Andrew Hagen

Commenting on the horrific massacre of schoolchildren in Beslan, Russia, Airborne Combat Engineer says “Terrorists have ‘jumped the shark’ in Russia.” (*)

(Background on “jumping the shark.” (†))

No, terrorists jumped the shark a long time ago. The way to defeat terrorists is to kill them. That’s the only way.

The real question is: Has Islam jumped the shark?

I am sick and tired of hearing Muslims whine and complain about how Islam is denigrated and “rights” are violated. A Muslim has no more (and no fewer) rights than any other human being. The real enemies of Islam are radical Muslims.

When are moderate Muslims going to declare jihad against those Muslims who are driving Islam over the cliff?

There is not a limitless supply of tolerance. Islam needs to either clean house or face the consequences.

Those consequences are highly negative. Islam, as a civilization, culture, and religion, is in the process of cracking up. Unless a new direction is found, Islam will die. The only question then is how many innocent people will it take down with it. Do not forget that Iran is building nuclear weapons.

I fervently hope that Islam itself does not become one big, civilizational suicide bomb. Unfortunately, that ugly outcome does appear to be a distinct possibility at this stage.

What is impossible is the dream of the terrorists: Islamic world domination. What they are fighting for cannot ever occur. Islam is not strong enough to conquer the world. Terrorists attack anyway. The result is a setback for the human race, and disastrous for the innocent victims, like those little schoolchildren who were shot in the back by Muslim terrorists.

The BBC looks into noise pollution at sea. Underwater noise emanating from large ships, submarines, sonar, seismic testing, and so on disables and kills whales and dolphins. Some say an international treaty may be required. (*)

It is arrogant of us, the human race, to assume we have the right to disrupt the lives of any other species whenever we find it convenient. Our technological creations are wondrous, but we should re-calibrate them for minimal intrusion. I support a treaty to stop marine noise pollution.

The Dan Rather/National Guard media circus continues. There is a good case to be made that Rather and CBS News crossed the line. (*)

As I said before, the media should just admit their biases in order to protect their credibility. (†) They wouldn’t even have to make an open statement. They could just stealthily signal their bias, as Fox News does.

One positive outcome of this might be a melding together of the blog world with the news world. Blogs need reporters. Usually this is done through surrogate reporters in the form of links to news articles on the web. News organizations have reporters, but they need a better format of presentation. The scattershot newspaper front page, where everything is arranged out of order, may be dated. Perhaps a major news organization will adopt the blog format.

Thanks to “security moms,” Bush is picking up more support from women than a Republican presidential candidate could have expected based on previous elections. Quoting Newsweek, the Christian Science Monitor reports on “identical numbers for men and women in the race: Men favor Bush 49 percent to 43 percent, as do women.” Women give Bush a 23 point edge on security and terrorism issues. (*)

To win, Kerry needs to be strong on national defense. He cannot allow the public’s perception of weakness to continue. Simply saying, “We will blow up Al Qaeda” does not cut it. Kerry must be credible on this issue. He needs to dig deep down inside, speak from the heart, and articulate what he would do as Commander-in-Chief.

News syndicate Reuters (*) admits why it doesn’t use the word “terrorist” in its daily descriptions of terrorists. As it turns out, Reuters fears that if its employees use the word “terrorist,” they will be killed. (†)

We must be strong. We must not cower in fear. We cannot be weak, because that is how evil wins.

Reuters, change your policy.

Islamic terrorists have been training in the Philippines for murderous attacks in Indonesia and around the violent hot spots of southeast Asia. The terror camps have supported attacks in Jakarta, and probably elsewhere. The AP reports on the secret Philippine government report. (*)

The Bush Administration has not done enough to combat terror in southeast Asia, especially the Philippines. Kerry could and should make this an issue.

Muslim-Americans are backing Kerry over Bush by a margin of 76% to 7%, according to a Zogby poll. (*)

Schmaltz king Yusuf Islam, formerly Cat Stevens, who once applauded the Ayatollah’s death warrant on author Salman Rushdie, is barred entry into the US on national security grounds. The “Peace Train” singer’s transatlantic flight was stopped in Bangor, Maine, where he was removed from the United Airlines craft. (*) MSNBC reports that he will be deported.

Now if we could only do the same thing to Britney Spears.

Update: 22 September 2004. More allegations have been made against Yusuf Islam. (†) (‡)

Update: 23 September 2004. Federal officials discuss allegations against Mr Peace Train, and also why he was allowed to board the plane in the first place. (§)

We’re about a month away from election day and so far the 2004 campaign for the White House has poorly served the American public.

This election campaign should focus on the large issues of the day. Instead, the discussion has been what two young men did during the Vietnam War, a large event in which neither played a major part.

Neither Bush nor Kerry will rebuke their compatriots who clog the limited public space with their shouting over medals and National Guard service.

In terms of character, that unwillingness to criticize errant friends alone suggests that neither man is interested in putting his country’s fortunes in front of his own.

Meanwhile, we have two candidates hovering around swing states and trading empty sound bites.

What this election campaign needs is what is called “clash,” on-topic responses and rebuttals, rejoinders and refutations, from one candidate to another.

Unfortunately, there is little chance of this. We get the presidential debates in a few weeks. The likely schedule was announced months ago, as I noted back then. (*) The formal debates might be the only part of this campaign with clash. On the other hand, the debates could turn into a farce.

For now, here is some artificial clash.

John Kerry: (†)

Let me put it plainly: The President’s policy in Iraq has not strengthened our national security. It has weakened it.

The problem with this argument is that we have not had a successful foreign terrorist attack on the homeland since 9/11. Anthrax and Flight 587 are murky in nature, and long ago. If we haven’t been hit, what does it mean that our national security is weakened?

George W Bush: (‡)

Because we acted, the government of a free Afghanistan is fighting terror, Pakistan is capturing terrorist leaders, Saudi is making raids and arrests, Libya is dismantling its weapons programs, the army of a free Iraq is fighting for freedom, and more than three-quarters of al Qaeda’s key members and associates have been detained or killed.

President Bush omits the Phillipines, Indonesia, Thailand, North Korea, the Sudan, Nigeria, Syria, Iran, and Russia. The terrorist outlook for these countries is markedly improved since the beginning of the Bush presidency. Furthermore, the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t as rosy as they should be, thanks in large part to Bush’s inability to crack down on international terror emanating from Iran and elsewhere. Meanwhile Saudi citizens are still financially backing terrorism, despite the handful of arrests carried out by the tyrannical monarchy there. John Kerry’s energy independence plan would at least cut into Saudi wealth. Bush apparently has no problem with $46 a barrel oil, and he doesn’t support energy independence.

John Kerry, same speech as above:

“[W]e must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The President claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists.…

We must make Iraq the world’s responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden. We must effectively train Iraqis, because they should be responsible for their own security. We must move forward with reconstruction, because that’s essential to stop the spread of terror.

First he says Iraq is not part of the war on terrorism, then he says it is essential to stopping terror.

Kerry blunders when he sees Iraq, correctly, as a land of suicide bombings and hostage killings, but then fails to describe it as part of the War on Terrorism.

Senator Kerry would do well to say this instead: “When we invaded Iraq, that was an unnecessary diversion from the War on Terrorism. Now, however, due to President Bush’s incompetence in running the war, allowing foreign fighters to enter Iraq and his unwillingness to secure ammo dumps, the military campaign in Iraq is indeed part of the War on Terrorism. It’s a shame Bush brought Iraq into the war unnecessarily.”

That would still be wrong, but it would at least not be a glaring contradiction.

George W Bush, same speech:

We’re also serving a vital and historic cause that’ll make our country safer. Free societies in the Middle East will be hopeful societies, which no longer feed resentments and breed violence for export. Free governments in the Middle East will fight terrorists instead of harboring them, and that helps us keep the peace.

Bush has totally ignored the hard question of whether Islamic government is compatible with individual freedom. As a result, he leaves himself open to the charge that he risks American lives to free people who do not want to be free. Put more elegantly (and more accurately), Bush busily fights for political change in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan to achieve a goal (freedom), achievement of which requires not so much political change but cultural change.

You can’t teach people civic democracy at the barrel of a gun. The barrel of the gun does make civic democracy possible, but war doesn’t teach liberty. Not only does Bush not speak out against the tyrannical side of Islam, he does not allow the State Department a big enough role in the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. Soldiers’ lives should not be risked so lightly.

What does it mean? The polls are saying Bush is cruising to an easy victory. The incumbent has little incentive to start clashing on the issues. The Kerry campaign is off-track. Kerry is not connecting with the American people. Kerry’s only hope is to start clashing.

If I were John Kerry, I would throw out my stump speech, and stand up in front of Iowa farmers or Pennsylvania truck drivers or whomever, and just do a point-by-point rebuttal of Bush’s stump speeches. That would be clash.

John Dean addresses this delicate subject. (*)

A Pentagon-funded study suggests that bombing Iran is not the best way to stop that evil regime from building nuclear weapons. A series of other steps would put intense pressure on Iran. One of the steps must be concessions by Israel. (* PDF) The report begins:

When it comes to Iran’s nuclear program, most U.S. and allied officials are in one or another state of denial. All insist it is critical to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet, few understand just how late it is to attempt this. Iran is now no more than 12 to 48 months from acquiring a nuclear bomb, lacks for nothing technologically or materially to produce it, and seems dead set on securing an option to do so. As for the most popular policy options – to bomb or bribe Iran – only a handful of analysts and officials are willing to admit publicly how self-defeating these courses of action might be.

The study is Restraining a Nuclear-Ready Iran: Seven Levers, by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. (†)

Never again.

Vice-President Cheney rightly received heat for stating that the US would be hit by a terrorist attack if John Kerry is elected President. Chagrined, Cheney is now softening the edge of his remark. (*)

But could he have been unintentionally on to something? The WTC bombing of 1993 came early in Clinton’s term. The 9/11 attacks came early in Bush’s term. Perhaps one of the terrorist strategies is to attack the US during the early days of each new US President to test our defenses. For reference, the State Department has a list of major terrorist attacks going back four decades. (†)

Should that be the case, it should not play a role in the campaign. National security should be a bipartisan matter.

An interesting fact is that if George W Bush wins re-election on November 2nd and completes his term in 2009, it will be the first time in almost two hundred years that two or more US Presidents have served consecutive eight-year terms in office.

Thomas Jefferson’s presidency ranged from 1801 to 1809. Madison presided from 1809 to 1817. James Monroe served as President from 1817 to 1825. Since then, the US has not had consecutive eight-year presidencies.

Should Bush serve eight years, he will follow Bill Clinton’s eight year term in office.

There are interesting parallels. Bill Clinton’s middle name is “Jefferson.” Both were very smart men who suffered from sex scandals despite their many successes in office. During Madison’s presidency, foreign troops (British) attacked and burned down the White House and the Capitol. During Bush’s term, we have had the 9/11 attacks, where the White House and Capitol were both targeted by foreign terrorists. The Bush Doctrine has been compared, approvingly and disapprovingly, to the Monroe Doctrine.

In the election of 1816, when Madison was re-elected, his opponent was Rufus King, Senator from New York and member of the Federalist Party. Madison cruised to an easy victory. The Federalist Party opposed the War of 1812. As a result, the Federalist Party faded and never returned as a force in American politics. (*) Could the Democratic Party face the same fate as the Federalist Party? The Democrats have not been pragmatic enough on issues of national security, in my opinion. It’s possible that the antiwar, dogmatic approach could discredit the whole party. As a liberal, this concerns me.

Unfortunately, this site has been the repeated target of spammers. Search engines routinely index this site. The only way to deny spammers a reward in the form of search engine listings is to prevent all spam from being posted. The only way to do that is to moderate all comments.

Hence, all comments are now moderated. New comments will not appear until I approve them. I promise that I will allow any comment to be posted so long as it doesn’t violate common sense rules.

Spam and unsolicited commercial content are not allowed. Political spam is not allowed. Commercial enterprises and products and political candidates can certainly be mentioned if the mention is made in good faith. Comments that are illegal or defamatory are not allowed. As this is an American web site, the applicable law is that of the USA. The laws of other nations are without effect here. Comments that are personally abusive and profane are not allowed. Comments must be generally relevant to the topic at hand.

Unlike some other web sites, I do not censor opposing views.

As I have suffered the sting and the lash of Internet censorship in the guise of “moderation” many times, I promise to be as liberal as possible in allowing comments.

It might take a day or possibly a few days for a comment to go through moderation and appear on the site as I might be away from an Internet connection.

No other statement by me written, electronic, oral, or otherwise supersedes this paragraph. This policy and all of the promises within it are not intended to be a legal contract, but only a set of guidelines. I retain complete discretion over how to run this site. AH