Ir­re­spon­si­ble com­ments from the left

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary - Bill O’Reilly

So now the far-left loons in the me­dia are say­ing there re­ally isn’t an or­ga­nized ter­ror threat in the world and this whole war on ter­ror deal is a hype job. That must come as great com­fort to the thou­sands of fam­i­lies who lost loved ones on 9/11. They must re­ally ap­pre­ci­ate the St. Louis Post-Dis­patch ed­i­to­ri­al­iz­ing: “Af­ter nearly six years of hear­ing the Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion make as­ser­tions about the war on ter­ror­ism that turn out — to put it kindly — overblown [. . .]”

I’m just won­der­ing how “overblown” the ter­ror war is for the five thou­sand in­di­vid­u­als in­jured when al-Qaeda blew up two U.S. em­bassies in Africa, not to men­tion the 257 hu­man be­ings who were mur­dered in that at­tack. But it might be hard to com­pre­hend “overblown” when you’re dead.

The nutty pro­fes­sor Paul Krugman, who teaches at Prince­ton and writes op-ed lu­nacy for The New York Times, is also on the di­min­ish-ter­ror band­wagon. This is from his desk: “There isn’t any such thing as Is­lam­ofas­cism — it’s not an ide­ol­ogy; it’s a fig­ment of the neo­con imag­i­na­tion.”

That’s like say­ing there is no such thing as stu­pid­ity, right, pro­fes­sor?

Maybe we should ask the fam­i­lies of the 40 dead and 300 in­jured in the Lon­don sub­way bomb­ings, or the friends of the 202 dead in the Bali, In­done­sia, at­tack on a Kuta Beach night­club to com­ment on Krugman’s opin­ion. I be­lieve they might have some re­ac­tion.

And how about Pro­fes­sor Paul Cam­pos, who teaches at the Univer­sity of Colorado, still the home of Ward Churchill? Mr. Cam­pos wrote in the Rocky Moun­tain News: “(Con­ser­va­tives) have helped cre­ate a fear of ter­ror­ism out of all pro­por­tion to the ac­tual threat ter­ror­ism poses.”

Let’s run that by the 1,500 hu­man be­ings hurt in the Madrid train bomb­ing. Un­for­tu­nately, the 197 peo­ple killed in that al Qaeda at­tack are not avail­able to com­ment.

The hits just keep on com­ing in the lib­eral me­dia. Gen. Wesley Clark, a com­men­ta­tor on NBC News, says that Osama bin Laden is not an “ex­is­ten­tial” threat to Amer­ica. The gen­eral be­lieves that the ter­ror­ist and his crew could not de­stroy the en­tire na­tion. Just some of us. Swell. The rea­son the com­mit­ted left me­dia is putting out this non­sense is pol­i­tics. The big­gest strength on the Repub­li­can side this pres­i­den­tial sea­son is fight­ing ter­ror­ism. All of the Demo­cratic can­di­dates are per­ceived to be soft in this area be­cause they do not sup­port spe­cific anti-ter­ror mea­sures and are scared stiff by the far-left In­ter­net smear mer­chants who be­lieve world­wide ter­ror­ism is Amer­ica’s fault.

This is no ide­o­log­i­cal game here. All over the world, thou­sands are dead and maimed be­cause Mus­lim killers be­lieve they can at­tack civil­ians at will and the west is too weak to stop them.

Judg­ing by what is pass­ing for edi­to­rial com­ment th­ese days, bin Laden and his cut­throats may be right. Dif­fer­ences in opin­ion over how to fight ter­ror­ism are le­git­i­mate and nec­es­sary. But down­grad­ing the lethal threat is ir­re­spon­si­ble in the ex­treme.

Bill O’Reilly is a na­tion­ally syn­di­cated colum­nist.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.