Three of my preferred writers chimed in this week with some appropriate outrage. Let's start with Mark Steyn. After verbalizing disgust at the 'hyper-rationalist' reaction to the horror in Russia by many in the media (the refusal to use the words 'slaughter' and avoiding calling the terrorists Muslims, opting instead for 'insurgents', etc.), Steyn opines that simple words won't do; you need to stand up and take action. And to that he says:
"But the only guys with any kind of plan are the Bush administration. Last Thursday, the President committed himself yet again to wholesale reform of the Muslim world. This is a dysfunctional region that exports its toxins, to Beslan, Bali and beyond, and is wealthy enough to be able to continue doing so.
You can't turn Saudi Arabia and Yemen into New Hampshire or Sweden (according to taste), but if you could transform them into Singapore or Papua New Guinea or Belize or just about anything else you'd be making an immense improvement. It's a long shot, but, unlike Putin's plan to bomb them Islamists into submission or Chirac's reflexive inclination to buy them off, Bush is at least tackling the "root cause".
If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. Right now, his is the only plan on the table. The ideology and rationale that drove the child-killers in Beslan is the same as that motivating cells in Rome and Manchester and Seattle and Sydney. In this war, you can't hold the line against the next depravity.
As always, read the whole thing
Then there is Our Man Hitchens, who is always ready for the fight. With the same theme in mind, Hitchens will not search for the causes of 'Murder', even when the media refuses to call it by its name (his quote: "I use the words "murder" and "slaughter" by the way, and shall continue to do so, as I hope you will, too. How the New York Times can employ the term "execution" for these atrocities is beyond me."). He then turns his ire on his former comrades:
"When I quit writing my column for The Nation a couple of years ago, I wrote semi-sarcastically that it had become an echo chamber for those who were more afraid of John Ashcroft than Osama Bin Laden. I honestly did not then expect to find it publishing actual endorsements of jihad. But, as Marxism taught me, the logic of history and politics is a pitiless one. The antiwar isolationist "left" started by being merely "status quo": opposing regime change and hinting at moral equivalence between Bush's "terrorism" and the other sort. This conservative position didn't take very long to metastasize into a flat-out reactionary one, with Michael Moore saying that the Iraqi "resistance" was the equivalent of the Revolutionary Minutemen, Tariq Ali calling for solidarity with the "insurgents," and now Ms. Klein, among many others, wanting to bring the war home because any kind of anti-Americanism is better than none at all. These fellow-travelers with fascism are also changing ships on a falling tide: Their applause for the holy warriors comes at a time when wide swathes of the Arab and Muslim world are sickening of the mindless blasphemy and the sectarian bigotry. It took an effort for American pseudo-radicals to be outflanked on the left by Ayatollah Sistani, but they managed it somehow."
The rest you can find here
Finally, I leave the last for Lileks. Tired of tireless Bush-hatred tirades and the always present belief that our misguided, insenstive, fascist, 'ficticious' President is ending civilization as we know it, Lileks had the quote of the year after discussing the rantings of another critic:
"Given the words to describe a hurricane, he spends them on denouncing a hair drier. Who will listen to these people should things ever get worse?"
I love that! Doesn't that say it all?!!! Read the rest of his rant here.