Seriously Jane, NOT denouncing the action of Iran AND visiting our enemies - what a message you are sending! Talk about bringing up images of Vietnam. Now our own government officials are spitting in the faces of those that serve to keep you free.
House Silent on British Hostage Crisis
Mar 30 04:00 PM US/Eastern
By ANNE FLAHERTY
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Members of the House left Washington on Friday for their two-week spring break without weighing in on the international crisis tormenting the nation's closest ally: the capture of 15 British sailors and marines by Iran.
The omission by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is being noted by some Republicans, who say they should have gotten the chance to join the Senate in denouncing Tehran's bold actions.
"I am very disappointed that the speaker chose not to act," said Rep. Charles Dent, R-Pa.
"I believe it's important for us as Americans to show our solidarity with the Britons," he added in a phone interview Friday. "The British are our closest allies, and I think we have to stand next to them in a moment like this."
The Senate on Thursday, before adjourning for its one-week break, passed a resolution condemning the act "in the strongest possible terms" and calling for the sailors "immediate, safe and unconditional release."
Pelosi's spokesman Brendan Daly said the speaker was reluctant to weigh in on the incident without knowing that such a message would do more good than harm. Daly said the British government had not asked Congress to try to pressure Tehran.
"The leadership discussed it and agreed that inserting Congress into an international crisis while ongoing would not be helpful," Daly said.
Pelosi is traveling in the Middle East, where she plans to visit Syria, Israel and the West Bank.
The sailors were seized on March 23 off the Iraqi coast while searching merchant ships for evidence of smuggling. Britain insists the seven Royal marines and eight sailors were taken in Iraqi waters and has said no admission of error would be made.
Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., says Congress should not only call for the release of the British personnel but also should press the United Nations to explore harsher sanctions against Tehran.
Cantor, the GOP's chief deputy whip, pressed Pelosi this week to pass the measure.
"The illegal seizure of the British forces is a signal that Iran views us as powerless to prevent it from realizing its aggressive ambitions," Cantor wrote in a letter to Pelosi.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
What is next Jane, I mean Nancy?
Pelosi Going to Syria Despite Objections
Mar 30 04:10 PM US/Eastern
By ANNE FLAHERTY
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will visit Syria, a country President Bush has shunned as a sponsor of terrorism, despite being asked by the administration not to go.
"In our view, it is not the right time to have these sort of high- profile visitors to Syria," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters Friday.
Pelosi arrived in Israel on Friday in what is her second fact-finding trip to the Middle East since taking over leadership in the House in January.
Her repeat trip, an indication she plans to play a role in foreign policy, is also a direct affront to the administration, which says such diplomatic overtures by lawmakers can do more harm than good.
Pelosi will not be the first member of Congress in recent months to travel to Syria, but as House speaker she is the most senior.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the speaker "should take a step back and think about the message that it sends."
"This is a county that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the Senora government in Lebanon and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq from its borders," Perino said.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "probably really wants people to come, and have a photo opportunity, and have tea with him, and have discussions about where they're coming from. But we just think it's a really bad idea," Perino said.
Pelosi's office did not immediately return a call seeking comment on why she was not heeding administration warnings.
U.S. officials held their first direct, high-level contact with Syrian representatives in years when they met in Baghdad this month with officials from several Middle East countries to discuss Iraq.
McCormack said the State Department tried to discourage Pelosi and the others from visiting Syria but agreed to give their staff a pre-trip briefing. The U.S. Embassy in Damascus also is expected to assist the delegation.
Others traveling with Pelosi were Democratic Reps. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Henry Waxman and Tom Lantos of California, Louise Slaughter of New York and Nick Rahall of West Virginia, and Ohio Republican David Hobson. Ellison is the first Muslim member of Congress.
The House has adjourned for a two-week spring break.
The group planned to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and to travel to the West Bank to meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said Ellison's spokesman, Rick Jauert.
The speaker is expected on Sunday to address the Israeli Knesset, her first address to a foreign government. She will become the highest- ranking American woman to speak before the Israeli parliament, according to her office.
She is expected to discuss "America's commitment to Israel and the challenges facing the two nations in the Middle East," according to a statement.
In late January, Pelosi and a close political ally, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., led a delegation of House members to Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel and other countries.
The January trip to Baghdad came just days after the president asked Congress in his State of the Union address to give his revised war strategy a chance to work. Bush is sending 21,500 additional combat troops, plus thousands of other support troops, to Iraq in a bid to tamp down sectarian attacks and provide enough security to hasten reconstruction efforts.
Pelosi last week forced legislation through the House that would order all combat troops out of Iraq by September 2008, a measure that resembles legislation approved by the Democratic-run Senate.
___
Associated Press writers Frederic J. Frommer, Jennifer Loven and Matthew Lee contributed to this report.
Mar 30 04:10 PM US/Eastern
By ANNE FLAHERTY
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will visit Syria, a country President Bush has shunned as a sponsor of terrorism, despite being asked by the administration not to go.
"In our view, it is not the right time to have these sort of high- profile visitors to Syria," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters Friday.
Pelosi arrived in Israel on Friday in what is her second fact-finding trip to the Middle East since taking over leadership in the House in January.
Her repeat trip, an indication she plans to play a role in foreign policy, is also a direct affront to the administration, which says such diplomatic overtures by lawmakers can do more harm than good.
Pelosi will not be the first member of Congress in recent months to travel to Syria, but as House speaker she is the most senior.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the speaker "should take a step back and think about the message that it sends."
"This is a county that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the Senora government in Lebanon and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq from its borders," Perino said.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "probably really wants people to come, and have a photo opportunity, and have tea with him, and have discussions about where they're coming from. But we just think it's a really bad idea," Perino said.
Pelosi's office did not immediately return a call seeking comment on why she was not heeding administration warnings.
U.S. officials held their first direct, high-level contact with Syrian representatives in years when they met in Baghdad this month with officials from several Middle East countries to discuss Iraq.
McCormack said the State Department tried to discourage Pelosi and the others from visiting Syria but agreed to give their staff a pre-trip briefing. The U.S. Embassy in Damascus also is expected to assist the delegation.
Others traveling with Pelosi were Democratic Reps. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Henry Waxman and Tom Lantos of California, Louise Slaughter of New York and Nick Rahall of West Virginia, and Ohio Republican David Hobson. Ellison is the first Muslim member of Congress.
The House has adjourned for a two-week spring break.
The group planned to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and to travel to the West Bank to meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said Ellison's spokesman, Rick Jauert.
The speaker is expected on Sunday to address the Israeli Knesset, her first address to a foreign government. She will become the highest- ranking American woman to speak before the Israeli parliament, according to her office.
She is expected to discuss "America's commitment to Israel and the challenges facing the two nations in the Middle East," according to a statement.
In late January, Pelosi and a close political ally, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., led a delegation of House members to Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel and other countries.
The January trip to Baghdad came just days after the president asked Congress in his State of the Union address to give his revised war strategy a chance to work. Bush is sending 21,500 additional combat troops, plus thousands of other support troops, to Iraq in a bid to tamp down sectarian attacks and provide enough security to hasten reconstruction efforts.
Pelosi last week forced legislation through the House that would order all combat troops out of Iraq by September 2008, a measure that resembles legislation approved by the Democratic-run Senate.
___
Associated Press writers Frederic J. Frommer, Jennifer Loven and Matthew Lee contributed to this report.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Not all private schools created equally
L'Eggo My Lego
By Maureen Martin : 28 Feb 2007
Some Seattle school children are being told to be skeptical of private property rights. This lesson is being taught by banning Legos.
A ban was initiated at the Hilltop Children's Center in Seattle. According to an article in the winter 2006-07 issue of "Rethinking Schools" magazine, the teachers at the private school wanted their students to learn that private property ownership is evil.
According to the article, the students had been building an elaborate "Legotown," but it was accidentally demolished. The teachers decided its destruction was an opportunity to explore "the inequities of private ownership." According to the teachers, "Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation."
The children were allegedly incorporating into Legotown "their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys." These assumptions "mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society -- a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive."
They claimed as their role shaping the children's "social and political understandings of ownership and economic equity ... from a perspective of social justice."
So they first explored with the children the issue of ownership. Not all of the students shared the teachers' anathema to private property ownership. "If I buy it, I own it," one child is quoted saying. The teachers then explored with the students concepts of fairness, equity, power, and other issues over a period of several months.
At the end of that time, Legos returned to the classroom after the children agreed to several guiding principles framed by the teachers, including that "All structures are public structures" and "All structures will be standard sizes." The teachers quote the children:
"A house is good because it is a community house."
"We should have equal houses. They should be standard sizes."
"It's important to have the same amount of power as other people over your building."
Given some recent history in Washington state with respect to private property protections, perhaps this should not come as a surprise. Municipal officials in Washington have long known how to condemn one person's private property and sell it to another for the "public use" of private economic development. Even prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, which sanctioned such a use of eminent domain, Washington state officials acting under their state constitution were already proceeding full speed ahead with such transactions.
Officials in Bremerton, for example, condemned a house where a widow had lived for 55 years so her property could be used for a car lot, according to the Institute for Justice. And Seattle successfully condemned nine properties and turned them over to a private developer for retail shops and hotel parking, IJ reports. Attempts to do the same thing in Vancouver (for mixed use development) and Lakewood (for an amusement park) failed for reasons unrelated to property confiscation issues.
The court's ruling in Kelo, however, whetted municipal condemnation appetites even further. The Institute for Justice reports 272 takings for private use are pending or threatened in the state as of last summer. It's unclear if Legos will be targeted. But given what's being taught in some schools, perhaps it's just a matter of time.
Maureen Martin (martin@heartland.org), an attorney, is senior fellow for legal affairs at The Heartland Institute, a nonprofit organization based in Chicago that promotes free-market solutions to social and economic problems.
By Maureen Martin : 28 Feb 2007
Some Seattle school children are being told to be skeptical of private property rights. This lesson is being taught by banning Legos.
A ban was initiated at the Hilltop Children's Center in Seattle. According to an article in the winter 2006-07 issue of "Rethinking Schools" magazine, the teachers at the private school wanted their students to learn that private property ownership is evil.
According to the article, the students had been building an elaborate "Legotown," but it was accidentally demolished. The teachers decided its destruction was an opportunity to explore "the inequities of private ownership." According to the teachers, "Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation."
The children were allegedly incorporating into Legotown "their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys." These assumptions "mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society -- a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive."
They claimed as their role shaping the children's "social and political understandings of ownership and economic equity ... from a perspective of social justice."
So they first explored with the children the issue of ownership. Not all of the students shared the teachers' anathema to private property ownership. "If I buy it, I own it," one child is quoted saying. The teachers then explored with the students concepts of fairness, equity, power, and other issues over a period of several months.
At the end of that time, Legos returned to the classroom after the children agreed to several guiding principles framed by the teachers, including that "All structures are public structures" and "All structures will be standard sizes." The teachers quote the children:
"A house is good because it is a community house."
"We should have equal houses. They should be standard sizes."
"It's important to have the same amount of power as other people over your building."
Given some recent history in Washington state with respect to private property protections, perhaps this should not come as a surprise. Municipal officials in Washington have long known how to condemn one person's private property and sell it to another for the "public use" of private economic development. Even prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, which sanctioned such a use of eminent domain, Washington state officials acting under their state constitution were already proceeding full speed ahead with such transactions.
Officials in Bremerton, for example, condemned a house where a widow had lived for 55 years so her property could be used for a car lot, according to the Institute for Justice. And Seattle successfully condemned nine properties and turned them over to a private developer for retail shops and hotel parking, IJ reports. Attempts to do the same thing in Vancouver (for mixed use development) and Lakewood (for an amusement park) failed for reasons unrelated to property confiscation issues.
The court's ruling in Kelo, however, whetted municipal condemnation appetites even further. The Institute for Justice reports 272 takings for private use are pending or threatened in the state as of last summer. It's unclear if Legos will be targeted. But given what's being taught in some schools, perhaps it's just a matter of time.
Maureen Martin (martin@heartland.org), an attorney, is senior fellow for legal affairs at The Heartland Institute, a nonprofit organization based in Chicago that promotes free-market solutions to social and economic problems.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Another Vietnam??
Another Vietnam? Bring it on
By Dinesh D'Souza
Monday, March 5, 2007
The Pelosi Democrats in Congress and the leading Democratic presidential contenders all stress that things aren’t going well in Iraq. Yet they all seem quite pleased about this. The real question is whether the Pelosi Democrats and their left-wing allies want America to lose the Iraq war, just as a generation ago liberal Democrats pressed for a humiliating American retreat in Vietnam.
With the Iraq war now in its fourth year, comparisons to Vietnam become inevitable. There was Jane Fonda on the mall at the peace rally recently, invoking the spirit of 1968. Others have been making the Vietnam analogy for some time. Typical is columnist Robert Freeman, who frets that Iraq has become a “quagmire” and is leading to “an outcome perhaps even more calamitous than in Vietnam.” Several senior Democrats have taken up the theme, with Senator Ted Kennedy calling Iraq “George Bush’s Vietnam.”
Actually Iraq is not like Vietnam. America has vital interests in Iraq, unlike in Vietnam. If the Islamic radicals seize Iraq, then they would have control of a second major state, since they already run Iran. Moreover, in Vietnam there were a million men fighting on the other side. In Iraq America faces an insurgency drawing from the Sunni faction that makes up only 20 percent of the population. Despite the ferocity of the enemy and the outbursts of civil strife, America can win in Iraq. And America must win, because the stakes of losing are too high.
But there is a whole political group here in America that is working overtime for America to get out of Iraq in the same ignominious way it retreated from Vietnam. And if America loses in Iraq, I suspect it will be less because of military defeat imposed by the insurgency, and more because of political defeat imposed by the left in this country. The political left, with its powerful allies in the media, and now with its hands on the levers of Congressional power, seems to be waging an undeclared war against Bush’s war on terror. For this group, “another Vietnam” is not a prospect to be feared, but welcomed.
Why? We commonly hear that America lost the Vietnam War, and this is true, but it is not true of the political left. The left won the Vietnam War. It won in the sense that it wanted America to withdraw and accept humiliation, and America withdrew and accepted humiliation. The result was very bad for the Indochinese, who suffered a Communist bloodbath in the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal. At the same time, the result was extremely beneficial for the political left.
Withdrawal from Vietnam was a devastating blow for America’s pride and self-confidence, and inhibited direct American military intervention abroad for a generation. This was exactly what leading leftists wanted, and they got it. Moreover, a whole generation of liberal Democrats—the so-called Class of ’74—were swept into Congress, and some of them are still in office, such as Chris Dodd, Tom Harkin and George Miller. The Nixon presidency was further crippled, and the groundwork was laid for Carter’s election in 1976.
In addition, the antiwar movement generated by opposition to the Vietnam war greatly fortified other social movements that were gathering momentum at the time, such as the women’s rights and the gay rights movements. Without Vietnam, would the sexual revolution have exploded in the way that it did? It seems doubtful. Vietnam was the main reason for the counterculture of the 1960s, which may have developed anyway but would have been a much weaker force without this galvanizing cause. In sum, Vietnam was for the left not only a foreign policy success but also a political success and a cultural success.
One possible objection to the idea that the left wants another Vietnam is the results were not an unqualified triumph for American liberalism. Historians point out that the legacy of Vietnam produced a political backlash that helped Reagan get elected in 1980. The whole conservative ascendancy of the past generation is partly a product of this backlash. Even so, the left during the Vietnam era was able to make permanent changes in American society. Gender relations were transformed. Homosexuals came out of the closet. Abortion on demand became not only legal but interwoven with the lives of millions of Americans. Even now, a quarter of a century later, conservatives can only hope to moderate, but not reverse, these sweeping changes. The left paid a political price for these victories, but it was worth it.
A second possible objection to the theory that the left wants Vietnam-style defeat in Iraq is that the Islamic radicals are the most illiberal force in the world. The Vietnamese Communists, like Communists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, at least appealed to liberal principles such as social egalitarianism and workers’ rights. So one might understand how American leftists in the 1960s and 1970s might feel sympathetic toward their cause and view America as the enemy. By contrast, the argument goes, the Islamic radicals who are likely to benefit from America’s defeat in Iraq are resolute enemies of feminism, gay rights, civil liberties, and all the social causes that are a top priority on the left.
Yes, but it is precisely in the name of these causes that several figures on the left want the Islamic radicals to win, and Bush to lose, the war on terror. If you listen carefully to the rhetoric of leading leftists, you discover that they dislike Bin Laden and the Islamic radicals but they hate Bush and his conservative allies. Bin Laden to them is the “far enemy” but Bush is the “near enemy.” From their point of view, Bin Laden’s radicals want sharia in Baghdad but Bush’s religious and political supporters wants sharia in Boston. It is Bush, not Bin Laden, who threatens with one more Supreme Court appointment to jeopardize the left’s hard-won social victories of the past generation.
For this reason, the left is pursuing the strategy of the lesser evil. The left cannot publicly say this, but it is willing to work with the bad guy in order to get rid of the worse guy. The left and its allies in the press seem quite ready to risk an Islamic radical takeover in Iraq as long as it also produces the greater political good of destroying Bush and his conservative allies in America. If Bush is defeated in Iraq he could go down in history with a reputation as bad as Nixon’s and conservative foreign policy could be set back for another generation. Some on the left may be quite willing to give up the whole Middle East for this.
So far Bush and the right are fighting two wars, a military fight over there and a political war over here. So far the conservatives seem utterly ignorant of what they are up against. Conservatives continue their strenuous efforts to convince liberals and leftists that the Islamic radicals don’t like Hillary Clinton and Barney Frank. News flash to the right: the left already knows this. Conservatives also keep saying the liberal Democrats don’t have a foreign policy. But they do, and it’s the same strategy that Jane Fonda used a generation ago: to work with the enemy abroad in order to defeat the enemy at home.
Dinesh D'Souza's new book The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 has just been published by Doubleday. D’Souza is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution.
By Dinesh D'Souza
Monday, March 5, 2007
The Pelosi Democrats in Congress and the leading Democratic presidential contenders all stress that things aren’t going well in Iraq. Yet they all seem quite pleased about this. The real question is whether the Pelosi Democrats and their left-wing allies want America to lose the Iraq war, just as a generation ago liberal Democrats pressed for a humiliating American retreat in Vietnam.
With the Iraq war now in its fourth year, comparisons to Vietnam become inevitable. There was Jane Fonda on the mall at the peace rally recently, invoking the spirit of 1968. Others have been making the Vietnam analogy for some time. Typical is columnist Robert Freeman, who frets that Iraq has become a “quagmire” and is leading to “an outcome perhaps even more calamitous than in Vietnam.” Several senior Democrats have taken up the theme, with Senator Ted Kennedy calling Iraq “George Bush’s Vietnam.”
Actually Iraq is not like Vietnam. America has vital interests in Iraq, unlike in Vietnam. If the Islamic radicals seize Iraq, then they would have control of a second major state, since they already run Iran. Moreover, in Vietnam there were a million men fighting on the other side. In Iraq America faces an insurgency drawing from the Sunni faction that makes up only 20 percent of the population. Despite the ferocity of the enemy and the outbursts of civil strife, America can win in Iraq. And America must win, because the stakes of losing are too high.
But there is a whole political group here in America that is working overtime for America to get out of Iraq in the same ignominious way it retreated from Vietnam. And if America loses in Iraq, I suspect it will be less because of military defeat imposed by the insurgency, and more because of political defeat imposed by the left in this country. The political left, with its powerful allies in the media, and now with its hands on the levers of Congressional power, seems to be waging an undeclared war against Bush’s war on terror. For this group, “another Vietnam” is not a prospect to be feared, but welcomed.
Why? We commonly hear that America lost the Vietnam War, and this is true, but it is not true of the political left. The left won the Vietnam War. It won in the sense that it wanted America to withdraw and accept humiliation, and America withdrew and accepted humiliation. The result was very bad for the Indochinese, who suffered a Communist bloodbath in the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal. At the same time, the result was extremely beneficial for the political left.
Withdrawal from Vietnam was a devastating blow for America’s pride and self-confidence, and inhibited direct American military intervention abroad for a generation. This was exactly what leading leftists wanted, and they got it. Moreover, a whole generation of liberal Democrats—the so-called Class of ’74—were swept into Congress, and some of them are still in office, such as Chris Dodd, Tom Harkin and George Miller. The Nixon presidency was further crippled, and the groundwork was laid for Carter’s election in 1976.
In addition, the antiwar movement generated by opposition to the Vietnam war greatly fortified other social movements that were gathering momentum at the time, such as the women’s rights and the gay rights movements. Without Vietnam, would the sexual revolution have exploded in the way that it did? It seems doubtful. Vietnam was the main reason for the counterculture of the 1960s, which may have developed anyway but would have been a much weaker force without this galvanizing cause. In sum, Vietnam was for the left not only a foreign policy success but also a political success and a cultural success.
One possible objection to the idea that the left wants another Vietnam is the results were not an unqualified triumph for American liberalism. Historians point out that the legacy of Vietnam produced a political backlash that helped Reagan get elected in 1980. The whole conservative ascendancy of the past generation is partly a product of this backlash. Even so, the left during the Vietnam era was able to make permanent changes in American society. Gender relations were transformed. Homosexuals came out of the closet. Abortion on demand became not only legal but interwoven with the lives of millions of Americans. Even now, a quarter of a century later, conservatives can only hope to moderate, but not reverse, these sweeping changes. The left paid a political price for these victories, but it was worth it.
A second possible objection to the theory that the left wants Vietnam-style defeat in Iraq is that the Islamic radicals are the most illiberal force in the world. The Vietnamese Communists, like Communists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, at least appealed to liberal principles such as social egalitarianism and workers’ rights. So one might understand how American leftists in the 1960s and 1970s might feel sympathetic toward their cause and view America as the enemy. By contrast, the argument goes, the Islamic radicals who are likely to benefit from America’s defeat in Iraq are resolute enemies of feminism, gay rights, civil liberties, and all the social causes that are a top priority on the left.
Yes, but it is precisely in the name of these causes that several figures on the left want the Islamic radicals to win, and Bush to lose, the war on terror. If you listen carefully to the rhetoric of leading leftists, you discover that they dislike Bin Laden and the Islamic radicals but they hate Bush and his conservative allies. Bin Laden to them is the “far enemy” but Bush is the “near enemy.” From their point of view, Bin Laden’s radicals want sharia in Baghdad but Bush’s religious and political supporters wants sharia in Boston. It is Bush, not Bin Laden, who threatens with one more Supreme Court appointment to jeopardize the left’s hard-won social victories of the past generation.
For this reason, the left is pursuing the strategy of the lesser evil. The left cannot publicly say this, but it is willing to work with the bad guy in order to get rid of the worse guy. The left and its allies in the press seem quite ready to risk an Islamic radical takeover in Iraq as long as it also produces the greater political good of destroying Bush and his conservative allies in America. If Bush is defeated in Iraq he could go down in history with a reputation as bad as Nixon’s and conservative foreign policy could be set back for another generation. Some on the left may be quite willing to give up the whole Middle East for this.
So far Bush and the right are fighting two wars, a military fight over there and a political war over here. So far the conservatives seem utterly ignorant of what they are up against. Conservatives continue their strenuous efforts to convince liberals and leftists that the Islamic radicals don’t like Hillary Clinton and Barney Frank. News flash to the right: the left already knows this. Conservatives also keep saying the liberal Democrats don’t have a foreign policy. But they do, and it’s the same strategy that Jane Fonda used a generation ago: to work with the enemy abroad in order to defeat the enemy at home.
Dinesh D'Souza's new book The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 has just been published by Doubleday. D’Souza is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
