Cal Thomas v ...

On the 10th of September 2007, Cal Thomas wrote a fairly powerful we must never forget editorial commemorating the tragedy of 9/11/2001. Leonard Pitts wrote a better one that included GW's not being overly concerned about terrorism via bin Laden.

On the 11th of September 2007, Mr. Thomas wrote paranoia, hysteria, racial and religious hatred into a thundering damnation of all those Islamofascists (peculiarly similar to all those Commies) who'd soon take over the world and make us kowtow to their way of thinking. On the other hand, David Sarasohn tells us what exploiting the fear factor does in order to deprive Americans of a government they can trust. People who aren't in fact Muslim but Christian in depriving us of a Democracy and a government who respects ancient constitutional laws.

But in neither case did Cal Thomas inform us that even if we don't "give up" on Iraq to the extent of preventing that country from becoming a jihadist training ground. It doesn't matter, one already exists in Pakistan. As Denmark and most recently Germany discovered, terrorist cells took root on their soil and would have if they could have, caused some terrible tragedies, but were fortunately thwarted. What we do or don't do in Iraq changes nothing about the fact that terrorism is already an international threat.

Cal Thomas v the truth of GW's foreign and domestic policies. Trade with China, not only do we continue trade with China despite piracy; we also continue trade with China despite poisoned toys, pet food, your food and toothpaste. Couldn't terrorism exploit GW's lax trade policies? GW operates from the dollar bill principle not out of any great concern for the welfare of the country. Al Qaeda inspired violence in Lebanon through its infiltration into Palestinian refugee camps. Where Muslims end up killing Muslims as long as they are deemed in alliance with this country. And what have we achieved diplomatically to curtail the spread of the very things Thomas rants so hysterically against? Nothing. The mosque his column screams about that becomes a recruitment center in this country for radical jihadists, already exists in Saudi Arabia. What has GW done to ask of his friends the Saudis to do something besides engage in symbolic gestures of constraining radical jihadists from infiltrating western countries and causing destruction in property and human life? If that was on GW's foreign policy plate, wouldn't Thomas be trumpeting it to the skies? So, not being able to demonstrate that GW is actually serious about terrorism, Thomas instead kicks around the ACLU as a "pro terrorist" organization. I may not agree with much of the ACLU's agenda today, esp. when it involves illegal aliens. But, if GW were opposed to terrorism then: he wouldn't have allowed NAFTA to implement Mexican truck drivers being able to travel anywhere on U.S. soil. Speaking of, a local letter writer, Gerald Ray, called NAFTA a program as having come from "slick Willy." Yes, President Bill Clinton signed on to NAFTA when the threat of terrorism was on the horizon and didn't loom with the smoke and the concrete dust of collapsing twin towers. That was in 1995 and a majority Republican party pushed NAFTA into law. If GW had been so opposed to Bill Clinton as was a fact at the start of his term in 2001, and was serious about terrorism, he would not have pushed open borders nor allowed Mexican truck drivers free access on U.S. soil. But as I stated earlier, GW operates from a dollar bill principle, not out of concern for the welfare of the nation.

Ultimately, it is not the ACLU and their misguided support for illegal aliens that presents the ultimate threat to this nation, but the foreign and domestic policies of our government. Thomas is such a shill for this administration that he wears blinders even in what he presents to the public.