Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s Alive in London:
For the most part all observations are correct. London at large carried on well. Almost everyone is back to work. You find alternate ways to get to work. The attitude in the street seems to be one of derision. I have heard more than one person say that while the deaths are awful — the sad truth is that about three million people commute into and around London everyday. Not much an attack, Mustapha! The real problem is the BBC and the like. I heard more hand wringing and moral equivalency twits than I cared to stomach last night. All the usual suspects were trotted out — Tony “wedgie” Benn was wheeled out to spill his vintage bile. It’s all our fault, we caused it, if only we would “get out” we wouldn’t have these attacks. Of course thinking people know this is all so much tripe. Thinking people know that the Islamic terrorists have no desire to be “understood” by the west, they have one non-negotiable demand: that we die. Simple. They can’t be bought off. Won’t be reasoned with. To that I quote General McAuliffe to the Germans at Bastogne: “Nuts.”
— Ron Pettengill
London, United Kingdom
As I read Bob Tyrrell’s comments about being in London yesterday when the me-go-boom faction raised its ugly head again, I was struck by the same calm, stoic view of the British on the TV channels.
Later, as I rode a shuttle bus back to where I park my car after fighting the commuter wars here in the U.S., the radio station the driver was listening to started playing Toby Keith’s “The Angry American.” When it came to the part so offensive to Peter Jennings and the MSM — “You’ll be sorry that you messed with the US of A/For we’ll put a boot in your a**, it’s the American way” — I started thinking about the historical reactions of the British. Over the years, one would have to cite cold, deliberate fury as one way they have taken care of this in the past. 7-7 will join 9-11 in the pantheon of infamy, no doubt about it.
P.S. My wife bet me that it will be less than a week before the first “progressive” cites this as an example (along with Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, WMD, Zarqawi, OBL, beheadings, kidnappings, car bombings, canceling Beany and Cecil, or any other lame excuse for indignant pseudo-righteous behavior) of why we need a timetable to pull out of Iraq. I didn’t take her up on that.
— Cookie Sewell
I am less sanguine about British resolve to continue the 13 centuries’ struggle against jihad than are Messrs. Tyrrell, Tabin, and others.
The sangfroid we see on our television screens following yesterdays’ bombings, and which Mr. Tyrrell saw at first hand, is in my view a reflection of resignation and indifference, not of courage. Most Britons have responded to the bombings as one might to a hurricane. Where, oh where was the rage? They do not seem to understand that people did this to them — it was a product of intelligent design, not chance or physical necessity.
Mr. Blair’s encouraging behavior in the jihad war is, though convenient to us, a characteristically European example of disconnect between the governing elite and the electorate. The British electorate has demonstrated repeatedly that it is not interested in saving itself from dhimmitude, and, in fact, would rather not be bothered. Mr. Blair’s European enthusiasm mitigates against his effectiveness as a Western leader, for the Europe he is so eager to integrate with has itself been integrated with and subdued by the Islamic ummah. Britain is well on the way to becoming a dhimmi society, as France and other states on the Continent already have.
The most likely outcome of the July 7 London bombings is none at all: a continuation of the secular trend toward British dhimmitude.
The second most likely outcome is that called for by MP Galloway: an acceleration of this transformation.
A distant third possibility is that a tipping point was reached and that the British will rally and struggle to reverse the transformation, which is nearly complete.
Churchill, on being appointed wartime PM, famously told his driver he hoped it wasn’t too late. The situation today is even direr than it was then, for the barbarians of today are well inside the gate.
Our moral and strategic dilemma is a curious one: what can we and what should we do to defend a society which has lost interest in defending itself?
— Paul Kotik
“But now it is dinnertime. The restaurants are full. The city hums along. Soon more Islamofascists will be dead.”
Excellent. It’s like something out of T.S. Eliot.
As the Brits would say: Carry on!
Glad to hear you are OK.
— Jessica O’Connor
Bayonne, New Jersey
Mr. Tyrrell, I’m glad to hear that you’re all right!
— Rob Bleakney
Re: John Tabin’s The Strongest Link:
“The fascist monsters are widely mistaken.”
You seem to be using the word “fascist” as a hate word. It both minimizes the true source of this despicable act, and the true historic meaning of the word itself. We really shouldn’t miscue the public as to who and what the real threat is. Your emotional outburst is understandable, but please try to aim straight and use the correct ammunition.
I would like to welcome the rest of this country back to the real world. It has been an almost constant source of annoyance to me that people in this country and elsewhere seem to think that there was only one terrorist network in the world, Al Qaeda, and that it is now defunct. Because of this we can all go back to our triple lattes and concentrate on our stock portfolios, right?
The recent activities in London should put fini to that idea. But they won’t. This is being written before the Sunday news show circuit, but if the end of the week statements are any indication, I can sum up the gist of the media and politico comments. There will be hand wringing and crocodile tears shed for the dead and injured. Expressions of consolation are right and proper in Western culture and should not be criticized. What comes next is what is so disturbing. There will be a near uniform outcry from the Democratic politicians and most of the media. It will be that the Bush administration and its policies in Iraq were the cause of this outrage. It will be a reaction to the “excesses” of the evil U.S. administration in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo that are responsible. Not the men and women who built the bombs. Not the men and women who planted the bombs. Not those who detonated the bombs. And especially not those who planned the entire operation.
Well, at the risk of sounding like a Neanderthal, I have to disagree. The only people in the world who are responsible for the London attacks are the attackers. They are the people who should be castigated for this. They are the ones who should be hunted down and neutralized. This is a war, folks. It is a war against an enemy that has no holdings which are susceptible to classic military attack. But it is still a war. It has been going on for the last thirty years, or more, and will probably be ongoing for the next twenty. This war will continue until all the terrorists are neutralized and the states that support terrorism are brought to heel and turned over to their people.
So. Be prepared for more incidents of the type in London. As long as we wait for the terrorists to show up in our neighborhoods, then this will continue. Unfortunately, this incident will have no effect upon those whose shortsightedness allowed terrorism to grow in the first place and probably not those whose shortsighted quest for immediate personal power allows it to continue.
All right, folks I’m finished. You can all sit back, relax and order another latte.
— Michael Tobias
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Re: Lawrence Henry’s What Bush Is Going to Do, I Think:
I agree with Lawrence Henry’s conclusion. Olson is more than qualified. I believe the President is setting up the Democrats. Gonzales makes absolutely no sense. Neither the Democrats nor conservative Republicans like him. Also, there are a number of people who have already outlined the number and types of cases Gonzales would have to recuse himself on.
There could be as many as 3 more retirements coming in the next 15 months. By nominating Olson, the President would show the country he is serious about putting judges on the court who would render opinions that are faithful to the original understanding of the Constitution. And who knows, maybe Courts would get out of the legislating business altogether.
The Bernard Kerik for director of Homeland Security incident was a bit of an embarrassment, too, I think.
I agree with you about Ted Olson! His character and dare I say, grace, after losing his beloved wife, Barbara, in the 9/11 terrorist attack is a testament to his constitution… no pun intended.
— Cathy Thorpe
I enjoyed your comments on President Bush and am anxious to see who he nominates.
Yes, he is a man of surprises and should never be “misunderestimated” although I think he finds it fine when he is! People are starting to use the new word he created and I think that is great.
He has set up support for the nominee with Fred Thompson which is a right move especially if the liberals behave as they usually do, and say NO!
— Carole Graham
I am, once again, compelled to respond to the inanities expressed in this webzine. In this case the effluence offered by Lawrence Henry in his “What Bush is Going to Do, I Think.” (July 8) Mr. Henry’s arguments regarding President Bush’s selection of the next Supreme Court Justice may be valuable — or valueless — but if having “…a soft spot for Mexicans and Mexico” plays any role in that decision, then our Commander-in-Chief is flirting dangerously close to being guilty of dereliction of duty. For this “soft spot” has blinded the president to the fact that this country is still vulnerable to a repeat of 9/11, and the events of 7/7 in London. That unwillingness to deal with border security for whatever reason is, in my judgment, and that of countless others, a violation of the oath he took as president to protect our national security, far more important than the selection of the next Supreme.
Think of it: Bush’s “…softness in immigration constitutes a kind of payoff to Mexico to avoid something worse.” (Emphasis mine.) What, pray tell, does this mean in selecting a Supreme Court nominee? If this “softness” in selecting a Latino candidate signifies:
A. the continued growth of tens of millions of illegal aliens in this country by this president’s refusal to police our borders adequately, including, by such inaction, allowing untold numbers who have entered and wish us no good, then he needs to rethink his priorities;
B. an increase in the ravages inflicted on our public health system, including the serious outbreak of leprosy in Mr. Henry’s part of the world (see Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons, Spring 2005, p. 8), then the price of a Latino supreme, under any and all circumstances, is not worth it;
C. the undermining of our legal system, where police now claim that they cannot carry out immigration law, then that selection comes at too high a price.
Finally, I cannot help but repeat what has been said — and written — countless times about Gonzales: based on his record as a Texas judge, his nomination would greatly alienate a large portion of the Republican base. Bush cannot be unaware of what a Gonzales nomination will do to his party in the next congressional elections.
Ted Olson would be a wise nominee, far more acceptable to the Republican base than Gonzales. Time will tell. Personally, I have no specific candidate in mind, but a hope, and a simple one at that: please God, no more Souters.
— Vincent Chiarello
In his discussion today of Bush’s SCOTUS nominees, Mr. Henry he mentions Linda Chavez and said no other nominee had a problem. He forgets Bernie Kerik. He should update his article.
— Aaron Matthew Arnwine
Ted Olson! Right on!! Do I ever hope so. Why not put a man of such integrity in office for 15 years over someone with less spine for 25 years who will make decisions we will have to live with for years and years?
— Annette Cwik
STERN OR APPEASING?
Re: J. Peter Freire’s Parlez Vous Espanol, Old Chap?:
On the seventh I was shocked at the pain and suffering of the living and cringed as the death toll rose from the initial count of two climbed ever higher as the day and night moved on. But even as brave rescue workers raced into the Tube to find survivors and handle unexploded bombs some leftist pundits rose to the microphone to blame Britain first!
George Galloway, he of Saddamite oil vouchers and left of left politics, took the tragedy to pound home Britain’ s participation in the Iraq war and crow that the birds have roosted at last in the heart of London.
“Red” Ken Livingston was moving in his pain but I cannot but remember he played host to numerous Islamofascist Imams and echoed solidarity with the Palestinian terrorists who have turned Israel into a daily Tube nightmare.
Britain is certainly made of sterner stuff than Spain, she of the cut and run, but I fear the left will once again use this as a call for appeasement and withdrawal thereby opening Pandora’s box yet further.
We are all Britons now, it is true, and yet this is only another chapter to be overcome, not surrendered to.
— Bill Sluis
Oak Creek, Wisconsin
Upon reading about the bloodied victims staggering towards safety following the terrorist bombing in London I had a chance to recall the recent displays of righteous indignation from mostly U.S. Democratic senators at reports that prisoners in GITMO were being subjected to sleep depravation. I myself was very apprehensive at how awful it must have been for those poor terror suspects to not even be afforded the chance to eat a properly cooked meal. My thoughts subsequently wandered off towards recollections of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and I experienced a renewed sense of shock at the thought of American soldiers actually daring to place a pair of panties on a prisoner’s head. Further on I reflected upon the many audacious declarations from progressives in academia intimating a certain empathy for the insurgent’s heroic resistance in Iraq and the legion utterances from the intellectual Hollywood elite and stouthearted liberal pundits condemning president Bush for cautioning that terrorism not be treated as the mere nuisance another presidential hopeful had earlier suggested it should be. Eventually I lulled myself into a peaceful slumber, partly induced by the comforting notion that we are simply witnessing the effects of what is at root, a mere social malady of negligible proportions. Nothing a little therapy and diplomacy could not remedy.
— Miguel A. Guanipa
MARCH OF FOLLY
Re: P. David Hornik’s Jihad, Alias Intifada:
Hornik’s outstanding piece very accurately describes the situation on-the-ground in Israel now — concessions are to be made which will strengthen the very terror groups whose single aim is to wipe Israel from the map.
Why governments take actions detrimental to the fundamental best interests of their own people is always a complicated question needing specific explanation. Israel’s “march of folly” step at Oslo that is about to be continued in its unilateral disengagement from Gaza and Northern Samaria perhaps has its real explanation in the weariness and aging of a society under constant pressure since its very creation.
What is required is new leadership and new vision that has not lost the will to fight against the terror threatening the free world.
— Shalom Freedman
Re: Mark Gauvreau Judge’s What Made Benedict Conservative?:
While I was sympathetic to the content of the article, I was peeved by a stylistic lapse. In the two sentences —
“When an anonymous source who may or may not even be real asserts that American troops fighting the war on terror flushed a Koran down the toilet, it runs in Newsweek and causes pandemonium around the world. Yet the same magazine can’t be bothered to investigate the simple question of what formed the pope’s worldview.”
— the word “Yet” implies there is some sort of irony in the comparison. In reality these are just two examples of exactly the same thing. An MSM outlet takes the stories it likes — America is bad and the Pope is simple — and runs with them lest a little research introduce some hated nuance.
— John C.
In his article on Benedict/Ratzinger Mark Judge mis-references the phrase “Kaseman Partisan.” Ernst Kaesemann was the preeminent Protestant New Testament scholar at Tuebingen. He was Rudolf Bultmann’s most famous student and severe “demythologizer” of the christological role of the historical Jesus.
— Arnold Heidsieck
Dpt. of German
University of Southern California
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.