SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Attack Iraq? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck who wrote (4747)3/18/2003 12:11:22 AM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 8683
 
Matt Towery

URL:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/matttowery/mt20030318.shtml

March 18, 2003

Inside the numbers: Iraq

President Bush is acting forcefully against Iraq in just the political nick of time. And his bold move to go ahead with a war likely will earn him soaring job approval ratings.

The seemingly endless diplomatic two-step around Saddam Hussein not only has plunged previously popular British Prime Minister Tony Blair into a black hole of public disapproval at home, it has been inching Bush lower and lower toward a 50 percent approval rating. Public support in the 40 percentiles would be disastrous for the president. Remember, it was Blair's anemic support in Britain that forced the United States to delay earlier military action against Iraq in favor of yet another "one last effort at diplomacy." A continuing treadmill of inaction could spell doom for Blair and Bush.

This was reflected in our recent poll that showed Bush leading all announced Democratic 2004 presidential challengers with 44 percent against 35 percent. The president polled 48 percent in early February.

But let there be no doubt. Our next survey of the presidential race this month will likely show monumental gains for Bush. And a quick review of some of our other recent surveys will explain why that is the case.

First, let's consider support for the president's position that military action is necessary if Hussein isn't otherwise removed from office. Our survey immediately following the tragic explosion of the Columbia space shuttle demonstrated that even such a national setback did not deter Americans from supporting the president in a war with Iraq. Over 60 percent said they would be behind the president. (The question posed didn't mention the United Nations one way or the other.)

Second came an interesting response to our recent survey asking Americans how they felt about other prominent nations generally considered friends and allies of the United States. Even a month ago, Americans were rating France and Russia among those they least admire. Given the aggressive nature of France's anti-war efforts since that poll was taken, it's probably safe to assume that the intensity of French nationalistic fervor is more than matched by equal ardor for America by Americans. And it's probable that some in the United States who might have been less supportive of Bush are now firmly in his corner because of foreign opposition to him.

What about those Americans who fear that a war with Iraq might result in a drawn-out war, a sort of Vietnam in the sand? Our survey of late January showed that most Americans who had an opinion on the matter expected an Iraqi war to last from at least six months to more than a year. Nevertheless, other recent polls show they are ready to go forward with the fighting.

Collectively, these surveys show that while Bush may have suffered a temporary drop in popularity as he played out the diplomatic game, he still has in place the various check-offs on public sentiment necessary to act authoritatively in the Middle East. The question now is how he will spend his political capital as the coming weeks unfold.

Here at home, he must avoid the appearance of bullying his war supporters on domestic issues. Such a posture could find him back in the fever of post-9-11 cockiness that plagued the White House by the summer of 2002. On the up side, there will be good will awaiting a victorious Bush, allowing his team the opportunity to push through a more meaningful economic stimulus package that can sustain the president and our nation long after Saddam is gone.

Internationally, Bush must decide how to deal with those nations that have been indifferent or obstructionist as the Iraqi crisis has unfolded. It will remain vitally important to maintain quality relations with Russia. That former Cold War enemy now plays a critical role in suppressing and eliminating weapons of mass destruction all over the world, and in helping to replace Middle East oil supplies with its own vast petroleum reserves.

And France? Well, that's a different matter. In an effort to save his own political neck and revive a virtually dead career, French President Jacques Chirac played the "Iraq Card" and created delays that might cost American lives in combat. While the French will remain important in helping fight international terrorism, it's possible their haughty self-centeredness could end up costing more lives than any single terrorist attack.

President Bush will have newfound political strength after the events of the next few weeks. Let's hope he is measured in its use. Perhaps one good move would be to capture Saddam Hussein and provide him political exile in Paris. Bon voyage, desert dictator.

©2003 Creators Syndicate



To: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck who wrote (4747)3/18/2003 10:47:16 AM
From: lorne  Respond to of 8683
 
Soda, pizza and the destruction of America
March 18, 2003
By Aaron Klein

I've heard a lot of rumors lately about the Muslim Student Association – the national organization of Muslim college students that boasts chapters in over a thousand colleges across America and Canada, and is one of the most influential religious organizations around. They've been accused of promoting Islamic fundamentalism and inviting speakers who spew violent anti-American rhetoric. I thought I'd check things out for myself.

I'm Jewish, but thanks to my Middle Eastern features, I can easily pass for an Arab. So, last week, I attended a closed (as in Muslim students only) meeting sponsored by the MSA at Queensborough Community College, just across the bridge from me in Manhattan.

The event featured a speech about Iraq by two American-based leaders of Al-Muhajiroun, a well-known Islamic fundamentalist organization that supports the ideology of Osama bin Laden, and whose worldwide leader, Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, has long been suspected of ties with al-Qaida.

I arrived at the mid-sized classroom in the Humanities building of the college. About 20 students were in attendance. The males were on their knees, barefoot, completing afternoon services, while the women sat clustered in the back, traditional scarves covering their heads.

The president of the Queensborough MSA distributed soda and slices of pizza, and then introduced the two speakers – Abu Yousuf and Muhammad Faheed.

Yousuf, 20, looked like a regular college student – dark skin, clad in black jeans and a gray sweater. He was born in America, and became involved with Al-Muhajiroun at age 15. He says he attended a "camp" in Sudan last year, and now leads the New York chapter of the organization.

Faheed, 23, stood out a bit more. A freshly grown beard complimented his brown turban, long white robe and a green military sweater with Arabic writing on it. He was born in Pakistan, and says he immigrated to America at age 3 and now assists Yousuf with Al-Muhajiroun in New York.

Yousuf took the podium first. He began in Arabic: "With thanks to Allah we are here. I testify that there is no God but Allah ... May Allah grant that I speak only the truth."

He then switched to English, and explained that the war against Iraq is about oil and Western dominance over Muslim nations under the pretext of disarmament. He argued that President Bush is starting a "Christian crusade to rid the world of Islam," and that after Iraq, America will likely attack the rest of the Arab countries.

He said that a war with Iraq will cause a major humanitarian crisis in which American soldiers "starve, rape and murder our brothers and sisters," and that something must be done if that happens.

"America is hypocritical," he asserts. "Now it says it must 'disarm' Saddam, but they armed him in the first place! And most of the crimes against Saddam's people were committed while America supported him and turned a blind eye to his atrocities."

Yousuf disregards the argument that America is trying to liberate the Iraqi people and fight terrorism: "America doesn't want Saddam attacking his own people, so what are they going to do to liberate the Iraqis? Attack Saddam's people!"

"Because there is no way to justify this war," Yousuf said, "we must find a solution." He then introduced Brother Faheed to explain just what that solution is.

Faheed immediately declared that there is an outright conspiracy against Islam by Christians and Jews, and that as Muslims, "we must not recognize any government authority, or any authority at all besides Allah."

"We are not Americans," he shouted. "We are Muslims. [The U.S.] is going to deport and attack us! It is us vs. them! Truth against falsehood! The colonizers and masters against the oppressed, and we will burn down the master's house!"

Faheed argued that it is against the Koran for Muslims to protest the American government because that would constitute unfaithfully recognizing the authority of a non-Muslim country.

"We reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don't lobby Congress or protest because we don't recognize Congress! The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it!"

Faheed explained that those in attendance should also reject the authority of secular Muslim states such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, "which have been bought out by America ... Mushariff gets $60 Million a month to betray and arrest us."

Faheed said the war against Iraq would be "felt in America," and that U.S. Muslims would soon be in danger and should prepare themselves for a battle with the American people.

I was particularly concerned when he indicated his support for terrorist organizations.

"The so-called terrorists are the only people who truly fear Allah. Since everyone fears the worldly things that Allah controls, they therefore fear these Islamic organizations [which have been labeled terrorist organizations]. We must join with these organizations. They are the only worthy causes, and the mighty superpower only fears them."

That seemed the main thrust of his presentation – that the proper Muslim response to an American war with Iraq should not be intellectual or to protest against the government, but to join "appropriate" Muslim organizations and prepare for some sort of physical confrontation with America.

Faheed explained that the U.S. is "not strong. Vietnam, they lost. Somalia, they ran away from. America hasn't won anything since World War II. We can defeat America."

"Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of Shariah."

Faheed then opened the floor to questions, and I immediately asked what it is that people in the room should do, what specific organizations they should join. Al-Qaida? Hamas? Hezbollah?

Faheed said that he "already answered that question – you must join true Muslim organizations."

But he was nonspecific. I asked for names, details.

Yousuf took over and told the students to "use the Koran to divine whether a Muslim organization is true – does it recognize the authority of the West? Does it use true Muslim principles for guidance?"

"You see, there is only one good Muslim organization out of every 73."

He still wouldn't mention specific groups, or even directly promote his own organization.

The students in the room asked basic but complimentary questions like, "How can we support the people in Iraq financially?" and "What kind of rhetoric should we use when we talk with non-Muslims about the situation?"

People started to trickle out, and the MSA leader thanked everyone for coming.

I had a chance to chat for a few minutes in private with the leaders of Al-Muhajiroun. Yousuf explained that he speaks at many colleges throughout the New York area, and that most of his speeches are arranged by the MSA. In fact, Yousuf invited me to a speech he was giving the very next day being sponsored by the MSA of Marymount College in Manhattan.

As I helped Yousuf and Faheed clean up the pizza boxes and empty plates, I wondered how students likely receiving federal aid to attend a public college can agree with speakers who promote the destruction of the very government that is educating them? Whether some of these students would consider joining the kinds of organizations that were being promoted? How such rhetoric can be accepted at an American university?

And when I walked out, I realized that those rumors about the MSA had just been confirmed.
worldnetdaily.com