New tactic from the Cut & Run Democrats

Time and again, when liberals are losing a debate, they make an attempt to introduce a new euphemism when no one is looking, in an effort to pretend they are bringing new ideas to that debate. The latest iteration can be seen in this essay from Dianne Feinstein and Chris Dodd.

"No longer should 'we will stand down when they stand up' suffice as American policy," they declare, while articulating a policy that can be summed up by those very words. This statement is preceded by a summary of the past few months' events and a laundry list of goals for Iraq's government. But basically they don't say anything substantively different from the existing Administration policy.

What is substantively different is that the Bush Administration's goal is success and victory, while the Democrat policy goal is withdrawal of U.S. troops. This latest Dem position is nothing but an attempt to camouflage this difference. Statements made by John Kerry, always demanding a date by which U.S. forces should be withdrawn, obviously appear irresponsible to anyone with common sense. A timetable based on concrete goals or benchmarks (e.g., "Iraqi forces achieve 80% manpower for routine anti-insurgent patrols in Ramadi"), which is what I would like to see, would not play well with the nutroots.

You're a self-loathing liberal....

... and Lileks has got your number:

But wait. You read that the suspects were not connected to al-Qaida, and you're confused for a moment. Maybe it won't be over if they get Osama bin Laden (provided he isn't really in an supersecret Idaho prison). What if the "terrorists" hate you for their own reasons? The evildoer-in-chief said "they hate our freedoms" -- as if we have freedoms, really, just try and get a bike-messenger job that has full health benefits. But what if rights and mixed-sex education and an economy based on sustainable hemp-based art installations mean nothing to them?

Heh. Read the whole thing.

Zarqawi Whacked.

One more of the hydra's heads has been lopped off with the death of this fragrant piece of human offal. It is only a matter of time before another one or two emerge to replace him.

Asymmetric warfare grinds along, however. Despite the fact that al-Qaeda is essentially unable to come up with an equivalent coup, like perhaps hunting down and killing a senior U.S. military officer, Islamists have long allowed for the persistence of an organizational structure despite such setbacks. The doctrine of "Nizam, la tanzim" ("System, not organization") as formulated by Spanish-Syrian terror strategist Abu Musab al'Suri, has surfaced alive and well in Toronto. This would-be Maozedong of Islamist asymmetric warfare postulates a radically decentralized method of waging warfare by spontaneously arising, widespread, isolated, self-motivated and self-contained cells.

The water (or swamp) in which these twisted fish are expected to swim can only be drained with difficulty in liberal democracies such as ours. At the very least, alternatives to Wahhabist education have to be provided by Muslim communities who have failed to present a more moderate and traditional version of Islam to their young people (see Bernard Lewis' comments linked in post below). Also, it would be nice if self-hating and suicidal left-wing fools would stop mouthing statements that sound like they were lifted verbatim from Osama bin Laden's fatwas. And, as another vain wish, can the press avoid being duped into disseminating Islamist propaganda (assuming they're not happily promoting it)?

A statement from Abu Abdel-Rahman al-Iraqi puts a positive spin on events: "The death of our leaders is life for us." La ch'aim.

"Two simple words: Get Tough."

So says the (IMO) greatest living historian of Islam, Bernard Lewis, in a wide-ranging must-read dialog with journalists. Charles Krauthammer elicited from him the quote in the title of this post, in response to his question about what to do in Iraq, Iran, and against Hamas/Hezbollah.

It was an enlightening forum and I was particularly struck by Lewis' analogy of Wahhabism occupying the same legitimacy within Islam as the Ku Klux Klan does in Christianity. I think "Islam/Islamdom" is a useful approach to those cultures. And I am saddened at the wisdom in his observations about Islam's "bloody perimeter".

Dems throw an earthquake, and nobody came (including the earthquake).

"The theory is if Democrat Busby can win today's election, Democrats will win a lot of other House races in Republican districts in November — giving them the net gain of 15 seats they need to control the House."

Uh...now what?