|
On Hirsi Ali: Spencer’s strange silence; the U.S. government’s predictable indifference
After two days, there is nothing posted at Jihad Watch about the two Ayaan Hirsi Ali bombshells this week: her return to the Netherlands, and her interview in Reason magazine in which she articulates a radically more critical view of Islam than anything she has ever said before, even stomping over sacred ground by disagreeing by name with Daniel Pipes on his “moderate Islam is the solution” mantra. The silence is odd given that Robert Spencer has always been a champion of Ali’s. However, Spencer’s partner, Hugh Fitzgerald, has an impassioned comment about the matter at New English Review. As usual, Fitzgerald indulges in an out-of-control rant rather than communicating his ideas in discursive speech, but his core point is clear. Given that our president says that we are waging a war on terror, why isn’t the government willing to put out a few hundred g’s a year to provide security for a highly visible and vulnerable ally in that war? While I (at least until she turned over a new leaf this week) have always been doubtful of Ali’s value as an ally against Islamic extremism, from a mainstream conservative point of view, Fitzgerald’s point is certainly correct. The U.S. government’s failure to support her is further proof—if any were needed—that Bush’s war is a fraud.
Howard Sutherland writes:
Spencer and JW have been uncritical Hirsi Ali boosters throughout her career, and I would think they would find what she has to say about the mirage of “moderate” Islam a powerful support for their own arguments. Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 03, 2007 02:20 PM | Send Email entry |