Skip to main content

Hugh's Crusade is All Wrong

Hugh Hewitt: Tancredo's Crusade and its Costs

I'm a fan Hugh Hewitt's radio show as well as most of his writings. But here again with the Tancredo's"Bomb Mecca" comments, and more precisely the Senator's followup I think Hugh is just "whipping that pony into a frenzy".

I wrote here that I think we need less of this "woodshed" mentality in the blogsphere. I might want to call the Senator's , comment's stupid, or just not thought out well enough, but to continually attempt to divide the Moon of Islam into two spheres, "light and dark", is intellectually and factually untrue. There may be different facets of adherance, but the Moon is still the Moon.

Senator Tancredo's followup does make interesting points. One of which is the silence of Moderate Muslims and especially the condoning of terrorist acts by others. No not every one of the billion plus followers of Isam believe as Osam or his followers, but there are more indications that there are many more than we realize. One also has to remember that Mecca is central to Bin Laden's theology (remember the history of Mecca and Medina); and the fact that Mecca's physical location in Saudi Arabia, a country that that see has having more or less 'rogue friendship" with the US, it is important that we take it into the equasion.

I served in the "Kingdom", with the US Army back in 1983, on special assignment. Mecca, though a devout holy place for many Muslims, was also on our charts as a place that we knew that extremists dwelt. If you think they won't use a "Holy Place" to plan their activities, and preach their version of Islam to the masses, you are deceived out of your socks. We can't afford to leave "any rock" unturned in this War on Terror, lest we pay the price.

No, I dont' advocate "Mecca on the Table", but Mecca IS an issue, and it should be a crucial strategic point in the War on Terror. One much remember, these extremists look at this as a Holy War, the Crusades Continued, and as such no "religious' target is off their table.

I do believe, in giving the Senator the benefit of the doubt. Although I do think that originally he should have put it in more precise terms.

However this absured idea that Tancredo's comments will 'unnecessarily inflame' the extremists, or necessarily turn the "light side" of the Moon against us is nonsense.

Hugh writes:

"Tancredo's foolishness will no doubt be used, as was Dick Durbin's outrageous comparison of the American military to Nazis and Khmer Rouge, by propagandists for Islamist extremists. But Tancredo's attemp to hide himself under the wings of John Howard and other eloquent spokesmen who reject the dangeorus idea that the West is generating the attacks on itself overlooks Howard's --and Blair's and Bush's-- refusal to be drawn into Islam bashing or incediary rhetoric like Tancredo's."

Hugh? They've been inflamed to the nth degree for some time now. Extemist would use Dick Cheney going to the hospital for a check up as propaganda.

"The United State is locked in a deadly war with Islamists who would indeed use nukes against American cities if they could, or any other WMD for that matter. There are some states that support these Islamists, including the governments of Iran and Syria, and some of the elites in Saudi Arabia.

But there are also governments like those in Eygpt, Jordan, and Pakistan that are providing us enormously valuable assistance in the war, governements which come under huge pressure from their fundamentalist Muslim populations to stop assisting the "crusaders."


Hugh is going a little off base here. Simply while Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan have been "helpful", Eygpt's military is spintered and festered with Osam Bin Laden sympathizers, and Pakistan? Well the main reason we don't have Bin Laden "dead or alive" is due to their "stalling" our efforts in the area that we know Osama is hiding which borders their country. In my opinion they need to crap Osama or get off our wagon.

The absense of posittive comments on Tancredo's statements, doesn't necessarily constitute disagreement with them. I'll could tell you that there are a lot of military experts, who I converse with daily, who to some extent agree.

I think it's time to get off the horse.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Calling Mr. Fitzgerald?

**UPDATED AND BUMPED****

As I told you about in this post yesterday as a source confirmed to me that the Justice Department has launched a probe into the NSA leak. Mr. Risen, you are in trouble - prepare your defense. I told you so.

The White House will be announcing the probe at about 12:30pm. My source tells me that this probe will most likely result in another prosecutor being assigned as of course Fitzgerald is still busy/dizzy on the Plame/Game No-Leak. Additionally, other probes into other recent leaks such as the CIA 'prisons'leak is in the works as well. As I said, this is the NEW Bush - on the attack - it's no more Mr. Nice Guy!

About time! Also covering Michelle Malkin

*****End Update*********

UPDATE II: Looks like I owe my source big time as yet another tip comes true as the Washington Post is on the target list as well for the CIA Prison leak.

****End Update II*************************************

Update III: Via Fox: "The government has no legal right to…

Is the lid about to be blown off Able Danger?

Those who have been wishing for a full blown Able Danger investigation are about to get their wish. The "gate" has been unlocked.

9/11 Iraqi Connection

With Democrats calling for yet more investigations into pre-war intelligence, and Republicans like myself pushing back to help their 'sudden amnesia”, the growing stories of Able Danger and even China Gate, are beginning to make news.

The three main theories about why Able Danger hasn't gotten out of the "blog stage", are 1) To hide Clinton era responsibility for stopping the 9/11 attacks, and/or 2) To hide the truth behind China-Gate, or 3) The facts show that there in fact was a direct link between Iraq and 9/11.

Taking either one you can see why the Clinton worshipping MSM for the most part hasn't touched the story. Of the later point, Democrats, the MSM and even some of our investigations state that there was no 'direct' link between Iraq and 9/11. Say otherwise and the MSM will slice and di…

Able Danger - Pulling Back the Covers of the real Clinton Legacy

First, let's dispense with the bull crap. The meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi Intelligence officer Al-Ani, on April 8th, 2001 happened.

Yet, just don't mention it to the MSM, becaue since May of 2002, the MSM declared an all out assault on the story. A meeting incidently, that the Czech government has to this date stood by.

Let's review a little history:

October 13, 2001: Story of the meeting is leaked from somewhere in the Czech foreign service.

yet.....

October 20, 2001: Ny Times, John Tagliabue writes a story citing other Czech officials said the meeting never took place.

so.....

October 26, 2001: Czech Minister of the Interior, Stanislav Gross has a press conference not only confirming the orginal report but giving further details of Atta's other trip to Prague in June 2000.

then.....

October 27, 2001: The NY Times "recants" the October 20th denial.

The story continues it's oddessy of 'back and forth' until May 1st, 2002, when Walter P…