Hoist with her own tendentious petard, is sweetly malevolent, ignoring-of-the-plainspoken-truth, Elizabeth Holmes. She should have a great career. She need only keep at it in the same vein.

Posted by: Hugh at October 30, 2007 9:06 AM

Fresh from the New Duranty Times:

Fearing Fear Itself

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 29, 2007

In America’s darkest hour, Franklin Delano Roosevelt urged the nation not to succumb to “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.” But that was then.

Today, many of the men who hope to be the next president — including all of the candidates with a significant chance of receiving the Republican nomination — have made unreasoning, unjustified terror the centerpiece of their campaigns.

Consider, for a moment, the implications of the fact that Rudy Giuliani is taking foreign policy advice from Norman Podhoretz, who wants us to start bombing Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible.”

Mr. Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary and a founding neoconservative, tells us that Iran is the “main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11.” The Islamofascists, he tells us, are well on their way toward creating a world “shaped by their will and tailored to their wishes.” Indeed, “Already, some observers are warning that by the end of the 21st century the whole of Europe will be transformed into a place to which they give the name Eurabia.”

Do I have to point out that none of this makes a bit of sense?

For one thing, there isn’t actually any such thing as Islamofascism — it’s not an ideology; it’s a figment of the neocon imagination. The term came into vogue only because it was a way for Iraq hawks to gloss over the awkward transition from pursuing Osama bin Laden, who attacked America, to Saddam Hussein, who didn’t. And Iran had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 — in fact, the Iranian regime was quite helpful to the United States when it went after Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan.

Beyond that, the claim that Iran is on the path to global domination is beyond ludicrous. Yes, the Iranian regime is a nasty piece of work in many ways, and it would be a bad thing if that regime acquired nuclear weapons. But let’s have some perspective, please: we’re talking about a country with roughly the G.D.P. of Connecticut, and a government whose military budget is roughly the same as Sweden’s.

Meanwhile, the idea that bombing will bring the Iranian regime to its knees — and bombing is the only option, since we’ve run out of troops — is pure wishful thinking. Last year Israel tried to cripple Hezbollah with an air campaign, and ended up strengthening it instead. There’s every reason to believe that an attack on Iran would produce the same result, with the added effects of endangering U.S. forces in Iraq and driving oil prices well into triple digits.

Mr. Podhoretz, in short, is engaging in what my relatives call crazy talk. Yet he is being treated with respect by the front-runner for the G.O.P. nomination. And Mr. Podhoretz’s rants are, if anything, saner than some of what we’ve been hearing from some of Mr. Giuliani’s rivals.

Thus, in a recent campaign ad Mitt Romney asserted that America is in a struggle with people who aim “to unite the world under a single jihadist Caliphate. To do that they must collapse freedom-loving nations. Like us.” He doesn’t say exactly who these jihadists are, but presumably he’s referring to Al Qaeda — an organization that has certainly demonstrated its willingness and ability to kill innocent people, but has no chance of collapsing the United States, let alone taking over the world.

And Mike Huckabee, whom reporters like to portray as a nice, reasonable guy, says that if Hillary Clinton is elected, “I’m not sure we’ll have the courage and the will and the resolve to fight the greatest threat this country’s ever faced in Islamofascism.” Yep, a bunch of lightly armed terrorists and a fourth-rate military power — which aren’t even allies — pose a greater danger than Hitler’s panzers or the Soviet nuclear arsenal ever did.

All of this would be funny if it weren’t so serious.

In the wake of 9/11, the Bush administration adopted fear-mongering as a political strategy. Instead of treating the attack as what it was — an atrocity committed by a fundamentally weak, though ruthless adversary — the administration portrayed America as a nation under threat from every direction.

Most Americans have now regained their balance. But the Republican base, which lapped up the administration’s rhetoric about the axis of evil and the war on terror, remains infected by the fear the Bushies stirred up — perhaps because fear of terrorists maps so easily into the base’s older fears, including fear of dark-skinned people in general.

And the base is looking for a candidate who shares this fear.

Just to be clear, Al Qaeda is a real threat, and so is the Iranian nuclear program. But neither of these threats frightens me as much as fear itself — the unreasoning fear that has taken over one of America’s two great political parties.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at October 30, 2007 9:07 AM

Where have these people, Holmes, Krugman and their ilk, lived for the last 6 (30 actually) years? Have they not been paying attention to what is going on in places around the globe---the Philippines, North Africa, Iran, Lebanon, Bali, etc? And none of it has anything to do with islam??

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at October 30, 2007 9:23 AM

Always look on the bright side of life.
For life is quite absurd
And death's the final word.
You must always face the curtain with a bow.
Forget about your sin.
Give the audience a grin.
Enjoy it. It's your last chance, anyhow.
So...

Always look on the bright side of death,
Just before you draw your terminal breath.

©1979 Monty Python

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at October 30, 2007 9:27 AM

Robert

1. Please mail a version of this to the WSJ;

2. So what can people do to counteract this kind of reporting?

Posted by: Mazama at October 30, 2007 9:35 AM

"Robert – my eds wanted me to ask you what religion you are – would you mind?"

Unbelievable, even for the MSM. How low can they go?

I wonder if they heard the rumors about Robert being a double secret zionist agent with an alter ego named "Hugh". Or was she just checking to see if he was perhaps a born again "Christianist", like the dreaded "W"? Either way, I applaud Robet for refusing to answer that ridiculous and irrelevant question.

Posted by: Jan Sobieski at October 30, 2007 9:47 AM

The defenders of the religion of beheaders are WHINING..........again? These people are psychotic, as are those who believe them.

Posted by: n.a. palm at October 30, 2007 9:52 AM

Ynkedoodl2
I don't get your point.
I guess if a reporter can question Robert's religion, I can ask was the point the line about dark skinned people?

I don't mind being called a fear monger, we really need to be afraid. But I object to being called a racist.

I for one, am glad to hear someone say the word Islamofacism and to admit that the threat to our way of life comes from more than just Al Queada.
The more this is brought up the more Americans are going to look for answers.

I remember the lines of white semi-trucks that went from Iraq to Syria on camera and satellite at the start of the Iraq war. How come no one else does? I have no doubt what was in those trucks and it wasn't baby food.

Posted by: Aunt Bea at October 30, 2007 10:13 AM

Hey CAIR don't sweat it, I also whine about the dhimmicrats not making much about islamic terror! I'm glad to see you helped point out the problem. Islamic terror is the #1 issue of our time. Everybody should be talking about it.

Posted by: americanmadestrat at October 30, 2007 10:18 AM

"Elizabeth Holmes interviewed me at some length for this article, and I explained to her that the linkage between Islam and terrorism did not come from Republican presidential candidates, but from the terrorists themselves, who consistently point to Islamic teachings to explain and justify their actions".-Robert

Exactly. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said: we must literally "learn to speak the truth". Even a child who lies to protect his mother still lies. We may be kind to the child for the intention of protecting his mother, but we must not pretend that a lie is not a lie. We must name it, though sometimes lies are necessary. The problem here is that Islam permits deception with non-believers and Muslims cannot identify themselves as liars, but must delude themselves based on the belief-system. They cannot say, "Islam permits lies. I am a liar." But rather they tell themselves "Islam permits lies. Therefore I am not a liar."

In the final analysis the worst victim of the mind with the habit of self-deception is the deceiver, who by degrees will believe their own lies-propaganda. In addition, their judgement becomes warped by the habit of deception. So, for example, we should not be surprised that Fibrahim Hooper and CAIR-liars are fooled by the Rev. Jim Nutter, or that Holmes is fooled by CAIR or other Muslim liars.

Bonhoeffer's passion for exact truth shows he was a man who greatly loved himself. He had a powerful and very clear mind. He was not going to give that up for anything.

Posted by: Frank at October 30, 2007 10:18 AM

Robert-

You can try. In fact, you do try to make them see the truth.

Posted by: Frank at October 30, 2007 10:23 AM

Mr. Spencer:

I applaud your clear, reasoned focus, refusal to deal in irrelevancies, and patient sufferance of fools. I congratulate you for avoiding being used. Ms. Holmes is, no doubt, dissapointed that you don't project insidious malice as befits a prominent bogeyman of the political Left.

Posted by: John C at October 30, 2007 10:29 AM

erratum--"disappointed"

Posted by: John C at October 30, 2007 10:38 AM

It would be nice of the League of Women Voters could print out copies of the CAIR article. The basic premise is that Repoblican candidates tend to speak the truth and Democratic candidates tend not to.
Though I'm not affiliated with aither party, the premise is more and more self-evident.
Echoing a persistent question on this web-site, "Why don't the peaceful Muslims denounce the groups and individuals who wreak terror in the name of Islam?"
And Why does the MSM bend over backwards so often to avoid mentioning the obvious ideological and theological connection of these murderers when reporting events?

Posted by: Sansantiago at October 30, 2007 10:41 AM

Just for knowing, I did not say it was a CAIR press release.

I got that article in my daily CAIR alert which is what I said.

Posted by: Pamela Geller at October 30, 2007 10:44 AM

Just for knowing, I did not say it was a CAIR press release.

I got that article in my daily CAIR alert which is what I said.

Posted by: Pamela Geller at October 30, 2007 10:45 AM

Pamela, I didn't mean to imply that YOU said it was a CAIR press release. If I did, that was just carelessness on my part. I was just explaining that it wasn't a CAIR press release.

Yrs
Robert

Posted by: jihadwatch at October 30, 2007 10:47 AM

Ynkedoodl2
I don't get your point.
I guess if a reporter can question Robert's religion, I can ask was the point the line about dark skinned people?
--Aunt Bea

My point? To show that Paul Krugman is a fool! He's also a schmuck and a crappy writer.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at October 30, 2007 10:52 AM

I sent this email to the reporter at the WSJ:

Ms. Holmes:

First, thanks for exploring the topic of Islamic terrorism in your article, Linking Terror on the Trail. My I suggest that you look beyond American politics when trying to determine the appropriateness of “Islamic” as a prefix for whatever is being described (-fascism, -terrorism, -etc).

A good place to start is with the Sunni fundamentalist themselves. Al Qaida has a document out there called the “Management of Savagery.” It’s their long-term plan.

It is translated into English here:

http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/olin/images/Management%20of%20Savagery%20-%2005-23-2006.pdf

(Please look past page 1)

It concludes with this:

In concluding this article, we want to stress that our battle is a battle of tawhid against unbelief and faith against polytheism. It is not an economic, political, or social battle. However, we must not forget that it is sharia policy when addressing weak souls among the different classes of people to promise to reclaim our wealth and our rights, even to plunder the wealth of God which evil people have taken. We do not think that promises like this motivated the Companions of the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him); rather, it was a distraction for them and a motivation for the weak souls among the people to accept Islam. Afterwards, it is clear that these weak souls improved their condition by living among the people of faith and the furnace of battle, and their motivation was for the sake of tawhid before all else [the same point is made on pages 48-49]. Therefore, we find that God, praised and exalted be He, directed the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to address the captives of the enemy by saying: "O Prophet, say to the prisoners in your hands: ‘If God knows of any good in your hearts He will give you better than what has been taken from you, and He will forgive you; surely God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.’” (Qur'an 8:70)
I beseech God to grant us sincerity in speech and action and to strengthen this Umma through obedience, which is the key to all good. Praise be to God, Lord of the worlds.

Now then… either they typed up a 200+ page document in Arabic for their own entertainment, or they actually believe this stuff.

Given that it seems they believe they are being motivated by religion, which of the people in your story appear to be correct:

"To continue to harp on the idea that Islamo-fascism is the source of terrorism is to suggest that all Muslims are terrorists," Mr. Halperin said.

Actually the term Islamofascism doesn’t suggest all Muslims are terrorists any more than Germany Nazi suggests all Germans were NAZIs , or Italian Fascists meant that all Italians were Fascists.

"Jihad" is an Arabic word found in the Quran that roughly translates to mean "struggle." What that struggle is, or how it should be carried out, is less clear. Terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, use it to refer to holy war, or religious struggles to purify Islam. Many Muslims prefer a more peaceful definition, representing a quest for self-betterment.

Well then perhaps the Muslims holding to the peaceful definition should direct as much criticism to those Muslims who hold to the violent definition as they do toward non Muslims who are only using the terms the Terrorists use for themselves.

He did so in that instance to say Republicans were making a mistake by using rhetoric that could frame the battle against terrorists as a war of civilizations.

But then that’s exactly the conflict we’re in. They seek to destroy our way of life and system of law and replace it with Sharia with no compromise. To label this conflict in such a way as to obscure the goal of global Islamic Sharia Imposition is to be totally unaware of the war that has been thrust upon us.

Please do look into these matters more carefully… we need more people to tell the American people the truth and the scope of this conflict.

Thank you.

Posted by: Vince at October 30, 2007 10:52 AM

Ynkedoodl2, I also thought of Paul Krugman's fatuous article as soon as I read this piece.

"In America’s darkest hour, Franklin Delano Roosevelt urged the nation not to succumb to “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.” But that was then."

Roosevelt was right--you cannot respond to a threat if you are paralyzed with fear. Note, though, that he did not go on to downplay the threat from the Axis powers.

There is the idea that any reference to the jihad threat is just "fear mongering"--pursued either out of "Islamophobic" ignorance or for cynical political gain.

Krugman says, "For one thing, there isn’t actually any such thing as Islamofascism — it’s not an ideology; it’s a figment of the neocon imagination."

Again, the parallel with Roosevelt is telling. He did not claim that there was no such thing as Fascism, or that Nazism was a figment of anyone's imagination. "Islamofascism" is not a perfect term, as many have pointed out. But here Krugman is not calling for clarity--he is denying that there is any such thing as a jihad ideology.

He goes on to sneer at the idea of "Eurabia" and a renewed Caliphate. I have often pointed out that an evil ideology need not succeed completely to have a devastating effect--after all, there was no "Thousand-Year Reich", nor was there global Communism. Yet these ideologies and others caused immense suffering and death for millions of people.

Similarly, it is unlikely that there will ever be a universal Caliphate and full Islamization of the entire world--if only because rival jihadists could never agree on a single Caliph. However, hundreds of millions of people throughout history have suffered death, and warfare, and dhimmitude, and slavery, and forced conversion for this vision. Many more are suffering as we speak, and many more will suffer in the future if we do not take this threat seriously.

Also, citing Mitt Romney's reference to America's facing a struggle with people who aim “to unite the world under a single jihadist Caliphate" Krugman says, "He doesn’t say exactly who these jihadists are, but presumably he’s referring to Al Qaeda".

Again he willfully minimizes the threat. Al Qaeda is a particularly ugly jihadist group, and the one responsible for 9/11, but it is still only one of many. Krugman mentions that many jihadists "are not even allies". This in no way negates the threat. In Iraq, for instance, Sunni Ba'athists and the Shi'ite Mahdi army are hardly allies--they are in fact vicious enemies--but both savagely attack Western forces on a regular basis.

Also, many times competing jihadists have formed temporary alliances against unbelievers. Again using a WWII reference, Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were brutal rival powers, but they formed a short-lived non-agression pact so that they could crush Poland.

One can certainly argue the best way to approach this threat, but minimizing it is no solution.

"All of this would be funny if it weren’t so serious."

Of course, he only finds this "serious" because "of the fear the Bushies stirred up", and then goes on to conflate concern about jihad violence with unreasoning racism--"fear of dark-skinned people in general." Again using the WWII analogy, this would be like chalking up rational alarm over the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to nothing but an unreasoning fear of the "yellow peril".

Krugman does briefly acknowledge "Al Qaeda" to be a real threat, but is ultimately much more terrified by Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani than he is by Osama bin Ladin and Mahmoud Ahmadinijad.

Posted by: gravenimage at October 30, 2007 11:13 AM

@gravenimage

Great post! Spot on! You should send it to Krugman!

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at October 30, 2007 11:55 AM

Islamic terrorism will always be what it is--violence committed for al-lah. Whether the Dems have the cojones to say this out loud or not.

Posted by: pythagoras at October 30, 2007 2:05 PM

I remember the lines of white semi-trucks that went from Iraq to Syria on camera and satellite at the start of the Iraq war. How come no one else does? I have no doubt what was in those trucks and it wasn't baby food.
Posted by: Aunt Bea [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 30, 2007 10:13 AM

I remember very well. I just hope that maybe that was part of what the Israelis bombed when they went into Syria.

Posted by: dms at October 30, 2007 2:27 PM

" Muslim immigration and Islam must be banned"
posted above

Alright...it is too late to do anything about the muslims already here in the U.S. but I hereby ban Islam in all it's forms beginning midnight last night (ex post facto). There..I did it and I'm glad..good idea..thanks.

Posted by: pismopal at October 30, 2007 6:19 PM

PS. I'm working on the bridge investigation now and I have several leads.

Posted by: pismopal at October 30, 2007 6:23 PM

@ topic

Just goes to show, coupled with their fellow propagandists at NYSlimes,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/opinion/29krugman.html?hp
they're anything but objective, and blatantly hyperpartisan...looks like ol' georgie "the capo" soros is quite upset at this, and sent his attack dogs into a propaganda offensive to do damage control.

Recalling Robert's comments on IAW follow-up, looks like the effects of IAW (which triggered exposure to a lot more than expected) has started to show the effects much sooner, and have proven to be muchmore damaging to the unholy alliance, than anyone ever could have imagined.

Posted by: jcom972 at October 30, 2007 7:35 PM

pismopal & the resistance

In some of the very first videos of the bridge collapse in Minnesotastan there were flames eminating from the seams at either end of the bridge. These soon disappeared.
Flames???

Posted by: Aunt Bea at October 31, 2007 7:17 AM

pismopal & the resistance

In some of the very first videos of the bridge collapse in Minnesotastan there were flames eminating from the seams at either end of the bridge. These soon disappeared.
Flames???

Posted by: Aunt Bea at October 31, 2007 7:20 AM

Emory's failure to protect David Horowitz may be more than coincidence. The Carter Center (ex-president Carter) of Emory University is heavily funded with Middle East money. Carter's book accusing Israel of apartheid caused at least one Emory professor to resign. A former supporter Professor Alan Dershowitz has the story on the funding flowing to Emory's Carter Center from the Middle East. http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={14F14A6C-2BBE-439E-929A-425288DA09E4}

Emory is proud of its relationship with Carter, e.g., http://www.emory.edu/WELCOME/VirtualEmory/carter.html
From a recent news release:
Emory University is one of the nation's leading private research universities and a member of the Association of American Universities. Known for its demanding academics, outstanding undergraduate college of arts and sciences, highly ranked professional schools and state-of-the-art research facilities, Emory is ranked as one of the country's top 20 national universities by U.S. News & World Report. In addition to its nine schools, the university encompasses The Carter Center, Yerkes National Primate Research Center and Emory Healthcare, the state's largest and most comprehensive health care system.

Posted by: Omnia21 at October 31, 2007 9:19 AM

back to topic...bottom line...
CAIR doesn't whine about the leftists because they're part of the islamicommie unholy alliance as seen by their pandering suckuppery to the AAI & other islamofascist infestations here.

The end.
;-)

Posted by: jcom972 at November 2, 2007 4:30 AM