Trifkovic on Islam

Jamie Glazov, of Frontpage Magazine interviews Serge (or Srdja) Trifkovic the Foreign-Affairs Editor of Chronicles and the author of the forthcoming Defeating Jihad. Trifkovic says we must learn the true nature of Islam and in the most important part of his argument he says: "The victory will come not by conquering Mecca for America, but by disengaging America from Mecca (energy independence is a must!) and by excluding Mecca from America with a new immigration policy, soberly defined and rigorously enforced. The risk can, and must, be managed wisely, resolutely, and permanently."

An Undecided Voter

My only problem is deciding which party that I hate the most.

Remembering

Now that the Iraq war is about to turn three, FAIR has a list of some of the rosy statements from conservatives and even a few from the "Liberal Media" about how easy was and how wrong the pessimists and defeatists were (via Tom Tomorrow). My favorite:

The only people who think this wasn't a victory are Upper Westside liberals, and a few people here in Washington.
(Charles Krauthammer, Inside Washington, WUSA-TV, 4/19/03)

Henry Who?

Why does National Review embarrass itself by giving platforms to people like Mark Levin? His post about Russ Feingold's Censure resolution contains the usual treason charge: "He has now officially joined the pack of shrill leftists who -- during the course of a war -- embrace the tactics of Tokyo Rose and Jane Fonda." Yeah, wanting to have the president go to an extremely deferential FISA court before listening in on the phonecalls of Americans is exactly like Tokyo Rose.

Levin then engages in a mini "history" lesson:

The censure of a president was employed once in our history. In 1834, The Whig-controlled Senate voted to censure President Andrew Jackson, a Democrat, for vetoing an extension of the charter of the Bank of the United States. While legally meaningless, Jackson was deeply offended by it. And when his party regained control of the Senate in 1836, he insisted that the record be expunged -- and it was. The primary proponent of Jackson's censure is largely unknown to history, as Feingold will be.(emphasis added)

It took about five seconds to find out how little Levin knows. The "unknown to history" proponent of censure was Henry Clay, one of the more prominent Americans from the first half of the 19th century.

Barnes v. Buchanan

This silly Fred Barnes article cries out for the Sailer treatment for its absurd statements about the value of the Hispanic vote to the Republican party. Barnes is concerned that an outbreak of paleoconservatism is endangering Republican rule. His evidence is the failed Dubai ports deal and the belated attempts of congressional Republicans to control illegal immigration. But these issues have far broader appeal than the mailing lists of Chronicles and The American Conservative.

What really upsets Barnes is criticism of his heartthrob. Paleos:

Attack Bush on issue after issue. This weakens the Republican base and, potentially at least, reduces voter turnout. Republican voters dismiss criticism by Democrats or the media, but they pay attention when other Republicans zing Bush, or when they attack congressional Republicans, for that matter.

What delusional drivel. Republican rule isn't threatened by the years of cynicism, corruption and incompetence. It's Pat Buchanan's Fault.

Lowered Bar

The Professor (oops, I am violating his Terms of Use) demonstrates the lowered bar for success in Iraq -- it only went to the brink of civil war. He also engages in a little bet-hedging. "The press had better hope we win this war, because if we don't, a lot of people will blame the media."(empasis in original).

If I had both bought and sold this war with the gusto that Reynolds did, I would be looking for someone else to blame as well.

Crunchy Wars

I will in time have a review of Rod Dreher's Crunchy Cons. Let me just point out now, the it really seems to be making some people, particuarly Jonah Golberg, mad:

Moreover, Rod, I really think you need to practice what you preach a bit more. How you can tell me that I shouldn't dismiss Marxists out of hand when they have something useful to say, while your book serves as one long ad hominem against two dimensional, greedy, "mainstream conservatives" is really quite beyond me.

This is somewhat unfair. Dreher is critical of conservatives, but he makes arguments(not ad hominems) and much of his criticism includes himself.