Thurdsay: A Busy Day for WWIII. Bin Laden Adopts Democratic National Committee Talking Points. Or Is It The Other Way Around?

* Bin Laden: We Will Attack You Again
* In Familiar Tactic, Offers "Truce," (Liberals will love that)
* Iran's Big Threat
* Islamic Jihad (Iran Funded) Claims Tel Aviv Suicide Bombing
* Axis of Eivil Declear Unity Against West
* France Threatens to use Nulear Weapons on Terror Nations
* Hillary Tries to Right-Flank Bush on Iran

The Flipside of Tolerance:
Free, open societies are the hallmark of the West – and the United States in particular. Our unwavering commitment to freedom, by its very nature, ensures that we will remain vulnerable to terrorist attacks in the future.

Tolerance, however, is very different from freedom. Radical Islamists exploit the openness of Western societies to operate, but the engine that keeps the terrorist machine running relies in part on the devotion of Western elites to the concept of tolerance and multiculturalism.

We see this manifest across Western Europe - and to a lesser degree in the United States - in a hesitancy and/or unwillingness to employ tactics like common sense profiling, to toughen immigration and visa standards, and to crack down on radicals preaching jihad for fear of violating codes of political correctness or offending the sensibilities of Muslims.

It is one of the great ironies of the current struggle: a group who despises tolerance and whose main goal is to impose a sharia-based Caliphate across vast portions of the globe finds additional protection in the excessive tolerance of the West. One of the traditional cultural strengths of Western society has now become a vulnerability in fighting terrorism.
Tom Bevan - RCP

Axis of Evil Pow-wow Today in Damascus.



It appears that Iran President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is a very short man. Could a Napoleon Complex be in play?

This link to a liberal blogger and his posting; "Bin Laden Has Point...," is to illustrate how the left thinks, and how it identifies with the enemy. I'll let you the reader make up your own mind if you think this fairly typical liberal logic has any intellectual depth, or is it, as I contend, radically shallow.