By Dave Petteys (firstname.lastname@example.org) Financial Times columnist Jacob Weisberg (see FT.com, subscription required) this week voiced the absurd premise, “if Congress is serious about ending the war” -- as if any war can be “ended” unilaterally, short of complete surrender. This notion demonstrates clearly his (and the FT’s) appalling lack of understanding of the true nature of Western Civilization’s struggle with Islam.
Evidently they subscribe to the George Soros premise that “fighting the war on terror is what’s causing it”. Therefore, if we quit, somehow terrorism will dwindle away and we can all go back to building our welfare state utopias with tax and spend programs. Obviously, Weisberg has not read the Al Qaeda documents setting forth their goals for the new global Caliphate. Or he has chosen to ignore these warnings, presumably dismissing them as “false CIA documents manufactured to scare people”.
An “inconvenient truth" (to borrow from Mr. Gore), is the ten years of terrorist attacks during the Clinton administration, which were treated as a “police matters” -- though how you discipline suicide bombers with the threat of fines and imprisonment is never quite explained. These attacks grew in ferocity and frequency rather than ebb with benign neglect. Yet what is the response from FT and its ilk? “We mustn’t react in kind to terrorist attacks, because it might irritate terrorists and cause terrorist attacks.” Excuse me? Does this make any sense?