Radical Islam
Eric Holder, who attends White House cabinet meetings because he holds the title "Attorney General," spent much of last week condemning the state of Arizona for daring to "discriminate" (this word is important) against violators of federal immigration law. Possibly it struck you as odd that the man sworn to uphold U.S. laws spent his waking hours undermining same. Or was it just me?
This week: Holder made clear his refusal to "discriminate" (repetition of important word) against individuals who spend their free time bragging, celebrating, sometimes shouting their determination to commit acts of lethal terror against the US of A.
Which raises a procedural question: To how many more categories of lawbreaking is America's A.G. planning to give protected status? Other than foreign nationals illegally present in Arizona or other states, and crazed Islamo-fascist warriors bent on murdering millions of Americans swiftly?
What is this pathetic dunce doing in an office dedicated to American Law Enforcement?
Rep. Lamar Smith had a few questions of his own for Holder:
Smith: "In the case of all three attempts in the last year, the terrorist attempts, one of which was successful, those individuals have had ties to radical Islam. Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?"
Holder: "Because of ... ?"
Smith: "Radical Islam."Holder: "There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions. I think you have to look at each individual case."
Fine idea. It just happens that the Fort Hood mass murderer, the Christmas Pantybomber, and now the Times Square Bomber, were all motivated by allegiance to radical Islam.
Smith: "Yes, but radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?"
Smith: "Are you uncomfortable attributing any actions to radical Islam? It sounds like it."
Holder: "There are a variety of reasons why people ... ."
Smith: "But was radical Islam one of them?"
Holder: "There are a variety of reasons why people do things. Some of them are potentially religious ... ."
Smith: "Okay. But all I'm asking is if you think among those variety of reasons radical Islam might have been one of the reasons that the individuals took the steps that they did."
Holder: "You see, you say 'radical Islam. I mean, I think those people who espouse a – a version of Islam that is not ... ."
Sounds like it? Yes, it does. But let's not to jump to hasty conclusions. Surely there must be (as the ever brilliant Mark Steyn reminds us ) simple explanations that don't require thinking the worst. Suppose all the following are true:
At Fort Hood, Maj. Hasan jumped on a table and gunned down his comrades while screaming, "Allahu Akbar!", which is Arabic for "Nothing to see here" and an early indicator of pre-Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The Times Square Bomber, we are assured by The Washington Post, CNN and Newsweek, was upset by foreclosure proceedings on his house. Mortgage-related issues. Nothing to do with months of training at a Taliban camp in Waziristan.
Remember: "Terrorism" doesn't exist anymore, at least in the world of Team Obama. It's just too much "politics of fear."
Now, let's get sane. What no one in Washington will say out loud — what's on the minds of everyone in Washington — is this simple truth: If one of these radical Islamist bombers succeeds with a major attack on the U.S. homeland, the twentieth century debate about how China became a hostile totalitarian state ("Who lost China?") will seem, by comparison, like a preschool game of tag.
I would prefer to prevent the attack, wouldn't you? Toward that end, it's hard to imagine any serious alternative to electing a Congress in November that will stop Obama's surrender agenda in its tracks. Then, let's focus on Novemrber 2012: correcting the hideous error of November 2008.