This guy has a point, but man, does he go on and on.
The one thing that surprises me is how this story has managed to evade the more American style race mongering, such as "I'm not gonna fly on this plane with a colored person aboard." I mean, some articles did try to spin it this way, but it didn't seem to fly to well with the focus groups.
Now, if the passengers had been Americans I wonder how this story would've been told.
But as this author correctly notes, the elites live in an alternate reality from most normal folks.
Actually, it was the effective hard work of NAto and Pakistani militaries puttting pressure on Waziristan that caused the bad guys to make a mistake and one of them get arreste on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border and yield info about the airline bombing. As there are not even any roads in that territory, it is not an area that lends itself to police work.
As for the conclusion, hopefully most people realize that serious problems cannot be solved in tiny soundbites in a 24 hour news cycle.
The candidate for president next time, either party, who announces these common sense positions will win the White House by acclamation.
Want to bet none of them has the guts to stand up to the elites in the universities and media?
Whomever does it wins.
It is not relevant what Muslims want. Most Japanese, Germans, and Italians in WWII probably wanted peace and Democracy too. As long as people are cowed by despots, there will be no peace and democracy.
"Equal-opportunity passenger screening at airports is a better policy than profiling.
Profiling may or may not have stopped 9/11. However, we do know that all the suspects were young Islamic males. And we know that the passengers who fought them to the death on Flight 93 were NOT young Islamic males!
"The United Nations is the world's conscience and policeman."
The United Nations has the conscience of a pimp and the ethics of a wise guy. "Oil for food" and "brothels" are the goals of these vermin.
"The "international community" will deal with Iran's quest for nuclear weapons."
Germany, France, and Italy don't want to go to South Lebanon as it is. They sure as hell don't to go to war against Iran.
"It is possible for the United States to bring about a constructive transformation of Middle East politics, either through diplomatic or military initiatives."
Militarily - yes, diplomatically - NO!
Finally! Common Sense is starting to prevail!
bttt
1. The Middle East is a hopeless cauldron of hatred. We should focus on homeland security, stay out of the Middle East, and have as little interaction with the Muslim world as possible; or
2. A major war is inevitable, so that we need to get ready for it. Nothing else will stop Iranian aggression, and nothing else will stifle the funding, sponsoring, and glorification of terrorists.
No. 1, the "head in the sand" policy, was the policy during the Clinton years. Meanwhile, terrorists took over Afghanistan and established numerous training camps turning out tens of thousands of trained jihadis, Pakistan got the nuclear bomb, the Qadeer Khan nuclear proliferation ring got underway, Saddam had his WMD programs back in high gear, jihadi bombers killed hundreds of US employees in embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania (why do liberals only count the US citizens and not the US employees?), etc etc.
A similar "head in the sand" policy was followed during the Carter years with respect to international communism, with disastrous results.
Just because we don't want to interact with muslims doesn't mean muslims don't want to "interact" with us.
I for one am greatly disappointed that we haven't stomped a mudhole in the chest of any terrorist organization or terrorist-supporting government lately. Afghanistan and Iraq showed us that our armed forces are perfectly capable of doing it, and if any group deserved such treatment, it was Hezbollah, which has the blood of some 300 Americans on its hands. Instead, we pressured Israel into accepting a cease-fire that nobody expects will last, because in the Middle East, cease-fire is another word for "reload!" Alas, the latest news from Lebanon, Iran, etc. tells me that nobody in a position of power in our government is serious about winning the War on Terror, including our president. Well, there are times when victory is a better goal than peace.
Option 1 is a retreat in the face of the enemy. It would mean more than disengagement from the Middle East, it would mean retreat worldwide. It is not a realistic option.
True. But he hasn't surfaced yet. When he does, we'll know him, just like we knew Reagan was "it".
You have to admit it -- the French have perfected the art of surrender to the highest levels possible, surrender before a shot is fired or an army is formed.
What do you get if you do a three way hybrid of a Crocodile, a Bulldog and a member of a certain sect of an insane cult? Answer, a Crocobullshiite.