Sunday, March 12, 2006

The Enemy Within

The war goes well. The war goes badly. Oddly, the defenders of America struggle simply to establish that the war "is." Oddly, in the midst of beheadings, murder, misogynistic atrocities, riots, and the threat of nuclear proliferation among madmen, the defenders of America must waste their energy arguing that we really are the good guys. And this argument is with fellow Americans.

With some of the most visible and vocal among us championing the Palestinians over Israel, we are left wondering if this country no longer has the ability to discern good from evil. Values and allegiances once taken for granted are suddenly open for debate. If the national discussion is still deliberating on the atrocities in the middle east and in, what has become, Eurabia, then perhaps no outrageous event or set of circumstances can unite us.

Sen. Russ Feingold said Sunday that Congress needs to censure President Bush as a possible first step towards impeachment for authorizing the wiretapping of terrorists based in America, adding that Bush's alleged lawbreaking was "much more serious, clearly, than anything Bill Clinton ever did."

He is flat wrong. He is dead wrong," (Senator Bill) Frist fumed on ABC's "This Week," minutes after Feingold announced his censure plan on the same show.
The top Republican complained: "As I was listening to it, I was hoping deep inside that the leadership in Iran and other people who really have the U.S. not in their best interests, were not listening because of the terrible, terrible signal it sends."

This is Bizzaro America. This is a respected Senator suggesting that America is best served by censuring and possibly impeaching its president in a time of war... over a legal argument. Feingold's motivation is revealed when he compares the wiretaps to Clinton's misdeeds. The Senator from Wisconsin fails to realize that payback time in a time of war is bad timing.

When the so-called loyal opposition places politics above the war effort and national security, and when they have an excellent chance of gaining control of Congress this fall... our nation faces extraordinary danger.

The same political philosophy, this same liberal ideology that rules the Democrat Party, orchestrated and facilitated the formation of Eurabia. Hopefully America will wake up before this fall... before we begin our descent to Amerabia.


Jason said...

The Demon-crats would be willing to wreck this country to get back power. They scare me as much as the radical muslims do.

Anonymous said...

Your premise is stupid. The United States has nowhere near the Muslim population that Europe has. There is no way that we will have the problems seen in France, Spain, etc.

I guess they let anyone have a blogging site.

Anonymous said...

Jason, back when my Party controlled things my stocks were worth a lot more money, we were respected and had more friends around the world, and our kids weren't dying in Iraq.

Why does going back to that scare you?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Andrew said...

Sorry, my first attempt got cut off. Let's try again:

Ah, Chris. I see you have an anonymous detractor who seems to enjoy working from liberal playbook 101: "If you can't intelligently discuss the issues, call your opponent's ideas 'stupid' and suggest that they must 'let anyone have a blogging site.'" At least he or she was courageous enough to put a name with his or her childish personal attacks.

As for the "substance" of the comments, anonymous, you state that the US has "nowhere near the Muslim population that Europe has." I assume, being the astute observe of societal issues that you apparently are, that you are aware that the National Opinion Research Center estimated there to be 1.2 million Muslims living in the U.S. in 2000. The Council on American-Islamic Relations estimated there to be 7.0 million Muslims living in the US in 2004.

Now, while I am sure that other resources would have different estimates, the reality is that what we are undeniably seeing is a marked increase in the number of Muslims immigrating to, and living in, the United States. Therefore, I don't think it is Mr. Malott's premise that can be classified as "stupid."

As for your second comment, "back when [your] Party controlled things," your stocks were worth more money because the economy hadn't suffered through the Clinton recession and a terrorist attack that deeply affected our financial markets. Most all indicators suggest that our economy is robust and improving. You're correct that our kids weren't dying in Iraq, but we also weren't doing anything to prevent things like 9/11 from happening. If "your Party" had taken more proactive steps, it is conceivable that many more Americans would be alive today.

As for having more friends around the world, call me crazy, but I guess I just really don't care what the French think of us.

Anonymous said...

If we go with the 7 million, that is still far below even 3% of the U.S. population. I believe in Europe the Muslim population is closer to 10%. Also, their Muslim population has far more poor and prospect-less North Africans than does ours, which make up the majority of their problems.

And if George Bush had made our point in Afghanistan and then beefed up security with the billions we are currently using in Iraq, then the stock market would be booming and we would be safer.

Andrew said...


You said: "If we go with the 7 million, that is still far below even 3% of the U.S. population."

True, but the NORC study from 2000 that estimated 1.2 million only constituted .4% of the US population at the time. Surely you can see that, regardless of its current percentage of the overall US population, the Muslim community in America is growing at an astounding rate.

In addition, as just one example of the potential problems that may lie ahead, consider the following excerpt from testimony given to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security by Stephen Schwartz, the executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism and the Director of the Islam and Democracy Program
(Foundation for the Defense of Democracies):

"I come before this body today to describe how adherents of Wahhabism, the most extreme, separatist, and violent form of Islam, and the official sect in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, have come to dominate Islam in the U.S.... With the growth of the Islamic community in America, it was clear that there was no 'Islamic establishment' in the U.S. - in contrast with Britain, France, and Germany, the main Western countries with significant Islamic minorities. The Wahhabi ideological structure in Saudi Arabia perceived this as an opportunity to fill a gap - to gain extraordinary influence over an Islamic community in the West that itself had immense potential for political and social influence. This operation, which was largely successful, had multiple goals."

Now, while I suspect that Mr. Schwartz had an agenda of his own to advance when giving this testimony, if we give any credence whatsoever to his words, it would seem that it may make little difference that the European Muslim community "has far more poor and prospect-less North Africans than does ours." Particularly worrisome is the fact that "peaceful" Muslims have shown little inclination to stand with us and denounce the work of hard-liners, cartoon rioters, terrorists, etc.

As for the suggestion that Bush should have "beefed up security," I assume you mean beef up Homeland Security. First, I would suggest that this has, and continues to be, done. Second, the major problem I see with this philosophy is that it seemingly sends the following message to terrorists: "go ahead and attack us, but we'll be ready for you when you get here."

Personally, I prefer to take the fight to them and minimize the loss of American civilians to the extent possible.

Emma said...

I have to say that Andrew makes great arguments here. I would just add this comment to the debate.

Anonymous, you say that instead of using our "billions" in Iraq, we should be "beefing up" our security at home. All fine and good to say, but have you stopped to consider that President Bush and Congress have tried to "beef up" the security numerous times, only to have "your party" block every effort to do this very thing? "Your party" can't work with the President on anything to actually help keep us safer. "Your party" voted for this war too...don't forget that. Of course, in the words of one of "your party's" most famous current members, they "voted for the war before they voted against it." That's the real problem here.

Anonymous said...

But if you consider what we are getting for our billions spent in Iraq and compare it to what Homeland Security could do with the same money, (searching cargo containers, hiring air marshalls, etc) maybe you and I could agree with 20/20 hindsight that the president and congress might now be using our taxes more wisely if they hadn't stampeded into Iraq.

Also, Feingold and other Democrats are doing and saying what they need to do and say to get an elected majority in the House and Senate. They can't do the good they want to do until they have the votes. If they succeed I doubt that impeachment will be high on their list of priorities. It would not be any more popular with the public than President Clinton's impeachment.

Anonymous said...

Emma, in words a Republican might appreciate, Obstructionism in the defense of common sense is no vice.

Bush has gotten pretty much everything he wants. And it is very unfair when we are called unpatriotic and un-American when we disagree on the details. What effect do you think that has on the atmosphere in Washington? A divider, not a uniter, uses those words and right-wingers aim them at us all the time.

We love this country too.

Malott said...


Jason, Andrew, and Emma sum up my feelings and opinions rather well.

I would have to take issue with you over the seriousness of the impeachment threat. If the Dems take the House, I belive Representative John Conyers would definitely hold impeachment hearings. Where it might go from there is anyone's guess.

And even hearings would be bad for our country and send the wrong message.

Thanks for your visit and your comments.

Andrew said...

Anonymous said: "Obstructionism in the defense of common sense is no vice."

True... the problem lies in our differing interpretation of what constitutes common sense.

Anonymous went on: "[I]t is very unfair when we are called unpatriotic and un-American when we disagree on the details."

Really? First of all, I think the problem here is that the Democratic Party leadership is disagreeing on more than just "the details." If the average Democrat on the street feels differently, they need to get a grip on their power structure and wrest it away from, NOW and all the other fringe groups that control the purse strings and, therefore, the direction of the Party.

Second of all, I don't think it is the Republicans who are calling the Democrats unpatriotic, but rather the other way around. How about former Sen. Bob Graham of Florida who said: Bush's Iraq policy is "anti-patriotic at the core, because it's asking only one group of Americans, those soldiers in Iraq and their families, to pay the price of the occupation."

John Kerry said Bush "lives out a creed of greed for he and his friends. I'm tired of seeing chief executives be permitted to take their millions or billions to Bermuda and leave the average American here at home stuck with the tax bill. You know what I call that? Unpatriotic."

Al Sharpton said with regard to Bush, "Real patriots don't put troops in harm's way on a flawed policy."

Let's not forget Howard Dean who announced: "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for." - So much for the party of compassion and understanding.

I think we all recognize that the poor, pitiful me routine works better if you have clean hands. As you said, anonymous: "A divider, not a uniter, uses those words and right-wingers aim them at us all the time." Switch "right-wingers" with "left-wingers" and you've got it right.

The problem is that the Democrats, intentionally or not, perceive themselves as the victims. I personally believe it is intentional. It allows them to garner sympathy when the flaws in their criticism of Bush and his policies are exposed - after all, it is just those mean, old Republicans calling them unpatriotic again.

As for whether or not obstructionism is the order of the day in the Democratic Party, need we recall the words of Nancy Pelosi: "We went for one solid year, taking heat from everyone who said 'why don't you have a plan? You can't beat something with nothing.' And we said, 'yes we can.'"

Anonymous concluded with the observation: "We love this country too."

No one doubts that, anonymous. Many of us just strongly disagree with the path upon which you would put this country's future.

janice said...

Anonymous, when your party held the white house and America was fat and happy with the tech and .com boom, we also "had" the first WTC bombing, the Cole, the African embassy bombings, shall I continue?

Emma said...

I need to address a few points regarding my original comment.

I never called anyone "unpatriotic" or "un-American". I also never said that the Democratic party didn't love this country. Let's get that cleared up right away.

However, I do take issue with the Democrats who repeatedly stand in the way of doing everything we can to prevent terrorism both here and abroad, put politics ahead of our national security and degrade our country, its foreign policies, and our President in foreign nations. The Democrats who participate in this type of behavior are not doing anything constructive for the country.

I realize that not all Democrats think this is the right behavior, but in most cases, it is the Democratic leadership who are avid participants and proponents of these actions. If this isn't the way the majority of Democrats feel, then why do you continue to elect leaders who continue to do these things?

I don't like the men and women dying in Iraq anymore than I suspect the average Democrat does. However, the Democratic party seems to forget that they voted in large majority for this war too. However, when things got tough (as the President always said they would) the Democrats decided that it was too unpopular to be in Iraq anymore, so the leadership quit supporting the war effort and now seem bent on doing anything they can to undermine the President and those trying to make the best of a very difficult situation. They seem more interested in listening to the crowd than trying to do what is finish the job in Iraq to the best of our ability and to support the President in a time of war. It's time to move on past the sour grapes of the last two elections and put the safety and wellfare of our country first. The current Democratic leadership and those most vocal in the party aren't doing that.