Solution for Global Warming

February 24, 2007 at 3:15 pm (clinton, conyers, edwards, hillary, kucinich, liberal, matsui, McDermott, murtha, pelosi, politics, sanchez, sanders, Uncategorized, waters, waxman, woolsey)

Enlightened individuals, those who stay awake at nights wondering what they can do to prevent the polar caps from melting, at least have a growing menu of choices.

Sydney-based Easy Being Green says it will mitigate your cat’s flatulent contribution to global warming for A$8 ($6). The same company could also make your granny “carbon-neutral” at A$10 a year, according to a report in the Australian newspaper last weekend.

Advertisements

Permalink Leave a Comment

Boot “Dirty” John Murtha

February 22, 2007 at 3:20 pm (clinton, conyers, edwards, global jihad, hillary, islamo fascist, kucinich, liberal, matsui, McDermott, murtha, pelosi, politics, sanchez, sanders, Uncategorized, war on terror, waters, waxman, woolsey)

John Murtha: Caving In to Arabs Since 1980

Rumored ex-Marine John Murtha, Democrat congressman from Pennsylvania, has become the darling of the cut-and-run crowd for trying to place absurd restrictions on our troops, amounting to withdrawal from Iraq. Were Arab sheiks whispering into his ear?

In case you missed the video on “I Love the ’80s,” Rep. Murtha was caught on tape negotiating bribes with Arab sheiks during the FBI’s Abscam investigation in 1980. The Abscam investigation was conducted by Jimmy Carter’s Justice Department, not right-wing Republicans.

On tape, Murtha told the undercover FBI agent: “When I make a f***in’ deal I want to make sure that I know exactly what I’m doing and … what I’m sayin’ is, a few investments in my district …”

It is a profound and shocking fact that Murtha even showed up at this meeting, knowing he was going to be negotiating bribe money with Arabs.

Murtha added that he wanted the investment in his district to look like it was done “legitimately … when I say legitimately, I’m talking about so these bastards up here can’t say to me … ‘Jesus Christ, ah, this happened,’ then he (someone else), in order to get immunity so he doesn’t go to jail, he starts talking and fingering people and then the son of a bitch all falls apart.”

For those of you just joining us, no, this isn’t a scene from “The Sopranos.” It’s an actual conversation between a U.S. congressman and an FBI agent posing as an Arab sheik offering a bribe.

Murtha further said that although he was not prepared to accept cash at that time, “after we’ve done some business, then I might change my mind.” You know, just what you or I or any American might say when offered a cash bribe by an Arab.

The ever-helpful media exposed the Abscam investigation before it could be completed, and consequently we were deprived of the possibility of seeing Murtha on tape stuffing cash in his trousers like the other Democratic congressmen (and one “moderate” Republican) convicted in the Abscam investigation. Or, as Al Gore used to call such a fund-raising procedure, “community outreach.”

But Murtha was willing to trade favors in return for investment in his district — and suggested he might take cash down the line. In other words, Murtha wasn’t calling for an immediate surrender of his scruples and principles, but rather a phased withdrawal of them.

In fact, according to a co-conspirator’s affidavit, it didn’t take long for Murtha to warm to the idea of a cash bribe.

About a month after the taped meeting with Murtha, the co-conspirator, lawyer Howard L. Criden, wrote in his affidavit: “Yesterday, Feb. 1, (Democrat Congressman Frank ‘Topper’) Thompson called and told me that Murtha was ready to go,” adding that Murtha had indicated “during January that he was not ready to do business but would be willing to do so in the future.”

Criden said: “Congressman Murtha of Pennsylvania would be willing to enter into an agreement similar to that of the other congressmen” — i.e., taking $50,000 cash from the sheiks for legislative favors.

Criden’s affidavit went unsigned, according to his lawyer, Richard Ben-Veniste, solely because of the resulting publicity when the press blew the investigation, leading Criden to believe the prosecutors had broken the deal.

Criden was later convicted and sentenced to six years in prison, along with seven members of Congress (six of them Democrats). Murtha was an unindicted co-conspirator. (Would that Patrick Fitzgerald were prosecuting the case!)

As an attorney, let me give you the technical legal description of what occurred: John Murtha was as guilty as O.J. Simpson.

Now Murtha issues high moral pronouncements on the war and denounces our troops, calling the U.S. military “broken, worn out” and “living hand to mouth.” Gee, too bad there aren’t any Arab sheiks offering them cash bribes. Sounds like they could really use the money.

Murtha accuses Marines of killing “innocent civilians in cold blood” during an ongoing investigation. Semper Fi, Mr. Dirty Congressman.

Instead of toppling brutal dictators and spreading democracy in the Middle East, Murtha apparently prefers the old way of doing business with Arabs, where he gets juice from the sheiks.

The Democrats’ cheat-sheet on Murtha demands that it be shouted out: “He didn’t take a bribe on tape!” That’s their defense. There is not even a pretense that he didn’t talk to Arabs about a bribe.

He negotiated with a prostitute at the bar, but never consummated the deal. He’s a saint! Let him be my congressman!

It’s the Clintonian “incompetency” defense: Murtha was willing to be bribed; he just never got his act together enough to pick up the cash. I may not be honest, but I’m way too disorganized to actually take bribes!

Fine, Murtha was never convicted. Neither was Nixon. Venal hack John Murtha was willing to sell his country’s interests to Arab sheiks. This is the man Democrats have put up to lead the anti-war charge today, demanding that the commander in chief stop deploying troops against his Arab friends.

If only this whole war thing would blow over, maybe that Arab is still waiting out there with a deal for him.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Kryptonite for Liberals

February 17, 2007 at 5:05 pm (clinton, conyers, edwards, hillary, kucinich, liberal, matsui, McDermott, murtha, pelosi, politics, sanchez, sanders, Uncategorized, waters, waxman, woolsey)

Epitaph For Jim Garrison: Romancing the Assassination

THE NEW YORKER
November 30, 1992

by Edward Jay Epstein

 

Permalink Leave a Comment

The Inconvenient Truth of Socialism

February 17, 2007 at 2:22 pm (clinton, conyers, edwards, hillary, kucinich, liberal, matsui, McDermott, murtha, pelosi, politics, sanchez, sanders, Uncategorized, waters, waxman, woolsey)

Socialist President Hugo Chavez announced Thursday that a new currency will be introduced into the Venezuelan money supply next year to combat inflation.

Inflation ended at 17 percent last year — the highest rate in Latin America. The exchange rate of the bolivar has been fixed by the socialist government since 2003 at 2,150 bolivars to $1, its black-market value has been trading at 4,000 bolivars to the US dollar.

This is a prime example of failed socialist policy. An incompetent populist wins office, the people suffer. 

Chavez, Clinton, 

Biden,Pelosi,Kucinich,Kennedy,Kerry,Ortega,Morales,Hoyer,Murtha,etc…

Permalink Leave a Comment

Global Warming Scam

February 12, 2007 at 6:02 pm (christianity, clinton, conyers, edwards, global jihad, hillary, islamo fascist, kucinich, liberal, matsui, McDermott, murtha, pelosi, politics, sanchez, sanders, Uncategorized, waters, woolsey)

From

February 11, 2007

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean. 

So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.

What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.

Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.

Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.

Permalink Leave a Comment

The Demotard Jihadi

February 6, 2007 at 7:56 pm (clinton, conyers, edwards, global jihad, hillary, islamo fascist, kucinich, matsui, McDermott, murtha, pelosi, politics, sanchez, sanders, Uncategorized, war on terror, waters, woolsey)

THE Democratic National Committee made a strange choice to deliver the invocation last Friday at its winter meeting: Husham al-Husainy – an extremist who has a long record of support for prominent Islamists at war with America and Israel.Al-Husainy’s words before the Democrats – asking God to “help us stop . . . occupation and oppression” – were jarring enough, since he was likely referring to either American soldiers in Iraq or Jews in Israel.

But his past statements and activity make those words even more ominous.

Al-Husainy heads the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center mosque in Dearborn, Mich., one of the largest Shiite mosques in North America. He is an open admirer of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini – under whose rule Americans were held hostage for 444 days.

During last summer’s Israel-Hezbollah war, al-Husainy led rallies in Dearborn in support of the Lebanese terrorist group. Protesters displayed swastikas as well as anti-American and anti-Semitic posters.

I attended one rally, at Dearborn’s Bint Jebail Cultural Center – named for the stronghold in south Lebanon from which Hezbollah rockets rained on Israel. Al-Husainy was among several who delivered hate-filled, anti-American rhetoric. He cheered as others called for the hastened destruction of the Jews.

Permalink Leave a Comment

The Global Warming Scam

February 6, 2007 at 4:18 pm (christianity, clinton, conservative, conyers, edwards, hillary, kucinich, matsui, McDermott, murtha, pelosi, politics, religion, sanchez, sanders, Uncategorized, waters, woolsey)

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don’t pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. “It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species,” wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970’s global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990’s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn’t occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, “State of Fear” he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen’s. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology – especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don’t understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: “the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.” Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky’s book “Yes, but is it true?” The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky’s findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky’s students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Really Bad News from Iran

February 5, 2007 at 4:38 pm (christianity, clinton, conservative, conyers, edwards, global jihad, hillary, islamo fascist, kucinich, matsui, McDermott, murtha, pelosi, politics, religion, sanchez, sanders, Uncategorized, war on terror, waters, woolsey)

Iran has converted one of its most powerful ballistic missiles into a satellite launch vehicle. The 30-ton rocket could also be a wolf in sheep’s clothing for testing longer-range missile strike technologies, Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine reports in its Jan. 29 issue.

The Iranian space launcher has recently been assembled and “will liftoff soon” with an Iranian satellite, according to Alaoddin Boroujerdi, the chairman of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission.

The move toward an independent space launch capacity is likely to ratchet up concern in the U.S. and Europe about Iran’s strategic capabilities and intents. Orbiting its own satellite would send a powerful message throughout the Muslim world about the Shiite regime in Tehran.

U.S. agencies believe the launcher to be a derivation of either of two vehicles — the liquid-propellant, 800-1,000-mi. range Shahab 3 missile, or the 1,800-mi. range, solid propellant Ghadar-110. A Shahab 3 or a Ghadar-110 fired from central Iran could strike anywhere in Israel, Saudi Arabia, the entire Persian Gulf region and as far west as southern Turkey.

There are concerns in the West that space launch upgrades, however, could eventually create an Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) with a range of nearly 2,500 mi., giving Tehran the ability to strike as far as central Europe, well into Russia and even China and India.

The U. S. Defense Intelligence Agency has told the Congress that Iran may be capable of developing a 3,000-mi. range ICBM by 2015.

“But ultimately, their space program aims to orbit reconnaissance satellites like Israel’s “Ofek,” using an Iranian satellite launcher from Iranian territory, says Uzi Rubin, the former head of the Israel Missile Defense Organization. Rubin made his assessment in a report for The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

“A reconnaissance satellite of reasonable performance should weigh about 300 kg. [660 lb.] Once Iran learns how to put 300 kg. into earth orbit, it could adapt the satellite launcher into an ICBM that could drop more than 300 kg anywhere in the world. Remember the impact on the U.S. of Russia’s launch of Sputnik,” Rubin says in his assessment.

Boroujerdi’s made his remarks about the imminent Iranian launch in a speech before a group of religious students and clerics in the city of Qom near where Iran has conducted some of its ballistic missile tests. Iran is now in the midst of military exercises that include a series of shorter-range missile tests, Iranian officials say.

Although designed as a technology demonstrator, the planned satellite launch would be a potent political and emotional weapon in the Middle East.

The new space launcher and ongoing missile development is also significant in that it highlights close technological ties between the Iranian and North Korean missiles programs, intelligence agencies agree.

Analysts at GlobalSecurity.org believe that if the version used is the Shahab 3, the modification could be a stepping stone to a clone of the North Korean Taepo Dong 2C/3 ballistic missile that failed in a launch attempt from North Korea last July 4.

A November 2006 Congressional Research Service report reinforced concerns over Iranian and North Korean missile development ties. It notes that Israel’s military intelligence chief has information indicating that North Korea has shipped to Iran eighteen 1,500 mi. range BM-25 ballistic missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

“Largely with foreign help, Iran is becoming self-sufficient in the production of ballistic missiles,” says the report’s author, Kenneth Katzman. And he reminds that a 2006 U.S. National Security Strategy Document notes, “The United States may face no greater challenge from a single country than Iran.”

What are Democrats planning to do about this?

Blame Bush.

Permalink Leave a Comment

The Reason for 9/11!!!

February 5, 2007 at 2:34 pm (christianity, clinton, conservative, conyers, edwards, global jihad, hillary, islamo fascist, kucinich, matsui, McDermott, murtha, pelosi, politics, religion, sanchez, sanders, Uncategorized, war on terror, waters, woolsey)

More than five years after 9/11, the crucial question of why the Islamic radicals decided to strike America remains unanswered. Recall that for at least two decades prior to 9/11, radical Muslims were focused on fighting in their own countries. They were trying to overthrow their local governments and to establish Islamic states under sharia law. America was not their target.

Then, in the mid-to-late 1990s, two of the leading Muslim radicals, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama Bin Laden, decided on a new strategy. They abandoned the tactic of fighting the “near enemy” and decided to take the battle to the “far enemy,” specifically the United States. If Zawahiri and Bin Laden had not changed course, 9/11 would not have happened.

Why, then, did they do so? In his book the Far Enemy, political scientist Fawaz Gerges argues that the radical Muslims’ strategy of fighting the near enemy proved unsuccessful, and so they decided to try something else. “When jihadis met their Waterloo on home-front battles,” Gerges writes, they “turned their guns against the West in an effort to stop the revolutionary ship from sinking.”

Bin Laden himself supplies the answer to this question. He says he developed the suspicion that despite its outward show of power and affluence, the far enemy was weaker and more vulnerable than the near enemy. Bin Laden had witnessed a united force of Muslim fighters, the so-called Arab Afghans, drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. The Arab Afghans, Bin Laden notes, “managed to crush the greatest empire known to mankind. The so-called superpower vanished into thin air.”

Even though the demise of the Soviet Union left the United States as the world’s only superpower, Bin Laden determined that “America is very much weaker than Russia.” Bin Laden based his opinion on America’s military conduct in previous years. He saw that when America found itself in a drawn-out guerilla war in Vietnam, it accepted defeat and withdrew. Americans, Bin Laden concluded, love life so much that they are not willing to risk it. In short, they are cowards. When only 18 American troops were killed in Somalia in 1993, Bin Laden said, “America fled in the dark as fast as it could.”

During the mid to late 1990s, the radical Muslims tested America’s resolve by launching a series of attacks on American targets. These were massive attacks, unprecedented in the damage they inflicted. There was the Khobar Towers attack on American facilities in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of U.S. embassies in East Africa, the suicide assault on the American warship the U.S.S. Cole.

Yet in every case the Clinton administration reacted either by doing nothing, or with desultory counterattacks like a missile strike against unoccupied Afghan tents and the bombing of what was reported to be a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan. Clearly these responses inflicted little harm to Al Qaeda and actually made America look ridiculous in the eyes of the Muslim world.

 Consequently, Bin Laden became convinced that his theory of American irresolution and weakness was substantially correct. By his own account he became emboldened to conceive of a grander and more devastating strike on American shores, the strike that occurred on 9/11.

Even so, this strike could have been prevented had the Clinton administration acted on intelligence leads and struck back at Bin Laden, when it had the chance. Former CIA agent Michael Scheuer estimates that during the second term of the Clinton administration America had approximately 10 opportunities to kill Bin Laden, and took none of them. Even Richard Clarke, Clinton’s terrorism adviser and a Clinton apologist, admits he is mystified why the American government did not go after and eliminate Bin Laden. After all Bin Laden had already declared war on America and made war on American targets abroad.

President Clinton has repeatedly said he made every effort to “get” Bin Laden. But between 1996 (the year Bin Laden moved to Afghanistan) until early 2000 Bin Laden was not exactly in deep hiding. He lived near Kandahar in a house provided by Mullah Omar. He preached in the local mosque. He gave interviews over a period of three years to Peter Arnett of CNN, John Miller of ABC News, a journalist for Time magazine, the British journalist Robert Fisk, the Pakistani editor Abdel Bari Atwan, the folks at Al Jazeera, and others. How come all these people could find Bin Laden but not the Clinton administration?

I’m not suggesting that Clinton did not want to protect America from Bin Laden. I am suggesting that this was not a top priority for his administration. Their top priority was to save Clinton from impeachment and to discredit special prosecutor Ken Starr. Clinton wanted to “get” Starr, and he did. But somehow Bin Laden slipped through the net.

The conclusion seems unavoidable. The Islamic radicals made the decision to attack America on 9/11 because they decided that America was cowardly and weak. They came to this conclusion largely as a result of the actions—and inaction—of the Clinton administration and its allies on the left. What could have been done to get rid of Bin Laden and avert 9/11 was not done. In this sense liberal foreign policy gave radical Muslims the confidence and the opportunity to strike, and they did.

Dinesh D’Souza’s new book The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 has just been published by Doubleday. D’Souza is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Permalink Leave a Comment

US Economy Booming

February 5, 2007 at 2:16 pm (christianity, clinton, conservative, conyers, edwards, global jihad, hillary, islamo fascist, kucinich, matsui, McDermott, murtha, pelosi, politics, religion, sanchez, sanders, Uncategorized, war on terror, waters, woolsey)

Economists are hastily upgrading their forecasts for the US economy after a series of surprisingly strong reports suggesting the so-called “soft landing” may be over and growth is accelerating.
Over the past week, surprises have come in stronger-than-expected reports on US job creation, the trade balance and retail sales — all key contributors to economic activity.

Lehman Brothers chief US economist Ethan Harris on Friday boosted his forecast for fourth quarter 2006 growth to an annualized rate of 3.3 percent, a leap from the firm’s prior call for just 2.0 percent growth.

“After slowing in November, the economy seems to have regained its stride,” Harris said.

“With the last of the major data in, we are now revising fourth quarter GDP to an above-trend 3.3 percent. A wide range of indicators have been stronger than expected. Most important have been the strong consumption data and the surprising improvement in the trade balance.”

The latest data defy predictions that the slump in real estate would filter into other areas of the economy, notably consumer spending.

The latest data showed US employers added a healthy 167,000 new jobs in December, with unemployment holding at a low 4.5 percent. Average wages were up 4.2 percent annually.

A separate report Friday showed US retail sales increased 0.9 percent in December.

Retail sales are closely watched as consumer spending accounts for about two-thirds of US economic activity. Some analysts have theorized that slumping housing prices may crimp spending in a reversal of the so-called wealth effect.

The higher retail sales “will juice up overall real growth in the fourth quarter to about 3.0 percent — a substantial improvement from only 2.0 percent in the third quarter” said Brian Bethune at research firm Global Insight.

Even the US trade deficit, long a source of weakness, improved in the latest report to 58.2 billion dollars in November, as exports increased.

The data have eased pressure on the dollar and lifted the stock market to fresh highs.
Note to Democrats:
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
 

Permalink Leave a Comment

« Previous page · Next page »