Double Standards Mean No Standards At All
Vol: 60 Issue: 30 Saturday, September 30, 2006
Double Standards Mean No Standards At All
Who is really winning the war in Iraq? It would seem to be a fairly simple question, with a fairly simple answer, if only we lived in fairly simple times. But we live in times that are so complex that sometimes one needs a sliderule and a legal pad just to figure it all out.
Today, we’ll look at just how complex things really are.
According to the Left, America has lost the war in Iraq already, but Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush are too stubborn to admit defeat. But according to Iraq’s chief operative in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, America is winning, and Abu Hamza al-Muhajer is not too stubborn to admit panic.
On the other hand, the administration is loathe to admit that America is fighting a war of religions, whereas Abu Hamza al-Muhajer is only too happy to admit that is EXACTLY what the conflict is all about. It is a war between fundamentalist Islam and Western Christianity.
“I call upon every free mujahedeen in the Land of the Two Rivers (Iraq) to do his best during this blessed month (of Ramadan), may Allah endow us with the capture of some of the Western Christian dogs, to free our sheikh out of imprisonment,” Abu Hamza al-Muhajer said.
Abu Hamza admitted to having lost upwards of 4,000 foreign ‘fighters’ — that is to say, al-Qaeda terrorists, which is distinct from the tens of thousands of Iraqi insurgents killed since the conflict began in March, 2003.
By contrast, as Hal Lindsey pointed out in a recent WorldNetDaily column, on September 11, 2001, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists killed 2,973 Americans in two hours. But it took five years for al-Qaeda, the Iraqi insurgency and the Taliban combined, using all the force at their disposal, including Improvised Explosive Devices, ambushes, military assaults, mortar attacks, and whatever else they could dream up before they could equal that first success.
It wasn’t until September 26, 2006 that American battlefield losses equaled America’s losses in two hours on September 11. And it cost the enemy tens of thousands to do it.
Note that Abu Hamza identifies his enemy as ‘Western Christian dogs.” Note also that not a single member of the allegedly moderate Islamic world took exception to the characterization. Compare that to the overwhelming reaction by the allegedly moderate Islamic world to George Bush’s recent characterization of the enemy as ‘Islamofascists.’
One can justify the use of the compound word, ‘Islamofascist’ by examining it’s elements. ‘Fascist’ is a political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism and militarism.
‘Islam’ is the ideology of the fascists themselves.
So the objection raised by ‘moderate’ Islam is an objection to either; the goals of the enemy, (outlined and confirmed by the enemy himself, in print, on video, and in speeches at every opportunity); or, the Islamic ideology of self-proclaimed Islamic ‘true believers’. To accept the objections of ‘moderate’ Islam at face value, one has to redefine the English language on the fly.
But I notice that George Bush doesn’t use that phrase anymore. But ‘moderate’ Islam raises no outcry at the characterization of the West as ‘Christian dogs.’ Assuming the West is overwhelmingly ‘Christian’ is it not reasonable to conclude Christianity is what the Islamofascists are fighting?
But I also note that ‘dogs’ are generally small, furry pets with no ideology whatever, apart from being loyal companions capable of unconditional love (who are lousy shots.) Moderate Islam is not the only ideology that defines itself by the application of a double-standard.
Republican Mark Foley resigned from the House yesterday following the shocking revelation that he was exchanging torrid sexual emails with an underage male White House page. Foley resigned immediately upon this revelation, and House Speaker Denny Hastert accepted that resignation gratefully.
Does anybody remember the Barney Frank gay sex scandal in 1989? Frank’s gay live-in lover was recruiting boys from a local Washington school as male prostitutes. Frank apologized, received virtually unanimous support from his Democratic colleagues, and the whole sordid affair was quietly forgotten.
I am not suggesting Foley should be afforded the same treatment. Indeed, Frank should have received the same public repudiation that Foley is now being subjected to.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is demanding a ‘full investigation’ as other prominent Democrats seek to make it an election issue, as if all Republican Congressmen are closet homosexuals — evidently a much more reprehensible lifestyle when the target is a Republican.
When it was Barney Frank linked to homosexual conduct, White House page boys and similarly disgusting behavior, the Left didn’t just turn a blind eye to it, it embraced Frank as somehow being the victim of a smear campaign.
Mark Foley became a disgraced, EX-Congressman within hours of the story going public. Seventeen years after Frank’s pageboy scandal, Barney Frank remains an important and influential member of Congress.
Last week, Bill Clinton, in a livid, red-faced, bug-eyed rage, repeated poked his finger in Chris Wallace’s face and insisted that he did everything he could, (while saying it was a lot more than George Bush did) to ‘kill’ Osama bin Laden during his administration.
He repeatedly used the word ‘kill’ — a word that the Democrats jumped on in defense of Their Guy, noting, as Clinton intended they would, that Clinton’s objective wasn’t to ‘get’ Osama, but to KILL him.
Clinton made a point of saying, “I tried. I tried and failed, but at least I tried.” His words have been repeated over and over in admiring liberal news reports and by a fawning brigade of liberal bloggers.
Nobody, with the exception of Lt. Col. Oliver North has noted that, if Clinton’s defense of his administration is true, then it was a public admission that Bill Clinton broke existing laws prohibiting the United States government from assassination.
It is expressly against US law to attempt to assassinate anyone. Even Osama bin Laden.
Col North noted the following existing Executive Orders;
Executive Order 11905, signed Feb. 18, 1976, by President Gerald Ford in response to the Church Committee. Section 5(g) of that order states “no employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.”
Section 2-305 of Executive Order 12036, signed by President Jimmy Carter on Jan. 24, 1978, broadens the prohibition from “political assassination” to “assassination” generally.
Executive Order 12333, signed by President Ronald Reagan on Dec. 4, 1981, specifies that assassination is against the law and contrary to U.S. policy. Section 2.11 of the order, which is labeled “Prohibition on Assassination,” says “no person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” The next section (Section 2.12) states “no agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order.”
No president, including George W Bush, has issued a contravening Executive Order, which means they still have the full force of law. So, if Bill Clinton was telling the truth to Chris Wallace that he ordered the assassination of Osama bin Laden, he was in flagrant violation of the law.
That is not to say I have any personal objection to assassinating Osama bin Laden. I wish we had. The Democrats continue to slam George Bush for failing to kill bin Laden at Tora Bora, although, even in wartime, assassination remains a federal crime and a direct violation of existing law.
When Bush tried to kill Saddam Hussein at the outset of the Iraq War by bombing a cafe where he believed Saddam was holed up, the Democrats howled that, had Bush been successful, it would have been an impeachable offense. The point isn’t Osama bin Laden. It’s the double standard.
Noted Col. North; “So where is the “shock and awe” from human rights standard bearers who still complain about the so-called abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay? Do they not care that Mr. Clinton ordered an assassination?
Where are John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Arlen Specter and Colin Powell now? If we want the world to know our prisoners of war are accorded protection under the Geneva Conventions, don’t we also want the world to know we don’t engage in assassination?
And since presidential findings orders for the CIA to conduct covert operations are all highly classified, shouldn’t those who reveal them be held accountable?”
Well, shouldn’t they?
Of course, it is impossible, in the brave, new world of the 21st century, to advocate the application of any kind of consistent standard.
If one applied the existing consisting standard to gay Congressional sex scandals to Mark Foley, instead of accepting his resignation, Denny Hastert should have been all over the news programs accusing the Democrats of being homophobic bigots.
If one applied the existing standard to George Bush’s war speeches, Bush should have carte blanche to describe Islam using terms much harsher than any applied by the Pope.
If Islamic terrorists can call Christians ‘dogs’ without any backlash from Islamic moderates, then Bush should be free to at least obliquely suggest the Koran may play some role in inspiring and motivating the vicious and inhuman nature of the Islamic enemy in his argument that captured Islamic terrorists are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions and the US Constitution.
(He ought at least be permitted to describe them as Islamic without fear of being called a bigot. They ARE Islamic, to the last man)
If Bill Clinton openly admits to ordering the assassination of anyone, including Osama bin Laden, then either he should be held accountable, or the law should be rewritten to include some rider allowing assassination if the target ‘really, really’ deserves it.
And if Democrats can argue that George Bush deserved impeachment if he had any hand in revealing Valerie Plame’s status as a CIA operative, should there not be the immediate empanelment of a grand jury to investigate Bill Clinton’s revelation of highly classified presidential findings on an international news broadcast?
Especially a presidential finding that sends a message to the world that US laws forbidding the assassination of a foreign enemy is really just a law that is meant to be broken?
If American law is really only a ‘suggestion’ applied on a sliding scale that is dependent on whether or not assassination is truly warranted, then Colin Powell would be right when he says that America has lost the moral authority to conduct the war against al-Qaeda.
Because if there is a double standard of conduct that depends on political party affiliation, then there is no standard at all.
An Important Note To All Omega Letter Subscribers:
Yesterday, the Omega Letter was blacklisted by SpamCop for violating Internet Spam Standards. Many of you remail the Omega Letter Daily Briefing to friends and family, and many of those recipients remail it on to folks they think need to read it. Including people who don’t want it.
Several people who got an unwanted remailing of the Omega Letter complained to anti-spam organizations who immediately blacklisted the Omega Letter email server, meaning there are lots of ISP’s who now refuse to deliver any email originating from the OL.
Including the Omega Letter briefing itself. An unauthorized remailing of the Omega Letter to non-subscribers puts the entire ministry at risk of being permanently blacklisted.
While you might think somebody needs to read some particularly relevant OL and your intention might be honorable, the result is that, at this moment, hundreds of Omega Letter subscribers are no longer getting theirs.
If a subscriber isn’t getting his Omega Letter, what is the point in continuing the subscription?
Several long-time subscribers have already canceled as a direct result of well-meaning, but unauthorized remailings that caused ISP’s to reject anything originating from the OL as ‘spam’.
The Omega Letter is, without question, controversial. It addresses issues that send certain groups ballistic. Atheists hate the Omega Letter and would love to see it go dark. Liberals hate the Omega Letter and would love to see it go dark. Certain Christian ministries, especially those who object to the OL’s pretribulational doctrinal position, hate the Omega Letter and would love to see it go dark.
Remailing the Omega Letter, even to friends and family, provides them with exactly the magic bullet they need to shut it down forever.
You might be certain that those to whom you are remailing the OL want to get it and won’t file a spam complaint. But if one of those who wouldn’t complain then remails it to someone who does, the net effect is the same.
The Omega Letter gets placed on a spam blacklist.
Our only defense against being blacklisted is that every person who gets the Omega Letter in their email box is also in the Omega Letter subscriber database.
If somebody remails it to an unbelieving friend in the hope it will help them to find the Lord, and that unbelieving friend complains about getting it to an antispam group, we have no database record with which to defend ourselves. And your act of kindness results in legitimate subscribers not getting their Omega Letter, either.
Since we can’t email them to explain why they aren’t getting it, they cancel their subscription. And, as noted earlier, even if they do know why, what is the point in subscribing to a service that cannot deliver what they subscribe to?
Not only is that unfair to those who DO subscribe, if enough subscribers cancel, it puts the entire ministry operation at risk of eventual destruction.
Please be fair. If you are remailing the OL to non-subscribers, you are doing so at the expense of those who do. Remailing the OL is ‘spamming’ under existing Internet conventions.
And you just might kill the entire Omega Letter’s ministry as a result.