Creating Delusion

We are either in denial or hope nothing will happen and neither is a strategy
This is an existential threat and appeasement like WWII will only get us 200 million killed versus the 60 million in WWII.
Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney about the Iranian Nuclear Threat.

Satan then said:
How do I overcome
This besieged one?
He has courage
And talent,
And implements of war
And resourcefulness.
Only this I shall do,
I'll dull his mind
And cause him to forget
The justice of his cause
Then Satan Said, By Natan Alterman

The besiegers fully understand that through extreme stress they can get the delusion to set in.
They realize that eventually the appeasers amongst the populace will rise to
the forefront and try to convince the people that if they just give the barbarians at their gates
what they want then they'll go away. History shows us that people under siege
will eventually start saying and doing crazy stuff to make it go away. History also clearly
shows that appeasing people hell-bent on your destruction never produces a favorable outcome...

As the flames of hope burn down to a flicker, the mind plays tricks and starts seeing shadows
of hope which aren't there. The beleaguered mind clings to any solution no matter how small,
no matter how absurd, no matter how likely to fail, no matter how dangerous the outcome, just so
that the siege will end and 'they' will go away.

People Will Hang on To Illusion as Eagerly as to Life Itself
Ben Hecht

“It is always a losing battle, this trying to out shout authority.
Those who have been in one are left with the conviction
that it is easier to waken the dead than the living.
But what a hopeless world it would be without this record of lost battles.”
Ben Hecht

All must be made to know that the result of choosing fantasy over reality
is the murder of thousands of real people.
Speech of Carolyn Glick upon Receiving Ben Hecht Award, 12/11/05

Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful
and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind.
George Orwell

Hallucinating moderation in a ruthless enemy is like hallucinating an
oasis in a desert: you end up choking to death on sand
?

The course of history in recent years suggests that the ultimate victims may be those who delude themselves
Marjorie Housepian Dobkin's final sentence in her book, The Smyrna Affair

The struggle of man against power, is the struggle of memory against forgetting.
The Czech writer, Milan Kundera,

What wrath of gods, or wicked influence
Of tears, conspiring wretched men t' afflict,
Hath pour'd on earth this noyous pestilence
That mortal minds doth inwardly infect
With love of blindness and of ignorance?
Spenser's Tears of the Muses

How many times must a man turn his head,
and pretend that he just doesn't see?"
Bob Dylan, Blowin in the Wind

Men occasionally stumble over the truth,
but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened.
Winston Churchill

Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions,
which move with him like flies on a summer day.
Bertrand Russell, Skeptical Essays p28, 1938

We hanker after instant solutions, dismiss bitter truths and prefer the sweet comfort of delusion.
Sarah Honig, Another Tack: Horse Sense or Horse Trade, Jpost 11/17/2006

"When falls on man the anger of the gods, first from his mind they banish understanding."

The ultimate tragedy of the fool
is the inability to recognize
the continuance of one’s own folly.
Proust

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I am not sure about the universe
Albert Einstein

This web page mostly deals with non-paranoid delusions. Another web page on this site deals with paranoid delusions. The opposite of a paranoid delusions is choosing to believe that there is no threat when there is one. There can be pathological situations where delusion of one group is in a vicious cycle with paranoia with another group. An example of this is shown in the cycle diagram below.

Paranoia
Slander and Muslim scripture convinces Muslims that infidel is evil.

Aggression

Muslims aggressive toward infidel

Aggression

Muslim see they are rewarded with appeasement if they are aggressive so they become more aggressive. Slander infidels in order to motivate other Muslims to be more aggressive. Slander infidels so that infidel believes Muslims are being unfairly victimized and avoids taking action against them. Slander infidels so other infidels will silence or punish them.

Fear

Non-Muslims don’t want to face the threat. Hope that if they don’t make accusations against Muslims, Muslims won’t get mad at them. Pass anti-incitement laws to prevent accusations of violence against Muslims that might get them mad. Hope if they show hostility to Israel and defend Muslims as peaceful they will get Muslim sympathy. Hope that if they make increase welfare payments to Muslims and donate money to Palestinians the Muslims will be less aggressive. Appease Muslims.

Delusion

Populace believes Muslims peaceful and Israel to blame.

This is a living web page about creating delusion. By living web page I mean it is not a finished product and I periodically add items I come across that are relevant. For this reason it is not written as well as an article would be. I have written an article about this subject called Creation of Delusion which was published by the International Bulletin of Political Psychology and which I encourage the reader to read before reading this web page. Creation of Delusion can consist of simply attempting to silence those who wish to tell the truth, and so examples of this are given on this web page. Much of this web page is devoted to delusion in American Foreign Policy. Much of this delusion exists in regard to the Middle East so this web page includes many examples from the Middle East. Delusional aspects of the Islamic world regarding the Middle East are discussed in on the paranoia web page of this web site.

Is delusion a fair way to describe the erroneous beliefs of people who otherwise function normally in society? Can the beliefs of normally functioning people accurately be described as madness or simply as diversity of opinion. My article Creation of Delusion discusses the answer to this question. Writers about politics sometimes describe what they perceive to be madness among otherwise sane people. Ariel Natan Pasko in an article titled The Peace Madness Syndrome in Israel Again (freeman center broadcast 2/16/05), wrote:

The "peace at any price" bug has returned to Israel. .. Once
infected, messianic hallucinations of "peace" begin to confound the victim's
moral compass, leading to confusion, lack of moral clarity, and a
suicidal death wish for the "Peace of the Grave." It also weakens the
patient's resistance to falsehood, distorting the infected person's ability
to distinguish right from wrong, good from bad, and enemy from brother.
This moral-AIDS disease is sweeping through Israel again, on a scale
not seen since the "peace drug" induced false euphoria of the Oslo days.

We know what that led to, death and destruction.

A recent Los Angeles Times investigative report (7/31/2002) by Benedict Carey, surveying psychologists worldwide who have studied terrorists, concludes that the notion that suicide bombers are deranged fanatics is obvious myth. “The evidence is the opposite,” he states. “They tend to be free of obvious mental illness. Many are competent, successful, even loving and loved.” Clark McCauley, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania who studies terrorism states “ Suicide terrorists are anything but isolated. Often, they have connected with others deeply, and it's this affiliation that helps prepare them to take their own lives. It's the group that's abnormal and extreme. The individual terrorist is psychologically as normal as you or I.”

In my article Creation of Delusion I discuss the Anointed and their resistance to evidence. When evidence points to one conclusion they will argue that it points to the opposite. Heather McDonald wrote about an example of this:

When actions fail instead of concluding that the reasoning behind the actions is flawed the Anointed conclude that not enough has been done. Steve Plaut wrote a parody called The Disengagement of the Wisest Men of Chelm, in which he shows this kind of reasoning being used.

After the Gaza disengagement terrorism increased. Instead of concluding that the disengagement was a mistake Meretz party leader Yossi Beilin concluded that it wasn't enough (Fendel, H., Funerals of Three Young Terror Victims, Israel National News, 10/17/05). After three young people were shot at a hitchhiking post in Gush Etzion following the Gaza withdrawal Israel enacted temporary security measures. Yossi Beilin then said:

"Hamas is now rubbing its hands in glee, as these tough new measures are exactly what it wanted. We have said all along that if the diplomatic process does not continue in Judea and Samaria, the disengagement from Gaza will have been [a waste]."

Beilin instead of coming to the realization that disengagement leads to terror concludes that more disengagement is necessary.

After Hamas won the PA elections, it should have become clear to anyone that the Palestinians support violence against Israel, yet the the Los Angeles Times opined (2/2006),

Columnist Uzi Benziman, (Ha'aretz 9/30/01) wrote about how Shimon Peres of Israel resists evidence as follows:

He [Peres] has been suspected of being primarily concerned with saving his honor, and the honor of the Nobel Peace Prize he received; and this is the light in which his actions should be understood... The decisive fact is that the IDF, and Military Intelligence in particular, correctly predicted the developments in the Palestinian Authority and its intentions, and then translated its diagnosis into a reasonable operational language. This fact is lost on the initiator of the Oslo idea: he repeatedly argues that process that began in September 1993 is threatening to drown not because of an inherent flaw, but due to the mistakes made in its implementation - particularly during the periods of the Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak governments...

There are those who argue that Ariel Sharon when he embraced the policies advocated by Peres became delusional as well as one of the anointed in his thinking. Shmuel Katz in an article titled Sharon, the 'ex-messiah' (Jerusalem Post 12/9/04) wrote:

Having embraced the beliefs of the Labor Party and the wishful thinking on which they are based, he treats those who have remained faithful to the ideas they had in common with him as though they were ignorant peasants.

These pygmies dare to defy the suddenly great all-knowing, all-seeing panjandrum. At best, they are treated as rebels, and he talks of taking revenge. But even the people whose hurt he is now planning – the Gush Katif victims of his "painful concessions" – are subjected to his scorn.

See how swiftly, in his recent speeches, he has assimilated even the semantics of the Left (and of the Arabs, and the international opponents of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria). He now talks of "occupation" – which is a lie by any reading of the Fourth Geneva Convention on which (mendaciously or ignorantly) the term is based.

And now he has accused the people whom he personally helped to settle in Judea and Samaria and Gaza of being Messianic. If they are Messianic, what then must he himself be? An ex-messiah?

Although generous financial aid to the Palestinians has not made them less violent, after Arafat's death Nigel Roberts, the World Bank’s director for the West Bank and Gaza, said to donors, “Maybe your $1 billion a year hasn’t produced much, but we think there’s a case for doing even more in the next three or four years.”

Roberts is saying, in effect: Yes, your money enabled Arafat’s corruption, jihad ideology, and suicide factories, but those are yesterday’s problems; now, let’s hope the new leadership uses donations for better purposes. Please lavish more funds on it to enhance its prestige and power, then hope for the best.

This la-la-land thinking ignores two wee problems. One concerns the Palestinians’ widespread intent to destroy Israel, as shown by the outpouring of grief for arch-terrorist Arafat at his funeral, the consistent results of opinion research, and the steady supply of would-be jihadists. The Palestinians’ discovery of their inner moderation, to put it mildly, has yet to commence.

The other problem is blaming the past decade’s violence and tyranny exclusively on Arafat, and erroneously assuming that, now freed of him, the Palestinians are eager to reform. Mahmoud Abbas, the new leader, has indeed called for ending terrorism against Israel, but he did so for transparently tactical reasons (it is the wrong thing to do now), not for strategic reasons (it is permanently to be given up), much less for moral ones (it is inherently evil)...

To give additional money to the Palestinians now, ahead of their undergoing a change of heart and accepting the permanent existence of the Jewish state of Israel, is a terrible mistake, one that numbingly replicates the errors of the 1990s’ Oslo diplomacy. Prematurely rewarding the Palestinians will again delay the timetable of conciliation.

As I have argued for years, money, arms, diplomacy, and recognition for the Palestinians should follow on their having accepted Israel. One sign that this will have happened: when Jews living in Hebron (on the West Bank) need no more security than Arabs living in Nazareth (within Israel).

One reason for resisting evidence that one is wrong is if one's career or prestige is threatened if one admits one was wrong. Daniel Pipes in an article titled Business as Usual in the Palestinian Authority (frontpagemag.com 5/17/05) wrote:

It is hard to argue with Caroline Glick’s conclusion that the Sharon government and the Bush administration were both “horribly wrong” in betting on Abbas. And yet, neither of them concedes this error because, having stressed Abbas’s good intentions, both now find themselves deeply invested in the success of his political career.

If a fact leads a conclusion that people don't want to make they often find a rationalization for rejecting it.

In order to hold on to delusions one needs to find ways to discount contradictory evidence and those who disagree with one's convictions. If one views those who disagree as evil then all their evidence can be construed as false evidence created for devious motives. Thomas Sowell in his book The Vision of the Anointed : Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy describes the paranoia of the anointed.

The contemporary anointed and those who follow them make much of their "compassion" for the less fortunate, their "concern" for the environment, and their being "anti-war" for example--as if these were characteristics which distinguish them from people with opposite views on public policy. The very idea that such an opponent of the prevailing vision as Milton Friedman, for example, has just as much compassion for the poor and the disadvantaged, that he is just as much appalled by pollution, or as horrified by the sufferings and slaughter imposed by war on millions of innocent men, women, and children--such an idea would be a very discordant note in the vision of the anointed. If such an idea were fully accepted, this would mean that opposing arguments on social policy were arguments about methods, probabilities, and empirical evidence--with compassion, caring, and the like being common features on both sides, thus cancelling out and disappearing from the debate. That clearly is not the vision of the annointed.

Why do the annointed develop this paranoid mentality? Perhaps they are defending their self esteem against those who would expose that they are wrong with opposing arguments. Perhaps they also are holding on to beliefs they want to believe in this way.

One of the ugly sides of delusional thinking is that those who embrace delusions may turn against those who reject them. This was mentioned by Sowell who talked about demonization of the opposition by the deluded. This has been the case for both Islam and Christianity in regard to non-believers throughout history.

Jamie Glazov started a Frontpage Magazine symposium, The Radical Lies of Aids (6/3/05) with the following introduction:

Back in the early 1980s, when the AIDS epidemic was just starting to break out in the three gay communities (San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York), David Horowitz was one of the few individuals who stood up and publicly opposed gay leaders' efforts to subvert the public health system and conceal the nature of the epidemic. Specifically, in the name of "gay liberation," gay leaders denied that sexually transmitted AIDS was almost exclusively caused by promiscuous anal sex, refused to close sexual "bathhouses" which were the breeding grounds of AIDS, opposed testing and contact tracing which were the traditional and proven public health methods for containing epidemics, and promoted the false idea that AIDS was an "equal opportunity virus" when in fact it was a virus threatening very specific communities -- gays and intravenous drug users. For speaking truth to gay power, he was widely condemned by radical activists who demonized him and caricatured his warnings as, among other things, homophobic prejudice. As Horowitz has written in these pages, the success of the gay radicals resulted in a ballooning epidemic that has killed some 300,000 Americans, the majority of them young gay men. The AIDS catastrophe, as he wrote in “A Radical Holocaust,” a chapter in The Politics of Bad Faith, is “a metaphor for all the catastrophes that utopians have created.”

Why did the AIDs activists do this? One reason is they wanted to have sexual bathhouses. Another is that they wanted heterosexuals to be motivated to fight AIDS and thought that if it was considered a gay disease, heterosexuals would not make as much as an effort to eradicate it. Also gays did not want to be seen as the spreaders of disease.

Worldnetdaily posted an article about Lesbian gang rapes of girls and how homosexual groups attempt to keep this information from the public. The following is an excerpt from Payback for exposé on 'dyke' gang rapes 7/9/07:

"The Eyewitness News Everywhere" report in Memphis documented incidents of gangs known as GTOs, or "Gays" Taking Over, attacking schoolgirls… On the Memphis report, Deputy Beverly Cobb of the Shelby County Gang Unit said lesbian gang members "will sodomize [with sex toys] and will force [young schoolgirls] to do all sexual acts. They are forcing themselves on our young girls in all our schools."

The report included a long list of Memphis-area schools where such incidents were documented.

The gang members, Cobb said, "carry weapons … they will use them quicker than any male that I've ever come upon – to try and fight them you'll get hurt."

Reports also said in some of the locations the organizations called themselves DTOs, or Dykes Taking Over.

But the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, which had tried to suppress the Memphis report before it aired, issued a statement charging the reporting was "without … one solid statistic or credible source."

Rashad Robinson, GLAAD's senior director of media programs, called the reporting "inaccurate tabloid journalism" and said it "perpetuates dangerous stereotypes about lesbians and feeds a climate of homophobia, anti-gay discrimination and violence." ..

"All they wanted to do was shut down the story," LaBarbera told WND. "This epitomizes the selfishness of the gay activists." ..

GLAAD contacted the station managers and after a private preview concluded it was "shockingly defamatory." …

"They are taking the line that there's no other side," LaBarbera said. "If you read that GLAAD release about perpetuating negative stereotypes, you can't write anything negative about any homosexuals.. It's a stunning bit of crude bullying. Here you have girls being raped by other girls, and somehow GLAAD manages to turn the homosexual lobby into the victims."

The psychiatrist Kenneth Levin wrote a book titled The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege in which he discusses the self destructive delusions of Israeli society. He wrote about the Israeli belief that if they blame themselves and make concessions they can get the Arabs to like them. Dr. Levine wrote:

the delusion - based on exhaustion with the siege and a desperate and overwhelming desire for its end - that the right self-abnegations by Israel, the right mix of territorial and spiritual retreat, can win Israel the peace it desires no matter how much the objective evidence of words and deeds by the other side indicates otherwise.

Dr. Levine also wrote about the delusion that Israeli aid to the Arabs could stop Arab hate. He wrote:

delusional grandiosity was also apparent, as in arguments that Arab quiescence could be won by Israel's proffering benefits to Arab partners in economic, environmental, medical, and other endeavors... Such arguments ignore, of course, the relative inconsequentiality of the economic strength of Israel, however impressive for a country of six million, and the relative insignificance of opportunities potentially provided by cooperation with Israel, in the context of the vast Arab world of over a quarter billion souls. They ignore the obvious consideration that hostility to Israel may have a utility in the domestic and inter-Arab politics of Arab governments that far outweighs in those governments' calculations the benefits any rapprochement with Israel might provide. They ignore the fact that the fundamentalist threat to so-called moderate regimes is another reason for those regimes to keep Israel at arm's length. They ignore the example of Egypt, which has reneged on virtually all of the numerous accords touching on economic cooperation that were part of the 1978 Camp David treaty.

Both the self-deprecating and the grandiose distortions of reality have a common source: A wish to believe Israel to be in control of profoundly stressful circumstances over which it, unfortunately, has no real control...

The belief that appeasement can bring peace is one that has been proven wrong by history over and over again but is a belief that guides much of American and Israeli foreign policy. This is discussed further on the appeasement web page of this web site. The United States appeases the Saudis in an effort to keep the oil flowing and to avoid a solid block of Arab countries joining with Iraq.

If you are a woman unfortunate enough to have had children with a Saudi Muslim and he decides to leave with the kids to Saudi Arabia, don't expect any help from the U.S. State Department in getting them back. Pat Roush wrote a book about her experiences trying to bring her children back to America called At Any Price. A Saudi told Pat Roush:

Mrs. Roush, your government doesn’t want you, and your State Department will not help you. You will see your children if and when we decide.

The U.S. State Department has worked hand-in-glove with the Saudi Arabian government to keep my innocent daughters captive inside Saudi Arabia, They have deliberately thwarted all my efforts to have my daughters, who were illegally stolen from me, brought back to America where they were born. The State Department not only destroyed all my deals that were arranged with the Saudis to return my girls, but they have participated in cover-ups, lied to Congress, and taken sides with the Saudis.

There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of American woman and children inside Saudi Arabia who cannot leave. They are terrified of being killed or beaten by either their Saudi husbands or the Saudi government. They told this to Congressman Burton last year. One woman told Burton’s aide, 'My husband told me he would bury me alive and let my children watch me die.' Another begged, 'Please, just put me and my children in the belly of the military plane and get us out of here.'

Roush has asserted for years that the State Department has an alternative agenda in protecting its relationship with the oil-rich kingdom – which has military bases critical for the coalition's operation in Iraq – and deliberately works to suppress all "bad news" concerning the Saudis.

Roush wrote a brief to the UN Human Rights Commission about this situation. The brief notes a male family member who so wishes can keep a girl or woman within the confines of her home – virtually under "house arrest" – for her entire life. Out of fear that their abducted daughters and wives will escape or that foreign officials or others will try to "recapture" them, Saudi fathers and husbands typically prevent them from using the telephone. And in the rare case that visitation rights are allowed, they're under strict rules and usually supervised by male relatives.

The brief concludes the abductions and the aftermath constitute a contemporary form of slavery, which cries for implementation of international human rights law.

Yara (not her real name), an American businesswoman, was arrested by Saudi Arabia's religious police for sitting with a male colleague at Starbucks. (Foxnews 2/7/08)

Sarah Saga, 23, was kidnapped by her father as a child in 1985 and taken to the kingdom (of Saudi Arabia). She has been prohibited from leaving there ever since. As has happened with other Americans, Saga was married off to a Saudi and bore her own children. Now the woman, who claims to have been abused by her father, stepmother and husband, has sought refuge in the U.S. Consulate. She is pleading with U.S. officials to help her and her children, age 3 and 5, travel to America. According to her mother, Debra Dornier, however, Saga has been told if she leaves, her Saudi-born children must stay in the kingdom.

Her mother, Debra Dornier says while Saga was living with her father, "he beat her; he threatened to kill her; he cut off her hair; he threw her up against a wall ... because she talked to someone she shouldn't have."

She had a cruel stepmother, Dornier asserted, who "locked her up for three months."

"To be able to get out of her room, she would have to kneel down and kiss her stepmother's feet and beg her forgiveness so that she could eat," Dornier said.

"I was told I can't take my children out," Saga said. "I don't want to leave them. They don't need to live the life I've lived. … I am fighting all the time to have them go with me."

Quoting her daughter after reaching the consulate, Dornier said Saga told her: "Mama, I can go for a walk. My kids played in a playground for the first time. … Mama, I'm free."

"The State Department is doing everything it can to intimidate Sarah Saga inside the consulate," Roush said, adding that U.S. officials told the woman "that if she goes on American television, all her chances will be dashed to get out of Saudi Arabia."

Roush compared Saga to her own children's plight: "She did not ask to go to Saudi Arabia. She did not ask to be married off and have children. And she should not be forced to trade her freedom for her children."

Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., also appeared on the program. Burton has been working to help free American kidnap victims in the kingdom.

"There are hundreds, probably thousands, of women over there who are kept not only as hostages but literally as chattel. They are owned by their husbands," Burton said.

Saga did return to the U.S. but was forced to leave her two young children behind in Saudi Arabia. WorldnetDaily 7/10/03 quotes her as saying that

Saga noted her mother, Debra Dornier, was told the U.S. could not risk relations with Saudi Arabia for one child. Also, Saga said she was instructed to avoid the media because it might embarrass the consulate.

Another example of the perfidious behavior of the State Department was its coverup of the financing of terror by the Saudis. After the news that Princess Haifa al-Faisal, wife of the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, had given many thousands of dollars to a person connected to two of the 9/11 suicide hijackers, the spokesman for the State Department Richard Boucher praised Saudi efforts to prevent the financing of terrorism as "very strong" though he did concede that "there is always more to be done." Daniel Pipes wrote that after the News Colin Powell said (New York Post 12/3/02):

I think it's unlikely that Prince Bandar or her Royal Highness would do anything that would support terrorist activity.

The president's press secretary, Ari Fleischer, promoted the self-serving Saudi line that Osama bin Laden specifically recruited Saudi hijackers for the 9/11 attacks to "drive a wedge" between the United States and Saudi Arabia. (This idea is palpably false: That 15 out of the 19 hijackers were Saudi was not a political ploy but the results of the fact, as Stephen Schwartz explains, that "Saudis are the largest national contingent by far in al Qaeda.")

Robert Baer in his book Sleeping with the Devil, wrote that when the Defense Policy Board, issued a report that Saudi Arabia was "central to the self-destruction of the Arab world and the chief vector of the Arab crisis and its outwardly directed aggression." Powell was on the phone within hours assuring Bandar that such apostasy was not the official stance of the Bush II administration. Baer writes:

To reinforce the message, Bush II invited Bandar down to the family ranch at Crawford, Texas, an honor usually reserved for the heads of state.

Washington fiddles and pretends Riyadh won't burn, watching passively as wealthy Saudis channel hundreds of millions of dollars to radical groups in hopes of buying protection. Washington pretends that all the loudspeakers in all the mosques throughout all the kingdom that are blaring out their messages of hate against the West haven't been paid for with contributions from the royal family that America so readily declares to be its best friend and ally in the Middle East. ... Ex-presidents, former prime ministers, onetime senators and members of Congress and Cabinet members walk around with their hands out, rarely slowing down because most of them know that this charade can go on only so long. The trick is to get on that last plane loaded with gold before the SAM launchers are set up around Riyadh International.

FBI Agent Robert Wright uncovered a wide network of Hamas and al Qaeda financiers across the United States. In August 1999 his investigation was shut down. Debbie Schlussel the author of an expose about this in the New York Post (FBI Takes a Dive on Terror 7/14/04) was told by FBI personnel that the reason given to Mr. Wright was that his work was too embarrassing for the Saudis. The fact that his investigation was shut down just as he was uncovering evidence that Saudi banker Al Qadi was a banker for Al Qaeda confirms that the FBI is appeasing the Saudis. Months before 9/11, Wright complained on several occasions to FBI officials that Americans would die because of the closing of his investigation and the incompetence of the FBI's International Terrorism Unit. He was told to "let sleeping dogs lie." Debbie Schlussel writes "Those "sleeping dogs" after all, were known terrorists walking free. John Roberts then the chief of the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility said that FBI Assistant Director Robert Jordan and Deputy Assistant Director Jody Weis told him to "deceive, misrepresent and hide" from Justice Department investigators "the facts of this matter".

According to WorldnetDaily (Saudi Al Qaeda Ties Excised From Congressional Report 7/24/03) an 800-page report on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, that had been completed on December 2002 and a companion report by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, was delayed for months because of the information it had regarding Saudi support of Al Qaeda. According to WorldnetDaily:

The administration kept the report quiet for six months and the commission said the White House withheld documents required for the investigation.

In addition 28 pages on Saudi complicity in the attacks of 9/11 were blacked out. The top Republican senator involved in creating the congressional report, Richard Shelby, said Sunday on NBC that 95 percent of the classified pages could be released without jeopardizing national security (Associated Press 7/29/03).

THE blacking out of 28 pages on Saudi complicity in the 9/11 attacks isn't the only hole in Congress' report on the terrorist atrocity: The rest of the report skirts issues and evidence that point directly to the desert oil kingdom.

Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar were two of the 9/11 hijackers. Steve Schwartz writes:

Some time before 9/11, the National Security Agency had information linking al-Hazmi to Osama bin Laden but failed to hand the CIA what it knew about him and al-Mihdhar.

The CIA learned that al-Hazmi, whom it had identified as a "terrorist," had come to the United States but did not inform the FBI.

According to the congressional report Omar al Bayoumi a Saudi known to have terrorist connections, befriended al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi while they were in San Diego. Steve Schwartz points out that Omar al Bayoumi was named by the U.S. media as the conduit for the charitable donations of Princess Haifa of Saudi Arabia and he asks:

Why no mention whatever of Princess Haifa in the report's narrative on al-Bayoumi...

The same claim of "national security" that justified blacking out the Saudi chapter?

The report simply fails to follow up on another shocking disclosure: Al-Bayoumi was an employee of the Saudi Civil Aviation Authority, and his immediate superior in that body had a bin Laden connection.

The Saudi Civil Aviation Authority would be the ideal center for a hijacking conspiracy: Its employees would know everything, from Saudi attendance at specific U.S. flight schools, to the regulations for carrying sharp objects aboard airliners, to the fuel capacities of long-range flights.

So why hasn't our government focused a bright light on this agency? Is it not possible that the agency was tasked with the 9/11 atrocity from higher up in the Saudi regime?

In August 2001, customs agent Jose Melendez-Perez turned away a Saudi national named Mohammed al-Qahtani at Orlando International Airport despite being warned by coworkers that he risked his job because of guidelines to treat Saudi citizens with kid gloves. Officials now believe al-Qahtani was the intended 20th hijacker. (New York Post 1/27/04). This kid glove policy toward the Saudis may be the reason that several of the hijackers, including ringleader Mohamed Atta, entered the country despite having fraudulent visas and suspicious stories.

The State Department ignores Saudi violations of religious freedom and in fact acquiesces to Saudi demands regarding religion . The U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom an organization independent of the State Department issued a report in 2003 on the status of religious liberties worldwide. Julia Duin, in an article in the Washington Times wrote (Saudis Top Religious Violators, 5/2003):

Commissioners ...criticized the kingdom for "harassment, detention, arrest, torture" and deportation of foreign Christians employed in the country. The country's "mutawaa" religious police metes out similar treatment to Shi'ite Muslim clergy and scholars, they added. The commission also took the country to task for "offensive and discriminatory language" disparaging Jews, Christians and non-Wahhabi Muslims found in government-sponsored school textbooks, in Friday sermons preached in prominent mosques, and in state-controlled Saudi newspapers.

One theme in the report was American acquiescence to Saudi demands, such as a recent U.S. Postal Service prohibition against mailing materials "contrary to the Islamic faith" to U.S. troops in the Middle East. As recently as March, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell failed to designate Saudi Arabia as a "country of particular concern (CPC)," the diplomatic term for the most severe violators of human rights. "We don't understand how one could not name Saudi Arabia as a CPC," Mr. Young said. "Saudi Arabia has been explicitly left out of any [State Department] citations."

Daniel Pipes writes that this undue solicitation for Saudi feelings may be the result of bribes. He writes that the tie to Saudi Arabia is premised on:

accommodating the kingdom's wishes and in return, being plied with substantial sums of money...A culture of corruption...pervades the upper reaches of the White House and several departments.

John Loftus, a former attorney of the Dept of Justice was quoted as saying (Have the United States and Britain willfully Betrayed Israel? 11/27/1998, D. Maimon) :

"State Department disease"greed and self-interest have since the beginning of Mideast conflict between Jews and Arabs, infected powerful bureaucrats, perverting their sense of right and wrong. The ever present temptation to enrich oneself and one's family through Arab oil-related favors and industry, has turned the political sympathies of countless officials in the State Department and CIA away from Israel.

Robert Baer, in his book, Sleeping With the Devil wrote about the history of Saudi money in Washington. He wrote that Nixon Treasury Secretary William Simon went to Riyadh hoping to sell T-bills and bonds.

The idea was to get the Saudis to underwrite the U.S. budget deficit. Eager to become America's lender of last resort, with all the leverage that implied, the Saudis took the bait and happily swallowed it. Washington knows fast money when it sees it, but it had never seen anything like this. The cookie jar was bottomless. It wasn't long before the Saudis were spreading money everywhere, like manure on a winter's field. The White House put out its hand to fund pet projects that Congress wouldn't fund or couldn't afford, from a war in Afghanistan to one in Nicaragua. Every Washington think tank, from the supposedly nonpartisan Middle East Institute to the Meridian International Center, took Saudi money. Washington's boiler room - the K street lobbyists, PR firms and lawyers - lived off the stuff. So did its bluestocking charities, like the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the Children's National Medical Center, and every presidential library of the last thirty years... There's hardly a living former assistant secretary of state for the Near East; CIA director; White House staffer; or member of Congress who hasn't ended up on the Saudi payroll in one way or another, or so it sometimes seems.

The United States has sold the Saudis a powerful airforce with the condition that the Saudis keep their aircraft away from the Israeli border. The Saudis have placed F15s near the Israeli border and on October 2003, launched a major air and naval exercise in the northwestern part of the kingdom near the Israeli border with their F15s and AWACs. The United States promised Israel that should the Saudis deploy their aircraft near Israel, it would withhold spare parts from the Saudis. That has not happened.

In addition to the U.S. not facing the danger they are creating to Israel by arming the Saudis, members of the Israeli government refuse to face it as well. A member of Independent Media Review and Analysis (IMRA) wrote that (Freeman Broadcast 10/22/03):

It should be noted that government elements outside the IDF have consistently followed a policy of underrating/ignoring security risks associated with Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Adding the Saudis with their considerable quantities of advanced American weapons disturbs Arab-Israeli balance of power estimates used to promote various withdrawal schemes. Highlighting Egypt - with their gross violation of their treaty obligations to stop weapons smuggling along with massive arms acquisitions, serves to weaken the value of the "land for peace" precedent of the Egyptian-Israeli treaty. It is feared by critics that a dangerous combination of wishful thinking combined with an ideologically driven desire to avoid hurting the prospects of various withdrawal schemes has seriously interfered with the decision making process of these government elements.]

According to Adam Ciralsky, the CIA lie detector test stereotypes Jews as security risks. Ciralsky charges the CIA with carrying out a purge of its Jewish employees by using an extraordinarily antisemitic security profile which won't allow clearance for employees who speak Hebrew well, give money to Zionist organizations, attend an Orthodox synagogue or visit Israel frequently, on the grounds that they pose a security risk.

When the author of Terrorist Hunter worked together with Green Quest, an agency of U.S. Customs to uncover the SAAR network with which the Saudis financed terrorist in the United States, the FBI and the CIA put them all under surveillance. The author writes:

It's a terrible sensation to know that you have no privacy... and no security. That strange clicking of the phones that wasn't there before...the oh-so-crudely opened mail at home and in the office...and the same man I spied in my neighborhood supermarket, who was also on the train I took to Washington a week ago...Life can be miserable when you know that someone's always breathing down your neck...

I don't know for certain what's the deal with the CIA investigating the SAAR investigators, but it sure feels as if someone up in that agency doesn't like the idea that the Saudi Arabian boat is rocked... investigating and giving the people behind the raids a hard time is a most efficient way of making sure the SAAR investigation stops there... Which, come to think of it, may be the reason the government looks so unfavorably on the lawsuit filed by 9-11 victims' families against several Saudi entities and individuals, accusing them of funding terrorism and seeking damages.

Sources say the FBI has silenced a senior counterterrorism agent, Robert Wright of the Chicago field office, for exposing how senior figures in the bureau blocked investigations of al-Qaida terror networks inside the United States prior to Sept. 11, and for complaining that a Muslim special agent, Gamel Abdel-Hafiz, refused to wear a wire when questioning terror suspects, allegedly saying, "A Muslim doesn't record another Muslim."

top Justice and FBI officials turned down Minneapolis FBI agents' requests for a special counterintelligence surveillance warrant to open the computer hard drive of bin Laden associate Zacarias Moussaoui. An Eagan, Minn. Flight school tipped them off that the French Algerian sought instruction on steering a Boeing 747, but not taking off or landing. French intelligence alerted the FBI that Moussaoui, in custody since Aug. 17 on immigration violations, has ties to terrorist groups.

But, under Bush's and Ashcroft's new rules against secret evidence and profiling – competing against Democrats like Bonior for the Arab Muslim vote – that information was deemed insufficient for a warrant. According to Newsweek and MSNBC, when agents finally cracked into Moussaoui's hard drive, after the attacks, they found information detailing plans for terrorist attacks. Moussaoui, trained in Afghani camps, has been linked to hijacking-leader Mohammad Atta's roommate, and is now believed to have been a would-be hijacker on Flight 93 that crashed near Pittsburgh.

The FBI agent who arrested Zacarias Moussaoui weeks before Sept. 11 told a federal jury Monday that his own superiors were guilty of "criminal negligence and obstruction" for blocking his attempts to learn whether the terrorist was part of a larger cell about to hijack planes in the United States.

During intense cross-examination, Special Agent Harry Samit - a witness for the prosecution - accused his bosses of acting only to protect their positions within the FBI. . . .

"They obstructed it," a still-frustrated Samit told the jury, calling his superiors' actions a calculated management decision "that cost us the opportunity to stop the attacks." . . .

Samit said that officials at the FBI headquarters in Washington rejected a series of attempts to obtain a warrant to search Moussaoui's personal belongings.

Had the belongings been opened before Sept. 11, agents would have found numerous small knives, jumbo-jet pilot manuals, rosters of flight schools and other clues that might have helped them understand the Sept. 11 plot.

Samit wanted to seek a criminal search warrant, and later one from a special intelligence court. But officials at the FBI headquarters refused to let him, because they did not believe he had enough evidence to prove Moussaoui was anything but a wealthy man who had come to this country to follow his dream of becoming a pilot. . . .

He said that as Washington kept telling him there was "no urgency and no threat," his FBI superiors sent him on "wild goose chases."

For a while, Samit said, they did not even believe Moussaoui was the same person whom French intelligence sources had identified as a Muslim extremist. Samit said that FBI headquarters wanted him and his fellow agents to spend days poring through Paris phone books to make sure they had the right Moussaoui.

Samit said that when he asked permission to place an Arabic-speaking federal officer as a plant inside Moussaoui's cell to find out what Moussaoui was up to, Washington said no.

And he said that when he prepared a lengthy memo about Moussaoui for Federal Aviation Administration officials, Washington deleted key sections, including a part connecting Moussaoui with Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Samit said he was so frustrated and so convinced that attacks were imminent that he bypassed FBI officials in Washington and met with an FAA officer he knew in Minneapolis. But he said FAA agents never got back to him, and never asked to see a pair of small knives, similar to box cutters, that Samit had found in Moussaoui's pocket and in his car.

Samit further described how he took it upon himself to cable the Secret Service that the president's safety might be in jeopardy. He recounted in the cable how Moussaoui had told him he hoped to be able to one day fly a Boeing 747 from London's Heathrow Airport to New York, and how he also hoped to visit the White House one day.

Samit said he warned the Secret Service that those desires could spell disaster. "If he seizes an airplane from Heathrow to New York City," Samit alerted the Secret Service, "it will have the fuel on board to reach D.C."

On February 12, 2007 Solejman Talovic a Bosnian Muslim refugee opened fire in Trolley Square in Salt Lake City. Police and the FBI did not search Solejman’s computer. It seems they don’t want to find out that he was a terrorist. Or perhaps they already know . Debbie Schlussel received the following email from one of her readers:

I read your article on the terrorist attack at Trolley Square in Salt Lake City with interest. I knew as soon as I spoke with my friends Monday night in law enforcement (the ones who actually killed the shooter) that this was a terrorist attack.

According to my friends on the SWAT team who responded to the scene first, the terrorist killed four individuals inside a gift shop Jihad execution style. He actually made them kneel down. Then he put the gun barrel to the back of their heads and killed each one of them one by one.

The day after the shooting, I observed a man dressed as a Muslim cleric being arrested by the West Valley Police on his way to the Kaadeeja Islamic Center in West Valley City. My friends in law enforcement confirmed that this man is the Uncle of Sulejman Talovic.

Mark Steyn wrote an article detailing how subservient and accomodating the United Statesis to the Saudis. He wrote in (Bush and The Saudi Princess Freeman Center Broadcast 12/4/02):

On 20 September, George W. Bush said, 'You're either with us or you're with the terrorists.' A couple of weeks later, a small number of us began pointing out the obvious: the Saudis are with the terrorists. But the US-Saudi relationship is now so unmoored from reality that it's all but impossible to foresee how it could be tethered to anything as humdrum as the facts. Seven of the nine biggest backers of al-Qa'eda are Saudi, and Riyadh has no intention of doing a thing about it; but the White House insists, as it did on Monday, that the Kingdom remains - all together now - 'a good partner in the war on terrorism'. Fifteen out of the 19 terrorists were Saudi, but the state department's 'visa express' programme for young Saudi males remained in place for almost a year after 11 September and, if it weren't for public outrage, Colin Powell would reintroduce it tomorrow. The overwhelming majority - by some accounts, 80 per cent - of the detainees at Guantanamo are Saudi, but the new rules requiring fingerprinting of Arab male visitors to the US apply to Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Sudanese, Lebanese, Algerians, Tunisians, Yemenis, Bahrainis, Moroccans, Omanis, Qataris, but not Saudis...At the specific request of the Saudi government, no Arabic speakers are appointed to the post (of U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia), a unique self-handicap by the US...We have a huge Saudi-financed pile of American corpses, the Saudis are openly uncooperative, and meanwhile back at the ranch it's ribs with Princess Haifa.

The behavior of 16 Saudi employees who came as diplomats but who taught at the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America (IIASA) in Fairfax, Va. was too much even for the State Department who expelled them (Perfidious Princes, Steven Schwartz, New York Post 2/11/04). Al-Ahmed a Saudi dissident revealed the radical nature of the texts being taught at that institute. One the Arabic-language textbooks was titled "A Muslim's Relations with Non-Muslims, Enmity or Friendship," by Dr. Abdullah al-Tarekee. The author wrote, "unbelievers, idolaters and others like them must be hated and despised . . . Qur'an forbade taking Jews and Christians as friends, and that applies to every Jew and Christian, with no consideration as to whether they are at war with Islam or not." One of the Saudi employees, a cleric named Jibreen, called on Saudis to go north of the Iraqi border to attack Coalition troops. Jibreen also praised Osama bin Laden only months ago, calling on God to "aid him and bring victory to him and by him."

Unfortunately radical Saudi textbooks fill American Mosques according to a study published in January 2005 by Freedom House. Daniel Pipes summarized the study's conclusions as follows:

Reject Christianity as a valid faith: Any Muslim who believes “that churches are houses of God and that God is worshipped therein … is an infidel.”

Insist that Islamic law be applied: On a range of issues, from women (who must be veiled) to apostates from Islam (who “should be killed”), the Saudi publications insist on full enforcement of the Shari‘a in America.

See non-Muslims as the enemy: “Be dissociated from the infidels, hate them for their religion, leave them, never rely on them for support, do not admire them, and always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law.”

See the United States as hostile territory: “It is forbidden for a Muslim to become a citizen of a country governed by infidels because this is a means of acquiescing to their infidelity and accepting all their erroneous ways.”

Prepare for war against the United States: “To be true Muslims, we must prepare and be ready for jihad in Allah’s way. It is the duty of the citizen and the government.”

Dr. Yassin Al-Khatib, a professor of Islamic law at Saudi Arabia’s Um Al-Qura University, declared on Saudi/UAE Al-Majd TV on May 10 that, “the fact that [the U.S.] entered [Iraq] … makes it every Muslim's duty to go out against them, not only the Iraqis… Jihad today has become an individual duty that applies to each and every Muslim… When the Muslims fought in Afghanistan they destroyed the Soviet Union… It collapsed, and Allah willing so will [the U.S.] collapse.” Many other Saudis have made similar calls for Jihad against the U.S. (Saudi Terror Conference, Part IV by Steven Stalinsky Frontpagemag.com 2/1/05).

And as long as we call terrorist supporters "friends and allies," we are headed for disaster. We should never allow such a calamity as the 9-11 attacks to happen again. Countries that sponsor, fund, and educate for jihad should not be allowed to extort any deals from us, either through the ridiculous threat that if a Middle Eastern regime is destabilized a worse one follow in its place or through oil related blackmail. No regime could be worse than one that pays for jihad.

A roadmap for Middle East peace was developed by the State Department and the European Union, Russia and the United Nations. Tom DeLay, leader in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, warned President. Bush against pressing Israel to ease its crackdowns in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and to withdraw from some settlements, as called for in the peace plan. He said:

The Israelis don’t need to change course. They don’t need to travel the path of weakness as defined by the neo-appeasers,

A confluence of deluded thinking between European elites, elements within the State Department bureaucracy and a significant segment of the American intellectual community.

Terrorism that was supposed to stop with the roadmap continues. Naomi Ragen wrote that

In a single day, we had two Jerusalem residents axe-murdered near Hadassah, four soldiers killed by terrorists in Gaza, and a man dead near Abraham's tomb.

“Lousy intelligence, driven by many years of policy makers who didn't want to know what was really going on, because they were not prepared to act against the terror masters.”

They wanted to live in a world of delusion in which there was no terrorist threat so they wouldn’t have to engage in military action against them. David Frum wrote an article in the National Post on Tuesday 10/9/07 in which he discussed how the United States is afraid to treat Russia as the threat it really is. He wrote:

Russia's behaviour toward its former satellites has grown steadily more aggressive since Vladimir Putin's arrival in power. This summer, Russia waged a weird cyber-war against Estonia, jamming its Web sites and damaging the commerce of one of the most wired nations in Europe. Russia is deploying missiles along its western border in ways that Poles perceive as threatening…. American policy-makers fear that taking precautions against Russia will only provoke Russia. They worry that treating Russia as a potential threat will hasten the transformation of Russia into an actual threat.

We have here a vicious cycle in which the more Russia is threatening the more the West doesn’t want to see it as a threat and doesn’t take the necessary defensive measures such as arming Poland with a missile defense.

Fear
Don’t want to antagonize enemy with defensive measures

Aggression

Enemy engages in aggression to intimidate and dominate

Contempt

Enemy sees one as week and easy to dominate

Michelle Malkin wrote an article (8/1/07) about how the human rights community ignored the plight of South Korean Christians who went to Afghanistan on medical and humanitarian missions. At the time of writing of this paragraph they are being held hostage by the Taliban and two of them have already been killed. One possible reason for being silent about their plight is the desire to prevent military action against the Taliban and get the United States out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Part of doing this involves discrediting Bush who made the decision to send the American military into both countries. If the human rights community makes noise about this the cruelty of the enemies who Bush fought becomes apparent and his decisions become more justifiable in the public eye. Support for fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and terrorists in Iraq might increase. The United States has allowed much of the Christian community of Iraq to be chased out. In both cases the media hasn’t said much and the human rights organizations have been relatively silent. Perhaps it is opposition to American involvement that is one of the factors behind this silence.

The problem with believing in evil is it creates an obligation to fight it. There is an incentive, therefore, for those who wish to avoid war to blur the difference between good and evil, to argue that the “evil” people really aren’t that evil and we, are at least in part responsible for the “evil” behavior of the other. At the time of this writing the left wing in the United States are worried that the U.S. might go to war with Iran to prevent it from manufacturing nuclear weapons. A movie called 300 that portrays the Persians (what are now called Iranians) as evil oppressors and tells of how 300 Spartans stood up against them for their freedom has been criticized by the left. Benjamin Shapiro wrote in regard to the movie (wnd.com 3/14/07)

the left doesn't like it at all. Many reviewers have panned "300" not on artistic grounds, or even on grounds of inanity, but on the grounds that the Spartans in the film are a bunch of jackbooted thugs; that the tyranny they fight is less tyrannical than Sparta; that good vs. evil is too simplistic.

In order to defeat a Nazified enemy it is necessary for a time to occupy that enemies territory and to stop the incitement so that the process of deNazification can take place. No one wants to be labeled as an occupier or as supporting occupation a word that has come to mean the height of evil. Israel under pressure to stop occupying the south of Lebanon withdrew which gave Hezbollah the opportunity to build fortifications and ultimately defeat Israel’s attempt to dislodge them from Lebanon. The same thing is happening in Gaza (I write this on 3/15/07). David Hornick wrote about this:

Incredibly, the same scenario of an Iranian-backed buildup is repeating itself while Israel is passive and the U.S. appears not in the least perturbed. And while before summer 2006 Hezbollah rocket attacks and kidnap attempts sometimes drew an Israeli response, the present rocket attacks from Gaza find the Olmert government, crippled by unpopularity and scandals, not lifting a finger.

Again, whatever the unnecessary costs arising from Israel having “disengaged” from Gaza and turned it over to Hamas in the first place, a decisive Israeli action in Gaza would score a victory for the West. Again, it would not be possible without some loss of Arab civilian life—and in this case, not just Lebanese, but Palestinians, beloved of the media and darlings of dhimmified Europe (it goes without saying that losses of Israeli life pose no PR problems for anyone). Again, genuine Israeli victory would entail some measure of Israeli “occupation” of the territory—also an ultimate evil in the contemporary ethos, far worse than Iranian buildups.

So instead, Jerusalem and Washington prefer to keep their heads in the sand and chase diplomatic phantasms while the arms keep pouring over the border and the bunkers keep getting dug.

Rich Lowry in an article titled Dithering Dialogue: Deluded Outreach to Iran 3/31/07 wrote:

No act of warfare against the civilized world, no defiance of the United Nations, no violation of international norms, no brazen lie is ever enough to mark Iran as unworthy of outreach, dialogue and the art of sweet persuasion….If talking with the Iranians doesn't work, it is because we aren't talking to them enough; or the wrong people (i.e., not the United States) are talking to them; or when we're talking to them, we aren't saying the right things; or we haven't talked to them long enough - or maybe they don't realize just how very sincere we are in our talking. But, surely, sometime soon, if we just keep talking and offering to talk, all these "misunderstandings" will fade away.

On March 3, 2006 an Iranian student drove into students in the pit, a pedestrian Plaza at the University of North Carolina in an attempt to kill them. Derek Poarch, chief of the university's police department, told the Associated Press news agency Mr Taheri-azar had said he wanted to "avenge the deaths or murders of Muslims around the world". Tony Blankley in an article titled Media won't report radical Islamic event, Jewishworldreview.com 3/8/2006 wrote:

Neither the university nor most of the media has been willing to characterize this event as a terrorist attempt by a radical Muslim. Mr. Colmes, on "Hannity and Colmes" seemed to express genuine puzzlement as to why it mattered whether we called it that or merely an act of violence. Similarly, the attack at the Los Angeles International Airport a few years ago was for nine months just called a violent attack, before it was finally characterized by police as a radical Muslim act of terrorism.

I have been in contact with British politicians who tell me that there is increasing radical Muslim street violence in Britain that is explicitly motivated by radical Islam but is not reported or characterized as such. Even in its cleansed versions, I am told, these incidents are being extremely underreported.

In Antwerp last month, according to the reporter Paul Belien, rioting Moroccan "youths" went on a rampage destroying cars and beating up reporters, but the police were instructed not even to stop them or arrest them. According to an anonymous policeman, "An ambulance was told to switch off its siren because that might provoke the Moroccans." This event, too, was under reported, or not reported at all in American media.

And of course, last October in Paris and other French cities, hundreds of buildings were torched and tens of thousands of cars burned by Muslim "youths" through weeks of rioting, while both the French government and most of the "responsible" experts denied there was any radical Muslim component to the greatest urban violence to hit France since World War.

Phyllis Chesler wrote about the attack on 17 year old Kippah wearing Rudy Haddad who while walking in a Jewish quarter, was set upon by 15-30 “African immigrants.” She wrote (6/25/08):

The 9/11 commission was formed to determine why the attacks of 9/11 were not prevented and to determine how to prevent such attacks from happening again. The commission received at least two briefings that showed that government agents knew of Mohammed Atta's affiliation with al-Qaeda two years before 9/11, that Clinton-era policies prevented intelligence officials from sharing that information with the FBI and that the movements of Atta are consistent with Czech reports that he met with Iraqi intelligence and was paid enough funds to complete the September 11 attack. Frontpagemag discusses an article by Podhoretz that explains that the commission was "protecting" its interpretation of Mohammad Atta's international and domestic U.S. travels. (9/11 Coverup Commission, frontpage magazine.com 8/15/05)

Key in this “interpretation” in the minds of Clinton supporters and Bush haters of all stripes is the necessity to deny all ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al-Qaeda. After all, in the endless cacophony of criticism against the Iraq War, the two steady drumbeats have been the failure to find WMDs, and the assertion that there were no links between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the September 11 attacks. Until now the Left has issued a series of deliberate misinterpretations of a series of reports – including that of the 9/11 Commission, and WMD reports by David Kay and Charles Dueffler. However the unimpeachable “Able Danger” report was at first denied by 9/11 spokesman Al Felzenberg, then was reluctantly confirmed to be correct. Felzenberg said that “the information that [the “Able Danger” briefing officer] provided us did not mesh with other conclusions that we were drawing.” (Emphasis added.)

And here we get to the crux of the matter. The movements of Atta prior to the terrorist attack as detailed by “Able Danger,” if acknowledged, would support statements by the Czech Republic that link Atta, and hence the al-Qaeda attack on America, irrefutably to Saddam's covert intelligence operatives. This is something that surfaced shortly after 9/11. A former Czech deputy foreign minister, later ambassador to the UN, gave statements that he personally expelled a high raking Iraqi embassy official in Prague for being a covert foreign intelligence agent after the latter was discovered to have met with Mohammed Atta in the international lounge at the Prague airport in August 2001. There the Iraqi transferred a large amount of cash to Atta, sufficient to fund the completion of the September 11 attack. Despite cruel pressure from mainstream media, the hard Left, the U.S. State Department, and the CIA, the Czechs insisted that their report was correct. Former Congressman John LeBout