I see over at LGF that CAIR is showing it's support for the terrorists attacking Israel. Maybe now people in this country will see them for what they are, an undercover terrorists organization operating within the U.S.

Nah. With the Vatican, Europe, Liberals, Academia and much of the press claiming Israel's response is disproportionate, I doubt if the idiots here will understand that CAIR is truly evil.

Can't we all just get along?

(I.e., if only you would stop bombing strategic military targets--then we could have peace while we continue to bomb your women and children like we did in the good old days.)

I can understand CAIR supporting the terrorists and blaming Israel, but I can't understand how ANY AMERICAN JEW can still support the libs/Dems/msm in its continuing anti-Israel/anti-Bush/anti-GWOT stance.

I thought Jews were noted for their intelligence and historical learning.

Can anyone explain, or is it just a case of Judaism in America being co-opted by a new religion a/k/a Modern Day Liberalism -- with the new centers of religion being our Public Education System spreading the seeds of anti-semitism (a/k/a "cultural relativism").

I've been wondering the same thing, Ted.

I'd like to think they're smarter than that, but I won't hold my breath.

"I see over at LGF that CAIR is showing it's support for the terrorists attacking Israel."

I looked at LGF for the "support" you cite and couldn't find it. Can you provide a link to what you feel is an example of CAIR showing support?

The LGF thread is here:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21556_CAIR_Plays_the_Dual_Loyalty_Card&only

To be strictly fair, CAIR isn't so much supporting the terrorists as decrying Israel's response.

Thanks Goddess - From LGF: (empahasis theirs)

CAIR Asks Bush To Demand That Israel Allow Evacuation of Americans in Lebanon.

"If a call for the full cessation of attacks on the civilian population of an American ally is too much to ask for, at least we can demand that Israel stop its bombing campaign long enough to evacuate American citizens," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. "The highest duty of any president is to protect the lives of Americans."

Awad also called on the State Department to issue an advisory to U.S. citizens in the Israeli armed forces that they risk violating the Neutrality Act by taking part in attacks on a friendly nation.

I would argue that calling Lebanon a "friendly" nation requires a gross suspension of disbelief, especially when the rockets were launched from its soil.

Unless, of course, CAIR meant that THEY consider Lebanon friendly; then it all makes sense.

Lee--

Neutrality Act? There were actually three laws going by that name. From the 1939 law (which explicitly repealed the 1935 and 1937 Neutrality Acts):

That whenever the President, or the Congress by concurrent resolution, shall find that there exists a state of war between foreign states, and that it is necessary to promote the security or preserve the peace of the United States or to protect the lives of citizens of the United States, the President shall issue a proclamation naming the states involved; and he shall, from time to time, by proclamation, name other states as and when they may become involved in the war.

So the Neutrality Act doesn't apply, unless the President issues a proclaimation to that effect. Which hasn't happened yet, and doesn't seem likely as of this minute.

Goddess --

CAIR may have meant Lebanon as friendly to the United States, which is a far more reasonable position. Not unfriendly, maybe. Less so than France, anyway.

Awad also called on the State Department to issue an advisory to U.S. citizens in the Israeli armed forces that they risk violating the Neutrality Act by taking part in attacks on a friendly nation.

I love it when unknowledgeable twerps play a loyyer on the 'net.

Just when you think nothing could be funny about a situation, somebody like "Awad" shows up to break the tension.

What a card.

Thanks for relaying that, Lee.

Just remember: at, not with.

I agree 100%. Same bad guys. Different place.

I also remember Isrial fighting a THREE FRONT WAR and kickin' butt!

You go little country!

Watching this unfold, I'm reminded of the Nazi rocket attack on Enlish soil. Only today, it is muslim bombs trying to kill us all.It is time to wipe out terrorists wherever we find them, period.

rwilymz and Starshatterer - All I did was copy and paste the words at LGF that Scrapiron said shows "support for the terrorists attacking Israel", without any spin or opinion of my own. The emphasis in the quote was, as I stated, LGF's not mine.

As I recall the Hydra could not be killed by chopping off a head or two. You had to attack the body. It is just the same with terrorism.

Until we take out the terrorist states, terrorism will be an active threat.

The real difficulty of course is the lack of support for decisive action against the terrorist states using the terrorists as a quasi-military 'stealth' arm of aggression. So the status quo remains until the terror networks gain access to nukes and deploy them.

But even with the loss of an american city, the left will blame the 'warmongers' and seek appeasement. They are the natural slaves of those who would rule through despotism.

The only reason they are free is because of the 'sheepdogs' who are protecting them.

What has changed is that the 'sheep' have convinced themselves that there aren't real wolves. It's ALL just a misunderstanding and the result of an deprived childhood environment. That is because they want to live in a world where there are only sheep.

Enough generations have been artificially insulated from the 'real' world long enough to have a world-view that does not allow for 'unpleasant' realities.

It's a mild form of 'insanity', most prevalent in the ivory tower environment of the classroom. An environment perfectly insulated against accountability and real world consequence.

But it isn't merely a case of idealistic presumption. It is the left's nature to submit to those who would rule over them through force.

There are just wolves, sheep and sheepdogs. When the sheepdogs are neutralized by the sheep, it is only a matter of time till the wolves show up.

Ted

but I can't understand how ANY AMERICAN JEW can still support the libs/Dems/msm in its continuing anti-Israel/anti-Bush/anti-GWOT stance.

How is one to explain these Jews who work to hurt Jews?

I think the primary explanations are psychological. As I wrote in a previous column, it is almost impossible to overstate the pathological effects of thousands of years of murder of Jews -- culminating in the Nazi Holocaust, when nearly all Jews on the European continent were murdered -- have had on most Jews.[...]

One way to deal with this is to side with the enemy. Consciously or not, the Jew who sides with those dedicated to murdering Jews feels that he will be spared. He becomes the "good Jew" in the anti-Semites' eyes. How else to explain the visit of a Jew named Noam Chomsky to Lebanon to support Hezbollah or the fact that Chomsky wrote the foreword to a French book denying the Holocaust? How else to explain Norman Finkelstein telling cheering German audiences that the Jewish state is morally the same as the Nazis? How else to explain rabbis visiting Tehran to extol the Holocaust-denying regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran that seeks to exterminate Israel?

The other psychological explanation is related. The Jew -- specifically the radical Jew -- who sympathizes with Jew-haters wishes to announce to the world that he is not really like other Jews. While the other Jews are moored in provincial Jewish ethnic or religious identity, he is a world citizen who no more identifies with the Jews' fate than with the fate of Iroquois Indians.

D-Brit: "What has changed is that the 'sheep' have convinced themselves that there aren't real wolves. It's ALL just a misunderstanding and the result of an deprived childhood environment. That is because they want to live in a world where there are only sheep."

The nation--left, right and center--was totally and fully behind the war on terror at the outset. Right after 9/11 GWB's approval rating skyrocketed, and the nation was fully behind the effort.

George subsequently failed to execute on the war on terror, chosing to focus on the war in Iraq instead, and the lies we were told about the connectiion between terorism and Iraq began to break down, only to be followed by unneeded assaults on American civil liberties. The lack of support you see now is only the result of Bush's lies and failures ot execute.

Yes, the far left has taken advantage of the Republican adminstration's mistakes and capitalized on it politically - but don't confuse the nation's current lack of support for GWB's war on terror as being indicative of a nation of sheep. Recent history proves otherwise - that our nation can and will throw their support behind a war on terrorism.

Bring forward a real leader who is capable of executing a war on terrorism, an FDR -- or a Ronald Reagan or a Colin Powell if you prefer a Republican -- and you would see this nation once again rally behind the war on terrorism.

Also, the Iraq War ended in 2003, and the occupation which followed has been a disaster. Don't confuse the majority's lack of support for our continued presence in Iraq as indicative of the nations' "sheepishness" either.

Lee, quit it. The left has never supported any military ventures by the U.S. 10000 body bags in the first Gulf War. Afghanistan brought down the Soviet Union, we can not win a war there. We are losing in Iraq. Well, Saddam is no longer in Kuwait, thanks G.H.W.Bush. The Taliban is not running Afghanistant and they are going to hang Saddam from a tree. Thank G.W. Bush. Acting alone or in concert, the Bush Presdidents have been very sucessful at foreign policy.

Lee at July 15, 2006 03:17 PM

Your very words fully confirm my point.

Your whole screed is an attempt to rewrite history, using the same tired 'talking points' mouthed incessantly by the MSM. The old 'tell a lie often enough and people will start to believe it'.

The reasons why your screed is a lie have been conclusively demonstrated over and over again. It's a waste of time to do it once again. When all is said and done your position remains one of appeasement.

The only question is whether it is ignorance or intentional disingenuousness that motivates you.

You wouldn't recognize a real leader if your life depended on it because your life does depend upon it and you don't even recognize that most basic reality. This is perfectly illustrated by your choices for examples of 'real' leaders.

FDR would never get the chance to lead in todays democratic party. Ronald Reagan is anathema to todays democratic party, they would react to him just as they do Bush. Colin Powell? Surely you jest? Colin Powell is not a leader, he's an administrator.

As for your claim that if a 'real' leader emerged, the nation would rally behind them, what a joke, the left will settle for nothing less than appeasement, and with Islamic fanatics (wolves) that is certain defeat.

Zelsdorf - Wow - Look how quickly conservaties forget the "flip-flopping" lefties who supported the war initially --- when forgetting that fact supports their arguments...

And as to Democrats in general - you need only look GWB's job approval rating to see how it spiked up right after 9/11. Democrats suported the war on terrorism, but George dropped the ball.

[GWB's job approval graphic]

The closest you came to a logical argument D-Brit was: "The reasons why your screed is a lie have been conclusively demonstrated over and over again. It's a waste of time to do it once again. When all is said and done your position remains one of appeasement.", but you then failed to execute any arguments, spiraling down into overheated babble, failing to execute... much like poor King George.

"but you then failed to execute any arguments, spiraling down into overheated babble, failing to execute... much like poor King George." Posted by: Lee

Nice try Lee but not good enough by half. I said, "The reasons why your screed is a lie have been conclusively demonstrated over and over again. It's a waste of time to do it once again. When all is said and done your position {will remain} remains one of appeasement."

You just made my point, again. I said I wouldn't lay out the rationale because its been proven, over and over again to be a waste of time and energy and you responded with, "See, he won't execute!"

The appropriate response would be to demonstrate through your actions a willingness to listen and then respond substantively, addressing forthrightly the objections to your position and acknowleging when unable to do so. But then intellectual honesty is NOT what you are about, is it?

Liberals such as yourself do NOT respond to reasoned argument, nor logic. You do NOT debate fairly, under the long established rules of debate. It is clear your only interest is in furtherence of your agenda.

Rhetorically speaking, after all, why respond substantively when you know you're right? Especially when its so much easier to label the other as, at best a troglodite and at worst, evil personified.

No matter what reasons given, you just return to your position. A better illustration of a closed mind one would be hard pressed to find.

Lee fails (intentionally?) to grasp that popularity is for beauty contests, not dealing with Islamism.

The contemporary Copperhead Democrats can libel and slander all they want, but they do so at the peril of the best interests of this nation by promulgating a return to 9/10/01 bringing purring kitties and fluffy bunnies.

d_Brit

Many of us have tried at different times to get the troll to respond in a coherent manner. It never happened, and probably never will. You see, he has shown over and over that he does not feel the necessity to be held to the same standard he demands from others.

So asking the troll to respond to statements you have made is a waste of time, that is why many of us do not reposnd to the troll any longer.

Please don't feed the troll.

George subsequently failed to execute on the war on terror, chosing to focus on the war in Iraq instead\

You say that as if they are manifestly seperable.

and the lies we were told about the connectiion between terorism and Iraq began to break down,

Reality: Iraq funded terrorism.

More reality: Iraq had al Qaida splinter groups training in Iraq.

The claims made by certain people are that the Administration claimed that Iraq was reponsible for 9-11 -- which was not claimed, although many people believe[d] it.

Others claim -- and you are one, apparently -- that Iraq had no connection to pan-islamism whatsoever.

Both of those claims are false.

only to be followed by unneeded assaults on American civil liberties.

Those assualts on civil liberties predated the War in Iraq. Calendar. Practice.

The lack of support you see now is only the result of Bush's lies and failures ot execute.

Tell me more about this "failure to execute".

Try conquering a nation of 25million in 6 weeks with as few casualties -- soldier and civilian, both; friendly as well as enemy -- as the US did; operate an occupation of that non-subdued population, for over three years, with as few casualties as there's been.

Three and a half years of war and occupation in Iraq has yeilded the casualties of 6 months of Vietnam. ...yet Iraq is a "quagmire".

The only quagmire lies in the inability of the critics to find a suitably catchy epithet by which to sneer at it.

Find me one example in history where anyone has done something similar in a better way. No, son, the problem is not the execution; you may have an argument about the choice of plans in the first place being an Nth-degree solution to a finite problem, but it was executed very very well.

d_brit said: Liberals such as yourself do NOT respond to reasoned argument, nor logic. You do NOT debate fairly, under the long established rules of debate. It is clear your only interest is in furtherence of your agenda.

Damn, you;re a poor loser - and when the reason you lost is that you gave up, it's even sadder...

rwilymz says: "No, son, the problem is not the execution; you may have an argument about the choice of plans in the first place being an Nth-degree solution to a finite problem, but it was executed very very well."

We hear again from those who confuse the war in Iraq, which ended in 2003 -- with the war on terror. Our borders still aren't secure, and federal response to Katrina showed just how poorly this administration has done in preparing for local disasters. Imagine the thousands -- perhaps hundred of thousands - who would have lost their lives had the disaster been a biological release in Los Angeles instead of a hurricane in New Orleans -- a hurricane that we knew was coming several days in advance.

Bush has not executed on the war on terror. Airport security continues to be a mess - and the recent Houston flap shows not only how poorly prepared we still are with respect to airline security - and also showing that the terrorists are still out there -- probing.

Now let's talk about border security. No, let's not - that's a totally f*cked up well-documented mess as well.

King George executed on the war on Iraq -- after telling Americans numerous lies in justification for entering Iraq, and then bungled the occupation and exit. The Iraq War has done nothing to slow down AQ -- and after King George finishes putting this nation deeply in debt, they will rise and strike at us again.

We hear again from those who confuse the war in Iraq, which ended in 2003 -- with the war on terror.

One is part of the other.

No matter how many times you have to change out of your tinkled-in panties, the answer isn't going to change.

Our borders still aren't secure,

Do you honestly believe that such policies are turn-key systems? Push a button, voila! instantly secure borders. Life is not a microwave meal, son.

federal response to Katrina showed just how poorly this administration has done in preparing for local disasters.

You aren't going to get me to rationalize DHS. So just stop now.

Bush has not executed on the war on terror

I've always found unsubstantiated assertion very convincing, myself.

Airport security continues to be a mess

This is you again demanding that I rationalize DHS. Ain't gonna happen.

Now let's talk about border security. No, let's not - that's a totally f*cked up well-documented mess as well.

Bingo. And the fuckers are of every party. No points won for anyone.

King George executed on the war on Iraq

Hasn't been such a king in a few hundred years.

after telling Americans numerous lies in justification for entering Iraq, and then bungled the occupation and exit.

Gotta love that unsubstantiated assertion.

Come back when you can do something besides quote MoveOn. Okay sparky?