This seems particularly clear now that Mr. Thanks to, among other things, the separation of church and state, it’s not in the president’s job description to be an Islamic scholar but neither is it incumbent upon him to take up the pompom for old Islam. This round of Ramadan outreach looked like more of the same. “I haven’t understood the Bush push to console and placate Muslims over September 11 since Sept. Not The Washington Times‘s Diana West, who take the White House to task for its lack of angry zeal: Henninger and Lindsey, like most mainstream conservatives, studiosly avoid the issue of religion. Simply put, there can be no tolerance of intolerance.” But there can be no acceptable dissent regarding the West’s moral superiority to Islamist totalitarianism, or the right of liberal civilization to defend itself effectively against the barbarian threat. This is not to say that there must be unanimity about all matters concerning the war - not at all. “The slouching relativism and decadent ennui that rationalize appeasement must be kept at bay more than that, they must be scorned and ridiculed and stigmatized. But Lindsey reserves his harshest criticism for those in Europe and the US who dare oppose the confrontational agenda: The sniper is an al Qaeda hero.”Īdopting the same apocalyptic tone, Brink Lindsey decries the “new barbarian threat” of Islamic fundementalism. What is more, it eliminates one of the most important civilizing achievements of the West: the tempering of individual conscience. Blood feud, which is blood vengeance, recognizes but a single political instrument: killing. Saddam and bin Laden would damage America because it is complicit in the dishonor of the Palestinians. Blood feuds, by tradition waged without end, are fought on behalf of individuals or tribal groups that have been dishonored. “This is the world of blood feuds, which civilized men sought to end dating back to the medieval age. Rather, Henninger claims that “Islamic fundamentalism, Saddam Hussein, Palestinian suicide bombers, the Beltway sniper and North Korea’s weapons builders” all seek to “ pull us back now to prehistory.”

Rather, they argue that Saddam Hussein is another of those seeking to topple everything western.ĭaneil Henninger, writing in The Wall Street Journal doesn’t even stop at Hussein. But those columnists aren’t about to criticise the administration for its recent tunnel-vision focus on Iraq. Osama bin Laden is back, and so are the conservative columnists suggesting that the Bush administration’s war on terror is, in fact, a war for western civilization. Sign up for the free Mother Jones newsletter. Get a daily recap of the facts that matter.

Hitler plays civ 5