The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

At Large

Terrorism Barometer

By on 1.26.10 @ 6:07AM

Why has Osama bin Laden felt it necessary to take credit for a failed bombing?

There is an interesting thing happening in the world of terrorism — or rather among those who write about terrorism. According to some, the days of the growth of “Islamic extremism” are coming to an end and its followers are becoming, as the terrorism commentator, Marc Sageman, is quoted in the Financial Times, “increasingly desperate and fragmented.” At the other end of the spectrum is Bruce Hoffman of Georgetown University and formerly of the Rand Corporation. He stated, “Frankly, the threat from al Qaeda is more serious today than at any time since 2001.”

From an operational rather than an academic standpoint, both views seem to be appropriate even if they appear contradictory. The al Qaeda organization that had as its sanctuary and training site the Taliban-governed Afghanistan prior to 2001 definitely is closer these days to having diminished capabilities. Clearly the leadership role of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri has been substantially reduced, if for no other reason than their loss of key lieutenants and enforced limitation of movement and communication.

There is no question, however, as to whether this original leadership of al Qaeda feels successful in their broader aims of inspiring and aiding in the construction and maintenance of akin groups in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and northwest Africa (Maghreb).

The structure of al Qaeda today mirrors a broad international network with certain autonomous strong points, each with its own lines of outreach with separate cells. There is a tendency among analysts to view this structure as a dilution of al Qaeda in relation to the more centralized control of the bin Laden and al Zawahiri apparat of earlier times.

Realistically one must grant at least continued strong ideological motivation offered by al Qaeda’ s traditional “central command,” even if direct operational control no longer exists. The major “franchise” activities outside of the Waziristan sanctuary of OBL’ s al Qaeda now have little or no physical dependence on that one-time headquarters other than possible injections of financial aid and periodic intelligence advice.

Perhaps to camouflage this fragmented structure, as well as retain an international image of continued overall authority, the newest audiotape of OBL distributed by Al Jazeera sought to claim full knowledge — and thus imply influence — of the operation involving the Nigerian student’ s effort to destroy the Detroit-bound aircraft.

It is important to explore the motivation for bin Laden to seek to remind the world, and especially his own extended community of jihadi, of his continued exercise of authority over the al Qaeda conception of radical Sunni Islam. From an outsider, this action can only be viewed as one of self-perceived weakness. From the inside each franchise and sub-franchise group must be confused as to the intent of the unexpected display of responsibility for what was after all a failed plan.

Jihadi operations recently have shown a lack of sophistication when compared to the 9/11mission. Considerable effort from a personnel and logistics standpoint had been put into the simultaneous attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the attempt to hit another high value target in Washington. What has prevented such organization, coordination and imagination from occurring lately? The immediate response is to suggest the effectiveness of Western security operations and diminished quality recruiting efforts among the radicalized Islamic public.

Certainly counter-terrorism ops have improved, but even now the advantage remains on the side of the attack forces as opposed to the defender. The limited availability of committed and intelligent jihadi willing to sacrifice their lives may be the key vulnerability for Islamic radicalism in 2010. But that can, and most likely will, be corrected. All it takes is time, and time is on the side of the offense as long as it wishes to continue the attack.

Osama bin Laden provided some insight in his recent tape. He again called for jihadi attention to be paid to “our brothers in Gaza,” and then went on to directly justify continued attacks on what he termed “the safe life” of America and its allies. This was a reminder to all the followers of al Qaeda’ s line that the ultimate objective of the holy war was to attack Israel and all sources of support for Israel. This was hardly a new message, but one that points to more terrorism rather than less.

The continuing issue is why Osama bin Laden felt it was necessary to keep the jihadi focused on this obvious message — or did he just sense a developing morale problem?

topics:
Global Terrorism, Al Qaeda, Flight 253

About the Author

George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (69) |

Jameson Campaigne| 1.26.10 @ 6:54AM

A better question is -- since bin Laden has quite obviously been dead since about the time of Tora Bora -- is what state intelligence agencies are using so-called al-Qaida as a catspaw and why cannot our intelligence agencies finger these puppetmasters, and then deal with them?

Hint: they are mostly Saudi and Pakistani.

The alleged bin Laden tapes were all ruled fake by a sophisticated lab in Switzerland, according to an article written by SPECTATOR regular Angelo Codevilla and one of this country's top scholars on intelligence with numerous books and other writings on this subject.

Alan Brooks| 1.26.10 @ 12:46PM

Codevilla's foreign affairs spin is a bit suspect.

Appleby| 1.26.10 @ 7:13AM

Well, you guys thought Saddam was long dead too until the day we captured him alive.

It is best not to become too enamoured of your hypothesis, lest you miss a pretty big forest due to your resolute ignoring of trees.

Ret. Marine| 1.26.10 @ 7:27AM

" or did he just sense a developing morale problem" I'd have to say he finds himself much in the image of our current pretender-n-thief, irrevelent to anyone but himself of his importence. As for the academics, pundits, and anti-American traitors, what do they know about this fight, afterall, they keet on telling us this is a religion of peace-right?
I would almost believe the American people, although late to the fight and education of what is islam, know more than the so-called cholars led us to believe they knew. These people, many on the Whabbi payroll were paid to tell us that the "jihad" was an internal fight, and of course as most American believe, it is always best to side on causion and give them the benefit of doubt, we were as gullible as they wanted-then came the events of 911-eyes wide opened, determination, war footing, mad as hell for them having made almost fools out of us, we pushed back. Tell me now what cha got, huh what cha got now, at best a busy buch of virginians beating the snott out of these demons, nothing but a depleted enemy who still believes in thier tenets, they will just wait it out for a later date when they feel they are once again stong enough to take us on again. Meanwhile the pundits, mostly out of their sense of wanting to be revelent, much as our pretender and bin-Laden do at the present time, will come back to us to say sweet nothings in our ears once again but, the lid is open. We will not be fooled again.
al-Queda is weak because and only because of the warrior like attitude of our intelligence services, our military, our sense of duty to innocences and the most importent part of all, our demands to remain free. If this current crop of rot infesting our house and office of the AG want to get along with the adherents of islam, tell them to move there, you got my blessings and hatred for you already. I am in the camp of "let's nuke medina and mecca the next time we are attacked in another 911 incident let them, the house of saud, tell all of the sunni's and shiite's together of thier foolishness in wanting to extend the loving hand of islam to the world all they want, that is, there is anyone still standing to tell them. The message might be once and for all loud and clear. 'Dont tread on Me." or pay the pipper his due.

S.L. Toddard| 1.26.10 @ 7:42AM

RM, sincere question: Why do you think Muslim terrorist groups target the United States over neutral Switzerland? I am with you vis a vis the left and their multiculturalist claptrap about the Religion of Peace etc, but isn't there more going on? Yes Islam is now and always has been antagonistic to the Christian (and now mostly secular) West, but the U.S. has always been Christian and Western, and we were not targeted by Islamic terror groups until after we began supporting Israel and insinuating ourselves into their affairs (though that is not to say that there was no justification for doing so initially - with the threat the Soviets posed I believe a reasonable person could argue that intervention in the Middle East was necessary and produced a net good). That Islam is currently incompatible with Western life is (imo) a given - but that is an argument for why we should discontinue immigration from Islamic countries, not an explanation (at least not by itself) for why Muslim terrorists attack us.

I guess what I'm saying is this: the reason anti-American sentiment in the Middle East manifests itself in religiously/politically motivated terror attacks is because of the nature of Islam (its antagonism to the Christian West and its dogmatic glorification of religious violence), and because of the cultural stagnation and primitiveness of so much of the Middle East. But the reason for (specifically) anti-American hatred *must* be specific American action (i.e. our support of Israel against the Arabs, our intervention in the affairs of Muslim countries, our bombings, invasions and wars against Muslims), or else they would be just as likely to target Switzerland as the US. No?

Tom| 1.26.10 @ 8:35AM

The reason for specific anti-American hatred does not have to be specific American action. It could be caused by the representation of America as the leader of the decadent west. It could be caused by those seeking a global caliphate believing America is the primary obstacle to that goal. Or it could be caused, as you contend, byspecific American actions. Or more likely some combination of numerous reasons.

S.L. Toddard| 1.26.10 @ 7:31AM

"He again called for jihadi attention to be paid to "our brothers in Gaza," and then went on to directly justify continued attacks on what he termed "the safe life" of America and its allies. This was a reminder to all the followers of al Qaeda' s line that the ultimate objective of the holy war was to attack Israel and all sources of support for Israel."

So our one-sided support of Israel is a primary reason why we are targeted by Al Qaeda? I guess that makes more sense than claiming "they hate our Freedom" - a ridiculous statement discredited by the incontestable fact that terrorists target the interventionist United States over neutral Switzerland, despite both being Western and having "Freedom" to hate.

John Drake| 1.26.10 @ 7:50AM

Perhaps some of the funding of the islamic terrorists is provided via accounts kept in Switzerland, by their evil puppetmasters (Saudi, Iranian, Pakistani, Yemeni, etc), therefore "off limits?" What's the old saying...."you don't $hit where you eat?"

Geneva Watcher| 1.26.10 @ 8:10AM

John Drake - has it EXACTLY right. I would wager that the vast majority of terrorist funding and funds reside in Switzerland. In the same way, a significant majority of funds donated to relief efforts (from the hurricane in Haiti to the tsunami in Asia) end up there. Let's not be naive, terrorist leaders/planners (the ones too SMART to blow themselves up) will eventually retire to a little villa in the south of France. They need to have something stashed away to cover the villa and the high cost of living on the Cote d'Azure.

S.L. Toddard| 1.26.10 @ 8:12AM

I am confused. Are you claiming that the reason terrorists do not target neutral Switzerland is because that's where they get their funding? What evidence is there that this is the case?

Stuart Koehl| 1.26.10 @ 8:52AM

Terrorists do not target Switzerland for two reasons:

First, nobody gives a damn about Switzerland; as a target it has no symbolic value (an attack on Switzerland signifies what? Opposition to chocolate and cookoo clocks?)

Second, it would only take one major attack on Swiss territory to cause the Swiss to round up every last Muslim in the country and escort them to the borders, posthaste.

Switzerland is not a soft target. Every Swiss male is a soldier; every Swiss bed has an assault rifle underneath it. When Hermann Goering sought to intimidate the Swiss ambassador with a show of Nazi military might, he asked rhetorically, "So, what would you do if we invaded you tomorrow?"

"We would shoot you", said the Swiss ambassador.

"Well" said Goering, "What would you do if we sent twice as many men as you have?"

"We would all shoot twice".

Appleby| 1.26.10 @ 9:03AM

Toddard, perhaps you would like to read up on WHY the Swiss are permitted to remain neutral. It has something to do with the fact that they were/are known to have the most merciless and well trained army in the world, and once upon a time they would hire it out to anybody with cash at the stairs. Switzerland's neutrality is contingent on their never bringing forth this army of well trained and merciless mercenaries again...except in their own defence. Tom Clancy once suggested that the solution to the problem between Israel and the barbarians at the gates would be to turn the Territories over to the Swiss and put the Swiss Guard on patrol, with orders to use their best judgment. Personally I think it would work.

P.S. You may think those Swiss Guards who guard the Vatican are there as cartoon characters. Have you ever been right up close to one? I have. One gets the distinct feeling of standing next to a blast furnace.

S.L. Toddard| 1.26.10 @ 9:27AM

"First, nobody gives a damn about Switzerland; as a target it has no symbolic value (an attack on Switzerland signifies what? Opposition to chocolate and cookoo clocks?)"

It would symbolize opposition to the West, obviously - and to "Freedom". Isn't that why they hate The West - for "our freedoms"? And because we are Western? Or is it more than that? Switzerland is no less "Western" than the U.S. If the reason terrorists attack us is an insane Freedom Hatred which has nothing to do with our intervention in the Muslim world, then that Freedom Hatred would be vented just as easily attacking Switzerland as it would the US.

"Second, it would only take one major attack on Swiss territory to cause the Swiss to round up every last Muslim in the country and escort them to the borders, posthaste."

I don't know that there is any evidence that would cause anyone to believe that, and I would like to know what evidence you have that this fantasy scenario is what causes Al Qaeda to not target the Swiss.

ds80| 1.26.10 @ 10:02AM

How often will you play this same card?

"I don't know that there is any evidence ..."

While I disagree with most of what you say, you *usually* have reasoned arguments.

S.L. Toddard| 1.26.10 @ 10:08AM

"How often will you play this same card?"

The card where I ask for evidence to back up a spurious claim? Every time someone makes a spurious claim, I suppose.

John II| 1.26.10 @ 5:33PM

But if you already know that the claim is "spurious," Tod, why are you asking for evidence? An open request for evidence is a sign of interest in pursuing an issue. A request that comes in the context of a question-begging put-down ("fantasy scenario") is merely smug.

I have very little time left on this planet, Tod. Stop wasting it--and stop reminding me of my garage door! And now back to Wyatt Earp.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.26.10 @ 10:24AM

IROFL Stuart,

I had forgotten that one. Thanks for reminding me.

HouseFrau| 1.26.10 @ 1:32PM

The saying is correct and one might note that based on Islamic immigration to western europe, they will have bred themselves into controlling much of western europe very soon. Why mess your own childrens nursery?

Tom| 1.26.10 @ 8:37AM

Or perhaps they target the United States because the United States matters in ways Switzerland does not.

S.L. Toddard| 1.26.10 @ 9:29AM

You mean because we elect to "lead"/police the world?

Tom| 1.26.10 @ 9:49AM

Or because the United States is the richest nation, or has the strongest army, or its popular culture dominates the world in a way Switzerland's never will.

In an atmosphere of limited resources terrorists will seek to maximize the impact of their actions. Attacking Switzerland is next to meaningless.

S.L. Toddard| 1.26.10 @ 10:07AM

"Or because the United States is the richest nation, or has the strongest army"

Perhaps you haven't heard - Switzerland has the strongest army. That's why they're never attacked, according to the commenters above.

Tom| 1.26.10 @ 10:16AM

Well, Mr. Toddard, that was worthy of a laugh.

S.L. Toddard| 1.26.10 @ 10:21AM

Scroll up - according to our esteemed commenters, Al Qaeda is petrified of the Swiss because the Swiss are so ferocious.

I'm not kidding!

Tom| 1.26.10 @ 10:29AM

I know, I read the original comment and thought it not worthy of commenting. I laughed because your use of his argument was clever not because it was silly.

SoCon| 1.26.10 @ 3:50PM

Sometimes Toddard's clever cleverness even escapes himself!

Alan Brooks| 1.26.10 @ 8:56PM

Toddard ought to have his own network:
FOX Snooze.

victor| 1.26.10 @ 9:06PM

S.L Toddard.
A Legend that will last a Lunchtime!

Stuart Koehl| 1.26.10 @ 8:48AM

There is no such thing as a "failed" terrorist attack. Every terrorist attack, whether it succeeds in causing casualties or not, exacts a toll from the social fabric of the society being targeted. Look at Great Britain, which has become a "surveillance state" as a result of decades fighting first the IRA and then al Qaeda. Look at the responses we have made to various "failed" terrorist attacks: Richard Reid tries to explode a bomb in his shoes, now we go through security barefoot. Somebody supposedly tries to smuggle liquid explosives aboard an airplane, and now we can no longer carry toothpaste, shaving cream, deodorant, etc. in our carry-on bags. Captain Underpants hides explosives under his willy, and we all have to submit to full body scans. And this is only in the air transport sector.

It was for this reason that more than two decades ago, when the threat was Marxist and Arab nationalist terrorism, that I advocated forward defense against terrorists and their state sponsor--going after them where they live, rather than waiting for them to act where we live. Those who love and appreciate our open society will recognize that "defense in depth", even if it succeeds in foiling every terrorist plot, is a de facto terrorist victory.

S.L. Toddard| 1.26.10 @ 9:28AM

"It was for this reason that more than two decades ago, when the threat was Marxist and Arab nationalist terrorism, that I advocated forward defense against terrorists and their state sponsor"

Any reason why you use the euphemism "forward defense" instead of "offense"?

Stuart Koehl| 1.26.10 @ 6:06PM

Yes, as a matter of fact. "Offense" as a strategy implies an intention to occupy and retain territory. If terrorists are operating in Country A, and I invade Country A and annex some or all of its territory, that a strategic offensive.

On the other hand, "Forward Defense" is strategically defensive, even if tactically and operationally offensive, since my objective is to destroy or neutralize specific forces and/or capabilities. So, if terrorists have bases in Country B, and I stage a raid into Country B to destroy those bases, then withdraw all my forces once that goal is achieved, I am in a strategically defensive posture.

These are not euphemism, these are clear, distinct and substantive terminological differences, which, alas, you are not capable of perceiving.

Which is why you are not a strategist.

Reading a lot of history is a good way to begin your education in strategy, my Paduan Apprentice.

[Much anger I sense in this one. Too old he is the training to begin!]

Shut up, Yoda!

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.26.10 @ 10:32AM

Heh!
Thanks, guys.

Toddard has no one else in the world to talk to.

Pingback| 1.26.10 @ 10:38AM

The American Spectator : Terrorism Barometer capital university links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…education of what is islam, kn ow more than the so-called cholars led us to believe they k new. These people, many on the Whabbi payroll were paid to tell us that … The rest is here: The American Spectator : Terrorism Barometer tags: democratic, know-more, message, payroll-were, people-need, president-himself, press, so-called-cholars, the-press, whabbi | Simon Cowell, Fox Smackdown Over New American Idol Judge…

Pingback| 1.26.10 @ 11:20AM

The American Spectator : Terrorism Barometer American Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…of what is islam, kn ow more than the so-called cholars led us to believe they k new. These people, many on the Whabbi payroll were paid to tell us that … The rest is here:  The American Spectator : Terrorism Barometer tags: although-late, including-the-president, know-more, massachusetts, message, payroll-were, people-need, president-himself, press, saw-last, the-fight, the-press | The American…

Franklin| 1.26.10 @ 2:26PM

I also think OBL is dead. Didn't he have a life threatening kidney problem in 2001?

But it doesn't matter, because this so-called tape from OBL is just like another one of Obamas speeches ... full of crap.

What matters is that we take back our own free speech - forget the PC death-to-freedom lie.

Call terrorism what it is, Islamic Terrorism; stop being afraid to lose "diversity". I would rather have safety and freedom, thank you very much!

Tom Bethell| 1.26.10 @ 3:10PM

In defense of S.L. Toddard:

Possibly, the main reason why El Qaeda is hostile to us (as opposed to Switzerland) is that we are in Afghanistan and the Swiss are not.

What would the U.S. reaction be if there was a foreign country with some new, vastly superior technology, and they had decided to invade us because in their opinion we were a morally depraved people -- e.g. with condoms and pornography our principal export. (Not that I am saying the U.S. is a morally depraved country, understand.)

Anyway, this technologically superior country has 100,000 troops right here, ensconced in the Rockies let's say, and they can zap us from on high, more or less at will. So, what would the reaction of the Americans be? Something tells me we would be quite hostile. We might want to drive the invaders out with the National Rifle Association working powerfully on our side. We might even go so far as to launch terrorist attacks on their home territory. Is that a possibility?

I raise this as an issue because I am writing an article right now trying to figure out why we are in Afghanistan. I have seen about ten reasons given by the media, policymakers, et al . Can anyone here give me one good reason? It may be that there is one but I'm not sure what it is. Serious question.

S.L. Toddard| 1.26.10 @ 3:24PM

Because once we turn Afghanistan into Arkansas The Terrorists will have no where else to hide.

Except for the rest of the world, of course (shh!).

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.26.10 @ 6:38PM

Tom,
did you never learn to read? Are you truly that ignorant? (Are you seventeen years old and only recently a sentient human adult?

Your dumbunny question:

""I raise this as an issue because I am writing an article right now trying to figure out why we are in Afghanistan. I have seen about ten reasons given by the media, policymakers, et al . Can anyone here give me one good reason? It may be that there is one but I'm not sure what it is. Serious question. ""

Answer
We are in Afghanistan, because Obama keeps the troops there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(PS: it is not "we". Obviously "you" have not been there.)

Now, a different question entirely..."Why did we go to Afghanistan in the first place?"

Answer:
Because one faction there killed 3,000 of our countrymen.

S.L. Toddard| 1.26.10 @ 7:38PM

So we are agreed, then - we had a legitimate reason to go there, but have no good reason to still be there.

Stuart Koehl| 1.27.10 @ 7:12PM

It is important to remember that al Qaeda really isn't about us at all. It's Islamic inside baseball, an onging war between one particular vision of Islam and all others. We are just collateral damage in the battle of Wahabbis against other Muslims they consider to be too lax, too decadent or too Western. Al Qaeda has killed far more Muslims than Westerners over the past twenty years.

Assuming al Qaeda wins the war for the hearts and minds (or at least the tacit obedience) of the Muslim world, THEN it will turn towards it long-term objective of restoring the Caliphate and bringing the Dar al-Harb into the Dar al-Islam. Until then, attacks on U.S. citizens and property are mainly intended to win credibility with other Muslims, encouraging some and cowing others.

As to why we are in Afghanistan, Mr. Bethell, the answer is quite simple: strategy abhors a vacuum. If we are not running the place, then who?

Tim| 1.26.10 @ 4:08PM

We are there because... we ... and then...defense..billions. Osama... failed states...Pakistani tribal regions...Saudi money...

That's why!

John II| 1.26.10 @ 5:42PM

You took the words right out of my mouth, Tim. Isn't it stimulating when so many giant intellects come together for a serious discussion of an important issue?

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.26.10 @ 6:40PM

hey, JohnII
My phone vibrates. heh.

See my comment above.

John II| 1.26.10 @ 10:47PM

To quote Doc Holliday, "If I had a prayin' acquaintance with the good Lord, I'd ask him which side He's on."

Well, I got a prayin' acquaintance.

Franklin| 1.26.10 @ 10:38PM

Islam hated Jews and Christians (actually anyone not Muslim) before there was even a U.S.A.

They hate us just because we are.

watches | 4.28.10 @ 11:52PM

hublot

bird houses for sale | 5.2.11 @ 10:52PM

Good stuff you have here, I was going to mention this to a good friend of mine

Converse | 8.12.11 @ 3:18AM

is good

Related Articles

In a World of His Own

December 31, 2009 | topics: War on Terror, Al Qaeda

A Ron Paul Moment

December 30, 2009 | topics: Ron Paul, Al Qaeda

Terrorism’s Tangles

August 14, 2009 | topics: Terrorism, Al Qaeda

Obama’s Tortured Logic

May 11, 2009 | topics: Global Terrorism, Torture

Guru Malpractice

December 17, 2008 | topics: George W. Bush, Global Terrorism

More Articles by George H. Wittman

More Articles From At Large

Delivering Serbs to the Wolves

May 21, 2013 | Doug Bandow

Pray and Grow Rich

May 16, 2013 | Christopher Orlet

Naqba — Commemorating a Self-Inflicted Tragedy

May 15, 2013 | Daniel Mandel

O Pakistan

May 14, 2013 | Frank Schell

UKIP Comes Out Fighting

May 8, 2013 | Hal G.P. Colebatch

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/26/terrorism-barometer

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|1 comment

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|3 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|2 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|2 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|1 comment

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III

The Spectacle Blog

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 5.22.13

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5.22.13

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.