."

Well that's good news. It shows some of them still have some integrity left. They should have trashed those decisions publicly, they might have prevented a war, thousands of American deaths, and millions of refugees, but they would have lost their jobs.

....."Ah yes, the NIE, taken as gospel when we were told that Iran had abandonned its nuclear program. That turned out to be completely wrong....."

Goodness sir, you deny watching Glenn Beck but you must watch Fox News exclusively for only Fox News drones believe what you just stated. The NIE stated that Iran had abandoned its nuclear WEAPONS program and guess what again, the CIA still assesses that there is no indication that Iran is attempting to produce nuclear WEAPONS. They get beat about the head and ears by Israel and our Israel First Neocons who demand they change their minds so there will be an excuse for the U.S. to attack Iran for Israel but I recently saw the televised testimony of the DCI that there is no indication of a nuclear weapons program in Iran.

If you have time to post here during the day then you surely have time to read broadly so that you would know what you are talking about. I commend that to you. Cheers!

Posted by: Lazarus40 | March 9, 2011 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"Except, as you well know, this was neither the point of your grotesque post equating mere public support for the invasion of Iraq with suicide bombers nor my response to such nonsense. "

You're debating point was that the invasion was legal. I'm debating that it was wrong morally, financially and politically based on unconservative/liberal values.

Posted by: mfray | March 9, 2011 4:10 PM
----------------
Nope. My debating point had nothing to do with the legality of the invasion but with its political legitimacy which further underlines just one of the differences between advocating or supporting a position on an issue of public policy and the murder of innocent civilians.

Posted by: paco33 | March 9, 2011 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Goodness sir, you deny watching Glenn Beck but you must watch Fox News exclusively for only Fox News drones believe what you just stated. The NIE stated that Iran had abandoned its nuclear WEAPONS program and guess what again, the CIA still assesses that there is no indication that Iran is attempting to produce nuclear WEAPONS....

If you have time to post here during the day then you surely have time to read broadly so that you would know what you are talking about. I commend that to you. Cheers!

Posted by: Lazarus40 | March 9, 2011 4:51 PM
----------------

Those in glass reading rooms shouldn't throw stones:

Signs Iran Exploring Nuclear Weapons, Watchdog Says: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703409304576167221841795258.html

Exclusive: New National Intelligence Estimate on Iran complete: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/02/15/exclusive_new_national_intelligence_estimate_on_iran_complete

Posted by: paco33 | March 9, 2011 5:37 PM | Report abuse

sigh, still more bigotry. Again, the left assumes that everyone who disagrees with them is too stupid to think things through for themselves.

Here's a basic problem with your first paragraph. The Americans used to be able to, you know, vote for the government they wanted. No mas, as you point out. Now the Americans have to settle for what the "ethics" of a huge, over paid, under performing standing government thinks they should have. Bush, Obama, it doesn't matter any more. All that matters is what the bureaucracy wants. That sums up your position in a nutshell.

Ghastly that.

Oh and this may come as a surprise to you: I don't watch any TV. NONE. Not fox, not msnbc not the home shopping channel. Nothing.

Nice try on the subject change though. I admire the way you snuck that in between egregious insults. We're not talking about the validity of the NIE. We're talking about your slander of Rumsfeld.

Your source was Pillar, a discredited former CIA guy. Part of the standing government that insures that the American people don't actually get the leader they voted for, but that we do get whatever the CIA and other entrenched bureaucrats think we need. That's not democracy. Not by a long chalk.

You can't prove your assertion. If you could you would have done so by now. Instead you've offered two things: smoke and mirrors.

You made the assertion as if it were fact. turns out you don't actually have fact. Shame on you. Bigotry and calumny, all in one day's work. Moveondotorg must be so proud of you.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 9, 2011 5:48 PM | Report abuse

paco33

Having looked at your references and considering the sources, commentators, e.g., Howard Berman, baseless inferences and guesses,I rest my case. I win, you lose.

Actually, considering the AIPAC demands, transmitted through their flunkys in Congress, for findings of nuclear weapons ready to go and demands for war on Iran tomorrow, the inferences contained in your links are surprisingly mushy. Just read between the lines.

How many more wars against how many people would it take to make Neocons like Jennifer, and you I assume, happy?

Posted by: Lazarus40 | March 9, 2011 6:08 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing

No offense. I assumed you sometimes slanting your views on events based on ideology. Turns out, it seems, you base your views exclusively on ideology.

Posted by: Lazarus40 | March 9, 2011 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: paco33 | March 9, 2011 4:54 PM

Nope. My debating point had nothing to do with the legality of the invasion but with its political legitimacy which further underlines just one of the differences between advocating or supporting a position on an issue of public policy and the murder of innocent civilians.

____________________________________

But the attack on Iraq was always going to kill innocent civilians, so how can it be legitimate, when the war was unnecessary and the Us was not under any threat?

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 9, 2011 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 9, 2011 4:27 PM

I see no reason to accept an "estimate" contained in an NIE over the word of Mr Rumsfeld.

_________________________________________

Wow, so you're the dead ender who believes Rumsfeld knows where Iraq's WMDs are.

“Ah yes, the NIE, taken as gospel when we were told that Iran had abandonned its nuclear program. That turned out to be completely wrong.”

False. The 16 US intelligence agencies continue to support the conclusion of the 2007 NIE and last week, the IAEA again confirmed there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program

“If we decide not to do something because it might enrage the muslims, we'd wind up doing nothing.”

Fine, then let's stop pretending that the Muslims were are enraging are just religious nutters who are driven by an irrational hatred of America's way of life.

“Further Paul Pillar is little more than a lefty hack. Here is Stephen Hays in the Weekly Standard”

That's hilarious. Are you seriously citing a right wing hack to attack a left wing one?

“Frankly I trust Rumsfeld and not Pillar.”

Seeing as you trust Rumsfeld, sio you believe that the WMD are around Tirkit? Are they really in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat?

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 9, 2011 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: eoniii | March 9, 2011 4:02 PM

Read what Dianne Feinstein said today about the pitiful quality of our Middle East intelligence. Rumsfeld is right to be skeptical. Have you forgotten about our prewar intelligence that Saddam still had his WMD? "Slam dunk"? NYT front page stories about Iraqi WMD? Hillary on the floor of the Senate? They were all wrong.
_____________________________________

Sorry but this is cognitive dissonance at it's very best. Are you seriously suggesting that Rumsfeld, who was directly involved is lying us into a war was (he knew where the WMD were remember?), was suddenly sceptical about Middle East intelligence?

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 9, 2011 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: paco33 | March 9, 2011 4:00 PM

Except, as you well know, this was neither the point of your grotesque post equating mere public support for the invasion of Iraq with suicide bombers nor my response to such nonsense.
____________________________________

Why is is grotesque to equating support for a war that killed civilians with support for suicide attacks against civilians?

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 9, 2011 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JohnMarshall3 | March 9, 2011 3:54 PM

However, if you ask them if the fatwa against Salman Rushdie is valid, and they trust you, they will tell you that it is valid. That is, they will tell you that every Muslim has a duty to kill Salman Rushdie and everyone who contributed to the creation and marketing of his book.
_________________________________

Sorry John, but I say BS. I know quite few Muslims who think this is a farce.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 9, 2011 6:28 PM | Report abuse

this requires proof:
================
Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 9, 2011 2:36 PM

And as I see it the left is determined to destroy America and capitalism. This isn't a secret, it is a well known fact.
_________________________

Kindly provide proof of this assertion or withdraw it.

Thank you.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 9, 2011 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 9, 2011 2:36 PM

“And as I see it the left is determined to destroy America and capitalism.”

As I see it, the right is actually destroying America and capitalism.

“This isn't a secret, it is a well known fact.”

It's not a fact, it's a conspiracy theory, and a paranoid one at that.

“The collusion between the socialists and the islamists is just a marriage of convenience.”

You mean like the collusion between the Reaganites and the islamists in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union? Remember that your hero called Bin Laden and his gang, freedom fighters who stood for the same values as our founding fathers.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 9, 2011 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: RitchieEmmons | March 9, 2011 2:07 PM

“For staters, anyone looking to Stephen Walt for objectivity should probably look elsewhere. Walt admits to using "back of the envelope analysis" to get those numbers of American/Muslim deaths.”

Actually, he got those from HRW and the UN.

“For one, I don't buy for a second that there were 100,000+ deaths *due* to UN sanctions.”

Actually the number is ten times as many. Half a million children alone died due to UN sanctions, and our own Secretary of State at the time, Madeline Albright not only accepted those figured, but said that those deaths were a worthwhile cost of containing Saddam.

“How many Muslims have been *saved* by the actions of America?”

Not that many seeing as more have been killed by America than by any Muslim dictator.

“And as for those 30 Muslims, how many of them were terrorists that should be targeted and killed? 29 perhaps?”

Or 1 perhaps?

“If someone in the Middle East is going to be irrational and blame American policy for any Muslim death, but pay absolutely no attention to the number of Muslim lives America has saved or that the Muslims that were killed may well have been hardened terrorists, then their opinion should be categorically dismissed.”

By all means, indulge in your stupid arithmetic. You'll still come up with a net death rate that implicates Americas actions.

“We supported sanctions on Saddam, and he in turn decided to deny the Iraqi children of their baby milk and build a palace instead”

False. We supported and armed Saddam, then imposed sanctions that were targeted at Iraq's population. Withholding medical supplied and baby milk was never going to hurt Saddam.

“ The US is responsible for killing those children!!”

The stated aim of the sanctions was to force Saddam to disarm, buy right after having signed the resolution calling for Saddam to disarm, Bush 41 stated that the sanctions would not be lifted so long as Saddam remained in power, even if he complied 100%.

The US violated the very resolutions is helped to draft.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 9, 2011 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 9, 2011 1:51 PM

"Both seek the destruction of America and the end to capitalism. They fellow travel because of this common goal."

Obama has continued Bush's economic and foreign policies, so it seems that the destruction of America and the end to capitalism is a bipartisan policy.

“I seriously doubt that the muslims will suddenly "see the light" and stop stoning gays and imprisoning their women.”

The US has more women in prison than the entire Muslim world combined.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 9, 2011 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: flintston | March 9, 2011 1:38 PM
If sane Muslims don't want to be lumped- in with the insane ones, they need to exhibit some personal responsibility for helping to expose the radicals in their midst.

_____________________________

Most of the terrorist cases that have been circumvented have been exposed through Muslim informants. The Times Square bombers was stopped because of a Muslim informant. The rather of the underwear bombers alerted the authorities that he believed his son was a security risk.

What more would you have Muslims do?

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 9, 2011 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: coffeetime | March 9, 2011 1:36 PM

Yet, for the life of me, I can't figure out how the left more often than not seems to come down on the side of defending Islam.

____________________________

It's not defending Islam, it's defending individual liberty and human rights. If you believe in liberty and the constitution, then surely you believe in freedom of religion, including the right to hold religious beliefs.
The question as to whether Islam supports gay rights or freedom of speech is irrelevant, because both are indeed supported in the US and suppression of either one is illegal. Muslims who live in the US are obliged to accept the laws of the land, and if not, then they should be charged for violating them and prosecuted accordingly.

What happened in the square of an Islamic country is none of our business and this bill shouldn't have anything to do with such matters.

“In short, one would be hard-pressed to find a worse representative poster child for liberal charity and empathy than those who practice Islam, and yet that seems to be the case.”

You obviously don't know any Muslims, because if you did, you'd probably have a very different view. Some Christians hold very extreme views and banish members of their communities that break from their traditions – even children. Are these Christians poster children for liberal charity and empathy?

“pay no attention to the taking of our embassy in Iran in 1979”

Pay no attention to the overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government and the installing of a brutal dictator who ruled for 25 years.

“the bombing of our embassy in Lebanon in 1983 killing 63 Americans the Beirut bombing also in 1983 killing 241 marines”

That was AFTER the USS new Jersey had shelled the hills of Souther Lebanon. What do you think Americans would do if China had invaded the US, built a military base and attacked and killed Americans?

Secondly, was the barracks not a military target?
“the 1984 bombing of our embassy annex outside of Beirut killing 24”

Same above.

“well, I could go on and on for pages, but you get the point"

You could go on but you are not getting the point. What right do we have to complain when our military in sent to other countries to kill people?

What are you missing? Just about everything it would appear.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 9, 2011 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: skipsailing28 | March 9, 2011 12:34 PM

They hear a bell and the drooling begins.
First and foremost let's ask the liberals an important question: what do these hearing have to do with the Iraq war?
the simple answer is NOTHING.

__________________________

On the contrary. This hearing is about terrorism and the fact that we invaded Iraq and killed it's citizens by the many thousands has surely created many terrorists. Of course, one could also argue that the attack on Iraq was an act of state terrorism. What is shock and awe of a population if not terrorism?

“My firm belief is that the liberals love Islam because both they and the muslims seek the same thing: the destruction of America and capitalism. So they fellow travel, as Ms Rubin's list of signatories proves.”

That might be your belief, but it's wrong. Those on the left love human live and human rights, something you right wing extremists hold in contempt. Furthermore, the Bill that King is proposing is non constitutional, because it seeks to criminalise religious beliefs. If you approve of this bill, then you reject the Constitution.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 9, 2011 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: paco33 | March 9, 2011 11:58 AM

The decision whether to invade Iraq was thoroughly debated for over a year by the UN, the House, the Senate and the public.

________________________________________
The US does not set international law. The invasion was illegal because it was an act of aggression and therefore a war crime.

The UN did not approve the attack in Iraq. When it was clear that the UNSC would not pass resolution authorizing an attack on Iraq, the US acted unilaterally.

“However, according to you, any commentator who publicly stated support for the invasion has as much if not more blood on his or her hands than a suicide bomber who deliberately murders innocent civilians, including children.”

Not as much, more in fact.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 9, 2011 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Beniyyar | March 9, 2011 10:53 AM

No serious person contends that ALL Moslems are terrorists, but by the same token no informed person would try to deny that 90% of all terrorists ARE Moslems!

_________________________________

Correction, we only refer to Muslims as terrorists.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 9, 2011 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: eoniii | March 9, 2011 4:02 PM

Read what Dianne Feinstein said today about the pitiful quality of our Middle East intelligence. Rumsfeld is right to be skeptical. Have you forgotten about our prewar intelligence that Saddam still had his WMD? "Slam dunk"? NYT front page stories about Iraqi WMD? Hillary on the floor of the Senate? They were all wrong.
_____________________________________

Sorry but this is cognitive dissonance at it's very best. Are you seriously suggesting that Rumsfeld, who was directly involved is lying us into a war was (he knew where the WMD were remember?), was suddenly sceptical about Middle East intelligence?

Posted by: Shingo1
------------------------------------
No. As Defense secretary, Rumsfeld was a consumer of intelligence. He figured out that much of our Middle East intelligence -- Iraqi WMD is a prime example -- fits into his category of "things that we know that are wrong".

Has the CIA or the other intelligence agency ever called any big geopolitical development, from the fall of the Shah to the collapse of the USSR to the current Middle East revolutions? Of course not. Our spooks don't know shiite.

Posted by: eoniii | March 9, 2011 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: paco33 | March 9, 2011 5:37 PM
Those in glass reading rooms shouldn't throw stones:

_______________________________

Those who don't know what they are talking about should stay away from such topics.

“Signs Iran Exploring Nuclear Weapons, Watchdog Says”

This BS has been debunked.
http://www.abdolian.com/thoughts/?p=4415

The allegations that Iran had been exploring ways to affix nuclear weapons to its long-range Shahab missiles was debunked by the fact that Iran had stopped developing the Shahab, and had rolled out the successor, the Ghadr-1. The drawings were exposed as forgeries because they were doctored drawings of the Shahab 3.

Furthermore, there is no way to produce a nuclear missile without a nuclear warhead, and he IAEA has just confirmed that Iran is not producing nukes.

The IAEA has just confirmed for the 26th time that there has been is no diversion in Iran’s nuclear program.

The WSJ report actually makes no such claims. It merely points out that Iran is expanding it's enrichment capabilities, and installing more advanced centrifuges.

“Exclusive: New National Intelligence Estimate on Iran complete”

The conclusino of which are the same as the 2007 NIE.

From your own link:

“The new estimate might not directly contradict that judgment”.

The new NIE has clearly become politicised and ion the absence of evidence of a nuclear weapons program, those behind it's politicisation are not trying to focus on the intentions of the Iranian regime.

From your link:

“Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), a former intelligence officer for the U.S. Navy, told The Cable, "The 2007 NIE was a mistake," and this document appears to be more realistic. He urged the intelligence community to take a less technical and more comprehensive look at the Iranian leadership's actions when making such judgements. “

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 9, 2011 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: eoniii | March 9, 2011 7:04 P

No. As Defense secretary, Rumsfeld was a consumer of intelligence.
________________________________________________

False. Following 911, Rumsfeld convinced Bush to pace all intelligence agencies under his control
As Defense secretary, he was in charge of intelligence.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 9, 2011 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: eoniii | March 9, 2011 7:04 P

No. As Defense secretary, Rumsfeld was a consumer of intelligence.
________________________________________________

False. Following 911, Rumsfeld convinced Bush to pace all intelligence agencies under his control
As Defense secretary, he was in charge of intelligence.

Posted by: Shingo1
=====================================
After 9/11 Rumsfeld persuaded Bush to let him expand the scope of Defense intelligence because the military wasn't getting the quality product it needed from the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Bush did NOT put Rumsfeld in charge of all intelligence agencies.

Posted by: eoniii | March 9, 2011 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Sorry John, but I say BS. I know quite few Muslims who think this is a farce.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 9, 2011 6:28 PM

Shingo1, so do I. But I know a lot who take it seriously. It does not mean that they are out looking for Rushdie. But it does mean that when a speaker at their mosque calls for Rushdie's death, they agree. That is pretty dangerous, especially for their children.

Posted by: JohnMarshall3 | March 9, 2011 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: eoniii | March 9, 2011 8:23 PM

After 9/11 Rumsfeld persuaded Bush to let him expand the scope of Defense intelligence because the military wasn't getting the quality product it needed from the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Bush did NOT put Rumsfeld in charge of all intelligence agencies.

===================

All 16 intelligence agencies come under the authority of the DOD. Rumsfeld was in charge of all of it, included the Office Of Special Plans which produced the phony intelligence.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 9, 2011 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JohnMarshall3 | March 9, 2011 9:55 PM

Shingo1, so do I. But I know a lot who take it seriously. It does not mean that they are out looking for Rushdie. But it does mean that when a speaker at their mosque calls for Rushdie's death, they agree. That is pretty dangerous, especially for their children.
=================================

There's a difference between taking it seriously and not speaking out against it. There are many Jews for example, who are afraid to criticize Israel in public for fear or being alienated.

Many Muslims are conservative, and not inclined to speak out. That doesn't men they believe everything they are told.

I am not being a blind lefty here either. If indeed there are people speaking out at Mosques for the murder of Rushdie (or anyone else), then they should be reported to the police. Such threats are not protected under freedom of speech or freedom of religion, which comes second to respect for the law.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 9, 2011 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Paco said:
"Nope. My debating point had nothing to do with the legality of the invasion but with its political legitimacy which further underlines just one of the differences between advocating or supporting a position on an issue of public policy and the murder of innocent civilians."
----------------------------------------------

I'll dance with a neocon...
Supporting an issue of public policy that murders innocent civilians makes supporters complicit in the act of murder.

When you support and advocate, depending on your level of power, you put wheels in motion to carry it out. Mr. Kristol and Mz. Rubin understand this and realize the power of their words.

Support and advocay can actually lead to implementation of said (unconservative-liberal)policies, and lo and behold, implemented neo/non-con policies have resulted in said murders.

Slavery was debated and supporters who advocated for it won out. How did THAT work out for our country?

Posted by: mfray | March 10, 2011 8:43 AM | Report abuse

Taken from Wikipedia - Rep Peter King's support for the terrorist Irish Republican Army -

In the 1980s, King faced criticism for actively supporting the terrorist IRA, and frequently traveled to Northern Ireland to meet with senior members of the militant group, many of whom he counted as friends.[7][14] In 1982, speaking at a pro-IRA rally in Nassau County, New York, King said: “We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry.”[7][15] "In 1985, he convened a press conference before the start of New York City's St. Patrick's Day parade (for which he was Grand Marshal), and offered a defiant defense of the IRA: 'As we march up the avenue and share all the joy,' he declared, 'let us never forget the men and women who are suffering and, most of all, the men and women who are fighting.'"[16] Regarding the 30 years of violence during which the IRA killed over 1700 people, including over 600 civilians, King said, ""If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the IRA for it". King compared IRA leader Gerry Adams to George Washington and asserted that the "British government is a murder machine". [17]

He called the IRA "the legitimate voice of occupied Ireland."[18] A Northern Irish judge ordered King ejected from the former's courtroom, describing him as “an obvious collaborator with the IRA”.[7] King called himself "the Ollie North of Ireland."[16] King did not meet Gerry Adams until 1984, four years after his liaison with the IRA began [19] and before that his links with the IRA were predominantly with its military, rather than the political wing, Sinn Fein. At this time he was friendly with Michael McKevitt, the common law partner of Bernadette Sands, sister of the IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands. McKevitt was at the time a senior leader of the IRA and was its Quarter Master-General, in charge of arms acquisition. McKevitt planned a massive series of arms smuggling operations of weapons provided to the IRA by Libyan leader, Col. Muammar Gaddafi during the mid-1980's. During this time, King would stay in their home in Co. Louth while visiting Ireland and was also very close to the IRA's former Operations Officer in Belfast, Anto Murray, who was convicted in 1990 of kidnapping a suspected British spy. As Belfast Operations Officer, Murray planned or authorised every IRA bombing, shooting and killing in the city. King would stay with Murray and his wife Lucy during visits to Belfast and after Anto Murray was imprisoned, he hosted Lucy Murray on a tour of the Capitol when she visited the United States. [20] He became involved with NORAID, an organization that the British, Irish and US governments accuse of financing IRA activities and providing them with weapons.[7][21][22][23] He was banned from appearing on British TV for his pro IRA views.

Posted by: suhail_shafi | March 11, 2011 6:42 PM | Report abuse

As my previous post proved, Rep Peter King has been a supporter of the IRA terrorists.

For more information on this, please refer to this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King#Support_for_the_IRA

A hearing on terrorism cannot claim to have any credibility whatsoever when it is being instigated by a politician who himself has a history of support to terrorist organizations. The supreme irony is that unlike Peter King himself, most Muslim Americans do not sympathize with terrorists.

Posted by: suhail_shafi | March 11, 2011 6:45 PM | Report abuse

As my previous post proved, Rep Peter King has been a supporter of the IRA terrorists.

For more information on this, please refer to this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King#Support_for_the_IRA

A hearing on terrorism cannot claim to have any credibility whatsoever when it is being instigated by a politician who himself has a history of support to terrorist organizations. The supreme irony is that unlike Peter King himself, most Muslim Americans do not sympathize with terrorists.

Posted by: suhail_shafi | March 11, 2011 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Conservative Christian hold the power to crush, destroy and kill anyone that gets in their way. Throughout history, this is what happens when one religion becomes too intertwined with politics. Since I am in America, I focus on Christianity, because this is the religion that effects my day to day personal life. Odd that these same people always say they want government out of their personal lives. Conservative ideology has never helped mankind in anyway and combining that with those who want a theocracy leads to these Conservative Christians who not only make many Americans lives more difficult, they are surely the reason another 9/11 will happen. I suspect these people would also be those who burned "witches", loved the McCarthy paranoid delusional era, believe woman should stay with a man if he beats her, blacks should be lynched, and only Conservative Christian Evangelist should be allowed to vote. We must remember that these folks were HORRIFIED when the WH folks came out with the study of American terrorism. They were so insulted, even though, in the USA, white Christians have caused more pain, suffering and death than any other religion. This happens when Democrats have the majority, like when Clinton was the President. My final point, I wish I could turn back time sometimes. I would go back to when Christians were thrown to the lions for entertainment. I would kill off all those socialist-liberal-progressive-commie-vegetarian-tree huggin-secular humanists that intervened and had this stopped because they believed it was wrong to treat a whole group of people different, to demonize, unhumanize, to terrorize these people. This of course was not the popular view at this time, just like when blacks were made 100%, most of the USA was against it. So why would I want to kill them all off? Because these people who were "saved" by crazy "leftists", who were willing to face all the negative aspects that arise when sticking up for the minority, ended up being one of the biggest terrorists ever known to mankind. Check these out:

'Constantines Sword':
http://www.ConstantinesSword.com

'Theologians Under Hitler':
http://www.vitalvisuals.com/?q=node/19

And have a gander:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war." ~ Anne Coulter

"Yes, religion and politics do mix. America is a nation based on biblical principles. Christian values dominate our government. The test of those values is the Bible. Politicians who do not use the bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office." ~ Beverly LaHaye (Concerned Women for America) MORE: http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html

Also: American Taliban: http://www.perrspectives.com/features/Taliban.htm

Posted by: cpmondello | March 11, 2011 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company