Monday, March 26, 2007
Our Miss Brooks and the Liberal Line
Rosa "Luxemburg" Brooks, who writes what Patterico calls the weakest and most poorly reasoned column at the rapidly shrinking L. A. Times (no mean feat that), had another dusie two weekends ago about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, whom she called a nasty piece of work. Sounded good for a bit there.
Here is the gist of her argument, such as it is: From the beginning, the Bush administration should have called terrorism what it is: an ambitious form of lethal and complex criminality that at times requires a military response as well as a political and police response.
War, not an ambitious series of complex criminal acts, is being waged against us by radical Muslims whom some call islamofascist (while I prefer the term Jihadists). We tried to treat it as a crime during the Clinton administration. The effectiveness of that method was revealed on 9/11/01. Waging war against al Qaeda and the Muslim nations which harbor it and other Jihadi organizations, has not been without sacrifice, but it has been effective, so far, in preventing another attack. We are of course hopeful that the lack of repeat attacks here is not merely the result of a rest and refit period before another operation unfolds. Time will tell. I still prefer to wage war back at them, something Rosa Brooks will not support, no matter what the successes. To the left, nothing the Bush administration can do is good and effective and even the confession at a tribunal of the central architect of the 9/11 attacks is merely an opportunity to blackguard further our President.
Everyone and his brother knows this except, apparently, our Miss Brooks and the clueless wing of the Democratic Party she represents.
Here is the gist of her argument, such as it is: From the beginning, the Bush administration should have called terrorism what it is: an ambitious form of lethal and complex criminality that at times requires a military response as well as a political and police response.
War, not an ambitious series of complex criminal acts, is being waged against us by radical Muslims whom some call islamofascist (while I prefer the term Jihadists). We tried to treat it as a crime during the Clinton administration. The effectiveness of that method was revealed on 9/11/01. Waging war against al Qaeda and the Muslim nations which harbor it and other Jihadi organizations, has not been without sacrifice, but it has been effective, so far, in preventing another attack. We are of course hopeful that the lack of repeat attacks here is not merely the result of a rest and refit period before another operation unfolds. Time will tell. I still prefer to wage war back at them, something Rosa Brooks will not support, no matter what the successes. To the left, nothing the Bush administration can do is good and effective and even the confession at a tribunal of the central architect of the 9/11 attacks is merely an opportunity to blackguard further our President.
Everyone and his brother knows this except, apparently, our Miss Brooks and the clueless wing of the Democratic Party she represents.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 8:33 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
I prefer the term "Islamist". We're not at war with Islam, the religion. We're at war with Islamism, the political-military movement.
Formerly sane Andrew Sullivan has put me totally off putting an 'ist' at the end of a religion to signify some sort of evilness. I appreciate your input here but I'd rather say islamofascist than islamist and Jihadist seems to me to be superior to both. Thanks for the comment.
Post a Comment
<< Home
