| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks |
| A Memo To Osama... |
| 2004-06-02 |
| ...From the always worth reading Belmont Club: Outstanding piece, especially this part: "..That leaves us with this tantalizing question. Having gone so far on September 11, can we not go further? Will one more push topple the rock? The answer is yes, but only if the push is sufficient and it leaves the Left which is the spirit of suicide, in control. This latter condition is essential. The fundamental fact is that the triumph of the Jihad must be momentarily preceded by the ascendance of the Left. Only the Left will pick up the gun, put the barrel to the temple of the Western mind and pull the trigger without hesitation. But their ascendance will only be momentary, and I for one delight in imagining how we will kick them as they squeal about their rights and their sexual entitlements once there is no one left to protect them...." As the saying goes, Read The Whole Thing. Mike |
| Posted by:Mike Kozlowski |
| #22 JDB - Now I wasn't around then, but I don't recollect readin about Madison actually ridin with the troops. Madison was a tough little guy though. Washington sorta naturally thought as the commander-in-chief he ought to lead the troops. Thats what he done before. Rock - "Deep down, he believes we are the root cause of the Islamist movement because our capitalist system has allowed us more than our fair share." You hit the nail on the head. That insight is true goin back to kerry's protestin days - like I said he thinks like the Eurpeens, and they tend to be a little socialistic in their thinkin. |
| Posted by: Hank 2004-06-02 9:38:03 PM |
| #21 Hank, Maybe I'm wrong but I think President James Madison actually rode out with the troops v the Brits during the War of 1812. T'Otherwise, I think your comments here are spot on...I see a Kerry Presidency being potentially more crippling to both the US and the world than even Jimmah Carter's and that's saying something. I'm not saying it for the sake of partisan hyperbole. I really, really dread Kerry as President. |
| Posted by: JDB 2004-06-02 9:15:21 PM |
| #20 "He thinks just like the Eurpeans, and you cain't tell the difference tween his policy beliefs and that of the French." Hank nails it again. Kerry is an appeasor and so are the "Eurpeans" and especially the French. Using their refined and subtle approach to diplomacy, they appeased Hitler at the cost of the Czechs. Then when they declared war on Germany in Sept 1939, they boldly did nothing until the next thing they knew they were watching Germans dance into Paris. They voted for fighting before they were against it- sound familiar. Just like Hank said, Kerry thinks like the "Eurpeens" which means he distrusts the US, thinks we are arrogant cowboys. Deep down, he believes we are the root cause of the Islamist movement because our capitalist system has allowed us more than our fair share. Hank, did I get that right? |
| Posted by: Rock 2004-06-02 9:04:50 PM |
| #19 Hey, spiffo, why don't we give all that mess a miss and just RE-ELECT PRESIDENT BUSH?! |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-06-02 9:00:07 PM |
| #18 We will then co-exist on an equal footing. No we won't. They will have a handful, at most, of nucs. This will deter nobody but the French. If Kerry is elected and what you predict happens, Kerry will be just as quickly ousted or executed and our arsenal will be deployed with extreme predjudice against ALL who oppose. Count on it! |
| Posted by: spiffo 2004-06-02 8:48:13 PM |
| #17 Goerge Washington was the last President to lead troups into battle as commander-in-chief. Fact is, he was the only one to lead the troups hisself. Kerry ain't gonna go fight them Muslims hisself. Fact is, he Kerry will raise that old white flag. Ever thing he's stood for since he done his fightin has been the contrary of fightin. He thinks the US is evil, and he don't trust us. He thinks just like the Eurpeans, and you cain't tell the difference tween his policy beliefs and that of the French. |
| Posted by: Hank 2004-06-02 8:25:49 PM |
| #16 Jennifer, Kerry 'fought in Vietnam' so he could be more like John Kennedy (right down to commanding a 'PT' boat). And according to his commanders he fought 'too fiercely' and to his 'own' agenda ( and not necessarily to that of the group) -- he was a loose cannon. Check out the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth website. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-06-02 7:37:44 PM |
| #15 Oh I don't know. How about his statements that he "would do everything possible to remove american troops from Iraq" to "make the world like us more", his endorsements from the likes of Iran and other european countries, how bout like suggesting what defense item he actually ENDORSED? Hm...you cant really defend a country when you vote against just about every single piece of military hardware that ever was contemplated. |
| Posted by: Valentine 2004-06-02 7:07:19 PM |
| #14 How awful. I think Kerry would fight back. He did in Vietnam. He didn't support the war, but he fought fiercely. What makes you think he would do less against the Muslims? |
| Posted by: Jennifer 2004-06-02 6:48:31 PM |
| #13 "If Kerry and the beautiful folks win this election, our tail will be so far betwixt our legs that it'll tickle our chin." Hank is right, but Jake's scenerio may be overly optimistic. "The election of Kerry will assure US and Western retreat in all fronts of the war." Jake is right about that. "We will retreat, unilaterally weaken ourselves through the folly of appeasement, and then ultimately have to fight back." Jake is right that we will weaken ourselcves unilaterally, but he is probably wrong in saying that we will ultimately fight back. If Kerry get elected, and we tuck our tail "so far betwixt our legs that it tickles our chin" then there is a good chance that we will have lost. There will follow a devasting attack on a US city (do you think they won't do it?) and that attack will cripple the US and world economies like we have not seen since the 1930s. We'll be energy-less, demoralized, and totally engrossed in our own problems. And for the Islamist world, their living standards will not change from their current condition, but they will complete the process (begun with our withdrawl from Iraq) of unification under and Islamist totalitarian Caliphate. They will possess nuclear weapons, and control oil supplies, but that will not enable them to advance beyond their 8th Century society. We will then co-exist on an equal footing. |
| Posted by: RobertF 2004-06-02 6:33:07 PM |
| #12 "If Kerry and the beautiful folks win this election, our tail will be so far betwixt our legs that it'll tickle our chin." Hank, as usual, has it right again. The election of Kerry will assure US and Western retreat in all fronts of the war. We will retreat, unilaterally weaken ourselves through the folly of appeasement, and then ultimately have to fight back. Only by then our military and tech advantage will be less, the fight will be more difficult, it will cost more in dollars, and it will cost more in lives and human sacrifice. But worse yet, who is to say we will win then? Will we? |
| Posted by: Jake 2004-06-02 6:13:35 PM |
| #11 I am not a big fan of Wretchard. He has some good ideas, but tends to not think them through. The interesting thing about the pair of articles is that he points OBL and AQ are 'vicims' of the 'law of unintended consequences'. And his view is US-centric. If I look back at the last two years or so and ask what brought us closest to the edge, then the answer is SARS. Forget anthrax - infect a couple of dozen people with SARS and get them riding mass transit in major Western cities. In the last month there was an 'accidental' outbreak of SARS in China. You could buy the infectious agent for a few hundred dollars and a reasonably competent organizer could infect thousands and potentially millions. The unitended consequence would be that most of those millions would be in Africa and the ME, where states and conformance to civil society are weak. I.e the collapse would not be in the West but the Moslem world. |
| Posted by: Phil B 2004-06-02 5:59:51 PM |
| #10 Kerry won't need no chemical attack to pull out of Iraq. His glory days was the good ole days when the "people" reversed US policy and we tuck tail and run out of Vietnam. If Kerry and the beautiful folks win this election, our tail will be so far betwixt our legs that it'll tickle our chin. |
| Posted by: Hank 2004-06-02 5:51:08 PM |
| #9 "i dont see Kennedy as Kerrys mouthpiece. Kennedy is Kennedys mouthpiece. " Guess you've been in a coma, Libhawk (yeah, right). Kennedy is Kerry's "coach" and has been for 40 years. And I'm convinced that Kerry would pull the U.S. out of Iraq, too, and not have our military go anywhere else, except for 3rd world hellholes where there's a "humanitarian" interest at stake, not a U.S. security one and he'd do it, not like Somalia, but exactly like Vietnam, which Kerry knows so well. He'd negotiate with Osama and AlQ, agree to "terms" like world-wide shari'a and all American women wearing burkas, and then pull the whole country ashamedly back to lick our collective wounds. In my mind, I call the Kerry scenario "Duck and cover." It would only be a matter of time until the next massive attack on this country. Once OBL had us out of his backyard and was no longer busy defending himself and on the run and saw that the U.S. was indeed weak and vulnerable, he'd have to come over here and make his victory complete by taking control over here. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-06-02 5:41:07 PM |
| #8 Liberalhawk, carrying Clinton's water as usual? Clinton pulled those guys out of Mogadishu in a hell of a hurry and he left them under "U.N. control" or auspices, too. It wouldn't have been any big deal to have done the opposite: Ordered more troops, under his command (*shudder*) and fully supported the mission militarily. Don't remember what went on in Congress, but the President can instigate a war operation and doesn't have to go to Congress for 60 days (something Bubba had no problem doing for Kosovo). The Somalia force wanted to stay and fight, but they weren't given the equipment or the men for the mission because it was defined as a "U.N. peacekeeping mission." I find it hard to believe that U.S. Senators and Congresspersons (even some Dimocrats) weren't pretty upset by what they were seeing on CNN about the Mogadishu incident and I have no doubt that they were prepared to help deliver the usual strong U.S. response to an attack and an ambush on our soldiers in which 18 men were killed had Clinton only given the right orders as Commander in Chief (shudder again--can't help it! The idea of Draft Dodger King being CiC still makes me crazy). Oh, and would it have made any difference to Billary to know that it was Osama Bin Laden who armed those Somalians and taught them to attack the Americans? |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-06-02 5:33:05 PM |
| #7 CF. Err, no, I dont think so. Clinton withdrew from Somalia because there was NO support for staying, from right or left. If there were conservatives at the time who called for staying in Somalia, id like a cite. And i dont see Kennedy as Kerrys mouthpiece. Kennedy is Kennedys mouthpiece. In any case I though wretchard was talking about an attack BEFORE the election. Which might help Kerry to win, but only if he played it hawkishly. Re Kerry on Nkor - ive already said that his position troubles me. It does not however indicate that hed withdraw from Iraq due to a CW attack on the US. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-06-02 4:56:14 PM |
| #6 He's right - this is the "negative" end game. The "positive" one is that they attempt something really big and we stop them in their tracks with the cameras rolling and the reports breathless in their epiphany. But that is growning less likely since maggots flock to shit and that for the time being is Iraq where the "false negative" is dominant. This protects the left and their LLL ilk from having to go under the knife of a "true negative" outcome here. Like the priest in Maine said in his poetic sermon: "There is no guarantee of freedom of speech, assembly, press except by the soldier." The LLL supports the troops but not the war which shows how contemptible they really are. I for one would enjoy seeing the LLL with about 10 days of talibanbinladensiddiqi rule as long as I can watch it on CNN (Fox won't be allowed to broadcast) from Aruba! |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2004-06-02 4:23:14 PM |
| #5 LiberalHawk. *If* such a thing (massive chemical attack on a US city) happened under Kerry's watch do you think he would hesitate to seek 'consensus' with the UN and try to understand 'why do they hate us' and then withdrawl from Iraq like Clinton did in Somolia? I think he would withdrawl so fast the soldier would suffer from whiplash. He has already practically promised Iran and Kimmie-boy that he would 'appease' them and let them have their way. (and trust Kimmie-boy like Clinton did in 94). Did you hear his mouthpiece Kennedy say that the U.S. military was 'as bad a Saddam ever was.' and that 'only the management had changed' at the prison? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-06-02 4:17:31 PM |
| #4 Now ive admired Wretchards posts on Iraq. Not sure about this one though. Presumably by the left wretchard means folks who would withdraw from Iraq now. only Pres nominee to stand for that is Nader. Does Wretchard think that a Terract in the US would elect Nader? does he think anyone in AQ thinks that? |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-06-02 3:52:16 PM |
| #3 Given the current media and the size-power-by-any-means left this is a distinct possibility..... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-06-02 2:59:58 PM |
| #2 Isn't that what we are watching in Spain? |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-06-02 2:53:55 PM |
| #1 Yes, Mike - Rather spooky! |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-06-02 2:50:15 PM |