Assault Therapy: Terror, Clinton And ‘Facts, Shmacts’

September 27, 2006

No more nice talk. Time for a reality smackdown. Think of it as ‘assault therapy,’ where you get reality beaten into you.

The war in Iraq is not the source of new terrorists. Most Iraqis are sick and tired of the ongoing carnage in their country, perpetrated by terrorists coming from other countries that have never had great love for the US and democracy.
In fact, these groups and organizations have been engaging in terror and mayhem long before 9/11 or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The terror threat has been escalating for years.

These newly minted dysfunctional terror misfits are encouraged to go into Iraq by equally dysfunctional educational and religious authorities that have portrayed the murder of Kafirs as a religious obligation for decades. When these homicidal lunatics make their way into Iraq (usually via Syria, another monument to dysfunctional regimes), they end up mostly killing fellow Muslims, even as they claim to be fighting the hated kafirs.

Let’s be clear- the terror and hate has been escalating for years before 9/11, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Saudi textbooks were even more vicious and ugly than they now. Arab newspapers were replete with lurid stories of Jews using the blood of Christians to bake Passover food and Purim cakes. Throughout much of the Islamic world, Jews and Christians have referred to as sons of ‘monkeys and pigs,’ with escalating regularity prior 9/11.

Prior to 2001, as it is today, anti Jewish sentiment was as pronounced as ever, with even more explicit calls to ‘Slaughter the Jews!’ broadcast on PA media and from many religious pulpits. The same anti Jewish sentiment and conspiracy theories found in Pakistan today (a country with no Jews) is not different than it was before 9/11.

The war in Iraq had nothing to do with escalating levels of terror and the increasing number of terrorists. The only difference the war on terror and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have made is to expose the escalating rot and dysfunction that was already there.

What the media won’t discuss is that most Iraqis, like most civilized people, want nothing more than to live in peace in freedom. The media has experience avoiding that kind of reality. They made Che Guevara, the butcher of tens of thousands, a ‘People’s Leader,’ too, a political figure.

If Hillary Clinton is right, and Bill really didn’t know Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden was a real threat to the America homeland and Americans, then he, his administration and the entire Democrat Party owe Oliver North a huge apology. During Ronald Reagan’s tenure in office, North testified under oath that he believed Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were direct threats to the Americans and the Homeland (CORRECTION: Oliver North actually named Abu Nidal and not Osama bin Laden in his Senate testimony. If anything, the Democrats had even more warning that terror was coming to our shores- and not just from OBL- ed).  North even predicted a terror attack. He was excoriated and dismissed, ridiculed by the Democrats and later by the Clinton Administration. If he weren’t, his warnings that terror was someday going to come to our shores would have been taken seriously.

So much for earnest finger pointing changing reality.

No wonder so many leftists are attracted to a more simple, back to an ‘off the grid’ lifestyle. That would eliminated TV and videotape records. Reality would be whatever Mother Earth and crystals told them in a dream just prior to the Vernal and Autumnal Equinox celebrations. The messages they receive from the ‘spirits’ of the ancestors, as they dance nude around a huge bonfire, are very different from believing in God that has a message for us, yes indeed (mostly because that message is one of responsibility and accountability-ugh!).
The Anchoress has a signature expression she uses, when she exposes the hypocrisy of the media and the left, even as they refuse to acknowledge reality. She likes to say, ‘Facts, Shmacts….’ She last uses that phrase in a blistering reality assault in her post, Clinton Versus Condi… The post is a keeper:

Clinton is not the right president to prove a “liar.” The press wants desperately to bring down a president, but Clinton is not the one. And so, facts-schmacts, the only facts that matter are the ones the master can pull out of thin air.

We linked to her post before, but we do so again because we share similar blogger DNA- The Anchoress can slap them silly with the best of them (that means SC&A).

Lastly, a story in Time Magazine about Israel and the Palestinians drew our ire because of the author’s assertions and falsehoods. As the Anchoress says, ‘facts, shmacts, who needs facts?’

The article states that the west should recognize the Hamas government (openly committed to Israel’s destruction and the elimination of Jews) because it was democratically elected. As we have said many times, Adolph Hitler, too, was elected by a democratic election process.

Simply being voted into office does not confer moral standing to any government. Had the west rebuffed and then confronted Hitler when he was elected, 50 million lives would have been saved.

The only thing the election of Hamas proved was that the proud racist, genocidal and hateful agenda of Hamas, was warmly embraced and received by the Palestinians. LIke the German volk, before them, they have made their choice. In the end, it will be they who will pay the price as they follow Hamas in lockstep into an evil war they will not win.

The article also speaks of Palestinian rejectionism:

…a widely held belief among Palestinians that “Yasser Arafat and the PLO recognized the State of Israel in the Oslo agreement and what did they gain from that? Only suffering and misfortune”….the settler population in the West Bank actually doubled during the Oslo years.

Guess what?

Further, UN Resolution 242 does not require Israel to pull back to pre 1967 borders. The Resolution calls for the establishment of ‘secure and recognized borders.’

In an article in the Beirut Daily Star on June 12, 1974, Lord Caradon and one of the original drafters of 242, said that,

“It would have been wrong to demand Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That’s why we didn’t demand the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to.”

Ah, pesky reality.

Lastly, the author cites Sandy Tolan as a voice of reason and authority.

We have had our say on Sandy Tolan, one of the great UC-Berkely frauds and hypocrites.

About these ads

11 Responses to “Assault Therapy: Terror, Clinton And ‘Facts, Shmacts’”

  1. BWE Says:

    http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.asp

    “If Hillary Clinton is right, and Bill really didn’t know Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden was a real threat to the America homeland and Americans, then he, his administration and the entire Democrat Party owe Oliver North a huge apology. During Ronald Reagan’s tenure in office, North testified under oath that he believed Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were direct threats to the Americans and the Homeland. North even predicted an attack. He was excoriated and dismissed, ridiculed by the Democrats and later by the Clinton Administration. If he weren’t, his warnings that terror was someday going to come to our shores would have been taken seriously.”

    turns out it aint true.

  2. SC&A Says:

    Yes, it was true.

    North only misspoke when he OBL’s name wrong- the rest of the testimony was correct. He did warn America about terror in the homeland.

    Or did you just forget that?

    ‘Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?’

    Oliver replied, ‘Yes I did sir.’

    The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, ‘Isn’t this just a little excessive?’

    ‘No sir,’ continued Oliver.

    ‘No. And why not?’

    ‘Because the life of my family and I were threatened.’

    ‘Threatened? By who.’

    ‘By a terrorist, sir.’

    ‘Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?’

    ‘His name is Abu Nidal’

    At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn’t pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn’t. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued.

    ‘Why are you so afraid of this man?’

    ‘Because sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of.’

    ‘And what do you recommend we do about him?’

    ‘If it were me I would recommend an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth.’

  3. Chris Rohde Says:

    Powerful stuff sir, and a good read. Thank you for taking the time to write it, and I will be adding you to my blogroll and RSS so I can check back. One day I’ll get around to writing a well thought out and explained post, maybe you can read it then too.

    semper fi,
    Chris

  4. BWE Says:

    “North testified under oath that he believed Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were direct threats to the Americans and the Homeland”

    Which he didn’t. Not true.

    In fact, not that I want to go around excoriating politicians and military men, but

    “To the extent that bin Laden was known to the western world in 1987, it was not as a “terrorist” but as one of the U.S.-backed “freedom fighters” participating in the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.”

    From the same article.

    If you want to write a different article saying that North had warned that Islamic radicals would attack america and that Clinton didn’t do enough to protect americans that would be OK. But you are biting off too much with that paragraph I think. You are using false info to paint clinton as a bad guy (when there is plenty of good info out there) and you are also trying to paint North as something good when in fact, whether you are liberal or conservative, he is a criminal, convicted of truly heinous crimes of which he was guilty. And moreover, he was only aware of OBL in the context of our ALLY. So, no. You are wrong and that entire part of your article is wrong.

    Your unwillingness to figure that out and your hostility in defendending your inaccuracies seems to bring your credibility as a commentator into question. No?

    I was sort of expecting an “oops” or something. :-/

  5. Fausta Says:

    Re: Abu Nidal,
    Saddam in the 1990s had been sheltering two of the most notorious Palestinian terrorists: Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas. Abu Nidal (who supposedly commited suicide in Baghdad in 2002) might have had links with Atta. Abu Abbas, who masterminded the Achile Lauro hijaking in 1985, was arrested in 2003.

    Victor Davis Hanson, two years ago wrote: There was a reason Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were in Baghdad. And it was the same reason why al Qaeda was working in Kurdistan, why al Zarqawi went to Baghdad to Saddam’s doctors, why there is good reason to believe that before the first World Trade Center bombing the culpable terrorists had ties with Iraqi intelligence, and why seized documents now coming to light in Iraq reveal a long history of cooperation between Islamic terrorists and Saddam’s secret police. To think otherwise would be crazy, given the shared aims of both in attacking Americans and getting them out of the Middle East. The only puzzle is whether Saddam contributed to the 9/11 terrorist fund or simply was apprised of al Qaeda’s general efforts.

    In any case, if Hillary’s saying that Bill really didn’t know Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden was a real threat to the America homeland and Americans (I haven’t been listening to the news for the past 2 days), then my question is, why all the finger waving, thigh poking of C. Wallace while repeating protestations that “I tried” to get Bin Laden??

    As Hitchens said, Bill & Hillary have no one left to lie to

  6. SC&A Says:

    Your ovesight in not acknowledging my correction, in the body of the post, in addition to the comment I left seems to bring your credibility as a commentator into question. No?

    In fact, radical Islamic terror predates both Clinton and Reagan, as you correctly note. North’s testimony ought to have served as enough of a ‘heads up’ to every administration that followed.

    Islamic terror did not begin with OBL.

  7. BWE Says:

    Jesus, I was ADDRESSING the correction in your article.
    bwoinnnng..

    and the comment.

    See my comment.

    And North’s testimony was nothing compared to WTC bombing in ’03. For crying out loud. And Libya, which, let’s remember is the “place” North was worried about, is now our ally. Hmmpf.

    Which would mean that no one would owe North an appology which is a central cornerstone of your piece.

    And if we are talking about it anyway, How is it that Iraq is not a source of new terrorists? They need to train and training camps are hard to hide in peacetime. But the whole damn country is a camp for their various twisted ideas of salvation and rightousness. And, meaning the opposite of what you meant above, they get to train on other muslims that don’t follow the “right” way of thinking. Which means they get to actually PRACTICE killing REAL people. Imagine how good they’ll get. And how focused. Once they kill off the non-radical civilians and the radicals who aren’t the same, they’ll have something to work with.

    I don’t have any good answers, don’t get me wrong. But criminals are criminals and committing a crime for america is even more disgusting than for personal gain because it means you are doing it for an ideology that can be defined by whoever knows how to do the defining.

    The fact that North got immunity and no one hung for those crimes is also a crime. The fact that we are in iraq rather than afghanistan (we pulled troops from A to send to I) is also a crime and the fact that OBL is still alive is a reason to get rid of the profiteering bastards we’ve has in office since JFK.

    How’s that for political statements posed as fact but consisting of nothing more than opinion? See if you can dissect that one.

  8. BWE Says:

    In any case, if Hillary’s saying that Bill really didn’t know Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden was a real threat to the America homeland and Americans (I haven’t been listening to the news for the past 2 days)

    I read that book by the way. (No one left to lie to) and aside from some unsubstanciated stuff and more about the guy’s pecker than I wanted to know the part about the bombing of the Al-Shifa plant in Khartoum in 1998 was illuminating. He apparently knew he was committing a clear war crime but, rather than go to the UN, kaboom. We sure didn’t get upset over that one but when Bush committed his serioes of war crimes it shocked most of our sensibilities. Why the difference? Dunno. Maybe just scale. Or profiteering. Or the torture thing. eeeewwww.

    “I’m certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled `Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside United States,’ he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team,”

    -Hillary’s quote

    You know, this is crazy. I had never heard the quote either.

  9. SC&A Says:

    My apologies if I came across as being adversarial (work has me going in all directions today).

    My point was and remains that as you note, terror threats go back a long way. In fact, as Gagdad Bob notes, 9/11 changed not only how we see the future, but how we see- and understand- the past as well.

    In a post 9/11 world, all terror is related, from Munich to the Achille Lauro to the terror in the Philippines and terror in Indonesia.

    In the end, no one got it right, save perhaps for the Israelis.

    We just thought they were crying ‘Wolf’ for too long.

  10. BWE Says:

    amen.

    In a political season, we are looking for ways to solve problems and often clinging to the hope that one of our only two options will somehow be a step in the right direction. Clintons on one side and Bushes on the other doesn’t make for high hopes. The problem is when we try to pose the question as a “lesser of two evils” question. We are somehow validating the other side.

    At this point, I will probably vote for “anyone but republicans” even though I have voted republican for more than 20 years. Maybe the problem is just that wahtever group gets in, if they are allowed to stay too long, they begin to get the “absolute power” complex.

    I was naive when I voted for Reagan, pragmatic when I voted for Bush the greater, hopeful when I voted for Dole and blinded and suckered when I voted Bush the lesser. Twice dammit.

    Not anymore.

  11. Ken Says:

    Reality would be whatever Mother Earth and crystals told them in a dream just prior to the Vernal and Autumnal Equinox celebrations. The messages they receive from the ’spirits’ of the ancestors, as they dance nude around a huge bonfire, are very different from believing in God that has a message for us, yes indeed (mostly because that message is one of responsibility and accountability-ugh!).

    At least until the riders come on their holy mission, scimitar or AK-47 in one hand and Koran in the other…


Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 83 other followers

%d bloggers like this: