The, "Then What?" question is the one that bothers me with Disengagement. Israel was burned by agreeing, in the Oslo Accords, to allow the PLO back into the territories terrortories. Some moves can't be taken back, some steps cannot be retraced, and a unilateral move out of Gaza, with no concession from the Arabs is one of those actions that become permanent. After a very short time, moving back into Gaza will be as difficult as removing the PLO from the scene is today... almost impossible.

At some point, a strong, resolute stand will be necessary. Because the Arabs are not going to give up their goal of eliminating any trace of Jewish presence from the region, Israel will eventually be forced into strong, even ruthless action. In that case, is it wise to retreat at all? Is it wise to concede ANYTHING without at least some acknowledgement from the Arabs?

Mr. Krauthammer is right when he says,

To argue that neither Israel nor the United States can act in the absence of negotiations is to give the Palestinians, by continuing the terror, a veto over any constructive actions by the United States or Israel — whether disengaging from Gaza, uprooting settlements or establishing conditions for a final peace settlement that would ensure the survival of a Jewish state. This is an argument of singular absurdity. And a prescription for perpetual violence and perpetual stalemate.

Transfer of Jews is presented as a Given while transfer of Arabs is presented as Evil. Where is the justice in that?

Withdrawal, regardless of Sharon's intentions is going to be taken as a victory for the Arab side. It is unlikely to do anything to stop the violence and is likely to encourage it.

As long as the Palestinian problem is not solved completely, and the disengagement plan will not solve it, the world will continue to hold Israel solely responsible for the situation that has been created. The world will continue to demand that we, and no one else, take additional steps and make more concessions.

No matter what concessions we make, the terror will continue. The dream that withdrawing from the Gaza Strip will relieve us of responsibility is unfounded. No letter from Bush, as important or precedent setting as it might be, will change this.

I do agree with the Prime Minister on one point. The status quo is not to our benefit. Therefore, we must create change. However, abandoning the field and leaving it to the terrorist organizations will not do it. Change will occur only when we, with the help of the international community, are wise enough to completely transform the government system and the political climate within the Palestinian Authority, giving new forces, which truly desire the prosperity of their people, a chance to reach positions of power.

I never thought WMD were the primary causus belli for President Bush, although he allowed the press and the left to put those words in his mouth. Still, I look at this as very good news.

Thank you Solomon for the flag graphic.

Really, I'm sick of hearing about John Kerry's medals...
whether it was medals or ribbons…
whether they were his or not…
was it all of them or part of them...
It just doesn’t matter, except for the fact that it has been Kerry himself that is trying to make it an issue. In his lame attempt to make himself appear strong on National Defense, he's tried to paint himself as a decorated War hero. Terry McAuliffe never misses a chance to bring it up… Why???

Is being decorated in a war he believed to be illegal and immoral a good thing or a bad thing? It’s absolutely cartoonish.

Imagine Mike Myers’ Linda Richman on Coffee Talk:

Oy, this campaign mishigas and that John Kerry and the whole Democratic mishpukhe…. It just makes me so... so.. I’m all verklempt…. Here, I’ll give you a topic: Medals… If if you win them through action you believe immoral, are you a hero or a criminal?… Discuss

OK, he served. He then became one of the most outspoken, extreme opponents of that war. But does his service in that war mean that I would trust him with the responsibility of our National Security? His behavior after the war, and his record since the war, is much more important than his questionable service in Viet Nam in answering that. It says more about a Democratic Party that is proudly touting service alone as a qualification to be Commander in Chief.

Sure the war affected him, it affected an entire generation, but what lessons did he learn from it? How can we judge which lessons he judged important if not by examining his behavior since his war experience.

He testified against his peers, he protested America’s policies, he has 20 years worth of a weak record in supporting Defense programs. He would prefer to hand over much of our authority to the UN. Yet he wants us to think that National Security Policy is a strong spot in his resume. It just doesn’t compute.

He received recognition for acts in war from the very people and institutions he accused of war crimes. He wants us to laud him for acting in ways that he found abhorrent. He wants us to accept his war experience as evidence of his knowledge and judgment on national security issues, yet he spent years denying that experience. Would the real John Kerry please stand up.

"In the beginning, some people thought the Americans were helping them," Mubarak told the French newspaper Le Monde. "There was no hatred toward Americans." But "after what has happened in Iraq, there is an unprecedented hatred."...

..."There was no hatred toward Americans." What a preposterous falsehood. Arab regimes have been inciting hatred toward Americans for years, and few have done so more consistently than the crude autocracy of Mubarak, who has ruled Egypt under an "emergency" decree for the last 23 years.

For example, it was Al-Ahram, a newspaper controlled by the Egyptian government, that claimed in October that US pilots flying over Afghanistan were dropping "genetically treated" food into areas booby-trapped with land mines — hoping not only to make Afghans sick but to cripple or kill those who attempted to gather the food. It was Al-Akhbar, another regime-sponsored daily, that declared in August: "The Statue of Liberty . . . must be destroyed because of the idiotic American policy that goes from disgrace to disgrace in the swamp of bias and blind fanaticism. . . . The age of the American collapse has begun."

Examples of the anger engendered by the Iraq war? Hardly. Al-Ahram and Al-Akhbar published those statements in October and August of 2001.

Earlier that year, Al-Akhbar had sneered that Secretary of State Colin Powell "has the brain of a bird" and acts "like a stupid teenager." Ground Zero was still smoldering less than a week after 9/11 when a writer in Al-Arabi, a Nasserist weekly, cheered the attacks: "In all honesty, and without beating around the bush," Ahmad Murad wrote, "I am happy about the great number of American dead. . . . I have a right to be filled with happiness; the Americans are finally tasting the bitterness of death."

To uncover the roots of terrorism, violence, and extremism and to show that they are the outcome of a distorted logic against which Muslim scholars throughout the ages have warned.

To show the moderation of Islam and the justice of its teachings which shun violence and call for dialog, persuasion and peaceful argument.

To explain the legal position of Islam on the recent events based on relevant evidence.

To contribute to the academic and religious defense of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and to expose the foreign propaganda and its lies and accusations against the Kingdom.

To make recommendations of a scientific, educational, psychological and social nature to the relevant authorities as a contribution to the required remedy.

To clarify the position of Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University on the distorted thinking, thereby dismissing the accusations hailed against it.

To contribute with all the constituencies of this country to the strength and safeguard of the national front.

Dr. Al-Awwad said the conference had to clarify misconceptions about Islam and terrorism. He and other speakers said the term “terrorism”, while quite clear to Muslims, was still ambiguous to the Westerners — as was evident from the contradictory definitions presented by institutions there.

I'm waiting for these Muslims to explain how a door to door military operation in Jenin, for instance is terrorism yet a Muslim blowing himself up at a Passover Seder is legitimate resistance. It's not terrorism to blow up a bus load of innocents yet precision attacks on military leaders is. It's not terrorism to blow yourself up in University cafeteria, but building a defensive wall is. How is it terrorism to use a check point to stop suicide bombers but it's not terrorism to use a young woman to blow herself up to kill as many Jews as possible at the checkpoint. The hypocrisy is astounding.
In the words of one of the Saudi “scholars,”

Dr. Muhammad ibn Ali Al-Herfy, a Saudi academic, said the definition of the term “terrorism” became an issue after Sept. 11, 2001. “The main problem is that American policymakers have defined this term to suit their ideologies, while at the same time trying to force or impose on other people what they say,” said Dr. Al-Herfy adding that “defining terrorism is more difficult today than fighting it.”

Q: How did anti-Semitism enter mainstream Islam?

A: It's a consequence of Britain's foreign policy immediately after World War I. The original Weizmann-Feisal agreement was one of friendship and cooperation between the Zionist movement and the leaders of the Hashemite family, and the acceptance of the creation of two states - a Jewish state and an Arab kingdom, with the Jordan River as the natural border. Had that agreement been respected by the British, the Jewish state would have been born 30 years earlier, and the Arab and Zionist movements would have cooperated.

Unfortunately, the Foreign Office empowered the house of Saud, which promotes cultural Wahhabism, a belief that has anti-Semitism as one of its defining features. Until today, Saudis are using their oil money to promote anti-Semitism in the Arab world and beyond.

Instead of focusing on 1948 as the starting point for Israeli-Arab relations, I'd argue that we should be starting with the events surrounding the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the early management of Mandatory Palestine... therein lies the key to a workable peace plan. But an honest study of history has never been a part of the Arab side's strategy... it works to their disadvantage.

Whitfield repeatedly called the attack on Rantisi "retaliation", and Mr. Meir repeatedly corrected her. She was persistent in her questioning in trying to get Mr. Meir to say something that fit her "cycle of violence" or "tit for tat" or "continual retaliation" story line. Her every attempt was shot down. Just by listening to her questioning I wanted to scream. Her anti-Israel slant was blatantly obvious and although it was just as obvious that the facts didn't fit her story, it didn't matter.

Meir did a nice job, but it was useless... He denied the attack was retaliation of any sort. He painstakingly explained that it was simply a part of the long, long war being waged against them. He spoke of a previous attempt on Rantisi of which this was just the latest move. Nothing he said even remotely could be interpreted the way that Whitfield wanted it to.

She asked about killing innocents... he answered that they had waited until the intelligence ensured that collateral damage would be minimized (the facts prove that true) She brought up the unsubstantiated rumor that his young child was said to have been killed... Where the hell did THAT come from?

She tried to say that Bush had given Sharon the "Green Light" for the attack while he was in Washington.. he answered that it was false, that they had targeted Rantisi before, that, as a Sovereign nation, Israel made its own choices... Again Whitfield would hear none of it.

After her obligatory gracious farewell to him, she began to sum up their conversation by saying, "As you heard, this retaliation from Israel....." I could watch no more. I yelled at hte TV, clicked it off, and had to walk outside. Was she stupid or lying?

I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and conclude that she was/is just stupid. Maybe the producers were talking to her in her earpiece, distracting her, passing her the questions and telling her what was coming up. Maybe some one was just feeding her the questions and she didn't even listen to the answers.... she couldn't have, her report, her questions simply did not fit the facts nor what her subject was saying... and it didnt' matter.

What is up with CNN? Why is the truth so foreign to them? The bright side of the problem is that their audience is pitifully small. It's a sad state when Fox is the only 24 hr TV News alternative.... What would we do without the Internet???

I found this last year while looking through the Holocaust History Project Web Site. So, when I read today that Imshin has a wish to visit Poland, I thought of Ms. Salzman's poem, and decided to post it again. I hope it moves you to take a moment to remember.

Remember that 1,500,000 children.... one and a half million children were murdered by the Nazis.. simply for being Jews. As was pointed out tonight during our Community's Remembrance: if you were to read the names of each child victim, simply reciting the names, it would take you more than a year. Twenty-four hours a day, without break, reciting one name after another, and even after a year you would still have months to go.

Maybe it's just a perspective problem. Maybe John Kerry just doesn't understand what Al Qaeda is. Maybe he thinks it's simply some small faction of militants terrorists, like the Al Aqsa Martyrs of East Ramallah. Whatever he thinks, his words show a lack of recognition of who our enemy is.

Al Qaeda = Muslim extremism. It is not an organization as much as it is an ideology. Hamas, and Hizbollah are just as much a part of that ideology as bin Laden's little band of terrorists. They are united not by membership cards or secret handshakes, but through their desire to rid their world of non-Muslim influence, and to spread Islam across the globe. (granted it's a twisted version of Islam). But John Kerry wants to limit the "War on Terror" to bin Laden. Sadly too many people share his misunderstanding.

From Bush's campaign Chairman,

Marc Racicot, who said Kerry's "reckless allegation" demonstrates "a profound misunderstanding" of the global war on terrorism and the threat facing the United States.

"On a day when Osama bin Laden again threatened the United States and our allies, it is disturbing to realize that John Kerry neither recognizes nor understands the murderous ideology of our enemies and the threat that they pose to our nation," Racicot said in a statement.

The wave began to swell some 25 years ago and by now has swept across a big swath of the Muslim world. The wave is not a single thing. It consists of several movements or currents, which are entirely recognizable. These movements draw on four tenets: a belief in a paranoid conspiracy theory, according to which cosmically evil Jews, Masons, Crusaders and Westerners are plotting to annihilate Islam or subjugate the Arab people; a belief in the need to wage apocalyptic war against the cosmic conspiracy; an expectation that, post-apocalypse, the Islamic caliphate of ancient times will re-emerge as a utopian new society; and a belief that, meanwhile, death is good, and should be loved and revered. Yes, the War is Iraq is, and always has been central, to the war on terror Islamofaschism. You can argue over whether it was wiser to do Syria or Iran first, but regardless, they are all part of the same problem. Berman says it better,

The Sept. 11 attacks came from a relatively small organization. But Al Qaeda was a kind of foam thrown up by the larger extremist wave. The police and special forces were never going to be able to stamp out the Qaeda cells so long as millions of people around the world accepted the paranoid and apocalyptic views and revered suicide terror. The only long-term hope for tamping down the terrorist impulse was to turn America's traditional policies upside down, and come out for once in favor of the liberal democrats of the Muslim world. This would mean promoting a counter-wave of liberal and rational ideas to combat the allure of paranoia and apocalypse.

NZ Bear recalls,

As I wrote one year after the 9/11 attacks, I don't believe that America began responding effectively to Al Qaeda when we invaded Afghanistan. I believe we began responding effectively the moment that the passengers of Flight 93, fed information via cellphone calls from the ground, recognized what the terrorists on their flight planned to do --- and acted to stop it.

The people shouting the most and wanting to point the finger of blame are the same people who are first to cry out about American aggressiveness and heavy-handedness. The same people who clamor for accountability from the government now, would never even dream of blaming the passengers on Flight AA11 or of Flight AA77 or Flight UA175 for not doing enough to prevent the tragedy that took so many lives. Is there a difference? I don’t think so.

The fact is, early on the morning of 9/11 we were all jolted into the reality that extremist Muslims were willing to go to extraordinary lengths to attack us and kill as many Americans as they could... simply because we are their enemy.

The passengers on the earlier flights certainly knew they were being hijacked, but they also knew that many others had been hijacked before and lived to tell the tales. They had no rational reason to act.

Many Americans, both in government and out, knew that Muslim extremists wanted to attack America AGAIN. They had already tried to topple the World Trade Center once. But, the government, nor any of the intelligence agencies, domestic or foreign, had enough evidence to warrant action before that awful morning.

In retrospect, many disparate facts are being put together to show us that the pieces to the puzzle were available, but no one had the luck, the time, nor the energy, to put them together. Only a miracle would have let someone gather all the pieces in time to do anything to prevent those 19 Islamofaschists from attacking.

In hindsight, maybe we could have done more, but looking to blame someone for political gain is not the way to assure that we will do better next time. Whether it's Richard Clarke blaming Bush or John Ashcroft blaming Clinton, it doesn’t matter. The fact is, both of those people could have done things differently... had they known. The passengers on the earlier flights could have acted differently... had they known. But they didn’t… NONE of us knew.

Even those who were raising the alarm over Muslim extremism had not imagined the possibility of those attacks, let alone their likelihood. Even if they had, only the moonbat conspiracy theorists would have believed it. Making cheap political points by claiming personal heroism or by pointing a haughty finger of blame disgraces all of those who died that day. Using 9/11 for political gain has got to stop.

Could more have been done to stop the attacks? Could more have been done to prevent them? Absolutely... unquestionably, YES! But it's pure folly to think this 9/11 commission is helping us at all.

If we protect ourselves better in the future, it won’t be because of this commission. We aren’t being made any safer by those who are more willing to place blame on Bush than they are on bin Laden. We aren't being made any safer by those currently in power who blame their impotence on the previous Administration. It's time for Unity, not petty partisan bickering. It's time to recognize that we have an enemy.

Islamofaschists have declared war against us, and that war continues, whether we acknowledge it or not. The enemy is among us whether or not we decide to see them. We didn't choose this war, but we have no choice to endure it. I pray every day that more eyes will open to the threat. I pray every day that we come together soon, as one Nation, with the resolve to finish this war as soon as possible.

Maybe the Administration could have decided on a different strategy for fighting the war… a different set of priorities. Maybe they chose the best way… maybe they didn’t we’ll only know when it’s over. At least they are fighting it.

Other portraits: Venomous Kate and Kelley and Jay Solo and eClaire and the Group Captain & Shell and Ilyka and zombyboy and Rob and Dave IsraellyCool

Any others?

Arab leaders also have a vital interest in working with the U.S. to quell the turmoil in Iraq and to re-empower the potentially moderate center. As unpleasant as it may be for them to help the Bush team — and as worrisome as free elections in Iraq might be to unelected leaders of the Arab world — having oil-rich Iraq taken over partly by Baathist radicals happy to work with Al Qaeda and partly by Shiite radicals happy to work with Iran will be even worse. It will empower radicals across the Arab region, and freeze the infant reform process there.

And that's why the Arab leaders need to talk to their sons and daughters. If the Arabs miss yet another decade of reform, because Iraq spins out of control while the world speeds ahead, they will find themselves outside the world system and dealing with plenty of their own Fallujas. Talk to Arab youth today and you will find so many of them utterly despondent at the complete drift in their societies. They are stuck in a sandstorm, where opportunities for young people to realize their potential are fading.

What is going on in Iraq today is not only a war between radical Islam and America, it is, more importantly, a war within Islam — between those who want an Islam with a human and progressive face that can meld with the world and those who want an Islam that is exclusivist and hostile to the world.

War should not be a partisan issue. The fact that it is lies at the feet of George Bush for failing to energize America for the struggle ahead. He depended on left-over emotions in a fickle population to give him the benefit of the doubt. He has used up that good will. He not only as the anti-war group against him but he has the war's supporters questioning him. He's not showing any of us the leadership he promised in the weeks after 9/11. It's a shame.

Let me give an example. Liberals want to confiscate all privately held firearms. Liberals are aware that this will do away with a major deterrent to crime, and that people will lose the ability to defend themselves. Liberals are aware that the police are completely unable to prevent crimes from occurring, and that in many circumstances, they are not obligated to do so even if they can. What alternative do they provide, to replace the protection the guns used to give us? None. Well, unless being raped and shot is an alternative.

So, basically, when it comes to guns, liberal policy consists of "No." Having guns is wrong, no you can't have one, and we don't plan to help you fix the problem losing your gun causes. The Politics of No means criticizing and outlawing and so on, and providing no solution of your own. Or providing a solution which is so stupid or unworkable that it has to be dismissed out of hand. You know, like "Work on finding the root causes of crime and stopping people from becoming criminals."

It's like the left's position on nuclear power, which is "No." Unlike enlightened France, we are not allowed to have most of our power generated by safe, inexhaustible nuclear power. And we are not supposed to depend on foreign oil. But how do we stop depending on foreign oil, if we have to burn petroleum to get electricity? Here's how: "No."

John Kerry and his pals have been "No-ing" on Iraq and terrorism ever since the day back in 2003 when somebody on the left gave the all-clear signal and decided it was okay to start demagoguing these matters, because it looked like the public was not flying as many flags on its cars as before, and people might be willing to listen to unpatriotic partisan casuistry without lynching anyone.

As much as I disliked Ronald Reagan, I have to admire the way he made the country feel good about being American... and if he didn't cause the good feelings he was astute enough to play to them. There is no such rhetoric coming from the Democrats... Their only message is No!

If you strip all of the rhetoric and campaigning against George Bush and against the Republicans, what are the Democrats left with? Not much.

They've succeeded in dividing the country and seem to have no interest in leading a United States of America. Too many Democrats are only interested in their self-image, they only want to be seen as caring more than others and in being smarter than the other side... practical results and the vision of hope and prosperity have been gone from the party for a long, long time. I hope it changes soon... I'm afraid that a generation of Republican control of the government will be no better than the generation of Democratic control we are graduating from.

Kerrey in print on April 8:

Today's appearance of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice will test the commission's resilience to the partisan pressures which threaten to collapse the goodwill needed to achieve consensus. Among the most dangerous forces is the tendency in politics to become personal and question motives instead of confronting the substance of the argument made by any individual. If we yield to this tendency, all hope for an honest and constructive report is lost. We will most certainly fail.

But the line of questioning will suggest that I'm trying to ascertain why things weren't done differently. [in other