Here’s a question for the ages.
If a Koran is burned without a TV camera being present, will a radical islamo-fascist see the flames?
And here’s another one.
Why should anyone care?
Last week, leading up to the ninth anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a looney-tunes preacher with a flock of 30 followers said he was going to burn a Koran.
In short order, General David Petraeus, our commander in Afghanistan said that would place our troops in peril and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates actually called this clown and asked him not to light the fire.
Now Petraeus is a stand-up military commander. But he is in charge of a war in Afghanistan where, by definition, our troops are in harm’s way. Lunatic-fringe islamo-fascists ran two airliners into the World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon in 2001.
Does Petraeus really think a looney-tune preacher in Florida is going to add more gas to the fire than a cartoonist in Amsterdam or, for that matter this editorial?
In the case of Petraeus, I think it fair to chalk it up to a case—a very rare case—of bad judgment.
Why Gates got involved is truly a mystery You would think that an otherwise sensible Secretary of Defense would understand that a crazy person in Gainesville should have the political impact of a fruitfly. Unless, of course, he is given the imprimatur of the attention of the Department of Defense.
Maybe both Gates and Petraeus had the same bad judgment day at the exact same time.
Maybe they’ve served in the Obama administration too long.
But it’s time for a refresher course in the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
In short, you can build your Mosque two blocks from ground zero and he can burn your Koran, anybody can say anything they want about either and the government can do nothing except send troops to fight for those rights.
And, frankly, if some lunatic islamo-fascists don’t like it, well, they didn’t like it before September 11, 2001 and they’re not going to like it next week so why waste our time or breath worrying.
One thing that even Barack Obama knows and acknowledged (somewhat grudgingly) last week is that being nice to terrorists will not make them leave us alone.
On another subject, I got into a discussion with a state legislator (whose name I will not use because I like him, even if he is wrong) who told me that electing Sharron Angle would hurt us because a) she can’t be effective in the Senate and b) Harry Reid can do more for us.
It is precisely that attitude which needs changing.
I told the state legislator that I would be voting for Sharron because that is the best way to send a loud, boisterous message to the rest of the world that we are mad as hell and we’re not going to take it any more.
Let me add a corollary to that. We should all probably be ashamed of ourselves that we did not find a viable candidate to kick Harry’s ass six years ago but that we went along to get along.
For another reason to vote against Harry, read Ed Goedhart’s piece on page 3 (or, below if you are reading our email blast. Harry’s idea of serving the public now clearly means using his power to fix things for his friends—which translates to his contributors.
That he is still our Senator is what we should be ashamed of.