Leading terror expert and top conservative liberal thinker put their heads together to solve the jihad problem
From: Steve R.
Subject: The funniest/saddest interchange I ever heard on Talk Radio
In a 2007 interview I just heard, Dennis Prager asks Steven Emerson about his book Jihad Inc. For 27 minutes Emerson presents hard evidence of serious internal threats to our Republic. Finally Prager asks Emerson the money question, “What should we do?” Emerson’s solutions are: (1) admit that there’s a problem; (2) don’t legitimize Islamic organizations; (3) no White House invitations; and (4) no FBI attendance (in support) of Islamic fund-raisers until they change their tune. Prager responded with a “Hmmm,” and paused. I thought sure Prager must be thinking to ask what more could be done to solve a problem of this magnitude. No, instead he asked how we could foster moderate Islam. I broke down, laughing hysterically to myself for minutes.
Both these right-liberal Jews are so blinded by their belief in universalism and immigration that the obvious solution would never cross their minds. The thoughtful Dennis Prager and the knowledgeable terror expert Steven Emerson proved to be as clueless as children. It was as though the first 27 minutes of the interview, with all the facts Emerson gave about Islamic jihadists operating inside our country, was nothing more than a set up for an episode of Art Linkletter’s Kids say the Darndest Things.
The exchange begins at minute 27 of this audio tape.
LA replies:
Great catch.
We know about Prager’s idiocies when it comes to the Islam threat, but what about Emerson? The man spends his life researching Muslim terrorism (and living in concealment because of threats to his life), and all he has to say is: don’t invite jihadists to the White House, don’t have FBI cooperate with them. How pathetic. It is as though the Usual Suspects (my name for people who scream about the mortal threat Islam poses to our society, but never mention the possibility of ending, let alone reversing, Muslim immigration), were vying with each other in an intramural contest to prove which of them can come off as the most ineffectual.
MG writes:
I must strongly object to calling Danny Bamby Prager a thinker. If he is a thinker, I must insist on you calling me a ballerina.
Danny’s voice is masculine and pleasant, probably significantly improved by his smoking habit. He speaks slowly as if carefully considering what he is going to say next. In other words he performs the role of a thinking talk show host well, as long as you don’t listen too closely. If you do, you quickly realize that Danny is rather a banal Jewish liberal with a few issues that make people think he’s a conservative.
LA replies
On your description of him, I think you’re right, I’ve hardly heard him in many years, but on a few occasions, what I heard was this overly rich radio voice that sounded empty at its core.
Around 1990, I was favorably impressed by Prager for a while, until I realized he was radically unreliable and all over the place. The way I put it was, he kept writing his own Torah. He would have whatever weird, self-serving mix of opinions he felt like having, but he would present it as though it was the authoritative truth. The first thing that made me interested in him was a long, hard-hitting article on the meaning of the Los Angeles riots in 1992. The thing that decisively turned me off on him was when he said that it is “racist” for people prefer to marry people of their own race. So he posed as this big opponent of liberal PC, then he came out with one of the most over-the-top PC statements I had ever heard. Which doesn’t mean that nothing he says is worthwhile. He occasionally says interesting things. But at his core I think he’s unsound, and more than a bit absurd.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 16, 2009 08:12 AM | Send