Michelle Malkin has posted the Arabic phrase for “I will not surrender / I will not submit” on her website, and I agree with this sentiment. I will not submit to Islam, nor will I submit to radicals who are using their religion to threaten the world. Neither will I submit to apologists in the West who believe we must appease radical Islamists by submitting to their every demand. This is my pledge.

I am not an Arabic speaker, so I have no idea if this is correct. I just took the graphic Michelle posted on her site and created a smoother version, because I’m just that anal. Here is the Arabic phrase.

I Will Not Surrender!

If you’d like to show your defiance against the Islamofascists who still celebrate the horrible events of 9/11, I have also created a button for your sidebar.

I Will Not Surrender!

Feel free to download and host these pictures on your own site. And never surrender!

The geniuses of Cox and Forkum have added another cartoon showing how America has been confronting terrorism since September 11th, 2001.

Confronting Terrorism

It’s been five years since Islamic nutjobs used airplanes to carry out acts of terror. Almost 3,000 people died because a radical branch of Islam claims that Allah said it was OK to kill infidels. On this anniversary, look around you and see how people are remembering this day. Are they remembering the terror they felt and steeling their resolve to remain free, or are they hiding their heads in the sand and pretending it didn’t happen?

What about you?

Brigham Young University professor Steven Jones has hit the news again. I first wrote about Jones when his “controlled demolition” theory about the World Trade Center collapse started to rattle around the Internet. I couldn’t believe his theory then, and I can’t believe it now.

KSL filed a report about Jones being put on paid administrative leave by BYU:

The man on paid leave is Dr. Steven Jones. He’s a physics professor involved in the so-called “9-11 Truth Movement.”

Jones believes unnamed government agencies orchestrated the fall of the twin towers and he says there’s evidence to back it up.

Two weeks ago he published his theory in a paper called “Why Indeed did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse?” In it, the professor says the towers fell not because of planes hitting them but rather pre-positioned demolition charges.

He cites research conducted at BYU on materials from ground zero, asserting those materials show evidence of thermite, a compound used in military detonations. He says terrorists could have never set those charges.

The State Department has released a rebuttal to Jones’ theory in a 10-thousand page report.

I still say that Occam’s Razor doesn’t support the professor.

Much the same way I wrote yesterday, Hugh Hewitt is uncomfortable with the “fake but accurate” stance some people have taken with the ABC miniseries “The Path to 9/11.” He writes about the Sandy Berger scene and sums it up in two ways:

The preceding leaves us with two possible explanations regarding the controversial scene. One is that the filmmakers have unearthed a previously unknown jewel that they can fully document; that Berger really did slam down the phone on a field agent looking for guidance. If that’s the case, then this entire conversation is irrelevant and you should cease reading this essay.

The other explanation is that, being a docudrama, the filmmakers included a fabricated scene (which was a composite of many real factors) to dramatize the ineptitude and fecklessness that so characterized the Clinton administration. One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to do such a thing. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so.

YOU MIGHT NOTE THAT the defense of the scene offers a rationale that Dan Rather would probably be comfortable with — fake but accurate. I’m uncomfortable embracing such a rationale, and I suspect most other bloggers who have rushed to tout the film will feel the same way once they think it through.

I’m especially uncomfortable with this controversy since it’s so unnecessary. The record of the Clinton administration on terrorism is an embarrassment and a disgrace. All serious studies of the matter have reached the same conclusion.

But you won’t get a committed supporter of President Clinton to admin that. In related news, Justin Levine posted a great article at Patterico.com about this issue. Here are some of his basic points:

Let’s also try to all stipulate and agree about a few things:

1. The terrorists were ultimately responsible for 9/11. Period. They, and they alone, are to blame (Though blame is admittedly different than mere “criticism” which is what this film inspires debate over in regards to our leaders.)

2. If there were someone in the government (of any administration) who clearly could have prevented 9/11 and failed to do so, it would be unlikely that they would clearly admit to that to the 9/11 Commission, the press, or anyone else.

3. Some partisans on both sides were added to the 9/11 Commission to essentially try and “protect” their own side — resulting in a document that only included what everyone could agree on. Omissions and limitations in the 9/11 Commission report were inevitable, and the Commission itself was aware of that. As a result, the Commission report is certainly not the last word on historical fact (though it can still be a useful tool as a starting point).

Can we at least all agree on that???

[I would also add that Sandy Berger's attempt to remove documents from the National archive while the 9/11 Commission was meeting casts suspicions on his credibility in the final report himself -- but I don't even expect a unanimous opinion about that in the current political climate, so I won't include it in the above list.]

So are there inaccuracies in the film? Of course!

But are these inaccuracies enough to torpedo the movie? It depends on which side of the political fence you come down on, apparently. Democrats have been up in arms over this movie, which the vast majority have not seen, and they appear to have succeeded in making ABC alter some of the miniseries. News Busters is reporting that ABC has caved to Democrat demands and altered the miniseries, and there is still a possibility that ABC will pull the whole miniseries.

News Busters also points to a comment made by Rush Limbaugh about this mess:

I’ll tell you, the thing that is stunning to me, when you compare Bill Clinton the man, and other presidents, George Bush the man, how many times did George Bush or any in the Republican administration demand that Fahrenheit 9/11, that stupid, lying, so-called documentary by Michael Moore not be shown in theaters? Republicans were even going to the premieres of those things. Republicans appeared in it, even though they may have been sandbagged by Moore, they were in it. But the president nor his administration said a word about it. I’ll tell you something else. Sandy Burglar is all upset about the way he’s portrayed in this movie. Sandy Burglar gets a major break. This movie does not portray Sandy Burglar stealing documents in his pants and his socks from the National Archives.

On Sunday and Monday of this weekend, ABC will broadcast “The Path to 9/11,” or as ABC puts it:

ABC will present “The Path to 9/11,” a dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report and other sources, in an epic miniseries event that will air with limited commercial interruption.

The Left in this country are already getting riled up over this miniseries, but I’m not sure whether they are more concerned about the dramatization of events they say didn’t happen, or that so much blame is laid at the feet of their beloved President Clinton.

A common complaint voiced about the miniseries is that it shows events that didn’t happen. Here’s how this was written up at ThinkProgress.org:

The first night of Path to 9/11 has a dramatic scene where former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refuses to give the order to the CIA to take out bin Laden — even though CIA agents, along with the Northern Alliance, have his house surrounded. Rush Limbaugh, who refers to Nowrasteh as “a friend of mine,” reviews the action:

So the CIA, the Northern Alliance, surrounding a house where bin Laden is in Afghanistan, they’re on the verge of capturing, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to proceed.

So they phoned Washington. They phoned the White House. Clinton and his senior staff refused to give authorization for the capture of bin Laden because they’re afraid of political fallout if the mission should go wrong, and if civilians were harmed… Now, the CIA agent in this is portrayed as being astonished. “Are you kidding?” He asked Berger over and over, “Is this really what you guys want?”

Berger then doesn’t answer after giving his first admonition, “You guys go in on your own. If you go in we’re not sanctioning this, we’re not approving this,” and Berger just hangs up on the agent after not answering any of his questions.

ThinkProgress has obtained a response to this scene from Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, and now counterterrorism adviser to ABC:

1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.

2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.

3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.

In short, this scene — which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden — never happened. It was completely made up by Nowrasteh.

The actual history is quite different. According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, “Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.”

That charge is pretty damning. I listened to the local Air America Radio show as I drove into work this morning, and the host had someone on who was identified as an editor for ThinkProgressive.com. He stated in solemn tones that the above Sandy Berger scene didn’t happen, and “nothing like it happened.” Really? Proving a negative is tough, but there may be something to the scene. Here is something the New York Sun printed in the summer of 2004 about Sandy Berger, based on the 9/11 Commission’s report.

Well, look now to what the 9/11 report has to say about the man to whom President Clinton, under attack by an independent counsel, delegated so much in respect of national security, Samuel “Sandy” Berger. The report cites a 1998 meeting between Mr. Berger and the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, at which Mr. Tenet presented a plan to capture Osama bin Laden.

“In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted,” the report says, citing a May 1, 1998, Central Intelligence Agency memo summarizing the weekly meeting between Messrs. Berger and Tenet.

In June of 1999, another plan for action against Mr. bin Laden was on the table. The potential target was a Qaeda terrorist camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms. The commission report released yesterday cites Mr. Berger’s “handwritten notes on the meeting paper” referring to “the presence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60-65 casualties.” According to the Berger notes, “if he responds, we’re blamed.”

On December 4, 1999, the National Security Council’s counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, sent Mr. Berger a memo suggesting a strike in the last week of 1999 against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Reports the commission: “In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, ‘no.’ “

In August of 2000, Mr. Berger was presented with another possible plan for attacking Mr. bin Laden. This time, the plan would be based on aerial surveillance from a “Predator” drone. Reports the commission: “In the memo’s margin, Berger wrote that before considering action, ‘I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.’ “

In other words, according to the commission report, Mr. Berger was presented with plans to take action against the threat of Al Qaeda four separate times — Spring 1998, June 1999, December 1999, and August 2000. Each time, Mr. Berger was an obstacle to action. Had he been a little less reluctant to act, a little more open to taking pre-emptive action, maybe the 2,973 killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks would be alive today.

So here are four known examples of Berger blocking action against al-Qaeda. We cannot say for sure that these were the only times Berger blocked action against al-Qaeda, because the documentary evidence is now tainted by *drum roll* Sandy Berger himself. Berger confessed to removing top secret documents from the National Archive, and destroying some of them. Because he was unsupervised during these visits, it is very possible that he substituted uncommented copies of these documents. For this, he got a slap on the wrist. This is why Rush Limbaugh refers to him as “Sandy Burglar.”

This whole brouhaha about the miniseries leads me to wonder whether writer Cyrus Nowrasteh created this scene based on some specific information he has, or whether the scene represents an amalgam of the four times Berger blocked action against bin Laden, or whether it is just a bit of creative writing for dramatic effect.

I understand that ABC says this miniseries is “a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 Commission report, other published materials and from personal interviews.” But does that grant them license to fiddle with the facts for dramatic effect?

And if this miniseries has unsubstantiated scenes added for dramatic effect, doesn’t it fall into the “fake, but accurate” camp? I’m not sure I like the sound of that.

The media is all aflutter over President Bush’s admission today that terrorists have been held by the U.S. overseas.

President George W. Bush acknowledged on Wednesday the CIA has run a secret detention program for terrorism suspects overseas and said 14 of those held have been transferred to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay.

With human rights organizations suspicious about a program that has remained in the shadows, Bush strongly defended the detention and questioning of terrorism suspects through this method and said the CIA treats them humanely and does not torture.

“Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland. By giving us information about terrorist plans we could not get anywhere else, this program has saved innocent lives,” Bush said in a White House speech nearly five years after the September 11 attacks.

Thanks to the Washington Post revealing the existence of the CIA’s secret prisons last year, the Bush administration has transferred to other locations these prisoners, who number fewer than 100. President Bush also announced that with the transfer of 14 prisoners to Gitmo, the CIA is no longer holding anyone. In a real shocker, President Bush didn’t say where these secret prisons were, proving that he can keep a secret better than the average Washington Post staffer.

I like this quote from the news story:

Bush’s current focus on terrorism comes not only as the September 11 anniversary approaches but also as his Republican Party faces stiff challenges in the midterm elections in two months.

This makes it sound as though the President woke up this week and said, “Yep, ’bout time I did somethin’ about terrorism again.” While any good politician can juggle multiple tasks, President Bush has been very focused on the threat of terrorism–wholly contrary to the way this report was written.

While some people recognize that we are at war with radical Islam, too many liberals would rather attack President Bush and his supporters than seriously acknowledge that we are at war. And as wars go, this has been a remarkably bloodless one.

“How can you say that, Captain?” Easy. Consider that, since we were hit in 2001, we have lost very few civilians and military personnel. Yes, every loss is a tragedy, but when you consider that the U.S. suffered 6,821 fatalities while fighting to capture the eight square miles of Iwo Jima alone, the losses we have suffered from 9/11 and liberating Afghanistan and Iraq hardly measure up to that level of bloodshed.

This is almost like the Phony War period between Germany’s invasion of Poland in September 1939 and its subsequent invasion of the Benelux countries in May 1940. War had been declared in 1939, but Great Britain didn’t enter into the fight until the summer of 1940 when the Battle of Britain was fought.

I believe we are currently in a lull of the battle against radical Islam, much as Britain found itself during the Phony War. We have been largely successful in keeping the fighting out of our nation since 2001, but at some point the murderous nutjobs will succeed in bringing the fight back to our shores. When–not if–this happens, I see the nation going in one of three directions:

– We give up. While I personally have no intention of bowing to Mecca, it is possible that a sufficiently vicious attack could break the will of the nation at large, and collectively we might give up and give in. People who call for “peace at any cost” are particularly susceptible to this possible outcome.

– The nation continues with a ho-hum reaction. People who refuse to accept the reality that we are at war are solidly in this camp. And unless the attack hits close to home, they may remain in this state of complacency. Is “Lost” on yet?

– The nation really goes to war. The scenes of death and destruction on our soil stiffen the collective spine and resolve of the nation, and we determine to fight. Not in the wimpy, half-hearted manner we are doing it now–the whole-hog, can-do resolve of our citizens seen during World War II could once again ripple through the people when we realize we must and will crush this viper’s head of hate.

When that attack comes, I sincerely hope the nation chooses to stand up and fight. Because when we achieve complete victory over those who hate us and want us destroyed, only then will there be peace.

Imagine a call dispatched to the police officers in town:

“Attention all cars. Be on the lookout for a suspect in the Green Hills robbery. Surveillance tapes shows the suspect to be a bald white male between the ages of 18 and 35, about 5’6″ in height, and around 140 pounds. Last seen headed south on Main Street in a white Ford Bronco. Suspect is armed and considered dangerous. Proceed with caution.”

Now imagine the same dispatched call in a world more concerned with feelings than with catching the bad guys:

“Attention all cars. Be on the lookout for a suspect in the Green Hills robbery. Surveillance tapes shows the suspect, but because of a recent ACLU case, we are unable to release a description of the suspected perpetrator. Suspect was last seen on Main Street. Stop and question every car going north or south on Main Street, being sure to submit randomly selected cars to additional searches and dog sniffing. We are unable to state whether the suspect is armed and considered dangerous. Proceed as if everything were normal.”

Sounds pretty silly, no? Well, it’s closer to being reality than you may think. We live in a world where Islamic nutjobs have declared war against the West and happily chant “Death to America!” But we can’t acknowledge who our enemies are. It is silly to carefully search little old grannies, former Vice Presidents, and current Senators and think we are doing a good job at stopping the madmen. We know who they are. Robert Poole has written what we need to do. Here’s just one paragraph from a long and very worthwhile article:

We don’t need to ban water from planes; we need to keep terrorists off them. To most effectively do so, we need to get over our obsession with “bad” things (laptops, lighters, bottled water) and start looking for bad people.

We know who the dangerous people are, so it makes more sense to focus our attention on the people who wish us harm over innocent people like little old grannies, former Vice Presidents, and current Senators. The ACLU whines about violating people’s civil rights if they are profiled. I don’t call it profiling; I call it a “description of the perpetrator.”

Cox and Forkum have boiled this down in a recent cartoon.

Profiled

Dean Barnett of SoxBlog recently posted on Hugh Hewitt’s site about the disease of radical Islam and its effect on the world:

If you have a serious disease, you eventually wind up going one of two routes: One is that you confront your problems, deal with them in a hard-headed way and make peace with the hand you’ve been dealt. I call this dealing with your New Normal; the old normal was better, but the New Normal becomes your reality. It may be less than optimal, it may be downright dreadful, but it’s your new reality and you find a way to deal with it.

The other choice is to deny the situation. There are tons of ways to rationalize such a decision without using the pejorative term “denial.” You can defiantly say that you won’t let your condition rule your life. If you do, people will applaud your toughness. These are often the same people who always tell you how healthy you look, even when you look and feel like death warmed over.

So you live your life without accepting or dealing with your New Normal. And you reap terrible consequences.

For discussion’s sake, let’s say you have diabetes. You can either accept that you have the disease, change your eating habits and lifestyle, and live, or you can do nothing other than denying you have it. The result of the latter decision is to watch diabetes slowly shut down your body.

If you have a life-threatening disease, you can either accept that you have it and deal with it, or you can stick your fingers in your ears, sing a rousing chorus of “La-la-la, I’m not listening,” and let the disease take its course.

And now Dean Barnett makes the leap from the personal to the political:

AS FREE SOCIETIES, the Western democracies have a choice of whether or not face up to the existential challenge they face from Radical Islam. The lure of seeking an easy way out is almost irresistible. The siren song of sitting down and reasoning with the Hezbollahs and Ahmadenijads of the world is powerful. If we could just do something to convince ourselves that all is well and that there’s nothing to fear, life sure would be easier.

Just as is the case with an illness, there are a lot of people willing to tell us that our fears are overblown. If you want to believe that George W. Bush and the Patriot Act are the greatest threats to our way of life, you won’t have much trouble finding a professor on a nearby college campus to buttress your theory. If you want to think that there was nothing really going on in London to warrant any concern and all the news this morning is just Karl Rove’s response to Joe Lieberman’s defeat, you’ll easily locate a prominent blogger to offer his concurrence.

But it’s past time we face the facts and realize that this is our New Normal. It’s worse than the old normal, the one that we had before 9/11 when we felt completely safe even though we weren’t.

It’s time we stop having a sphere of things that are “unimaginable.” Let’s imagine airliners exploding over our cities. Let’s imagine a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv. Let’s imagine a mushroom cloud over New York.

Let’s imagine how such things might happen. And then let’s resolve to stop them.

So what will our decision be as a nation? Will we recognize the life-threatening international disease of terrorism and do whatever we can to eradicate it, or are we going to serenade the world with our fingers-in-ears singing? We are at war with people who want us dead, and we have three options before us: give up, negotiate, or defeat them. I won’t give in to the radical Islamists’ totalitarian view of religion, nor will I negotiate with anyone whose stated goal is to see me dead. The remaining option is to recognize that life has changed for us here in the States, accept the New Normal, and do all that we can to eradicate the disease attacking us.

I say we defeat them. What is your choice?

Thanks to the men and women around the world who are hard at work combating the ever-present threat of terrorism by Islamic fundamentalists, a significant plot was uncovered and thwarted.

Much will be said and written about this latest attempt by the terrorist thugs to strike at the West, but there are a few things I’m pondering:

  • Some liberals say that we should be putting all our efforts into catching or killing Osama bin Laden, but I think he’s mostly irrelevant now. If Osama had been captured, would this attempt not have happened? I don’t think so.
  • The British papers are writing about “Asian” men being arrested, but no one appears to be willing to utter the dreaded word “Muslim” for fear of offending. Time to call a spade a spade, folks! President Bush reiterates what should be obvious that the U.S. is “at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation.” And just as obviously, CAIR goes bonkers over President Bush identifying the terrorists.
  • Given the success at stopping this attack, I must say a hearty “Thank you!” to the men and women of the CIA, FBI, Senate, House, and other government personel who didn’t leak any of this to the press. And I wish you would collectively shut the hell up on any other investigations or anti-terrorist activities.

UPDATE (8/10/2006 4:58:29 PM): Cox and Forkum do a good job of summing up the results of this bust.

Direct Intercept