We're fighting WWIII, but few seem to care

New York Daily News ^ | 9/15/03 | Bill O'Reilly

[kattracks]

For a country smack in the middle of World War III, we certainly are a blasé bunch. We're worried about how much fighting the people who want to kill us will cost, and whether we have an exit strategy in Iraq. Craven politicians and crazed columnists are second-guessing President Bush, who at times looks like he's first-guessing the nation's foreign policy. Since Bush, for some inexplicable reason, will not spell it out for you, it falls on me to do so. There are around the world thousands of Islamic fanatics who want to kill Americans because they believe Allah is down with that. These people are taught from childhood that Jews and Americans are undeserving of life on this planet. There is no negotiation with most of these zealots; there is nothing one can say to dissuade them. They want blood, and they will use any and all means to get it.

A number of nations help these killers and allow the murderous anti-American indoctrination to continue generation after generation. Iran, Indonesia, Syria and Saudi Arabia are the most threatening to us, although the Saudis do have some pro-American government officials like Prince Bandar, its ambassador to the U.S. Iraq used to be a terrorist enabler, primarily by helping homicide bombers kill civilians in Israel, but Saddam Hussein was open to causing trouble for the U.S. however he could.

The Islamic killers thrive on the Palestinian situation. As long as the Palestinians are denied a state, the propaganda machine that demonizes Israel and America will roll along unchallenged in the Arab world. So the only way to break down the hatred many Arabs have toward us is to forge a Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement that both sides can live with.

For Israel to cooperate in this effort fully, it needs to feel secure. Having the Americans in Iraq helps that effort. Also, the U.S. needs a democratic outpost in the Mideast to pressure the terrorist states of Iran and Syria. A foothold in that region makes it infinitely more difficult for Al Qaeda to do its evil. The huge CIA presence in Iraq alone gives the U.S. a major advantage in learning about terrorist operations before they hurt us.

This nonsense about the UN rescuing America in Iraq is something Aesop would have published. The United Nations is a chaotic chamber with no sense of urgency about terrorism and no sympathy toward the U.S. Some of that antipathy might be justified, but not when American lives are at stake. In a perfect world, all countries that aid and abet terrorism would be isolated. This is far from a perfect world.

The failure of France, Germany, Russia and China to aggressively help America neutralize terror states is an outrage of historic proportions. France is the worst. The Chirac government lied to Secretary of State Powell about enforcing the UN resolution demanding that Saddam cooperate with weapons inspectors. Then France actively undermined both the war and the occupation. Bush should level with the American people about the duplicity of France and, to a lesser extent, Germany. I know this would cause an uproar, but what the French have done to hurt America and Israel is unconscionable.

At the same time, the Bush administration must begin to earnestly persuade nations that are not overtly hostile to us that we don't want to dominate the world, we want to make it safe for everyone.

Finally, WWIII is unlike any war in history, and mistakes will be made in fighting it. The Bush administration has the correct global view regarding terrorism but poor communications skills both inside the country and abroad.

The sad truth: Most people don't know World War III is underway and have little understanding of the stakes and strategies. But believe me, you and your family are in danger. We must stop the partisan bickering and acknowledge that brainwashed fanatics have us in their sights.

This time, there's no Geneva Convention and no limits on deadly weaponry. This time, there is no exit strategy. It's us or them.

Originally published on September 15, 2003

[Samwise]

O'Reilly Bump

[7thson]

My sister called me yesterday eve. She is not too bright and was continually ranting on about there is no communication between the President and the nation, no comms between the troops and the Iraqi police, that the economy is bad, that Bush needs to help the economy of America, etc. No matter how I tried to explain it to her, she could not get it.

Perhaps Bill is right on this. Maybe the President does need to get on the tube - once a week - and explain the situation. I do not think it will help much though if he does not declare that Islam is the enemy. Start off by showing a map of the world with all major conflicts. Tell the American public the common factor of all these conflicts. Declare that while the United States wants to live in peace, we will not tolerate this outside or inside our borders. Tell Israel that they have a free reign. Declare Arrafat a terrorist and order his demise. None of this matter though if our borders remain open and liberal states - such as Kalifornia - continue to degrade our effort in order to get votes. But hey, that seems to be what the Repubs are doing?

[Sabertooth]

For a country smack in the middle of World War III, we certainly are a blasé bunch. We're worried about how much fighting the people who want to kill us will cost, and whether we have an exit strategy in Iraq. Craven politicians and crazed columnists are second-guessing President Bush, who at times looks like he's first-guessing the nation's foreign policy. Since Bush, for some inexplicable reason, will not spell it out for you, it falls on me to do so. There are around the world thousands of Islamic fanatics who want to kill Americans because they believe Allah is down with that. These people are taught from childhood that Jews and Americans are undeserving of life on this planet. There is no negotiation with most of these zealots; there is nothing one can say to dissuade them. They want blood, and they will use any and all means to get it.

This highlights one of the problems with not actually having a Declaration of War. The enemy is poorly defined and the terms required for armistice are anybody's guess. Into this vacuum, the President's political foes can throw whatever craven terms they please.

Not a surprise at all.

[Quix]

too true.

[Remole]

Exactly true. John Podhoretz wrote a lengthy essay on this point in Commentary Magazine about 6-8 months ago--very worthwhile tracking it down.

[PISANO]

We're worried about how much fighting the people who want to kill us will cost

You can bet the farm that the brutal and negative media coverage of this WAR would NOT exist if the XIMPOTUS (or any gimmie for that matter) were the C-in-C. Also if there were Repulican candidates they certainly COULD not get away with the personal attacks on a gimmie president. Imagine if you will a Trent Lott calling say President Al Gore a GANG LEADER!!

[carton253]

How early in the morning did you have to get up to pull together this pile of crap...

[johnny7]

But I have faith in Americans.

I bet you do. Hows the weather in Damascus this morning?

[Noachian]

What everyone seems to forget is that this war on terrorism will not only go on for years, but it will go one under different administrations.

This is NOT Bush's war as the liberals would have us believe. This is a war that may conceivably span future generations, and future presidents from both parties. Americans will be living on a war-time footing over a long period of time, and this process will alter the mentality of future Americans as well as the leaders they pick.


The aberrant behavior of the 60's flower children will no longer apply to future Americans who have threats of skyscrapers falling on their heads, and future leaders cannot expect to be elected on issues that divide the nation rather than bring it together. Security will be uppermost on the minds of Americans, and future elected leaders that allow terrorist's to damage American soil will have a short political career. Liberals will have to come to terms with the future steeling of American will, and that the Jane Fonda-types, giving aid to those who would destroy us, will be harshly held accountable for their actions.



Because there are so many terrorists it's logical to assume that a few will breach our security people, and cause another 9/11. The "odds" favor such a disaster happening by those who wish to destroy our way of life. If such an event happened under a liberal administration it would spell political disaster for liberals everywhere. Threats of annihilation tend to make Americans testy, and testy Americans who have weapons of mass destruction are not to be trifled with. Our enemy's need only remember that America went nuclear once before, and that was under a Democratic President.

[Paleo Conservative]

But these are not normal circumstances, because the left (which controls the press and academia) hates Bush so much they'd rather see their own country go down in flames than admit the reality of this new war and help him pursue it.

It's not their country. They are "citizens of the world". They would gladly destroy the United States and its Constitution to advance their leftist agenda.

[bankwalker]

It's not their country. They are "citizens of the world". They would gladly destroy the United States and its Constitution to advance their leftist agenda.

Unfortunately, you are absolutely correct. They used to just think it, now they openly admit it.

[MortMan]

More!

[Paleo Conservative]

Exactly true. John Podhoretz wrote a lengthy essay on this point in Commentary Magazine about 6-8 months ago--very worthwhile tracking it down.

He wrote a similar editorial back in November 2001 that appeared in the Wall Street Journal

[Protagoras]

This isn't WWIII and after he starts with that BS the rest slides downhill too.

[Protagoras]

I think the first time two groups of cave men fought over the women and hunting territory it was the first world war, so based on that we are on WW10567.

Which is about as accurate as O'Reillys statement.

[Savage Beast]

What you have said (post # 10) is entirely true and well said.

"the left (which controls the press and academia) hates Bush so much they'd rather see their own country go down in flames than admit the reality of this new war and help him pursue it."
~livius~

Yes, the Left, the Democrat Party, is utterly corrupt and morally bankrupt--and this from a man whose parents, grandparents, and great grandparents were all Democrats.