I saw Mr. Blum interviewed on a news channel last night, I think it was MSNBC. He said that that he and Osama shared a desire to limit the power and imperialism of the United States (words to that effect). There was not a sliver of regret about what Osama has done, or what he intends to do to the U.S. Nope, he supported Osama, plain and simple.

I suppose this sounds awful, but this blindness, this open support of an enemy, does makes me wish that Mr. Blum was among the people in the World Trade center on 9/11. No, instead it was firefighters and policemen, business people and administrative staff, who were killed. You can be suicidal all you want, Mr. Blum, but don't take the rest of us down with you.

Posted by: kelley at January 21, 2006 2:47 PM

A fine post Anne.

OBL's statements of support for the book demonstrates how Islamists seek to divide left and right in the West. Support for such a book is explicit support for the extreme "liberal" cause that the author espouses. It is also an attempt to rally around liberal causes. However, it is all smoke and mirrors. But many on this site play along and believe it. Why do so many on this site play along with that division? Why do so many on this site attack liberals as the allies of Islamists? Instead of attacking all things liberal, why not instead expose Islam to liberals? I believe that if liberals can see what Islam is about, they won't support such views.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at January 21, 2006 2:47 PM

Osama's only got the book jacket. He's only using it to conceal those Danielle Steel novels he loves to read while munching Cheez-Its in his cave.

Posted by: Shinoliite at January 21, 2006 2:56 PM

Nonbeliever,

It's a matter of, "We hate Bush and the evil Jews,
and they hate Bush and the evil Jews. Therefore they are our friends."

They do not realize that the enemy of my enemy is not always their friend.

Posted by: jay at January 21, 2006 3:00 PM

I saw the interview with the "useful idiot," Blum. He is free to his opinion, but the question is: why was given air time?

Posted by: epg at January 21, 2006 3:58 PM

There's a good chance that many of us here who are labeled right wing religious bigots and ultra conservatives are laughing at being called such names. It's so funny to me I laugh and tell people about it on the street. People who call themselves Leftists are of one or the other group, and the two have nothing in common but the confuse of using the same label: there are those of us whose ideas are rooted deeply and solidly in the Enlightenment, who are progressive democrats and individualists and people who refuse determinism as epistmology; and there are the neo feudalist Left dhimmi fascists who wish to return the entire Human race to the state of farm animals. Both Left. And not the same at all. Completely opposite: Thomas Moore, Montaigne, Rousseau, Condorcet, Marx, Sorel, Lenin, Pol Pot, and William Blum; Bacon, Hume, Kant, Jefferson, Paine, J.S. Mill, Teddy Roosevelt, Orwell, me and my pals. All Leftists. All radical revolutionaries. And what does one group have in common with the other? One worthless label. Call me Mr. Conservative Rightwing Religious Bigot. It means more than Leftist.

Posted by: sonofwalker at January 21, 2006 3:58 PM

"I believe that if liberals can see what Islam is about, they won't support such views." - Kafir N

Our local blue scarf society is trying to do exactly that by screening "Islam: What the West Needs to Know" at our local arty theater. Our arts community is totally ignorant and I am convinced if they knew the scope of Islam, they would support us...quietly.

If anybody else want to inquire about doing the same thing with the movie, here is the address:
info@quixoticmediallc.com

We should have a page up next week to help in political organization world-wide by allowing folks to post a public place and time to meet without using names. Sorry to whoever suggested yellow - it's way too late to change colors now. We gotta follow the French on this one, so blue it is.

And please don't scoff when you see that it looks like some kind of ladies auxiliary meetings. It's supposed to. Camouflage is an important aspect of war on all levels.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at January 21, 2006 4:11 PM

Instead of attacking all things liberal, why not instead expose Islam to liberals? I believe that if liberals can see what Islam is about, they won't support such views.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at January 21, 2006 02:47 PM

I hate to tell you this, but the divide between liberal and conservative is an existential reality. The two ideologies are so disparate that each appears as an alien entity to the other. I suppose there are degrees of liberalism/conservatism but nonetheless, the two are polar opposites.

I would love to expose Islam to liberals but liberals (most of them) are the ones who steadfastly refuse to make moral judgements against anything, especially an exotic, non-Western culture and religion. Liberals will not tolerate criticism or condemnation of any religion but Christianity, and liberals will be quick to tell you that if Islam is guilty of a violent history, Christianity is as bad or worse.
Liberals invented moral/cultural/religious relativity and since they perceive all cultures and religions to be equal, are not interested in hearing anything that might threaten their nostrum for social injustice. Since liberals worship multiculturalism and political correctness with great fervor, how would you suggest penetrating their armored layers of denial?

Liberals are also disenchanted with the civilization created by the odious, cruel, Christian white man; many are rabidly anti-American, and they love Islam because they see it as a rival and perhaps a substitute for that which they detest--the Christian West. And don't forget one of the most important reasons they must defend Islam in the West. Muslims are members of a minority group, and in racist America, all minorities are persecuted and denied equality. It is their job to ensure that all minorities receive special consideration to make up for injustices committed by past generations against past generations.

Your suggestion is much easier said than done.

Posted by: Susanp at January 21, 2006 4:30 PM

WoW! Susanp, I concur.

Posted by: magnoon at January 21, 2006 5:50 PM

We should have a page up next week to help in political organization world-wide by allowing folks to post a public place and time to meet without using names. - Posted by Rebecca

Wonderful news! Looking forward to it.

Posted by: Shinoliite at January 21, 2006 6:21 PM

Double WOW Susnap.

Posted by: GFB at January 21, 2006 8:17 PM

I got news just now about our French friends:

There is a French blog which has appeared and is dedicated to this blue scarf movement at

http://revolutionbleue.over-blog.com/

I like to think that if the French can mobilize themselves we can show them some support.

Posted by: sonofwalker at January 21, 2006 11:51 PM

William Blum is a historian.

I am, in one of my other lives, a historian.

If my work had been endorsed by a murderous enemy whose allies kill women and children by the thousand, I would have crawled into a hole in shame. Either that, or made sure that the whole world heard me disassociate myself from the monster. But then, I think I can say I do not as a rule make apologies for mass murder.

Posted by: Paolo at January 22, 2006 4:51 AM

this blum character's ravings show how much the "left" has deteriorated intellectually. I would like blum to explain why the CIA/USGovt was giving so much money to aid bin laden's warfare in Afghanistan. Could blum also explain why the MSM in the West --including the "leftist" press-- has little to say about the foreign workers' plight in Saudi Arabia, Libya, and other Arab oil rich countries? Did blum's left support or oppose the US war against Serbia over Kosovo? How about the anti-Serbian position of the US in Bosnia? Does blum recall that the USA and Iran's mullahs both supported the Bosnian Muslims in that war? In other words, Iran and the Clinton administration [Leftist?] were on the same side then. How does that fit in with blum's ravings? Can blum perceive in his madness that Iran and the Muslim ummah also have imperialistic aspirations? Indeed, Islam has a 1350 year history of imperialism. Why today does the EU support the PLO/PA so blatantly [the USA supports the PLO/PA less blatantly] with billions of euros since 1994, no matter what massacres they committed against Jews?
Anyhow, this blum maniac is no doubt beyond hope and beyond help. The declared preference of the bolsheviks [so-called anti-imperialists]for the Muslims against non-Muslims goes back to 1917, if not earlier. Address linked to below gives document:
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/10/bolsheviks-for-jihad-genocide-stalins.html

sonofwalker's post above helpfully presents the absurdity of the whole left-right notion today.

Posted by: Eliyahu at January 22, 2006 1:50 PM

"Instead of attacking all things liberal, why not instead expose Islam to liberals?"

--Posted by Kafir Nonbeliever

The purpose of this site, as Robert has stated repeatedly, is pedagogical; that is, to "expose Islam," as you say, to all who would listen, including open-minded liberals and uninformed Islamists.

I have see a lot of posts, and, aside from some occationsl and obvious venting out of frustration, never have seen one that literally attacked "all things liberal." The focus of this site has always been one outcome: an accurate awareness of the threat from Islam.

The liberal mindset seems to erect, for them, an insurmountable barrier to understanding that threat, or even to admit that a threat exists. Whatever one thinks of the liberals or liberalism, one cannot say honestly that they are "in the fight" against Islamic fascism.

They need to be brought into that fight, but few here, it seems, can see any practical way to accomplish that recruitment. It seems certain that even a massive WMD attack on multiple U.S. and European cities would be instantly blamed by liberals on such things as the cowboy George Bush, for stirring things up in the Middle East, and on the belligerant Israelis. for vigorously defending themselves. Islamic ideology would be given a pass.

I guess it boils down to the saying "None are so blind as those who will not see."

Do you have any recommendations for drawing liberals into the fight? The only approach I see at the moment is the approach taken here at JW/DW. A relentless exposing of the truth, and patient refutation of false assertions using documented facts, over and over again, in the face of ideological hysteria and Islamic death threats.

Thank goodness Robert and Hugh have the patience and boldness to perform this service to our shared civilzation (shared, even if liberals don't seem to accept that inclusive idea), day in and day out.

How long will it take to change mindsets? Sadly, a long time, I think. Therefore, in our daily lives, whatever our occupations, we need to help spread the word--sort of a counter jihad. I hope the liberals will join in. In the meantime, we have to keep the lonely watch, and fight the good fight.

Posted by: Stendec at January 22, 2006 3:23 PM

Perhaps I must accept this battle. I have considered starting my own blog, ala Andrewsullivan. However, Andrewsullivan's blog is excellent, and he is more learned than I am in most fields except proabably American jurisprudence. I simpy don't have the time to keep up with the issues as much as someone like him. Moreover, he has staff members who can inform probably better that I could. By the way, has anyone been to Andrewsullivan.com? Those who have seen his writings might want to stop over there. For those who are unfamiliar with him, he was at the New Republic for many years.

Working full time and with a life of my own, I am not sure how much I can do. I am also somewhat fearful of the security concerns and how my blog might interfere with work duties. There are also bills to pay. Since I live in California, my bills are also extraordinarily high.

The last problem is that I do not myself come across as a liberal to liberals. That's because I am not a bonafide one. I will however work within the log cabin group of gay republicans to try and get word at least within a community I might have some influence in.

I am open to suggestions.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at January 22, 2006 9:47 PM

Ouch, forgive the typos. I'm tired.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at January 23, 2006 12:44 AM

Blum's book is cold war analysis applied to the War With Islam. Obsolescent theory wrapped in vestigial packaging to form mistaken filter.

MORE MOSLEMS MORE KORANS MORE HADITHS MORE SIRATS MORE ISLAM MORE

Until all the old professors die off, look for such bipolar-world analysis to persist, with the "historians" barely able to contain their enthusiasm for the Soviet Bloc's replacement.

Remember, these people are subject to no intellectual checks and balances. Whatever happened all those prestigious universities intellectuals who declared that the Iraq War was for oil theft? Not true. As it turned out, America intention really was to seed democracy among the Moslem heathens.

I'm still waiting for the hundreds of retractions carried in essays, TV appearances, speeches, and self-correcting books. Ain't seed no yet, though.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at January 23, 2006 10:33 AM