Proving once again that righties hold other people to higher standards than they hold themselves ... via Daou Report, via World o' Crap, we find that Hindsniffer of Power Line is outraged that someone on DU message board wrote something cynical about Karl Rove vis a vis the recent bombings in London. "The posters at Democratic Underground represent the heart and soul of the left, and, arguably, of the Democratic Party," Hindsniffer sniffs.

 

Let's take a look at the heart and soul of the right ... World o' Crap found these on Lucianne:

Nuke the entire Muslim world, especially the oil fields. Without oil money they go back to sitting around mudholes in the desert subsisting off dates, and making for quaint touristic photos.

Another typical comment from the same thread:

Did we ever finish developing and deploying the neutron bomb? Use it around the oilfields, use the conventional nukes on Mecca and Medina and Riyadh and Qom. We can argue about which type to use on some pestholes in Phillipines and Malaysia and Indonesia and Pakistan. Islam is the enemy. Muslims are the enemy. There. It needed to be said. Muslims are the enemy. Time to act accordingly.

There are even worse in other threads, but like Mr. Hinder said, "Warning: this is only for those with strong stomachs."

Chris Bowers at MyDD found these comments on Little Green Footballs:

• "IMHO, they should go house to house interrogating every Muslim about what they know and when they knew it. And then kick every last one of them who is there illegally out of the country. And then decide if any of the rest of them deserve to stay. Now, if only Israel would do the same thing after its terror attacks.... "

• "Can we eradicate Islam now, please?"

• "If there are no Arabs there are no attacks. How many more need be sacrificed?"

• "It is now time to force muslims to make a choice: Live peacefully or die. I prefer the latter."

• "We need to stop fucking with these people and kill every one involved. I mean anyone with prior knowledge, anyone who payed for it, and anyone who supported it. Regardless of nationality."

• "If its Islamic it will probably blow up. All Islamic get full body searches with VERY high intensity X-rays ."

• "The best way to deliver those high intensity x-rays is through some W76 warheads at around 100 kt a piece. It will be easier to give a full body search after that."

• "Britain should END ALL ISLAMIC IMMIGRATION NOW....Continuing to welcome the enemy into your country is insane."

• "subhumans, first time on 2 feet...round em all up, every friggin' last one of them...unfortunately, I still think it will take even more violence from the Arabs before the West wakes up and goes savage on em"

• "Martyring Muslims doesn't seem to make much of a difference to the fanatics. What is needed is to take their human capital out their hands - their children. No more warped children, no more jihadis. "

Nice. And be sure to read Chris's analysis of why Power Line was Time magazine's blog of the year.

 

Jesus' General has a roundup of gentle comments from several rightie blogs, also not for the faint of heart.

 

My buddy Orrin Judd says that Europeans (including, I assume, Brits) deserve to be bombed because they aren't Christian enough:

As Europe has drifted out of the West and lost touch with its Judeo-Christian culture it has left itself with nothing to integrate such young people into. The Media Matters folks are apparently upset that Brit Hume said one of his first thoughts yesterday was to buy futures but the reality is that terrorism is a growing threat to Europe in a way that it isn't to us.

Commenters believed Britain shouldn't have allowed Muslims to immigrate. I joined in the comments to mention that there are more Muslims living in America than in Britain. I also wrote that "Various sources also estimate that in ten years or so there will be more Muslims in America than Jews," to which one person responded,  "And as well assimilated as Jews are, just as Europe never assimilated its Jews."    

 

You can't make this shit up.

 

Slightly more people (49 percent) than not (45 percent) believe that all plants and animals evolved from earlier species. Does this reflect a belief God only makes humans, but not other critters? Or, is it telling us that lots of people really haven't thought out this evolution stuff? Or, is it telling us that humans need to evolve a little more?

 

Related reading: "Despite Scopes, Evolution Still on Trial"; "Leading Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution"

 

Amid the carnage today, Home Secretary Charles Clarke is talking about the people who carried out "these terrible criminal acts." That's an understandable reaction — and we shouldn't quibble too much over a choice of words by people who have been stellar allies, who are in the middle of a rescue effort, and who are unsure the bombing has actually stopped. But it is worth repeating that what happened today is not mere crime.

This is war. It can't sensibly be separated from Bali or Mombassa or Istanbul or Madrid or Baghdad or Virginia or lower Manhattan — or any of the other places where the enemy has attacked.

The only security — and an imperfect security it is — is to acknowledge that this is a war and fight it like a one. Prime Minister Blair has been a staunch ally after 9/11, but many in his country, and throughout Europe, have not grasped what we are up against.

At the risk of repeating myself – most of us in this nation and in Europe have realized there is a war against Al Qaeda, which was not an ally of Saddam Hussein. 

Sometimes you read things that make you wonder. For example, Rich Lowry's apparent endorsement of this sentiment: "There should be retaliation. Find a terror camp somewhere and hit it. Terrorists should, for these purposes, be treated as one nation, and all should be held responsible for any one attack." So maybe we round up some MEK guys (I think they're still in our custody, or maybe in Richard Perle's office somewhere), shoot them in the back of the head, and that will improve things?

The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism." ...

...POWELL: The results are clear: state sponsors of terrorism are increasingly isolated; terrorist groups on under growing pressure. Terrorists are being brought to justice, we will not let up. But we must also be aware of the nature of the threat before us. Terrorism is a persistent disease.

The Bushies were still thinking in terms of enemy states. They failed to grasp that terrorism is stateless. The Right still doesn't seem to grasp that. Or, maybe they grasp it, but they can't make the connection between reality and strategy, or between facts and formula, or between process and goals.

 

The Left isn't free of some mental rigidity of its own. Some lefties seem to think that if only we could send out the cops to arrest bin Laden and other al Qaeda leadership, the terrorism problem would melt away. But terrorism isn't about bin Laden. At this point bin Laden may be no more than a figurehead. Removing him would have no real impact on the majority of jihadists. I'm not saying I don't want him brought to justice for 9/11; just that a "law enforcement" approach alone is inadequate to address the terrorism problem.  

I don't even pretend to know precisely what strategies we should pursue. Formulating intelligent strategies requires a thorough understanding of how the various terrorisms came to be and the myriad factors that sustain them. By willfully remaining ignorant of terrorism, however, we might unwittingly apply strategies that make the problem worse instead of better.

And, considering the major increase in worldwide terrorism, it's obvious that's exactly what we're doing.

U.S. reports major increase in worldwide terrorism

Brilliant. If we continue to fight terrorism the righties' way, in five to eight years we'll all be living in caves.

Lots of chest thumping on the Right today, of course. That's what they're good at. If only boasting and posturing and being obnoxious could combat terrorism ...

I mostly agree with Public Theologian --

All the tanks, all the bombers, all the ships all the hundreds of thousands of soldiers about which the president likes to boast  he has deployed in the war on terror did not save a single soul in London today.  All we are doing in Iraq is creating a giant zone of recruitment and training ground for more America-haters.  We aren't stopping anybody from anything, but are rather pouring gas on an already burning fire.

We have got to fight this war smarter, rather than harder.  This will not be won with armies, but with accountants, translators, detectives, and informants-- -- namely the kinds of resources at which the president sneers.  We must get out of Iraq as soon as possible, not as a capitulation to terrorism, but as the first positive step to defeating it.  Once we're out, the giant recruiting zone and training ground for world terrorism that Iraq has become will immediately go out of business.  The fledgling government will undoubtedly have difficulty maintaining some stability, so other countries in the world who have some credibility with the Iraqi people as countries not interested in world domination will have to step up and take a role.  But we simply have to get out as soon as possible, because our presence there is endangering everyone on the planet.  Although there is no end to the number of people who want to come to Iraq and kill Americans, once we are gone It will be hard for the terrorists to recruit people to come and murder Brazilians [and/or] Norwegians.

The president still doesn't get this.  He still thinks in only one direction, which is namely that the United States can deploy its power and over time it will prevail.  He has not wised up to the fact in a system, power can flow in multiple directions . even simultaneously, so that he is oblivious to the ways in which US actions, although displaying tremendous force,  have dramatically strengthened the hand of people who hate America.  I'm sure he is sincere in wanting to protect our citizens, but his simplistic heavy-handed approach ignores the reality of what is actually happening.  We simply have to do something else.

My only quibble with the above is that I think military force should be used against terrorism in some circumstances. As I've said before, the military action in Afghanistan right after 9/11 was necessary, and I only wish it had been quicker and harder. But the invasion of Iraq was just flaming stupid and counterproductive.

A primarily military response to terrorism is like shooting at flies with a shotgun; you'll do a lot of damage, but most of the flies will still get away.

The Right just doesn't get it. They're still talking about fronts, for pity's sake. There are no fronts. We may be putting all of our resources into a specific geographical area, but the enemy is not contained there. The irony of the "flypaper theory" is that we're the ones stuck in the flypaper. And thanks to Iraq, we lack the money and resources we need for real homeland security.

Just after 9/11, I remember reading that people outside New York City were flocking to gun dealers to stock up on firearms for protection against terrorism. Now, it's OK with me if they want to buy firearms, but it's delusional to think a firearm is any kind of protection against terrorism. Guns are about as much use as duct tape.

But I think this exemplifies the Right's response to terrorism. It's emotional, not rational; it's a knee-jerk, shoot-it-if-it-moves reaction, not well-informed, smart strategy. Indeed, the Right misunderstands attempts to understand terrorism--socio-psycholgical profiling, if you will--as blaming America. This is nothing but willful ignorance; an inability to face geopolitical realities with honesty and maturity.

If knowledge is power, then ignorance is weakness. No matter how many guns you have.

Update: What I love about blogs-- Garance Franke-Ruta posts at TAPPED:

News reports are in about the location of the Tube bombs, and the stations picked for the horrific rush-hour assaults are especially chilling. These attacks were not just attacks on our closest ally, but on the very idea of Arab and Muslim integration into the West. Among the targets in the worst attack on London since World War II was the Edgware Road station, located in the heart of wealthy, assimilated Arab London. Middle Easterners of a variety of religions and South Asian Muslims are a substantial minority of the population in London, and the Edgware Road area is the pre-eminent Arab neighborhood in the city, with a fantastic variety of Lebanese coffee shops, Saudi grocery stores, and Persian restaurants. Some even call it "Little Lebanon," though the residents and shop clients come from all over the Middle East and North Africa, and the area especially attracts a young, hip crowd that compares it to Amman or Dubai. Edgware Road is Arab London's main street.

Though we have no idea yet whether the stations or train lines that were bombed were specifically targeted, it's hard to imagine that whatever terrorist organization or cell was behind the attacks failed to consider the symbolic power of an attack on Edgware Road.

I've had the TV on all day and hadn't heard that. Blogs rule.

Steve Soto writes,

What good is an anti-terror policy if your only consolation is that everyone else in the world suffers except you? And when will Tony Blair confront George W. Bush for his administration's shortsighted role in what happened in London today? ...

... Lastly, as Tony Blair oversees the carnage and anger in his country, he may want to ask his good buddy George W. Bush why his administration crippled Blair’s domestic anti-terror efforts to track down and stop Al Qaeda cells inside Great Britain by exposing a known Al Qaeda asset at a time when the Brits were very close to nailing a ring of Al Qaeda cells inside the country? With today's tragedy in front of them, don't you think that British intelligence would have wanted to finish their work last fall in smashing London's Al Qaeda cells before the Bush Administration blew a covert operation just so Bush could be reelected?

But as the Plame case shows, the Bush Administration has never let national security here or abroad get in the way of their Number One priority anyway, have they?

I hadn't heard that on television, either.

As I keyboard, some guy on MSNBC is saying that he doesn't think Islamic terrorists are responsible for today's attacks. If not, what was the significance of bombing Edgeware Road?

Update: Read Digby.

Update update: Steve M. reads Free Republic so you don't have to.

So far the most interesting, honest thing I've heard anyone say was on NPR this morning, from a former CIA-agent who used to work on the Osama Bin Laden team. He pointed out that if it's al-Qaeda that this is mutually embarassing for both British and American intelligence operations because no one had any warning whatsoever. He said he hopes it's a significant wake-up call for America, that this summer had started shaping up like the summer of 2001-- with the news obsessed with missing girls, shark attacks, etc. He said he was worried about our complacency most of all because people aren't paying attention to how little things have really changed since the War on Terror began. He also had some heavy criticism for the way the war on terrorism has been fought thus far, but I'll try to find the transcript of his interview before I summarize what he said. (I wish I knew his name, I've tried looking for it but haven't found it thus far.)

Watching the interviews with British folks who had been directly affected by the bombings was interesting-- they were calm, almost placid, just so very British. One man described how the top of the bus just blew off, as though that kind of thing happens everyday. It was just so mature and dignified. As a Washingtonian who rides the metro everyday I certainly do fear something like this happening here, although in many ways I fear the actual attack a lot less than I fear the panicking of other people-- we are not a stoic people. (See duct tape, area schools closing for predicted snow and for heat.)

I heard Michael Scheuer, the former CIA Bin Laden analyst, a couple of times this morning, once on NPR's Morning Edition and once on the Diane Rehm show. I thought his comments compelling.

He found the statement issued by a "secret jihad" web site similar in form and content to typical al-Qaeda communiques, including the threats against other countries (Italy and Denmark). He was sure this was an al-Qaeda operation.

He noted that Bin Laden had called off any ceasefire and had several times threatened to hit the United Kingdom.

He said that "chickens were coming home to roost" for US and UK politicians who had obscured the nature of the al-Qaeda struggle by maintaining that the organization attacks the West because "they hate our values."

Scheuer believes that al-Qaeda is an insurgent ideology focused on destroying the United States and its allies, because its members believe that the US is trying to destroy them. Al-Qaeda members see the Israeli occupation and oppression of the Palestinians, backed by the US; US support for military regimes like those of Pakistan and Egypt; and US military occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq as evidence of a US onslaught on Islam and Muslims aimed at reducing them to neo-colonial slavery. That is, specific Western policies are the focus of al-Qaeda response, not a generalized "hatred" of "values."

Scheuer opposes any attempt to configure the struggle against al-Qaeda as simple crime-fighting. He believes that they must be addressed through a thorough-going counter-insurgency effort.

Witnesses saw the top was ripped off a double-decker bus near Russell Square close to King's Cross train terminal and the twisted wreckage of another in Tavistock Square nearby.

Several underground subway stations also were hit.

"It is reasonably clear that there have been a series of terrorist attacks in London," Blair told reporters at the [G8] summit. He said he would return to London.

Various news sources report that least two people were killed and many more wounded. There is no official determination of who is responsible.

However, AKI just reported:

A European-based militant group believed to be linked to the al-Qaeda network has said it was responsible for Thursday's multiple bomb attacks in Londoon. The Group of the Secret Organisation of al-Qaeda in Europe issued a brief statement posted on the Internet claiming responsibility for the blasts and warning Italy and Denmark to pull out their troops from Iraq or receive similar treatment. Authorities have yet to establish the message's credibility.

Donald MacLeod of The Guardian writes,

The explosions in London look like an attempt to recreate the Madrid bombings and would have been planned for months, a leading terrorism expert said today as the capital began to come to terms with an apparently coordinated attack.

Michael Clarke, director of the Centre for Defence Studies at King's College London, said six bombs would mean at least 24 people involved in planting them in a targeted operation. The fact that London had been hit when the resources of the security forces were focused on the G8 summit at Gleneagles indicated some clever thinking by terrorists.

"It will have been quite a big plot and months in the planning," said Prof Clarke, who declined to speculate who was behind the attacks at this stage.

I don't know if any Brits drop by this blog, but if so, you have my heartfelt condolences.

But if Islamic terrorists are responsible, it rather blows a hole in the "flypaper" theory, eh?

Update: Several bloggers have pointed out that the perps might be from the anti-globalization movement. If this turns out to be so, the cause of anti-globalization will be irreparably damaged. You might as well send Wal-Mart an engraved invitation to open slave labor camps in China. 

Update: CNN has a timeline of the blasts. The BBC corroborates the AKI account above:  "An Islamist website has posted a statement--purportedly from al-Qaeda--claiming it was behind the attacks." The Associated Press reports, 

A group calling itself "The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe" posted a claim of responsibility for the blasts, saying they were in retaliation for Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The Web statement, republished on the site of the German magazine Der Spiegel, could not be immediately confirmed.   

The flaming idiots weigh in--Scott at Powerline titles a post, "Another Front Opens." When will the fools get it in their heads that there are no "fronts"? You can only have a "front" when armies are fighting over specific territory. A "front" assumes a theater of war with geographical parameters. That is not the case with terrorism.

Another flamer: The ever clueless Orrin Judd sniffs,  "Similar to 3-11 in Spain and obviously tragic, but is this really all al Qaeda can pull off these days?" Spoken like a true weenie who has never faced terrorism himself but thinks he understands it 'cause he saw it on TV.

In the three decades since Roe v. Wade, pro-lifers have marched, prayed, and licked envelopes in the hope that a pro-life president might change the Supreme Court. Friday morning, they got their wish: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced she would retire. Pro-lifers rushed to their computers to declare … defeat. If an anti-Roe justice replaced O'Connor, "there would still be a pro-Roe majority" on the court, said the National Right to Life Committee. "Replacing her will not challenge Roe's core," agreed the Committee for Justice. "Abortion Would Still be Legal in 43 States Even if Roe Overturned," added Americans United for Life.

It's a strange message: Abortion kills babies—but don't worry, Roe and legal abortion are secure. Why the reassurance? Because pro-lifers know that if the public thinks abortion might be criminalized again, a lot of voters will start to worry less about Osama Bin Laden and more about Tom DeLay. Some pro-life politicians will lose their jobs. Others will defect and beg for re-election. Pro-lifers know these things will happen, because they happened the last time voters panicked over Roe. That was in 1989, when George H.W. Bush was president. Not until three years later, when O'Connor and her colleagues reaffirmed Roe, did the backlash subside.

Today’s Republican Party pays at most lip service to the notion of limited national power. The Justice Department was all too eager to interpret federal statutes to override Oregon’s law permitting physician aid in dying and California’s medical marijuana law. Likewise, Congress (including many Democrats) brushed aside the obvious federalism objections to its extraordinary intervention in the Terri Schiavo case.

Thus it is not alarmist to predict that within weeks -- if not days or hours -- of a Supreme Court decision overruling Roe v. Wade, Congress would enact legislation outlawing most abortions nationwide. At that point, the fate of legal abortion would depend on the justices’ views about the limits of congressional power.

In spite of the fact that opinions on abortion have remained remarkably static for these past thirty years, many on the Right have an abiding faith that support for legalized abortion is shrinking. For example, check out what flaming idiot James Taranto wrote for WSJ. Taranto argues that abortion has been a winning issue for the GOP and a losing issue for Democrats.  How does he know? "Polarization over abortion coincided with a period of Republican ascendancy," Taranto says. "Since the parties split on abortion, the GOP has won five of seven presidential elections, and no Democrat has had a majority of the popular vote."