The Drawn Cutlass: Bill Whittle On The Ground Zero Mosque

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Bill Whittle On The Ground Zero Mosque

One of my favorite pundits gets to the heart of the matter:

16 comments:

wally said...: If you want to discover the truth, and get to "the heart of the matter", you don't begin with a thesis and then go through all sorts of gyrations trying to make historical fact conform to this thesis. When you do that, you're nothing but a propagandist, and we already have too many of those on both sides of the fence. I'm kind of disappointed that this guy is a favorite of yours, Bob. This presentation is packed with inaccuracies, falsehoods, and spin.; 8/18/2010 08:56:00 PM
Bob said...: @wally: I'd be happy to be educated about his inaccuracies and falsehoods. Spin is simply a synonym for interpretation, and Whittle is as entitled as anyone to interpret the facts as he sees fit.; 8/18/2010 11:28:00 PM
wally said...: Funny, you equated spin with lying and were highly offended a few months ago when I applied it to you.; 8/19/2010 07:04:00 AM
wally said...: 1. Neville Chamberlain, whose name is synonymous with "appeasement", was the leader of the Conservative party. Not Liberal, not Labour.; 8/19/2010 07:06:00 AM
wally said...: 2. Whittle contrasted Britain's "weak, demoralized" response to totalitarianism, thus inviting Hitler's attack, with America's strong resolve, which surprised Japan with our powerful military response. The truth is we turned a blind eye to the growth of Nazism and Japan's conquest of Asia for far too long. Congress was dominated by the isolationists, who were largely conservative.; 8/19/2010 07:12:00 AM
wally said...: 3. Whittle claims Osama bin Laden based his 9/11 attack on a perception that we would respond weakly, if at all, because of the examples of Carter and Clinton. Not only did Clinton show his willingness to attack al Qaeda in Sudan, but the current president was George W. Bush, son of George H. W. Bush, the sponsor of Desert Storm, not Clinton, a fact that probably didn't slip by bin Laden unnoticed. More to the point, al Qaeda expected and hoped to instigate a strong reaction from the US, which they believed would spur Muslims to support their cause. Terrorists, as opposed to dictators, are not tied to geography, and are much more comfortable provoking military retaliations. This distinction seems to have escaped Whittle.; 8/19/2010 07:22:00 AM
wally said...: 4. Whittle: "We are lectured daily that we must celebrate ... surrender as a defining American value." This is a fine example of political spin, a gross exaggeration intended not to shed light but to inflame the true believers.; 8/19/2010 07:28:00 AM
wally said...: Want more?; 8/19/2010 07:28:00 AM
Bob said...: @wally: 1. (Neville Chamberlain) Whittle was careful to note that all of Britain's political leadership, with one unnamed exception (Churchill) were guilty of appeasement post-WWI. In the US, it was only after the Kennedy/Johnson years that the anti-war/appeasing Left seized control of the Democrat party.

2. Isolationism: Isolationismwas an important part of US policy from the time of the Founding. It served us well for most of our history. It was not the responsibility of the United States to police the world, either after WWI or WWII. Indeed, it was our modern propensity to butt into foreign affairs and eschew isolationism that provoked bin Laden in the first place (US troops stationed in "holy" Saudi Arabia.

3. (Clinton, Carter) Carter's incompetent handling of the Iranian hostage crisis defined his presidency. Clinton and Sudan? Don't make me laugh. He lobbed a few cruise missiles at an aspirin factory to distract the MSM from Monica Lewinsky's testimony to special prosecutor Ken Starr. Wag the Dog, remember? Bin Laden's main concern was driving the US out of "holy" Saudi Arabia, nothing more.

4. "Surrender as an American value." You can't deny that Barack Obama has spent much of his time apologizing for and regretting America's foreign relations under the Bush administration, especially toward Muslim countries, often kowtows to foreign leaders, (spin on Ben Smith's part to deny the bow, spin on my part to call it a kowtow), and denies American exceptionalism (actually confusing exceptionalism with patriotism, as Whittle ably explains here.

To conclude, and summarize my own feelings toward the Ground Zero mosque project: yes, they have a right under the US Constitution and US law to build it; but opponents of it have their own Constitutional rights under the 1st Amendment (free speech, petition to redress) to oppose it, and not be called bigots by leftists for doing so.; 8/19/2010 08:07:00 AM
wally said...: Ah, this is fun.

1. Whittle clearly labeled the British government leaders as Liberals just before WWII. Chamberlain was a Conservative.

2. My argument wasn't against Isolationism. It was against Whittle's characterization of Brits as weak cowards and Americans as brave action-takers. If you ignore the nuances of history to score points, you're not going to arrive at the truth.

3. Your comments here are entirely beside the point. My point was about Osama bin Laden's motivation. Please read it again.

4. Apology is not synonymous with surrender. Words matter.

I'm looking at the 1st amendment for the right not to be called a bigot. What I read seems to say the opposite: in America, you may feel free to call anyone you want a bigot. Am I wrong?

In any case, no one--NO ONE--has suggested that people don't have a right to object to the non-mosque opening blocks away from and out of sight of Ground Zero. To suggest otherwise is paranoid hyperbole.; 8/19/2010 09:28:00 AM
Bob said...: @wally:

1. Whittle spoke in general terms of the British ruling elites, and once specifically of "the liberals and progressives of those times" (direct quote). He was speaking of ideology, not party. Words matter, as you say.

2. Britain, for good or ill, had treaties and alliances of mutual assistance with the countries of Europe, treaties which were abrogated in the name of world peace, much to the horror of the people of Czechoslovakia, who weren't consulted when they were given to the Germans to rape. The US had no corresponding treaties to protect or defend China or other Asian countries, because of the isolationism that you yourself mentioned. Because of our isolationist policy and the failure of Wilson's League of Nations, the US was under no obligation to take notice of or action against Nazism, Fascism, or Japanese militarism.

3. My mention of Carter and Clinton is not "beside the point." You mentioned them yourself, so they are thus part of the discussion. Clinton is germane in that he was president when the US cut and ran from Somalia, which bin Laden used as his primary example of US weakness. He wasn't concerned about who the President was specifically, stereotyping all Americans as weak. Bin Laden's primary motivation was to get US troops out of "holy" Saudi Arabia, and a secondary motivation to establish a worldwide Muslim caliphate with himself presumably at its head.

4. In diplomacy, especially in dealing with Arabs and other tribal peoples, apology is viewed as weakness, and weakness only encourages further attacks/affronts. You don't have to sign an official declaration of surrender, such as the Japanese did in Tokyo Bay on the USS Missouri, to be viewed as capitulating. All that you have to do is allow the enemy to have his way. At the current time we are ignoring the building of an atomic bomb in Iran and the sinking of a South Korean warship by North Korea. Those two countries were identified by George W. Bush as members of the axis of evil, if you remember. I hope for all our sakes that Obama is as resolute in confronting those two countries as George Bush was Iraq, when the time comes. And it will.

I knew you'd pounce on me for saying that the Constitution prohibits being called a bigot. I should have left that clause out of my last sentence, for clarity's sake. In any event, whether or not the building is a mosque is determined by the users, not by yourself, and at 13 stories I'd have to guess that it would be in sight of Ground Zero, where happy jihadis can caper around and laugh, which is probably what the majority involved in this case object to. Supporters of the mosque are in the minority, Walt.; 8/19/2010 10:47:00 AM
wally said...: We must be setting you a new personal word-count record here, Bob.

1. If it's your contention that the Conservative Party, otherwise known as the Tories, were the "liberals and progressives", you might get an argument from historians, not to mention Margaret Thatcher. And the Conservative Party was the "ruling elite" at this point.

2. I take your point about treaties, but Whittle wasn't talking about treaties. When he talked about having the gumption to take on Hitler before he went too far, he wasn't talking about treaties. The fact is, our isolationism doesn't fit his thesis, so he ignored it.

3. You seem to have an inside track on what bin Laden thought about things, one that runs counter to much of what I've read, about him and about terrorists in general. Hard to argue this point, since I don't know your sources. I do know that several of his written passages indicate that he expected a strong retaliation from the US, and planned to use it for his own ends.

4. On a list of "top ten Obama apologies" on Human Events, there's one that can be considered "dealing with Arabs and other tribal peoples":
“My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect.”
Some apology. Some surrender. Not nearly as emphatic as George Bush's apology to Iraq in 2004 for the US mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners. That, however, doesn't conform to your thesis, so feel free to ignore it. And by your standards, am I justified in thinking of Bush as weak for not stopping North Korea from building nuclear weapons?

What gave you the idea that I was determining the usage of the "mosque"? You said the users determine it, and I was relying on what the users have determined. As for the visibility of the center from Ground Zero, I wouldn't have claimed there was none if I hadn't seen photographic evidence. Your "happy jihadis" remark is just the kind of spin I was referring to, that degrades the conversation and does no credit to your point of view.

Finally, where in the world does this majority-minority stuff come from? I never made any claims regarding the popularity of my views. Can you, of all people, claim that majority opinion, even if it's whipped up by the likes of Newt Gingrich, should trump the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of religion?; 8/19/2010 12:23:00 PM
wally said...: We must be setting you a new personal word-count record here, Bob.

1. If it's your contention that the Conservative Party, otherwise known as the Tories, were the "liberals and progressives", you might get an argument from historians, not to mention Margaret Thatcher. And the Conservative Party was the "ruling elite" at this point.

2. I take your point about treaties, but Whittle wasn't talking about treaties. When he talked about having the gumption to take on Hitler before he went too far, he wasn't talking about treaties. The fact is, our isolationism doesn't fit his thesis, so he ignored it.

3. You seem to have an inside track on what bin Laden thought about things, one that runs counter to much of what I've read, about him and about terrorists in general. Hard to argue this point, since I don't know your sources. I do know that several of his written passages indicate that he expected a strong retaliation from the US, and planned to use it for his own ends.; 8/19/2010 12:23:00 PM
wally said...: 4. On a list of "top ten Obama apologies" on Human Events, there's one that can be considered "dealing with Arabs and other tribal peoples":
“My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect.”
Some apology. Some surrender. Not nearly as emphatic as George Bush's apology to Iraq in 2004 for the US mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners. That, however, doesn't conform to your thesis, so feel free to ignore it. And by your standards, am I justified in thinking of Bush as weak for not stopping North Korea from building nuclear weapons?

What gave you the idea that I was determining the usage of the "mosque"? You said the users determine it, and I was relying on what the users have determined. As for the visibility of the center from Ground Zero, I wouldn't have claimed there was none if I hadn't seen photographic evidence. Your "happy jihadis" remark is just the kind of spin I was referring to, that degrades the conversation and does no credit to your point of view.

Finally, where in the world does this majority-minority stuff come from? I never made any claims regarding the popularity of my views. Can you, of all people, claim that majority opinion, even if it's whipped up by the likes of Newt Gingrich, should trump the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of religion?; 8/19/2010 12:24:00 PM
Bob said...: @wally: I'll concede the point on Chamberlain not being a liberal or progressive, and you can claim that as one of your "inaccuracies," as if that invalidates the rest of Whittle's points; he is, after all, a pundit, not a journalist, and pundits are held to a lower standard even at The New York Times.

Apparently we've both read things about bin Laden. "I do know that several of his written passages indicate that he expected a strong retaliation from the US, and planned to use it for his own ends." Think he's happy with the result? Think that it might have been different if we'd just lobbed a few cruise missiles into Afghanistan?

So in addition to the Bad War in Iraq that you guys opposed (because it drained men from the Good War in Afghanistan that you supported) you wanted GW Bush to start a 3rd war in Korea? And perhaps a 4th in Iran? Ooookay.

As for the use of the building near Ground Zero, I hope you are familiar with the arabic word taqiyya. Just so you follow my understanding of the word, I (and others) define it as the concept that lying by Muslims to infidels is acceptable practice. So what they say is intended for the use of the building and what actually occurs there might be two very different things.

As to my "happy jihadis" remark, it is based in fact on what occurred on 9/11/2001, before the MSM decided to self-censor: gleeful Muslims were seen worldwide capering about in glee at the news, so don't talk to me about degrading the conversation, ok?

What's this crap about opposition to the mosque trumping the Constitution? We can recognize that it's lawful to build it near Ground Zero and still register opposition to it without the Constitution being in danger. And it's being ginned up not just by Newt Gingrich, but by Dingy Harry Reid, or did you forget about that? You know, the same Dingy Harry who opposed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens?; 8/19/2010 01:30:00 PM
wally said...: "So in addition to the Bad War in Iraq that you guys opposed (because it drained men from the Good War in Afghanistan that you supported) you wanted GW Bush to start a 3rd war in Korea? And perhaps a 4th in Iran? Ooookay."

When our conversation generates something like the above, I know it's reached the point of no return. I don't blame you. It's just what seems to happen if we carry on long enough. My point remains: when you try to make history conform to a single, somewhat crude thesis (cowardly liberals keep trying to give away the store and are saved at the last minute by brave conservatives), you have to ignore or misrepresent so many facts that your treatise ends up being believable only by the adoring faithful. And I have to ask, why bother? I actually enjoy reading well-reasoned arguments by articulate pundits on the right. Sometimes I learn things I didn't know, and I'm often challenged to adapt my belief system to new evidence. You might call that moral relativism, I suppose, and that might be the difference between us.; 8/19/2010 02:50:00 PM