The Bosque Boys

Some in high places are beginning to catch on that our problems are not just with bin Laden or Al Qaeda. We are threatened by a much deeper mindset within the Islamic world. The NYT has this article on the recent report of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. I suggest you read the whole thing, but a portion is below. Hat tip Jihadwatch.

As radical Islam spreads globally through online forums and chat rooms, a group of obscure Arab religious thinkers may come to exert more influence over the jihadist movement than Osama bin Laden and other well-known leaders of Al Qaeda, a research group at the United States Military Academy has concluded.

In a study billed as the “first systematic mapping” of an ideology sometimes called jihadism, the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point has found that Mr. bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, have had a relatively minor influence on the movement’s intellectual foundation. Among the network’s ideologists, they have come to be seen more as propagandists than strategic thinkers.

And while the two Qaeda leaders have released a flurry of video and audio messages to their followers over the past year, the study found that the scholarly work of a group of Saudi and Jordanian clerics — most notably Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, a Jordanian — seems more likely to influence the next generation of Islamic militants.
. . .
The report found that radical Islam, sometimes called Salafism, is so deeply embedded in the Arab world that Salafis now constitute a “majority or significant portion” of the Muslim population in the Middle East and North Africa.

Historically, we are in another hot period in the nearly 1400 year-long war by Islam against everyone else.

Yesterday, I caught a few minutes of the Sean Hannity radio show. He was interviewing (debating is a better word) Charlie Rangel.

File this under things I never thought I would hear myself say: Rangel won hands-down.

In addition to relying on the host's advantage of talking over his guest, Hannity was rude and unfocussed and determined to present Rangel with a series of false choices. Nevertheless, Rangel kept making the salient points.

But here is the wildest part: by the conclusion of the engagement, it was clear that Hannity was totally committed (rhetorically, at least) to a Wilsonian ideal while Rangel articulated a classic conservative realism. How did we get here?

Every so often, just as I am about to think that all spunk and fortitude has died in the UK, someone speaks up. Recently the second-ranking Anglican, The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, has spoken truth to power.

Here he accuses the BBC of anti-Christian bias.

Here he declares that multiculturalism has betrayed the English.

The Archbishop is black and became a refugee from Idi Amin's tyranny in Uganda.

It is not too hard to know what the Islamist agenda is if you pay attention. But, if you watch only the MSM you may be in the dark. Tonight on CNN Headline News Glenn Beck is doing a special that shows lots of clips from Arabic and Farsi television (translated) in which Islamists lay out their agenda in their own words. More here.

The Iranian president is calling for a Final Holocaust and pushing forward rapidly to gain nuclear weapons with which to accomplish his stated goal. And as the recent Iranian military exercises demonstrated, they have the delivery systems capable of reaching Israel. Basically the Islamists want to bury us also, or at least to incorporate us into their system as subservient peoples.

I happened to catch part of the Glenn Beck radio program this morning while in my van. He told of the steps the network required in order to ensure accuracy. (Would that Dan Rather had had such oversight.) He has been trying to get this special on since August, but has just now succeeded. On the segment I heard he did not speculate as to the timing, but I do not think it a coincidence that the network delayed broadcast until after the election.

1. The Democrats seem intent on a swift withdrawal from Iraq (I will refrain from calling that "cutting and running" because it makes some people so mad). The key for President Bush has always been to win--and win quickly. In the words of Al Davis: "Just win, baby." Winning takes care of everything. If it is a matter of patience or a minor adjustment, perhaps the next two years holds redemption for the President.

If the tide turns in Iraq in a noticeable way before 2008, the public will repudiate this historic midterm election. They will be asking "who were those guys," and the Democrats will have repeated the Federalist Party's mistake at the Hartford Convention. If not, and we really are in a morass, thank God for the Dems and the restless American electorate.

2. For the GOP, right now, their own leadership contests are much more important than the Democratic leadership canvass. I meant to say this yesterday, and Tocqueville hinted at it this morning. The GOP needs honest and courageous and intelligent leadership. The same-old-same-old is not good enough right now.

Back in March, I explored my own mind in re John McCain. I am more convinced today than I was then that McCain is likely our man. Below are my thoughts then.

My post from 13 March:

Today New York Times columnist Paul Krugman (and the Democratic party) officially declared war on John McCain, calling him "slippery and evasive" and a "right-winger." Although I fought hard against McCain's candidacy for the Republican nomination in 2000, for the last several months I have been telling my friends that I think McCain may be our guy for 2008.

First of all, why was I so dead-set against McCain six years ago? Frankly, it is hard to remember exactly, but I came to genuinely dislike him for a time. I started out an Orin Hatch supporter, and then I reluctantly settled on George Bush because he looked like he could win and I liked his family. He also struck me as an unpolished but authentic and sincere man ("I believe in grace, because I have seen it ... In peace, because I have felt it ... In forgiveness, because I have needed it"). On the whole, George Bush has not disappointed me.

Why my dislike for McCain? Once committed to Bush in the early months of 2000, McCain was the enemy. I disagreed with McCain-Feingold, which was one of the cornerstones of his campaign. Perhaps most importantly, I was spooked by his boosters. Looking back, I was very suspicious of someone who courted the MSM and appealed to my hardcore Democratic friends (although I predicted back then that McCain's liberal admirers would desert him in the general election). Moreover, I felt he was playing to the Beltway press corps (and we are supposed to hate the Beltway press corps). In retrospect, my distaste for McCain based on his association with reporters who flocked to his bandwagon on the "straight-talk express" was unfair and not quite rational.

Why does McCain appeal to me today? McCain self-identifies as a Reagan Republican (as he has throughout his career). He is a Westerner. He is rock-solid on conservative issues (today Paul Krugman asserts that McCain's voting record is currently ranked the third-most conservative in the Senate). Krugman (who is not linked here; my policy is to not link the Times) has it just about right: McCain is not a radical opponent of tax cuts; McCain has a long history of toughness against rogue states (Krugman makes the important point that William Kristol supported McCain over Bush in 2000; McCain's foreign policy would have been similar to Bush's, only stronger). Krugman also fumes that McCain is now friendly with the Religious Right and positioning himself as "an extremist on abortion."

Krugman makes a lot of sense to me (did I really say that?).

Moreover, McCain, who had the power to derail Bush in 2000 and 2004, rallied around the flag and proved his loyalty to Republican ideas. McCain set aside any personal animus and did the right thing for the right reasons. He had every opportunity for revenge, and he passed. You must admire that kind of discipline. McCain has supported the war on terror unflinchingly. Although he balked on the torture question, and he called consistently for more troops in Iraq during 2003 and 2004, arguably, he was right on both counts.

Added comment: McCain drew near-unanimous condemnation from conservatives for his leadership role in the "Gang of Fourteen" (aka "The Mod Squad"), but that seems somewhat misplaced and wrong-headed now that the compromise netted us Roberts and Alito and broke up the logjam of conservative Circuit Court nominees.

Why now? In brief:

1. McCain will run as a Reagan Republican, but he will not carry the baggage of the Bush administration. The GOP faces tough times in 2006 and 2008. The next election will be a referendum on President Bush (35 percent approval). But no Repubilcan candidate can succeed running away from George Bush. Republicans cannot nominate an "outsider," anti-Washington governor (it just won't fly). Having said that, there needs to be some distance. McCain will run on his record of integrity and independence and fiscal responsibility, at the same time promising to stay the course where it counts.

To that end, McCain is an articulate spokesman for conservative common sense. The winning candidate will need to connect with the public. The GOP candidate will need to sell a program that is not very popular right now. McCain is a great communicator. His vaunted appeal to "moderates" (much criticized in some conservative circles) really means that many regular Americans perceive McCain as a good man and wise leader.

2. McCain is battle-tested and up to the challenge. The next presidential election will prove devastatingly cruel and heartless. Think Hillary Clinton and James Carville and Paul Begala and Paul Krugman unleashed. This is no time to learn as you go along. The Republicans need a tough guy for this very tough upcoming race. McCain's life experience and his sense of humor will help him navigate the ugliness.

3. Lindsey Graham. Graham is the brightest shining star on the Republican horizon and a long-time McCain supporter. Graham will be a floor leader in the Senate in a McCain presidency, positioning him for bigger and better things to come. McCain and Graham represent the future of the party.

What say you? What are your reasons for and/or against McCain?

Most Americans are merely consumers: we consume food, entertainment, clothing, etc but do not produce any. Not enough gardens, not enough home guitar or piano playing, not enough sewing. We take that consumer mentality and expand it into all other areas of life: sitting back and consuming political choices without becoming involved in politics ourselves, shopping for the church that "meets our needs" without ever teaching Sunday School or leading a youth group or sweeping the floor, complaining about social problems without working to produce solutions ourselves.

Want to change your life and to change the world around you? Become a producer, not just a consumer. From the Dallas Morning News comes this inspiring story of a Producer of Positive Change. Hat tip Powerline which points out that this man works outside governmental and civil rights bureaucracy.

A few days ago I noted that Newt Gingrich was busy making a lot of sense, offering ideas and offering himself as a figure around which conservatives might rally. All of these things, by the way, are things that Newt does very well. He is arguably the most under-appreciated figure in the conservative political movement.

Here are some bullet points from his piece in Human Events Online today:

The political problem:

"Republicans, in two short years, gave up the advantages on taxes, balancing the budget and controlling spending that they had spent three generations earning.

"On Katrina, controlling the border and Iraq, Republicans gave up the advantage as the party of management that could get things done -- an advantage they had held since the 1950s."

The political solution:

"[Be more conservative.] We should appeal to the Blue Dog Democrats who claim to be conservative. We should appeal to their voters and their supporters back home. Even more, we should appeal to the majority of the American people by returning the Republican Party, once again, to the party of reform, ideas, solutions and common-sense conservatism.

"We should rebuild the grassroots conservative movement. From the Reagan Revolution of 1980 through the Contract with America in 1994, it was this movement from outside Washington that carried us to the first center-right majority governing coalition in more than 60 years."

Take Heart:

"This was not a realigning election as 1994 was. Voters did not vote "for" the Democrats but "against" Republicans. Now, it will be up to us to see that the results of the 2006 election serve as a temporary but necessary corrective interruption in our goal of getting to a conservative governing majority. Take heart, while there is much to be done, I believe if we are focused, disciplined and we work together, we will Win the Future for America."

An epilogue:

"Just yesterday it was reported that incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is supporting Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) for majority leader. This is a sign that Pelosi, despite all her talk of moving to the center and reaching out to conservatives, will govern from the left. It is a direct assault on the moderate wing of the Democratic Party and a deliberate break with the second-ranking Democrat in the House, Rep. Steny Hoyer (Md.). The next test for whether Pelosi will govern from the left or the center will be if she appoints Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), the impeached former federal judge, to chair the Intelligence Committee. No national security supporter will be comfortable with Hastings' having oversight of the nation's secrets, but the pressure on Pelosi to appease the Black Caucus is immense. Stay tuned."

The article in its entirety here.

As I said earlier, Newt emerged last week as the conservative candidate for 2008. Mitt Romney may have something to say about that--but I am on record as skeptical of Romney's ability to win the Republican nomination this time around. We'll see.

I turned 16 in 1972. Although growing up in a rural area far from cities, I had a sense that America was coming apart at the seams culturally. Also, as I grew closer to 18, I assumed that Vietnam and the draft somehow were in my future. I observed the '72 election closely, and favored Nixon over McGovern. Nixon, it seemed to me, represented the people I knew, rather than the strange goings-on I saw on television. And, I trusted Nixon to bring an honorable conclusion to the Vietnam War, rather than the retreat I imagined McGovern would bring about.

I was still too naive then. I knew we had local government corruption, which my outspoken and plainspoken grandfather railed against. But, somehow I thought of the men in Washington as made of different stuff, as statesmen. The last couple of years of high school were disillusioning because of Watergate. I was not too confident about the American future.

In 1974 Nixon resigned, and Gerald Ford became president. He helped my view of things by being who he was--an open, honest man. Ford was the Un-Nixon, what you saw was what you got. Because of his leadership, including his humility and obvious sanity, I regained some confidence. Thank you Mr. Ford.

Ford recently became our oldest living ex-president. Here is a great tribute to him written by Gleaves Whitney in National Review.

A Waco Farmer mentioned in a previous post that several faculty in his building has posted signs reading "Happy Days Are Here Again." I worked out of that building for several years and can guess whose offices he means.

The Bush is bad and evil and stupid, and Republicans are bad people, and Rush is a big fat idiot cartoons and postings on the bulletin boards outside these faculty offices always bothered me. Students of all political persuasions had to pass this material on the way into those teachers' offices. I suspect that conservative students felt unwelcome and on the defensive when entering those spaces. This is not right.

My own view is that a faculty office is not personal, private space in the same way a home is. It is a space provided by the institution to facilitate the education of the students: a semi-public space. My political views are known through this blog, which I have yet to mention to my students whom I now teach online. When I did face-to-face education and had an office on campus, I kept a politically and religiously neutral office and bulletin board. I wanted all students to be equally at ease; plus, the taxpayers of the state of Texas were not paying me to do political indoctrination.