Saturday, March 13, 2004

David "Gasbag" Brooks Is At It Again

Today we get more blathering in the New York Times courtesy of a man who likes to use big words to convince us all to be simpletons. Take, for example, this excerpt in Brooks's current rant against John Kerry:

"Kerry was venturing off into the realm of Post-Cartesian Multivariate Co-Directionality that would mark so many of his major foreign policy statements."

Ah me. Chuckle, chuckle. It takes a special kind of superficial and shallow person to use so many polysyllabic words to convince us that subtlety and nuance are a sign of weakness and misunderstanding. Yes, David Brooks would have us believe that accusing the next leader of planet earth's only remaining military superpower of reasoning that leads to "Multivariate Co-Directionality" is to slay him politically. Apparently Brooks is on-board with a new Post-Cartesian form of logic encouraged by PNAC and the neo-conservatives. This is a far easier logic which conveniently eliminates all of those nasty, fuzzy, subtle variations of life. Here's how it works:

President Bush = good
Everything President Bush does = good
John Kerry = bad
Saddam Hussein = bad
Osama bin Laden = bad
John Kerry = Saddam Hussein = Osama bin Laden = bad
Dick Cheney = holy
Paul Wolfowitz = Richard Pearle = smart
Don Rumsfeld = Department of Defense = real
Colin Powell = Department of State = irrelevant
Europe = chicken
oil = money = everything
USA = can never be wrong about anything

This pretty much sums up David Brooks, PNAC, and neo-conservative "thought". To suggest that, for example, Saddam Hussein's corrupt and dysfunctional regime could have been first contained and then toppled by some method or (now try hard to think and understand this subtle idea) some combination of things other than an invasion, is to engage in "Multivariate Co-Directionality".

One thing seems certain, even for those of us lost in the fog of a complicated, multivariate life, Mr. Brooks's accusations tell us a great deal more about how he thinks (or doesn't, as the case may be) than they do about John Kerry's qualifications for office. The really scary and dangerous possibility is that a sufficient number of voting-age Americans would prefer a simpleminded, "with us or against us" approach to managing US foreign policy in a world growing more complicated and more dangerous everyday. Certainly if a New York Times editorial writer is seduced by such simplemindedness and believes that subtlety and nuance are fodder for ridicule, then we should all agree.

Here's what I propose to help the election process along this year (in support of Mr. Brooks's anti-intellectual stand). When it's time to have the candidates debate one another, we can use a new format that will make it much easier for unemployed mill workers, fast food manufacturing sector workers, and David Brooks to follow. Answers will be limited to one word!

Moderator: Mr. President, would you say that terrorism is a bad thing?

G. W. Bush: Yes.

Moderator: Mr. Kerry, would you use nuclear weapons to utterly destroy the nation of Iran if it turns out they have unauthorized nuclear materials?

John Kerry: No.

Moderator: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for tuning in to tonight's Presidential Debate.
---

Fox News "Analyst": Well there you have it. Kerry is clearly a weak-willed, left-wing, liberal elitist who is soft on terrorism. The choice is clear. President Bush all the way. Thank you ladies and gentlemen, for tuning in to tonight's "Fair and Balanced" analysis of the Presidential Debate.



|

Thursday, March 11, 2004

Robert Spencer on The American Jihad

American Jihad
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 11, 2004

Although most media attention has been focused on Martha Stewart, gay marriage, and the national waistline, the jihad continues in America.

• The FBI and Coast Guard announced last Thursday that they have discovered nine members of the Merchant Marine who may have links to terrorist groups. This is the fruit of Operation Drydock, an anti-terror investigation that has lasted more than a year. These efforts, while laudable, only underscore the fact that terrorists have already begun to try to take advantage of the vulnerabilities of American seaports.

• On the same day, three members of the “Virginia jihad network” were found guilty of conspiracy. Masoud Khan, Seifullah Chapman, and Hammad Abdur-Raheem, played paintball in 2000 and 2001 with a deadly serious purpose: they were training with the hope of joining the Taliban and waging jihad against the United States. Khan was also convicted of attempting to wage war against the U.S.

• Sami Omar Al-Hussayen, formerly a high profile Muslim student activist at the University of Idaho, was charged, also on Thursday, with ties to Hamas. He maintains his innocence. FoxNews reported that he “was charged with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism after federal prosecutors said he helped run Web sites that urge people to contribute money to Hamas.”

• In San Diego last Wednesday, Ilyas Ali, an American citizen, and Muhamed Abid Afridi, a Pakistani national, admitted to drug trafficking in order to raise money for weapons for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. They were selling heroin and hashish to raise money for Stinger missiles.

• On the same day, five Muslims were convicted in Buffalo of trafficking in untaxed cigarettes in order to get money for jihad. Mohamed Abuhamra, Aref Ahmed, Ramzy Abdullah, Nagib Aziz, and Azzeaz Saleh could get twenty years and $500,000 fines for using the smokes to try to raise money to help the the six jihadists from the Lackawanna, New York mosque — the notorious “Lackawanna Six” journey to Afghanistan to join up with Al-Qaeda.

• A member of the Kashmir jihad was arrested last week in Pennsylvania. Mohammad Aslam, a British citizen, was originally arrested for staying in the U.S. after the expiration of his visa. Through his fingerprints, however, he was identified as a member of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, wanted for the kidnap and murder of the Indian diplomat Ravindra Mhatre in England in 1984. Mhatre was seized and killed in an attempt to secure the release from prison of the group’s founder, Maqbool Bhat.

• Sgt. Hasan Akbar is the Muslim soldier who attacked his own commanding officers in Kuwait last year while crying out, “You guys are coming into our countries, and you’re going to rape our women and kill our children” — a clear indication that his attack grew out of his identity as a Muslim. After a long period of silence, the Army announced last Thursday that it is going to go ahead with a court martial. Akbar could get the death penalty.

• The Islamic Society of Boston (ISB) is building a new mosque which they intend to be one of the grandest in the country. Arabic-language brochures boast that the project has the backing of the radical Sheikh Yusuf Abdullah al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian now based in Qatar.

In English, the ISB claims that al-Qaradawi “has never played any role in the ISB.” However, the Boston Herald reports that “records show al-Qaradawi’s name was listed on federal tax forms as recently as 2001 as a member of the society’s board of directors.” The ISB is not alone in embracing Qaradawi: establishment Islamic scholar John Esposito has praised him as a champion of a “reformist interpretation of Islam.”


|

Jihad against Jews and Crusaders

Since it's an election year, and John Kerry is trying to blame all terrorism on President Bush, it's probably a good thing to go back and look at the declaration of war that was called for from our Jihadi buddies. Pay particular attention to the date--even morons in the Kerry campaign should be able to comprehend that 1998 came before 2000.

Notice our Jihadi buddies were already crying about "continued aggression against Iraq," and basically called for open season on Americans anywhere in the world.

This seems to fly in the face of the "President Bush is causing terrorism," swill that Kerry and his group of goons go about the country jabbering and squealing about.

John Kerry and his campaign goons need to be held accountable for their politicizing of the war on terror.

It would probably do all American to remember that we are still in a war, a war of Sheik Osama and the other Islamists making.

Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
World Islamic Front Statement

23 February 1998

Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin
Ayman al-Zawahiri, amir of the Jihad Group in Egypt
Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Egyptian Islamic Group
Shaykh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
Fazlur Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh


Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.

The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since Allah made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al-Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: "As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life."

On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah."

This is in addition to the words of Almighty Allah: "And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? -- women and children, whose cry is: 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'"

We -- with Allah's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

Almighty Allah said: "O ye who believe, give your response to Allah and His Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life. And know that Allah cometh between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom ye shall all be gathered."

Almighty Allah also says: "O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling so heavily to the earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things."

Almighty Allah also says: "So lose no heart, nor fall into despair. For ye must gain mastery if ye are true in faith."
|

Wednesday, March 10, 2004

To Paraphrase the Bard...

About "Zawahiri is for John Kerry as Well!"

Ah William, to paraphrase the bard...

"Methinks thou dost protest too much!"

(The actual line from Hamlet, for those who care: "The lady protests too much, methinks.")

|

Tuesday, March 09, 2004

Zawahiri is for John Kerry as Well!

I don’t want to tell you I told you so about Camelot’s last hope, John Kerry and his almost genetic need to indulge in the liberal internationalist catechism of practicing: passivity, acquiescence and almost reflexive anti-interventionism. (with thanks to one of the true intellectual heavyweights Charles Krauthammer for laying it out for the audience during his talk at AEI last month) Not to mention his infantile need to get Europe’s and Kofi’s blessing for anything the United States does.

The new JFK stooped to the absolute lowest I have ever witnessed from anybody running for president yesterday by announcing that that several European leaders had voiced hopes that he was elected rather than President Bush.

Ordinarily, somebody who suggests that foreign leaders should get involved with American political elections should probably be whipped on the mall in front of the reflecting pool and sent to prison in Syria with a six-pack of Corona and picture of Michael Jackson sleeping with his chimps.

But, since Kerry’s now protected by the secret service, I guess suggesting he receive a beating is out-of-the-question but I heard Ayman Al-Zawahiri agrees with some of these European leaders that “crazy Texan needs to be replaced by our friend John Kerry who will return America to the glory days of Jimmy Carter.”

I had a hard time running Ayman down to verify the quote—after returning from Iran he and bin Laden have been on the run in eastern Pakistan. Suddenly Pakistan’s President has received an epiphany—or whatever the Islamic equivalent to that experience might be.

General Pervez Musharraf and the wild group of Deobandi’s that make up Pakistan’s military have up-to-last-month only paid lip service to trying to catch bin-Laden while actually tipping him off through Afghan channels during the siege of Tora Bora and refusing to allow American special forces to operate unimpeded along the border.

Ooops! State Department Foul!

This all changed after several car bombs came uncomfortably close to the general last month. Musharraf came to realize that Sheik Osama is nuttier than Jessica Lange on a glue binge and while it’s OK for ordinary fanatics to martyr themselves, nothing in the Koran suggests the President of Pakistan should take one for the team.

Another contributing factor was the beginning of the grim unraveling of the nuclear proliferation program of General Abdul Qadeer Khan, who basically said, “America is the enemy of all muslims and the greatest threat to muslims in the entire world.”

When Khan’s crimes finally come to light, and hopefully that won’t be a very blinding light in New York, Washington or Los Angeles, you may find that he has done more to promote mass murder than the mad Sheik could ever begin to contemplate.

So here is the crux of what Ayman relayed to me through Pakistani friends in Bethesda: George Bush is a crackpot who actually drove us from our sanctuary in Afghanistan. You need to vote for John Kerry so we can open up a dialogue and you can see the error of your way and convert to Islam and save yourself from judgment.

Ayman and a few European leaders can’t be wrong—can they?


|

A Walk in the Ocean of Most Souls...

...will scarcely wet the bottoms of your feet." ...from National Lampoon's The Deteriorata

To whatever extent that sentiment applies to people in general, it certainly applies to New York Times editorial contributor, gasbag, and intellectual lightweight, David Brooks. In today's NYT we are treated to several paragraphs of Mr. Brooks opinions about religion and cultural narcissism. For example:

"Our general problem is not that we're too dogmatic. Our more common problems come from the other end of the continuum. Americans in the 21st century are more likely to be divorced from any sense of a creedal order, ignorant of the moral traditions that have come down to us through the ages and detached from the sense that we all owe obligations to a higher authority."

I am not sure what the New York Times considers as minimum qualifications to be an editorial contributor, but I have to believe that a good general education, including history, philosophy, and comparative religion is not included. The paragraph above demonstrates a stunning lack of understanding of the past 1000 years of human history. Worse, it reveals just how dangerous a poorly educated (apparently), right-wing ideologue can be. I am not sure how Mr. Brooks wants to define his 'higher authority' and I am terrified at the thought of who gets to translate for this 'higher authority'. I wonder which "creedal order" Mr. Brooks is thinking of. Is it the Creed that led to the Holy Inquisition (which by the way still exists in the Vatican under a different name)? Does he hope for the "moral traditions" that led to centuries of burning old women at the stake?

David Brooks suffers from the same blindness that every blowhard moralist does--the unshakeable conviction that his faith informs him "truthfully". I, for one, insist that there be no higher authority than common human decency informed by simple human compassion and reason. And in case David Brooks does not know, the Mullahs of Islam have long standing "moral tradition" and have a passionate sense of "obligation to a higher authority". And not a few of them come to the unshakeable conclusion that that obligation includes the murder of infidels. So if Mr. Brooks and the Islamic jihadists wish to find a neutral corner and fight it out--"my higher authority is right and yours is wrong"--so be it. But no such notion should be part of the law of my land.

Mr. Brooks--you are wrong, dead wrong. Our general problem is that we are indeed, too dogmatic. MUCH too dogmatic. Whether that dogma informs us to hate gays or buy SUVs or support blowhard, intellectual lightweight conservatives--we are too dogmatic. After all, doing what you're told is so much easier than thinking!

The New York Times' famous slogan "All the News that Fit to Print" should not include the blather of ill-informed, non-thinking, sheep.

|

Sunday, March 07, 2004

A Letter To Bin Laden

Here's an interesting post from the English Al-Hayat .... the sentiments expressed are not of a "minority" as many democrats and apologists for the Islamists would suggest .... keep this in mind as John "let me bend to the will of Kofi," Kerry continues his plan to mollify terrorists and their supporters

A Letter To Osama Bin Laden
Yasser Al Zaatera Al-Hayat 2004/03/7

To the Mujahid brother Osama bin Laden: I address you with these words based on the ties that bind us, since we both are defenders of Allah's religion and the Umma's identity, based also on the principle of advice that the Prophet informed us that it is amongst the traits of the Muslim imams and public. I also write these words in an attempt to clarify what I perceive to be the Umma's feelings towards you and its concern for you and the soundness of your judgement.

I write these words in hope that they would reach you while you are safe and in good health, especially after the news that the American forces have been able to surround you with the help of their Pakistani counterpart. I write to you as well after things got out of hand and when every disaster in the universe is attributed to you or to your followers, while you remain silent. Some explain this silence as support especially after sending signals on certain actions that no mind or doctrine can accept.

Perhaps you are more knowledgeable than me in Islamic doctrinal matters, but I am a man whose job is to read and write, and Islamic issues and what are connected to them from matters of reality to theoretical sciences are in the core of my interests ever since a quarter of a century, that is why I claim to have enough knowledge and ability to write these words. I would have wished there were more open and direct means of communication between us, in accordance with the propriety of advice.

I write to you my dear brother, after your name and that of Al Qaeda have been condemned and blamed for many catastrophes and acts that do not benefit Islam or Muslims but greatly harm them. Was it not for my faith that your mission was indeed in defense of Allah's religion and the Umma's identity, liberation and resurgence, and not for any material or worldly gains, I would not have written to you.

Let us agree, my dear brother, that the Umma's religion's eminence, resurgence and confrontation of its enemies is the aim, so do you consider that mobilizing the whole world against it is reasonable and rational, even though setting priorities was a big part of the Prophet's teachings.

The United States in not just our enemy alone for its rightist hegemonic policies are a burden on the whole world which is demanding its leaders of another way of administering the universe based on multi-polarity. This would allow us, along with other victimized nations, to rise up and preserve our identity and interests.

You know, my mujahid brother, that abiding by the principles of Islam while refraining from what is forbidden, is measured by its outcome of avoiding evil and having benefits, and not by whether an act is allowed or not. In fact, wherever there is good for our Umma there would be Allah's doctrine, as Imam Ibn Al Qayem, God have mercy on his soul, said.

Opening endless battlefronts simultaneously cannot be but harmful to Islam and Muslims, so what if the means used are questionable, like when targeting people in an Arab or Islamic country or civilians in other places.

We have heard you defend the youth that perpetrated the operations in Riyadh, some of what you said is true that they are believers in Islam, yet you did not say that what they did is wrong, and not just because there were Muslims in the targeted areas, but also because these operations do not serve your struggle and the Umma's struggle with its American enemy who clearly benefits from these acts by more blackmail of the Umma's rulers. The result is harmful more than beneficial.

Now I have reached the motive behind writing this letter which is what took place and is taking place in Iraq, particularly the operations in Karbala and Al Qazimiah and before them a large number of operations against Iraqi institutions and civil police centers, of which you, or your supporters, were accused of.

I say first that I am not convinced that what happened was perpetrated by people from your side because the situation preceding the events indicates otherwise, and the main beneficiary from them is the occupation. There is a possibility that a certain group that walks along your path from afar might have been responsible but that does not stop me from requesting of you to bring this farce and the stream of accusations to a halt by declaring your innocence of the operations that target Iraqi civilians, in addition to the police who intend to serve people and provide them with security.

I will not discuss with you whether such acts are allowed or not according to the Islamic doctrine, though I know that killing Muslim civilians cannot be justified, and I think you would agree with me, but I will discuss with you from the perspective of harm and benefit.

You have fought the occupation's soldiers in Somalia, and you have prided yourself and still do with that. Furthermore, you recognize that if one million Somalis were killed the United States' troops would not have left, but a few Americans killed are enough to make them decide to leave.

In Iraq there are more than a hundred thousand American soldiers being fought by Mujahideen there, and you know how secret the resistance operations are kept, and that all the concessions that the occupation offered the Iraqis and the international community are a cause of these operations.

I know that your movement's presence in Iraq is an exaggerated story, and that the resistance is perpetrated by Iraqi hands, including the rejected acts, but once again I wish that you would take a position that would put an end to a catastrophe that was attributed to you and your followers, such a stance would contribute to ending it especially if its executors are Islamists who consider you an idol.

The other issue is the document of "Zarkawi" which you must have heard of and its content, though it originally was on its way to you, according to the American claims.

A Sunni-Shiite clash, my righteous brother, is the best recipe to save the occupation. I remind you that Martin Indyk said that openly when he considered that a policy of division between the Iraqis is a guarantee to their rule.

The best thing you could do in the benefit of the Umma and against the United States is incitement against its occupation of Iraq, and calling upon the Iraqis to preserve their unity and focus their efforts on chasing the occupiers because that is the only guarantee to foil the project of hegemony on the region and changing the Umma's identity and targeting its religion.

The success of the American project to strike the Umma is dependent on Iraq, and there is no solution but to foil the project, which will only fail if the Iraqis unite on the goal of expelling the occupier. If the game of frightening and attributing the crimes committed against Iraqi civilians to you, then this would not take place and the occupation would remain with the consent of a big part of Iraqis.

Your Mujahideen brothers in Palestine from Hamas and Al Jihad are a wonderful example of clarity of vision and the purity of the rifle, and the Umma's mobilization around them have made the struggle in Palestine a title of the struggle with the Zionists and the United States. The Iraqi battle has formed a new title that we have to deal with using the same logic, especially that the chance of victory in Iraq seems more accessible, and perhaps it would be an introduction to victory in Palestine.

It remains for me to tell you that most of the feelings of the Umma's sons, that are inclined to you, do not agree on all that is attributed to you, but it is a cause of the feeling of resentment to American despotic policies. It is about time to declare a clear stance in your battle because the Umma's battle with its enemy is not just Al Qaeda's but a comprehensive battle in which everyone should take his role for it to be victorious.

We would not await a clear letter addressed to the Umma from you, through which you would confirm the slogans of your position and put an end to the American game of attributing all what distorts its image, unity and struggle with its enemy to you. May peace be upon you.


|

The Butcher of Chappaquiddick--The Democrat's New Saint Of Accountability

The Butcher of Chappaquiddick—aka—Senator Teddy Kennedy—aka—John Kerry’s good friend has taken the point for the liberal democratic elite and is demanding accountability from either President Bush or CIA Director George Tenet on the justification for the Iraq war.
Appearing on Wolf Blitzer on Friday, the old wart hog—I mean, “war horse,” as Wolf called him, was full of his usual righteous anger at President Bush and other members of the administration for their “devious strategy” in laying out justification for going to war in Iraq.
Although I knew it would never happen, I was waiting for Wolf to ask the question nobody will ever ask Camelot’s last living member: How were you able to escape accountability for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick in July 1969? How can you claim to be anything other than a pathological liar and a coward in your role in her death? Are the people in Massachusetts’s blind to all the Kennedy family crimes?
Of course nobody in the media will ask the butcher of Chappaquiddick these question because he is protected.
What is disturbing to me is other Democrat’s willingness to participate in the same hypocrisy. I have spoken with several of my liberal, democratic friends who rail against President Bush and the administration’s ethics, yet none comment on Kennedy’s hypocrisy.
Of course they can’t comment on it because one of the butcher’s best friend’s is John Kerry. The new JFK--Teddy’s hope of seeing Camelot’s glory one last time.
To begin to ask the questions nobody will ask Teddy puts John Kerry on a slippery moral ground because he’s friends with the butcher. John and Teddy are on the same team. They represent the same ultra-liberal wing of the Democratic Party.
The democrats and John Kerry don’t want that type of hypocrisy discussed.
But if the Democrats are going to allow Teddy to do the new JFK’s dirty work, let’s at least have a dialogue on the Teddy’s character.
After all John Kerry wants us to “bring it on.”
You should write a letter to editor of your paper today and question this on-going hypocrisy from those on the elite left.


|

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?