Who Will Be Responsible for the American Dead? – by David Horowitz


Two Guantanamo terrorists released in November were behind the Christmas Day attack in Detroit. Our security agencies ignored their own security measures and their own intelligence — including warnings from the terrorist’s father that his son was involved with terrorists.

The chief of our Department of Homeland Security is preoccupied with covering her ass, and conferring citizenship rights on enemy combatants. Instead of throwing the enemy in the darkest possible dungeon and extracting information on the next terrorist attack, both she and her president are referring to him as an “alleged” bomber and helping him to lawyer up because after all he’s only a criminal who deserves the presumption of innocence and every other right accorded to citizens of this country who might be interested in protecting it.

The answer to the question posed above is that liberals will be responsible when the next bomber actually succeeds in killing Americans. Liberals have fought the very idea that we are at war (and should use security measures appropriate in wartime)  although our enemies have declared war on us. Liberals have fought to close the Guantanamo Bay holding center and to release its terrorists back onto the battlefield.

Liberals have fought to deny us the basic security techniques — harsh interrogation measures, military tribunals, terrorist profiling (which would focus scarce security resources on Muslims and not on the  hundreds of millions of ordinary citizens who are traveling to do business and visit families, including for example, elderly Christians confined to wheelchairs whose prophet preached love rather than war.)

Liberals have advocated and pursued a diplomacy of apology and appeasement whose effect is to encourage our adversaries to have contempt for us and to deny support to the brave dissenters in the Muslim world who are struggling for their freedom. And liberals have conducted a relentless propaganda campaign designed to portray their own country as an unprincipled aggressor whose immediate consequence is to weaken its efforts to defend itself.

We expect this from the anti-American left. But we are getting it from the liberal “center” from the likes of Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, the late Senator Kennedy, institutions like the New York Times, and pundits ranging from Chris Matthews and Andrew Sullivan who should know better to Joshua Micah Marshall and Joe Klein who have lent cover and support to the neo-Communist America haters of the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Our country is about to pay a terrible price for the orgy of liberal derangement that made the Bush administration rather than Saddam Hussein the culprit in the Iraq war and whose collective effort over the last seven years has been to dig the graves of the innocent American victims of the next terrorist attacks.

  • Lary9

    The author has lost journalistic credibility along with his critical judgment. He was a true thinker once. But as a result of his biased blogging and distortion of facts, he has become a cheerleader for barbarians at the gates. I can hear him in his palace, tuning his fiddle and waiting for fire while patriots navigate the tumultuous traffic on the streets of new Rome.

  • Robert Bernier

    Wow! Read this one. It is really good. And this gentleman says it just like it is.

    This venerable and much honored WW II vet is well known in Hawaii
    for his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organizations and causes all over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body, he has never spoken out before about a government official, until now. He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president. Consult : http://xrl.us/bgeewc

  • Bruno

    Question for the anti-American left: Where is gone your icone Cindy Sheehan?

  • Gylippus

    Daivd is right. Liberals are prepared to sacrifice American lives… anything rather than look outside their little utopian bubbles. The real world is full of chaos and violence, and a lot of it is directed at us, simply because of what we are (succesful, optimistic and relatively free (so far) of the tribal and ethnic hatreds that plague the old world). Liberals raised on soft-headed multicultural pablum don't want to accept that since it could interfere with their fantasy-worlds, so they'd rather plead, kow-tow, appease and apologize, failing to understand that nothing attracts a predator like the mewlings of prey. Cowards and fools – the lot of the them!

  • marknolan1

    I think there should be more of a sense of urgency now. These people will not stop. Detroit might just have been the first in a long line of serious attempts to do very serious damage. Why do I get the feeling that nobody's minding the store ?

  • marknolan1

    I'm happy that you feel so safe. I don't. I fear for my family. This is not a joke.

  • Lary9

    Res ipsa loquitur.

  • tompaine2009

    One truly interesting phenomenon is that the current admistration can't hardly speak to any issue without telling us that it is really Bush's fault. But what we never heard articulated was what emboldened the terrorists of 911 to strike America? After the repeated attacks on America and our interests worldwide, the Clinton administration steadfastly choose to view the acts as crimes, not a war. After being told that it really was our own fault that we had been attacked, each time we were promised that the “perpetrators” would be hunted down and brought to justice. that worked so well, that after 8 years of it they escalated to multiple, coordinated attacks on civilians — 911. That the threat does not come from another government does not make it any less real, nor does it reduce it criminal in nature vice being a war. We did not start this one, and only when they say so — is it over. It is time to adapt our thinking — or die.

  • USMCSniper

    Chupe mantequilla de mi culo

  • marknolan1

    Va te faire t'enculer chez les Musulmanes.

  • prudentman

    Why this is the most dangerous Administration in the country's history: They don't care if Americans die at the hands of terrorists as the have the trust fund brat, Bill Ayer's and his guilt of inherited wealth as well as his wife's, hate for the Freedom that allows success to benefit from its productivity. When we have a government controlled by individuals who did absolutely nothing to protect its Freedoms they have no respect for those Freedoms.

    The U.S. succeed edoverwhelming after WWII because, among others, military veterans knew how to sacrifice to achieve what they believe in and served for.

  • semus

    This is why I will always go back to reading what David Horowitz writes.

    God bless him.

  • BS77

    As Michael Savage said, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder….multiculturism, open borders, polyglot gradeless education, appeasement, mega tolerance, shrugging confusion, disdain for the military, love of big bureaucracy……a shameful disorder.

  • SamBlue


  • WFB2

    I've long advocated that the RNC needs a professionally run PR arm to counter the pro-liberal/left propaganda pumped-out relentlessly via the Administration and its media whore allies. This article by DH is the sort of message that needs airing across the land to cut thru the subversive left's BS. Thank heavens FPM exists but preaching to the choir does little to inform the tabloid reading masses. I guess it will take another 9/11. Are you listening Michael Steele?

  • trickyblain

    Horowitz = Hack.

    Yes, two of the four alleged plotters were indeed released in November. Problem for Horowitz, it was NOVEMBER 2007. It was an executive decision made by the previous administration, not liberals. A shameful lead-in to a pathetic attempt at politicizing an attack on America.

    That is the one “fact” Horowitz actually cites in the story. And it's astonishingly misleading. The rest is just frothing lashing at straw-men. Does Horowitz know the location of the terrorist? Does he have special insight into what interrogation methods are being undertaken? And where in the “liberal” plan does it suggest releasing “terrorists back onto the battlefield” after closing Gitmo?

    And of course, in true neo fashion, all personal responsibility flies out the window. Who's responsible for a successful attack on American lives? Liberals. Not the actual terrorist scum who perpetrates the act. If I agreed with that premise then I must also lay the responsibility for 2,000-plus American deaths at the feet of the “conservatives” that held the executive branch and Congress at the time. But that would be dishonest and politicizing a tragedy, wouldn't it?

  • WFB2

    The left tries desperately to 'define' war out of existence. Part of their denial of human nature and thus a futile, stupid belief based on nothing but wishful thinking.

  • USMCSniper

    John Hillen has the right strategies for the use of military force.

    The U.S. should use its military forces for military objectives that can be achieved decisively, and that are politically decisive as well. This does not mean saving the U.S. military for just “the big ones,” as some critics charge. Limited interventions done properly, such as the 1986 F-111 raid on Tripoli in Libya, can have a decisive effect. However, in limited interventions, there is often the temptation to restrict military requirements because the purpose is to send a political signal. This happened in 1979 when Iran was threatening Saudi Arabia. Embarrassingly, it was revealed that the F-15s which President Carter sent to help defend Saudi Arabia were unarmed. It was an empty political signal that could have been a military disaster. If U.S. combat forces are to be used in any intervention, their operations must be completely consistent with the proven operational doctrine of the United States military. This allows the U.S. armed forces to create and control the conditions for their success, no matter how big or small the tasks and the stakes.

    Strategy is the art of using military means to achieve political ends. A coherent strategy ensures that the armed forces have objectives that, once attained, contribute directly to the desired political solution. These military objectives must be clearly defined, attainable, decisive, and consistent with military doctrine. In other words, the military should be given goals that it understands, that it can reach through methods for which it is well-trained, and that will make a difference once attained. From a military perspective, the most sought-after strategy would be similar to that used in the Gulf War, in which President Bush formulated “clear-cut and attainable political objectives; and the armed forces achieved those objectives through rapid and decisive military action.”39 While this formula is not always so easily achieved in limited military interventions, the policymaker should strive to replicate it as much as possible.

    The U.S. military prefers rapid and decisive action because it delivers results. Not only is overwhelming force and decisive action consistent with the greatest success, but it tends to be the least costly way to fight. In any intervention, the military wants to keep the initiative. The actions of U.S. forces, not others, should dictate the pace of events and the outcome. Even in limited interventions, the use of overwhelming force helps American forces keep the initiative and create the conditions for success. It also helps minimize the casualties and costs of protracted or attritional warfare.

  • Steve Chavez

    “It” swings back and forth. Left and right. Left and right. “Keep your eyes on 'it.'”

    Left and right. Left and right. “You're getting sleepy.”

    Left and right. Left and right. “You are asleep. You won 'it' for a reason. Peace. Peace. No War. No Blood for Oil. Bush lied, people died. You are a man of Peace. No attack. We started it. We deserve it. We are to blame. The Saviour of the World. Peace. Peace. No more wars. You can't attack any country. Never. Never. The U.S. is the cause of the world's problems. You must apologize to the world. Bring our troops home. You are our puppet. We got you elected so now we pull your strings. Okay now on the count of three, you will awake. One, two, aaaahhhhh, never mind. You are ours forever. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!”

    Yes David, the “neo-Communists” are swinging the Nobel Peace Prize medal in front of Obama which was the Prize committee's goal. “America must stand down so we can defeat it!” You see, the country that the “neo-Communists” loved more than their own fell, the Berlin Wall fell, the Iron Curtain fell, so our “neo-Communists” are very bitter so now they use Obama, who is a willing dupe, to achieve their goal of DESTROYING THE UNITED STATES TO MAKE IT AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD WITH THEIR SOVIET/KGB/PUTIN COMRADES!!! Communists are Internationists remember? As we stand down, the Soviet Bear awakens from hybernation to take over nations!

  • cindylou52

    I might have listened to you earlier on, but your words are now hollow and empty after this latest incident. Face it – we have pandered to another culture who will not stop until they get what they want from us. No matter what we naively try to do to get along with them, it's not going to work short of us giving them everything they demand – and those demands are huge. Obama CLEARLY has tried to appease them. The panty bomber CLEARLY has not been appeased.

  • semus

    The fact that an attack was successful, on Sept 11 2001 was the fault of liberals. The fact that the attack was successful on Christmas Day – and it was successful – is the fault of liberals. The statement that the release of the the 2 from Gitmo in November instead of November of 2007 – if true – could have been a honest mistake. Obviously the release of these murdering bastards was a mistake who ever did it. What you wrote however was no mistake and was not honest.

  • trickyblain

    I'm not sure what you mean by “appeasing” the Al Qaeda types. Attacking their bases in Pakistan? Expanding operations in Afghanistan? What specific actions has this administration taken, that are different from the previous administration, have lead you to believe Al Qaeda is being appeased?

  • trickyblain

    I see you are another one of the “personal responsibility” crowd. Was it liberals that ignored warnings like “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside US”? Did liberals dismantle the NSA's Bin Laden Unit and move its head to cyberterroism?

    Regardless, it's not the fault of conservatives, and it's not the fault of liberals. The blame lies squarely on those who committed the acts — al Qaeda. Pretty damn illogical to blame liberals when they did not have the political power to implement preventive measures at the time.

    Also, if you consider the Christmas Day operation a “success” for al Qaeda, please never apply for a job with me. A successful operation is one in which the goals are met. While the terrorist did get much further than he should have, thankfilly he did not accomplish his terrible mission.

  • WFB2

    The decision is either win the war or win “hearts and minds”. The former kills many indigenous non-combatants (“innocents”) but quickly ends it all. The latter gets far too many of our troops sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and drags on and on with no decisive conclusion. This is “warfare” in the 21st century and the decision on how to wage it must settled on eventually. I'm for turning the military loose to devastate the enemy wherever he hides. Better their dead than ours. A devastating win will also sober-up the rest of the Muslim world that there will be a helluva price to pay if they want to start up again someplace else. Face it down now now or this sort of BS will go on indefinitely.

  • Lary9

    I'm bilingual enough to understand a reference to butter and anuses, which
    I remember was a late 70s punk rock band. Bet you thought you fooled me.

  • cindylou52

    You're right. Obama has not backed down in actual, real-time fighting. In fact, he's expanded to Pakistan and now Yemen – 60 people killed there by American backed intelligence and weaponry via Yemen's military. All this time, however, Obama has been running around bowing to the strictest Islamic regimes (Saudi Arabia) and apologizing for America's warlike behaviors and completely dissing Israel – Al-Qaeda's most hated enemy. It's actually hypocritical, isn't it?

  • Lary9

    Just for the record, I'm not happy with Obama either. Adding 30,000 troops
    won't get any achievable good done in Bananastan except put troops in harm's
    way at a price tag 25 billion dollars/anum. (we just lost 8 today.) And the
    peace prize thingy was an Obama-nation abomination. Finally, I believe that
    communists are a generally a silly bunch of nostalgiac, ham-handed
    bureaucrats with repressed sexuality.

  • WFB2

    Get real. Clinton, as President, turned-tail and ran in Somalia sending a clear signal to bin Laden that he faced a weakling. Clinton did nothing in response to two U.S. Embassy attacks; destruction and death of Marines at Khobar Towers; or the attack on the USS Cole. He had opportunities to take out bin Laden early on but was too chicken to pull the trigger. bin Laden has listened to eight years of liberal's sniveling, back-stabbing treason as we fought In Iraq and now watch's as our half-white-half black-half-assed Commie-in-chief dithers and wrings his hands in indecision and appeasement. You certainly have a selectively short memory.

  • trickyblain

    So much is made of that bow — it was a gaff. But at least Obama didn't make
    out with the king of the Sauds (

    Obama's strategy, which I think is prudent but time will tell, is to create
    a divide between the regimes and the extremists. While he has said that we
    have not always acted completely morally, which is undoubtedly true, he is
    trying to get garner more support among the fence-stters in the Arab world.
    If this is successful, it will go a long way towards marginalizing the al
    Qaeda types. By treating the Saudis like allies, he's really doing nothing
    that past administrations haven't done. The Yemenese(?) seem to be
    cooperating nicely along these lines. Some may call it appeasement, some
    would consider it “divide and conquer.” Again, time will tell.

  • trickyblain

    Where did I absolve Clinton in hindsight? And what of Bush? Where in his
    2000 campiagn did he fault Clinton for his inaction in relation to al Qaeda?
    Did he utter the words “al Qaeda” or “bin Laden” before 9/11? What actions
    did he take to kill bin Laden, pre 9/11. Are you sying it's better to do
    nothing than to do something and then get political cold feet?

    How about all of these right-wing blogs, pre-9/11? I seem to recall them
    blasting Clinton as “wagging the dog” when he attacked bin Laden's camps in
    Afghanistan and Sudan. Now you say he did nothing, when, at the time, your
    crowd attacked him for doing too much.

    And what of these right-wing blogs, anyway? Can you cite to a single article
    that outlined the al Qaeda threat, pre 9/11?

    You can try to blame liberals for 9/11, the decline of culture and the death
    of the dinosaurs until you are blue in the face, but hindsight is still
    20:20 and the party responsible for al Qaeda attacks is al Qaeda.

  • trickyblain

    Bin Laden also reffered to Reagan turning tail and running after the
    bombings of the Marine barracks in Beruit as an example of our
    “weakness.” If you're going to accuse others of selctive memory, you
    shouldn't display such a high standard of “selective memory.”

  • semus

    Read my sentences. From tactical stand point they were both a success, the attempt was completed, by the grace of God the device failed that's all. I'm not taking any blame from these murdering Muslims that goes without saying. We agree the murderer shouldn't have gotten as far as he did, he was able to detonate the device, He did spread fear he has impacted our country that's my point. As far as your statement about the dismantling the so called Bin Laden Unit etc. I don't think you have the whole story, and I know I don't,

  • semus

    I just saw this, I'm not sure I understand your meaning. I believe Bin Laden did look at this retreat as a weakness. I do remember the left wing media and many politicians blaming the deaths on Reagan, I didn't, I blamed the murderers, and so did the Marines. You'll do better if you keep your personal attacks out of your comments.

  • jacksalami

    The death nail to airport security will be the unionization of TSA.

  • Ez4moi

    Horowitz's article Who Will be Responsible for the American Dead touched a nerve on the left as revealed by the comments. They are used to being praised for having noble intentions. However, being reminded of their outcome failures is obviously intolerable. Further, it seems to me that they feel way down deep that a huge catastrophy is inevitably just ahead for which they shall be justly blamed.

  • trickyblain

    What's an “icone”? Is that, like, Apple's version of an ice cream treat?

  • WFB2

    Really lame. Bin Laden was an unknown 26 yr old when the Marine barracks were bombed by Yassar Arafat's Palestinian terrorists. That event may have planted a seed but it was Clinton who brought it to flower with his repeated cowardice in the face of bin Laden's aggression.

  • Lary9

    ” at least Obama didn't make out with the king of the Sauds”

    No…because the King is already someone else's Petro-beeyatch. King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud is riding the sissy-bar on Papa Bush's Harley.

  • coyote3

    The previous administration made the decision, but they were liberals as well. They did a few conservative things, very few. They increased the size, and more importantly the “scope” (which is the most important thing) of government illegally. They just did a “little” less of it than the current crop of criminals.

  • thinker1

    from Ann Coulter:
    “An alien from the planet “Not Politically Correct” would have surveyed the situation after 9/11 and said: “You are at war with an enemy without uniforms, without morals, without a country and without a leader — but the one advantage you have is they all look alike. … What? … What did I say?”

  • coyote3

    You are right the previous administration fought a half assed and pc war, and this administration is just continuing the half assed and pc nonsense, but to an even greater degree.

  • thinker1

    when AlQaida “returns” American or Israeli captured soldiers, doctors cannot find words for hidious bestiality they see….
    For Incompitano, the enemies are patriotic Americans, who care….What a smelly sack of idiocy on two legs.
    Orwell would have been shocked.

  • coyote3

    Unfortunately, they do not all look alike, although most of them are, in fact, of the Caucasian race (present 8 ball with the underwear bomb excepted of course). They do share on commonality, the same religion. Not all Moslems are terrorists, but, the terrorists we face internationally, are all Moslems.

  • thinker1

    if the explosives in his crotch had had exploded, you know the first words from our officials: “It was NOT a terrorist attack!” :—-[

  • thinker1

    MOST of them do look alike….There should be a box somewhere to be marked: your religion?
    Now – no washroom visits in the last hour??? Another idiocy – what can prevent a bomber from going kaboom at any other time? We are always one step behind their “creativity”.

  • coyote3

    Yeah, there are stereotypes. Indeed, I know a lot of people of Mexican descent who could “pass” for ME people. Likewise, a lot of Israelis are virtually physically indistinguishable from the Palestinians they are fighting. Stereotypes are dangerous to the people stereotyping. I am not being PC. Some of the most rapid terrorist we have a Moslems from Eastern Europe. I have no problem with laying the law down for Moslems, in general. They don't make any secret of their religion. Let them make the choice.

  • trodaball

    trickyblain- While some of your arguments hold merit, the basic thrust of the conservative argument, which I believe to be completely true, is that the liberals-leftists do blame America for just about everything, want us out of Afghanistan and Iraq because they claim we are the agressor, do cry for terrorists rights in civilian courts, do not understand the motivations and aims of Islam from a religious standpoint, do not want interogations, they over-emphasize all our ” torture ” for days while minimizing the the barbarism of Islam, even when it involves the murder of civilians. The worldviews of the rank and file on both sides are so far apart they cannot be reconciled. Why ? Because the right truly believes the left does not like their own country. The left takes an approach which puts America on trial first and gives a sworn enemy almost every benefit of the doubt. I share these sentiments because liberals are the one's who want to change what America is. They hate our heritage, traditions, our Constitution, and our Judeo-Christian legacy, ect.They attempt to blame and or prosecute our soldiers at every opportunity ? They push for a socialist society. Why should we not look at liberals as a threat ?

  • bubba4

    “After the repeated attacks on America and our interests worldwide, the Clinton administration steadfastly choose to view the acts as crimes, not a war. After being told that it really was our own fault that we had been attacked, each time we were promised that the “perpetrators” would be hunted down and brought to justice.”

    Weren't the bombers of the WTC put on trial and convicted in federal court in the mid-nineties? Are you upset we didn't behead them in a soccer field?

    “That the threat does not come from another government does not make it any less real, nor does it reduce it criminal in nature vice being a war.”

    It does however make it difficult to declare war.

    ” We did not start this one, and only when they say so — is it over. It is time to adapt our thinking — or die.”

    So we were just minding our own business over on this continent and these dirty cavemen who hate our freedom just decided to come across the world and attack us?

  • bubba4

    You must miss like 90% of the debunking because you never leave these shitty propaganda sites.

    It's like the misinformation greatest hits around here.

  • MaryAnn

    The fact that the two terrorists were released under the Bush administration really means nothing. A lot of the terrorists released under the Bush administration have returned to terror activities. It needs to be understood why the Bush administration released any of the terrorists from Gitmo; it was done because of the relentless pressure brought to bear by the anti-American left who turned Gitmo into the perfect poster of everything that is “wrong” with America and the reason America is hated. So, Bush did something that obviously does not work and Obama decides to repeat that failure. Sounds stupid to me. The panty-bomber should be in Gitmo and he should be interrogated, by whatever method that works, to discover everything we can about the other bombers he said were coming to America. Instead, Obama gives him a lawyer and American citizens get to pay for another trial for another terrorist who would like nothing better that to kill all of us. The anti-American left, just like the terrorists, will not change their minds or their feelings about America. They need to be defeated.

  • thinker1

    She is a dead wood, literally – she advertises furniture now.

  • thinker1

    if you write “gaff” instead of GAFFE, do not make fun of a person who wrote “icone” – it could be a typo.
    Your “gaff” wasn't – you have repeated it.
    A gaff is an iron hook with a handle used for landing large fish. Maybe Bama was kissing that hand? Sucking the thumb?
    Then it might be the “gaff”.

  • thinker1

    if you write “gaff” instead of GAFFE, do not make fun of a person who wrote “icone” – it could be a typo.
    Your “gaff” wasn't – you have repeated it.
    A gaff is an iron hook with a handle used for landing large fish. Maybe Bama was kissing that hand? Sucking the thumb?
    Then it might be the “gaff”.

  • DemocracyFirst

    The US did not at the time understand the meaning of the Lebanon bombing: a resurgent Islamist movement, (one going right back to Mohammed himself), in this iteration derailing western democracy in Arab and Muslim nations. But Reagan did know it was – at least then – a local matter, one he didn`t see Americans willing to lose lives over. He was right about Americans. They, and he as president, though, were wrong. Because, as it turned out, these Islamists had Koranic based global intentions to conquer the world, as soon as they evicted western influences, democracy in particular, from the Islamic world. Crazy? Probably (although the tragedy of European demographics renders this goal not impossible). But in their efforts to succeeed, whether crazy or not, they have already, and will to a much greater degree if we lose our resolve to defeat them, foment great harm to their intended victim nations. Possibly, even, a nuclear WW3 – because Obama seems unwilling to do what is necessary to obliterate Iran's nuclear facilities and intent. Once Iran is nuclear, other Islamic nations will follow.

    In contrast to Lebanon and Reagan, Clinton presided when Islamists attacked American – not foreign – sites. For, as you realize, embassies are considered domestic territory. he also had American citizens' support to seriously respond.

    Moreover, an Arab nation, itself threatened by resurgent Islamism, offered to turn Bin Laden over to American authorities. But not knowing how to deal with the legal and diplomatic technicalities in dealing him, declined.

  • DemocracyFirst

    Indeed, Obama is going after al Qaeda in Pakistan. Perhaps that's because he inadvertently, along with the rest of the disingenuous left wing, made Afghanistan the righteous war, in order to undermine the Iraqi war effort for political reasons.

    But he is appeasing Islamists elsewhere, beginning with the Iranian mullahs, with whom he still – in Month Python satirical fashion – thinks he can negotiate an end to their nuclear aspirations.

    He has appeased by making gratuitous apologies for small American sins, while overlooking epochal Islamic counterparts. In so doing, he encourages Muslims to see that Islamist claims to be reacting to American sins are valid, rather than a lie to cover up their real thinking: the west is now and always has been illegitimate, and Allah has commanded Muslims to make it righteously (and the rest of the world) Muslim.

    He has appeased by left wing moral equivalence perspectives.

    He has appeased by great demands upon Israel based on an initially shallow understanding of ME reality and history. That seems to be correcting, as reality dawns on him as he personally experiences Palestinian and Arab rejectionism. But damage was done.

    He has appeased by rejecting American exceptionalism, in the sense that it is the US, because of its strength, that has safeguarded and promoted democracy – the innate antidote to Islamism.

    He has appeased by projecting weakness.

  • TuMadre

    Hijole! Que feo es!

  • Valerie Rawlings

    Excellent article. Is it not time to say openly that Obama is a Muslim Trojan horse? He is a facilitator of terrorism and now it is clear for all to see.

  • http://www.free-electric-wheelchair.info Devin Teffeteller

    I think I did this a while back. It brings back good memories. Nothing good seems to work the first time. How long did it take you? I look forward to your next post.

  • http://www.homefurnituresupplies.com/ Kitchen Carts

    Thanks that was a awesome article!

  • http://www.inviteslockerz.net Alexis Grupe

    Hi, first I want to say awesome blog. I don’t always agree with your blogposts but it’s always a great read.
    Keep up the good work.

  • http://www.yahoosexshows.com Alberta Claus

    It is a I love a few of the articles which were written, and especially the comments posted! I’ll definately be visiting again!

  • http://www.limousine-nyc.com Limousine NYC

    Very nice article I love your site keep up the good blog posts