I don't get why there isn't more enthusiasm among those on the left side of the aisle for the fight against Islamic fascism.
A leading Australian cleric, Sheik Taj Aldin al-Hilali, was caught in a moment of candor in a private sermon:
Australia's top Muslim cleric defied mounting pressure to step down for comments comparing women without head scarves to "uncovered meat," and suggested Friday that President Bush was more deserving of criticism for the bloodshed in Iraq.
Oh, wait, I get it. The jihadis may hate women, gays, lesbians, free speech, freedom, democracy, education, scientific progress, the arts, literature, poorly drawn cartoons, music, kite flying, and all the other things that inspire PBS pledge drives, but there is that one other part of what the jihadis and their Islamist enablers hate that explains all:
Asked if he would resign, al-Hilali, surrounded by a police guard outside the mosque, told reporters, "After we clean the world of the White House first." He did not elaborate.
The statement brought cheers and applause from the supporters who surrounded him.
Ah, right. That's what Progressives will fight for and lead them to cheer.
But even those Westerners who feel sympathy for what the cleric would like to clean up should read closely that the cleric said. He didn't apparently say he wants to "clean out" the White House. He said he wants to clean the world of the White House. Sounds like he wants either the literal destruction of the White House or, if used as a symbol, the destruction of America.
How totally evil does an enemy of America have to be to overcome the Left's hatred of President Bush?
These are our enemies. We must defeat them. Cure them of the desire for jihad or kill them so they cannot wage jihad, as we can, but we must defeat them one way or the other. What would it take to get the Left to want to win this war?
Maybe if we can prove the jihadis hate tote bags ...
UPDATE: Mark Steyn, too, wonders what will some of us fight for? He notes that the President commented that 25% of our people will always be anti-war--any war. Steyn comments:
Too many of us are only good at enjoying freedom. That war-is-never-the-answer 25 percent are in essence saying that there's nothing about America worth fighting for, and that, ultimately, the continuation of their society is a bet on the kindness of strangers -- on the goodnaturedness of Kim Jong Il and the mullahs and al-Qaida and what the president called "al-Qaida lookalikes and al-Qaida wannabes" and whatever nuclear combination thereof comes down the pike. Some of us don't reckon that's a good bet, and think America's arms-are-for-hugging crowd need to get real. Van den Boogaard's arms are likely to be doing rather less of their preferred form of hugging in the European twilight.
Yes, here in Ann Arbor a car with a bumper sticker that read "Already Against the Next War" went by me on the street recently. I'm reasonably sure my home city has more than 25% with this view, alas. That pretty much sums up some people's views. They may be against genocide in Darfur, but don't ask them to fight for it. In college, freeing East Timor was big among the lefties--but Americans fight for that? That would corrupt the idealism of the slogan. Free Tibet? That's great for bumper stickers but don't think they'd want to do anything about China which holds Tibet. The latest of course are those who demand, on TV commercials, that the Presdient stop the genocide in Darfur. Heaven forbid we should shoot somebody to achieve that goal, or those same people will be banging drums and waving papier mache puppets in an International ANSWER parade faster than you can say "Bushitler."
Seriously, is there anything some people here are willing to fight for? And why don't the jihadis have the same 25% handicap as we do? What I'd give for having 25% of the Moslem world unwilling to jihad for any reason at all.
