Walid Phares endorses Mitt Romney

posted at 8:20 am on January 29, 2008 by Bryan

Dr. Walid Phares is among the pre-eminent anti-jihadists around. Dr. Phares is the author of Future Jihad and The War of Ideas, and appeared on two episodes of Hot Air’s Stak Attack last year. Among voters who rank the threat of international terrorism as a high priority, a Phares endorsement carries some weight. Today in an email, Dr. Phares issued his opinion on the presidential candidates in both parties.

My recommendations for the US Primaries:

Republican Primaries: Gov. Mitt Romney

Democratic Primaries: No preference between Sen(s) Clinton and Obama

Dear friend

I have seldom issued analysis and recommendations on Presidential candidates in national elections and never done so in primaries. But as a researcher on the conflict with Jihadism, I project that the next US President will have to be fully informed on the nature of the conflict and a determined leader with a focus to win the war on Terror, to educate Americans about the threat and also spread freedoms to the oppressed and persecuted in the Greater Middle East. This note is not part of a formal activity nor any campaign. It is an opinion I am expressing as the nation has engaged in the process leading to the selection of the next President. My opinion is based on my knowledge of the agendas and of the information available to the public. It will be affected if and when these agendas would change.

The next President must be fully educated on the threat of Jihadism and on the necessity of defending democracy, promoting human rights and granting minorities in the region all their rights, including self determination. He or she should be able to possess the knowledge, the intellectual capacity and the strategic vision to confront the Salafist Jihadism of al Qaeda and of Wahabi ideologies, and to confront the threat of Khomeinism embodied by the Iranian regime and Hezbollah.

The next President must be fully aware of the penetration by the Jihadists of the United States at all levels of decision making and educational structure. He or she should engage in a national campaign to awaken and mobilize the US public in general and the American youth in particular to win the War on Terror.

The President who will occupy the White House as of January 2009 will either lead the nation and the free world to a series of victories in the global conflict with Jihadism or will oversee the greater debacle in the modern history of the United States and the international community. The stakes are the highest since the end of the Cold War and so should be the choice of the next leader.

It is true that Presidential candidates are also selected based on their views and skills in the fields of economy, immigration, social and religious issues, as well as a vast array of important subjects. I will leave these grounds to their experts and limit my analysis and recommendations to the fields of national security and war on terror. For if America loses the War or if its national security crumbles, all other areas will be less relevant. But I do understand that voters can and will make their decisions on all these grounds combined with a focus on one or more areas. This is the voter’s sacred domain.

I have sent my books to most candidates and I have had the opportunity to discuss these crucial matters with some candidates and campaigns. From my findings, and based solely on the grounds of national security, the war on terror and the war of ideas here are my recommendations for the primaries:

1) Democrats: Until this moment I don’t have a specific striking preference -in terms of national security and the War on Terror- for one of the two leading candidates, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, over the other. They both espouse an agenda which firmly commit to pursuing the war on al Qaeda but which doesn’t define yet the global foe as Jihadism. Senator Edwards’ agenda calls for the unconditional withdrawal from Iraq and a cessation of the War on Terror. Hence I wouldn’t recommend him over the senior candidates Clinton and Obama. However as I reviewed the agenda of Congressman Dennis Kucinich (before he withdrew) I found that it is fully aligned with the international agendas of the Jihadists and the Iranian and Syrian regimes and their allies; hence I strongly recommended not to vote for him so that a message is sent by the Democratic Voters against this agenda. I recommend Democrats voters to analyze the national security components of the candidates’ agendas and vote accordingly. I recommend Democrats voters to look for the following policy guidelines in their candidates platforms:

a. Support the campaign in Iraq against the Iranian-Syrian “axis” forces and al Qaeda
b. Commit to support democracy and minorities in the Greater Middle East
c. Confront the threat of Jihadism in the US.

If the candidate support these principles, he or she would have fulfilled the minimal requirements in national security to be selected by the Democrats voters at this stage.

2) Republicans: In the Republican primaries here are the following findings

a. The most visible problem is the full alignment of Congressman Ron Paul’s agenda against the War on Terror and against supporting democracy and human rights in the region. It is important that Republican voters send a message to the other candidates and to the nation by rejecting the isolationist and defeatist policy adopted by Congressman Paul. On these grounds, I recommend not to vote for him.

b. All other candidates have received my books and address the War on Terror with an understanding of the threat. They are equal in being capable of leading the US in the direction needed to confront the threat on national security grounds. Senator McCain, Governor Huckabee, Mayor Giuliani and Governor Romney are all very sensitive to the rising threat of Jihadism and they often express their concerns about its current and future menace. Republican voters who have decided to select one of them are in line with the national security agenda.

c. However I have studied in particular the agenda and national security language of Governor Mitt Romney and I do personally believe that at this stage he has best understood the parameters I am concerned about: that is the threat of Jihadism, the human rights crisis in the Greater Middle East and the need for a confrontation of Jihadism within the US Homeland. Governor Romney, by my academic and analytical parameters has been able to draw a counter-Jihadism doctrine which can best determine the danger, identify the threat and direct national resources into the confrontation.

In addition I have had the chance to learn that the Mitt Romney policy on the Middle East will particularly focus on containing the Iranian and Syrian regimes, standing by and defending democracies in Israel, Lebanon and Iraq and promoting human rights in the region.

This is why at this stage I would recommend to the Republicans to vote for Mitt Romney in the primaries as first among equal colleagues.

This analysis and recommendation represent my personal views and do not represent the views and opinions of the NGOs and institutions I belong to.

At this stage may aim is not to engage in a debate about primaries but only to inform all those on my lists of my views regarding the national security and war on terror agendas of the candidates from both parties.

Best regards

Dr Walid Phares


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Why does this “expert” continue to use the PC phrase “War on Terror”? Terror is not the enemy–it’s the tactic of the enemy. We’re fighting Islamofascists.

jgapinoy on January 29, 2008 at 8:24 AM

Average Voter: Walid Who?

Don’t think this endorsement will mean much….

ScottG on January 29, 2008 at 8:24 AM

I’d say that’s quite an endorsement. If he gets Robert Spencer’s then that will be the clincher.

flytier on January 29, 2008 at 8:26 AM

Mitt!

Onager on January 29, 2008 at 8:27 AM

MittMentum baby!

I now eagerly await the Anti-Romney trolls say Walid Phares has drunk the kool-aid and been hoodwinked.

BKennedy on January 29, 2008 at 8:27 AM

I agree, actually. Romney’s rhetoric is by far the most on point and he never misses a chance to say “jihadist”.

Compare to McCain’s endorsements which, numerous as they are, are all from RINOs.

amkun on January 29, 2008 at 8:29 AM

I’m with Mitt!

Average Voter: Walid Who?

Don’t think this endorsement will mean much….

ScottG on January 29, 2008 at 8:24 AM

People have a responsibility to educate themseles about the war.

Otherwise, they’d end up being sheep… like all Dumbocrats are.

madmonkphotog on January 29, 2008 at 8:32 AM

This is an impressive and weighty endorsement.

We’ll see where the marbles lie tomorrow, but there is precious little time left for the GOP to awaken from its mental lapse and understand that we are electing the new commander in chief who will lead us against the jihad, and little else of import (maybe some judges…). The current sorry state of insight about the war among the Right is truly worrying.

Halley on January 29, 2008 at 8:37 AM

I recommend Democrats voters to analyze the national security components of the candidates’ agendas and vote accordingly.

You sure are an optimist Dr. Phares!

Deety on January 29, 2008 at 8:40 AM

Average Voter: Walid Who?

Don’t think this endorsement will mean much….

ScottG on January 29, 2008 at 8:24 AM

Ditto. Looks like cafemom.com got the email as well.

JiangxiDad on January 29, 2008 at 8:41 AM

Well Freds not in,I said awhile back
Mitt/Fred,and it looks like Mitt will
be the choice! I HOPE!

canopfor on January 29, 2008 at 8:49 AM

Who? It’s a little late isn’t it Mitt to be trotting out a former member of the Village People or whoever this guy is. Man, Romney has the political instincts of a fifth grader.

THE CHOSEN ONE on January 29, 2008 at 8:53 AM

We’ll see where the marbles lie tomorrow

Halley on January 29, 2008 at 8:37 AM

The Primary is today, thanks though.

THE CHOSEN ONE on January 29, 2008 at 8:54 AM

An endorsement that actual means something. Romney definately understands the jihad threat.

therightwinger on January 29, 2008 at 8:55 AM

Walid’s arguments favoring Mitt are spot on and give him, dare I say, gravitas.

Buy Danish on January 29, 2008 at 9:00 AM

Why does this “expert” continue to use the PC phrase “War on Terror”? Terror is not the enemy–it’s the tactic of the enemy. We’re fighting Islamofascists.

jgapinoy on January 29, 2008 at 8:24 AM

I think he knows.

Who? It’s a little late isn’t it Mitt to be trotting out a former member of the Village People or whoever this guy is.

THE CHOSEN ONE on January 29, 2008 at 8:53 AM

Lebanese American, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Visiting Fellow at the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels, author of numerous anti-terror books. He’s testified in front of the Senate, Homeland Security, Parliaments, The House, UN Security Council…Fox News terrorism analyst, Former MSNBC analyst…columnist for the Washington Post, World Defense Review, Denver Post…Masters Degree in International Law, PHD in International Relations…Former teacher at the National Defense University in Washington, where he taught about international terrorism and religious conflicts…

Just because he doesn’t endorse the candidate you or I like doesn’t take away the fact he’s well-known and pretty trusted in the field.

amerpundit on January 29, 2008 at 9:04 AM

If Romeny trots out this guy the day of the primary, it tells me he is a little nervous about Mac’s attack on his suspect foreign policy/iraq war. McCain 33 Romney 31 Huck 15 Rudy 13 Bank it.

THE CHOSEN ONE on January 29, 2008 at 9:10 AM

Those of you with short memories, saying “Walid who?”-think back to when we invaded/liberated Iraq. Dr. Phares was on most of the news networks, one of the experts brought in to explain
what we would be facing; both he and Robert Spencer have been sounding warnings against militant Islam for years. It’s a shame that most of the world isn’t listening.

Doug on January 29, 2008 at 9:13 AM

amerpundit on January 29, 2008 at 9:04 AM
Doug on January 29, 2008 at 9:13 AM

With all due respect, I think you miss the point of the “Walid who” comments. We know who he is, and respect him. But in our effed-up world, for uninformed voters, you need Janet Jackson’s endorsement.

JiangxiDad on January 29, 2008 at 9:19 AM

So, Romney has been endorsed by:

Dr. Walid Phares
Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Justice Robert Bork
Tom Tancredo
Liz Cheney
Bob Jones III
Rich Lowry and the National Review

While McCain has been endorsed by:

Sylvester Stallone and the NY Times.

joncoltonis on January 29, 2008 at 9:22 AM

“For if America loses the War or if its national security crumbles, all other areas will be less relevant.”

Right you are, sir. The War on Terror is the most important issue and to get an endorsement from this guy is a big deal for those of us who’ve read his excellent books.

Just one more reason to vote for MITT!

Tony737 on January 29, 2008 at 9:23 AM

This is useful considering the dust up with Mansoor Ijaz.

I would have expected that interview to have gone another way, offering Mansoor a job (which he was probably lobbying for).

After that Romney would probably steer clear of seeking such advisers. This re-opens the door for considering recognized authorities on islam, terrorism, jihad, etc.

There is this assumption that only muslims can truly understand the problem. Most valuable analysts, like Walid, do not reference their own “faith” as a qualification, even as their personal experiences do constitute evidence.

Agrippa2k on January 29, 2008 at 9:24 AM

While McCain has been endorsed by:

Sylvester Stallone and the NY Times.

joncoltonis on January 29, 2008 at 9:22 AM

Don’t forget the FL and CT Governors.

JiangxiDad on January 29, 2008 at 9:25 AM

While McCain has been endorsed by:

Sylvester Stallone and the NY Times.

joncoltonis on January 29, 2008 at 9:22 AM

Juan Hernandez thinks he’s pretty cool too!

Deety on January 29, 2008 at 9:26 AM

But in our effed-up world, for uninformed voters, you need Janet Jackson’s endorsement.

JiangxiDad

Sad, isn’t it? I was gonna say Oprah, but your analogy works too. We on the Right look to real experts for advice, but the pinkos look to celebrity “experts” for their marching orders.

For anybody that hasn’t read his books, I highly recommend them, especially “Future Jihad”.

Tony737 on January 29, 2008 at 9:27 AM

I do agree to some degree that many/most voters will not “comprehend” such an endorsement. Their total ignorance is frustrating. For those who KNOW the following names, the endorsement is a clarifier and reminder.

Robert Spencer / Mark Steyn / Ayaan Hirsi Ali / Whalid Shoebat / Brigitte Gabriel / Wafa Sultan / Mansoor Ijaz / Steve Emerson

Agrippa2k on January 29, 2008 at 9:32 AM

JiangxiDad on January 29, 2008 at 9:19 AM

Sorry, I took:

Who? It’s a little late isn’t it Mitt to be trotting out a former member of the Village People or whoever this guy is.

A bit differently.

amerpundit on January 29, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Eh, no big deal–Rick Warren can probably help the Huckster get the Bashir al-Assad endorsement in the War on Terror. That’s almost as good as this, right?

But seriously, Dr. Phares’ endorsement can’t hurt, at least in the circles where people actually pay attention to fighting jihadism. I loved his comments about the Paulnut:

a. The most visible problem is the full alignment of Congressman Ron Paul’s agenda against the War on Terror and against supporting democracy and human rights in the region. It is important that Republican voters send a message to the other candidates and to the nation by rejecting the isolationist and defeatist policy adopted by Congressman Paul. On these grounds, I recommend not to vote for him.

Well, I know who can expect to get viciously spammed today. Watch the skies [for blimps], Dr. Phares! Watch the skies!

ReubenJCogburn on January 29, 2008 at 9:50 AM

Who? It’s a little late isn’t it Mitt to be trotting out a former member of the Village People or whoever this guy is. Man, Romney has the political instincts of a fifth grader.

I’d say you have the political instincts of a fifth grader if you think this guy in a former member of the Village People.

What an insult to Dr. Phares!

drflykilla on January 29, 2008 at 9:57 AM

Thanks for posting this Bryan, that endorsement is significant to me. I do agree that it will have negligible effect on the overall campaign, however. I would have liked if he could have singled out Huckabee as being behind the other three R’s on this issue, but maybe he saw something I haven’t.

Dudley Smith on January 29, 2008 at 9:57 AM

It’ll help the intelligent decide.

All 3% of the electorate.

But a smart move.

It’ll bring out the cunning opposition.

Who will now know the seriousness of their opponent.

Go Mitt!

profitsbeard on January 29, 2008 at 10:09 AM

amerpundit on January 29, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Yeah totally. I missed that silly comment the first time through.

JiangxiDad on January 29, 2008 at 10:18 AM

Snake savvy Mitt gets others to endorse what Mitt will not commit to. One would hope that Phares is not a Mitt’n. Phares endorses Mitt. But Mitt has not endorsed Phares. Is Mitt announcing Phares as his official advisor on all things Jihad?

Whatever Mitt’s platform convictions, he must speak for himself. Given his background, this proxy business is exactly the limit to what one can expect from Mitt.

I don’t want more big government that gives me more taxation oppression and less Constitutional protection.

We should note well that Guillianni is the only POTUS candidate from either party who truly busted his own ass to confront crime and shake the mafia hold on NY, a huge accomplishment not to be ignored by voters. Rudy is the only candidate whose achievements are of his own efforts.

Mitt’s experience has never proved the psychological makings for leadership beyond seeing what profit can be had at no expense to himself. In contrast to Rudy, Mitt is a $ in the black mentality pencil pusher executive who of his own has nothing to rightfully claim. As the Mormon heirarchy’s golden poster boy, whatever his accomplishments, he had their financial backing to make him, including “saving the SLC Olympics”. Good or bad, Mitt is their made man.

Mitt’ns shrieking rants along the lines of filling in his hollow promises with their interpretations do not fill in by proxy Mitt’s own gaps in his decorative latticed experience. Mitt refuses to provide us with his PLATFORM other than his basis for all things upon economic profit. Well, war is enormously expensive, so the liberals would ultimately get what they want when Mitt withdraws the US from multiple stations abroad.

It may be that Mitt could become an outstanding president.

Whoever gets elected, God help us.

maverick muse on January 29, 2008 at 10:31 AM

JiangxiDad-I didn’t mean you-I meant ‘the chosen one’.
I’ll up you one: Walid Shoebat. Another good guy.

Doug on January 29, 2008 at 10:31 AM

The next President must be fully aware of the penetration by the Jihadists of the United States at all levels of decision making and educational structure. He or she should engage in a national campaign to awaken and mobilize the US public in general and the American youth in particular to win the War on Terror.

That really brings it home, doesn’t it?

Geronimo on January 29, 2008 at 10:33 AM

When you whittle it down, the long list gets shorter.
The endorsement many not mean much to some, but it’s helping me come to a decision. Not that I wasn’t leaning that way since Fred dropped out. So, I’m about to be smitten.

Kini on January 29, 2008 at 11:29 AM

I was already a Mitt supporter, this is just icing on the cake.

4shoes on January 29, 2008 at 11:29 AM

I have observed Romney during this primary cycle. My initial impression of him was, that of a characature of the typical slick politician. My personal vetting of his candidacy, brings me to believe that to be a false impression. More so, he is what I would call, a fine tuned human being, and IMO believe he would make a fine president.

captivated_dem on January 29, 2008 at 11:44 AM

THE CHOSEN ONE on January 29, 2008 at 8:53 AM

Once again, the childishness appears. You’re the one who was calling everyone “idiots” the other day, right? Well, you’re still an inch from the ban hammer so grow up or go away.

Romney didn’t “trot out” Phares at all. As I said in the post, if you read it, this is an email that Phares sent out to his supporters. How you could mistake that for Romney trotting him out is your problem.

As for insulting Phares, he’s one of the bravest anti-jihad activists on the face of the earth and to those of us who follow and report on militant Islam, his opinion counts for quite a bit. If you’re ignorant about Phares and his efforts, once again, that’s your problem.

Bryan on January 29, 2008 at 11:45 AM

Good for Mitt. Dr. Phares is a big name, and carries a lot of weight with me, not that I need it.

But I find it funny that “ze chosen one” thinks this doesn’t matter, and mocks the endorsement. Clearly, he never made the choice to become educated–and he’s supporting McCain. A coincindence? I think not.

Vanceone on January 29, 2008 at 11:45 AM

As for insulting Phares, he’s one of the bravest anti-jihad activists on the face of the earth and to those of us who follow and report on militant Islam, his opinion counts for quite a bit. If you’re ignorant about Phares and his efforts, once again, that’s your problem.

Bryan on January 29, 2008 at 11:45 AM

Thanks Bryan. You are brave too.

Phares is that brave. Endorsing Mitt is a big deal in more way than one. Phares is already marked as an enemy of jihadists. Anyone endorsed by him would also become an enemy to jihadists.

Romney has on his website already specified islamic jihadists to be our greatest enemy, as opposed to the catch-all word ‘terrorists’. However Phares also communicates in other languages in global venues which can spread the information about Romney’s position to these monsters.

entagor on January 29, 2008 at 12:05 PM

As the Mormon heirarchy’s golden poster boy, whatever his accomplishments, he had their financial backing to make him, including “saving the SLC Olympics”. Good or bad, Mitt is their made man…

Well, war is enormously expensive, so the liberals would ultimately get what they want when Mitt withdraws the US from multiple stations abroad.

maverick muse on January 29, 2008 at 10:31 AM

You just can’t resist inserting some irrelevant comment about his religion, this time by comparing Mormons to the Mafia, can you?

As for you allegations that Mitt would withdraw our troops, that is more ignorant moonbattery from you and is contrary to everything Mitt has ever said.

As someone who also has a great deal of admiration for Rudy Guiliani, your support for him is less than flattering to the candidate.

Buy Danish on January 29, 2008 at 12:05 PM

Uninformed voter =

THE CHOSEN ONE on January 29, 2008 at 8:53 AM

Now, we can officially ignore you.

CliffHanger on January 29, 2008 at 12:16 PM

Walid Phares cut-and-run, when it came to his testimony against the Detroit Al-Qaeda terror cell. In fact, he later cooperated with the Justice Department in their overturning of convictions of the terrorists and in their failed, vindictive prosecution of Rick Convertino, the prosecutor who got those convictions. He did nothing to stop this horrible result or help bolster Convertino’s case that in fact these were terrorists, because he gets paid as a professional witness in Justice Department terrorism cases, and you have to massage the hand that feeds you. If this is your “pre-eminent anti-jihadist,” you clearly need more schooling on this topic.

Being an anti-jihadist talking head and writing books on the topic is one thing–and Phares has done a good job in this area–but off-camera, when it came down to it, in keeping terrorists behind bars in this country, he failed and took the wrong side for political reasons.

Moreover, Mitt Romney has also surrounded himself with endorsements from and appearances with Hezbollah’s best friend and biggest Congressional funder, Congressman Joe Knollenberg (R-MI), something which your “pre-eminent anti-jihadist” has negligently not made himself aware of. Knollenberg worked hand-in-hand, at the instruction of Arab American Institute’s Jim Zogby, to send millions in USAID funds to Hezbollah.

Mitt Romney is a fraud on this issue and, like all others, has flip-flopped a million times over on it. I guess everyone has forgotten Romney’s statement that he “admired Hezbollah” at a town hall on C-SPAN, which he later scrambled to explain.

Mitt Romney has also failed to denounce the LDS Church’s donations of $20 million in goods to a HAMAS charity, Islamic Relief Worldwide. When a McCain staffer called him on this in the summer, Romney accused him of bigotry and McCain fired him.

The “anti-jihadist” candidate? Not even close. And, sadly, Walid Phares is as ignorant on his candidate as he is an opportunist in now suddenly supporting Romney, apparently because he thinks Romney will win.

Debbie Schlussel on January 29, 2008 at 12:45 PM

Debbie Schlussel on January 29, 2008 at 12:45 PM

I’m not going to get into a back-and-forth over this, chiefly because it’s a huge waste of time, but Romney’s comments didn’t show “admiration” for Hezbollah. They were ill-informed comments, as I said at the time, and they paralleled Sen. Patty Murray’s “Osama momma” comments, and I said as much too. But here’s what Romney actually said.

Romney: …”Did you notice in Lebanon, what Hezbollah did? Lebanon became a democracy some time ago and while their government was getting underway, Hezbollah went into southern Lebanon and provided health clinics to some of the people there, and schools. And they built their support there by having done so. That kind of diplomacy is something that would help America become stronger around the world and help people understand that our interest is an interest towards modernity and goodness and freedom for all people in the world. And so, I want to see America carry out that kind of health diplomacy…”

Those comments ignore the incredible humanitarian work that the US conducts every day all over the world. But they’re not borne of admiration for what Hezbollah does. He’s attempting, and failing, to make the point that Hezbollah buys much of its support via its non-lethal work among local populations. He’s making a strategic point, not a value judgment. And that part of what he said is true. It’s also true, though, that this work is funded by Iran. And it’s true that ideology draws support to Hezbollah as well. People may like the Hezbollah health plan, but if they don’t agree with its goals they’re unlikely to die for Nasrallah.

I’m not defending what Romney said by any means. But I’m not mischaracterizing them either and I’m not going to go out of my way to slam an imperfect ally.

Bryan on January 29, 2008 at 1:01 PM

Debbie Schlussel on January 29, 2008 at 12:45 PM

You are more dishonest and take more things out of context than John McCain.

Please provide a direct quote from Mitt Romney where he says he “admires Hezbollah” as you claim on your website.

Thanks in advance.

Buy Danish on January 29, 2008 at 1:07 PM

William Amos explodes in 4….3…2…

NTWR on January 29, 2008 at 1:08 PM

SMART politician know you are not going to get people to stop supporting Hezbollah without understand WHY people are supporting them.

What Hezbollah does in Lebanon is very impressive, evil, but impressive.

EJDolbow on January 29, 2008 at 1:13 PM

Bryan on January 29, 2008 at 1:01 PM

You are correct. Maybe Debbie doesn’t doesn’t know that quotation marks indicate a direct quote, as she indicates on her website:

Oh, and don’t forget Romney’s previous statement at a town hall meeting that he “admires Hezbollah.”

If she can’t even get that right, how can we trust her credibility on other issues?

/rhetorical question.

Buy Danish on January 29, 2008 at 1:13 PM

For folks like Chosen One , this seems pretty esoteric. Fair enough, the world is full of people who do not have any kind of grasp on who the enemy is. It is one of Islam’s main strengths at the moment.

I am glad to hear Phares choices as to the best aware candidate out there.

[email protected] on January 29, 2008 at 1:21 PM

Wow. Look at the smear tactics and tabloid gossip ‘journalism’ Debbie Schlussel engages in on her website.

Then, there’s the presence of Katie Packer as one of Romney’s top campaign aides in Michigan….

I’ve known the Packer family for most of my life. They are one of the sleaziest, most phony bunch of people I’ve met. They claim they are evangelical conservatives who are pro-life and believe in small government. But they aren’t. Lori Packer, when she ran Pat Robertson’s campaign in the Detroit area in 1988, started dating Jack Kemp’s campaign official in the same area, apparently to “do a delegate deal.” (Yes, sometimes political “whoring” needs no quotation marks.) That’s the level of sleaze involved with this family now working for Mitt Romney.

Buy Danish on January 29, 2008 at 1:30 PM

Debbie Schlussel on January 29, 2008 at 12:45 PM

Beyond what others have said so far and it’s been quite a bit. I think it’s important to say your pointing out his use of political expedience to further a deeper understanding of the threat is noted and well taken. However, he does have that knowledge and the means by which he delineates said knowledge, I feel, should not be undermined. At the very least he gets the message out. As for alliances, strange bedfellows, I agree only to a VERY small point, the message is what counts. No? Don’t sell him so short, we need ten thousand more like him. The alternative is as unacceptable as YOUR agenda.

jerrytbg on January 29, 2008 at 1:52 PM

Re Debbie Schlussel:
Check out her comments on Henry Hyde sometime. They didn’t sound like the man I remember.

Jordan Yentsch on January 29, 2008 at 3:13 PM

Walid Phares cut-and-run, when it came to his testimony against the Detroit Al-Qaeda terror cell. In fact, he later cooperated with the Justice Department in their overturning of convictions of the terrorists and in their failed, vindictive prosecution of Rick Convertino, the prosecutor who got those convictions. He did nothing to stop this horrible result or help bolster Convertino’s case that in fact these were terrorists, because he gets paid as a professional witness in Justice Department terrorism cases, and you have to massage the hand that feeds you. If this is your “pre-eminent anti-jihadist,” you clearly need more schooling on this topic.

Being an anti-jihadist talking head and writing books on the topic is one thing–and Phares has done a good job in this area–but off-camera, when it came down to it, in keeping terrorists behind bars in this country, he failed and took the wrong side for political reasons.

Moreover, Mitt Romney has also surrounded himself with endorsements from and appearances with Hezbollah’s best friend and biggest Congressional funder, Congressman Joe Knollenberg (R-MI), something which your “pre-eminent anti-jihadist” has negligently not made himself aware of. Knollenberg worked hand-in-hand, at the instruction of Arab American Institute’s Jim Zogby, to send millions in USAID funds to Hezbollah.

Mitt Romney is a fraud on this issue and, like all others, has flip-flopped a million times over on it. I guess everyone has forgotten Romney’s statement that he “admired Hezbollah” at a town hall on C-SPAN, which he later scrambled to explain.

Mitt Romney has also failed to denounce the LDS Church’s donations of $20 million in goods to a HAMAS charity, Islamic Relief Worldwide. When a McCain staffer called him on this in the summer, Romney accused him of bigotry and McCain fired him.

The “anti-jihadist” candidate? Not even close. And, sadly, Walid Phares is as ignorant on his candidate as he is an opportunist in now suddenly supporting Romney, apparently because he thinks Romney will win.

Debbie Schlussel on January 29, 2008 at 12:45 PM

========================

Thank You Debbie!!! Outstanding Post!! Sometimes I think the Mitt Koolaid drinkers just can’t put the cup down long enough actually look at the facts. They would rather believe in fairly tales.

georgealbert on January 29, 2008 at 3:32 PM

Buy Danish would not know a fact if it smacked him in the head with a two-by-four.

Debbie Schlussel is an outstanding blog that does not take prisoners. What folks like you want are fairy tales and lies to make you feel good.

Once again, thank you Debbie for your outstanding work!!!

georgealbert on January 29, 2008 at 3:35 PM

Debbie Schlussel is an outstanding blog that does not take prisoners.

georgealbert on January 29, 2008 at 3:35 PM

Sorry Georgie boy, but calling people ‘whores’ because of who they date is beyond the pale and all too typical of the trash that Debbie throws out there. It’s too bad because there is some useful information but she has gone off the deep end.

As for “facts”, both you and Debbie peddle that false claim that Mitt said he “admired Hezbollah”, and as I recall you falsely claimed that Mitt was an “investment banker”, so you may want to think about who’s dealing in facts and who isn’t.

Buy Danish on January 29, 2008 at 4:08 PM

georgealbert on January 29, 2008 at 3:32 PM

this………
Debbie Schlussel on January 29, 2008 at 12:45 PM

was worth repeating? ahh… why don’t you do excerpts like she does.

jerrytbg on January 29, 2008 at 4:26 PM

Buy Danish on January 29, 2008 at 4:08 PM

As you know, but you conveniently omitted, I had a whole paragraph before that on why Romney’s top Michigan organizer is a political prostitute and how she helped pro-choice, liberal Democrat, trial lawyer candidates.

And as you know, I pointed out Romney’s endorsement by and Michigan campaign with Hezbollah’s biggest enabler and funder in Congress.

Oh, and by the way, you’re still buying into that misplaced “Buy Danish” stuff? Hilarious. I proudly do NOT buy Danish. Some of us know that Denmark is a supporter and enabler of Palestinian terrorists and, frankly, got stung by Karma with the cartoon jihad, yet still didn’t learn a thing.

Thanks, George!

Debbie Schlussel on January 29, 2008 at 6:21 PM

Why does this “expert” continue to use the PC phrase “War on Terror”? Terror is not the enemy–it’s the tactic of the enemy. We’re fighting Islamofascists.

jgapinoy on January 29, 2008 at 8:24 AM

Dr. Phares uses the terms “jihadism” and “jihadist”, they are synonomous with “islamofascism” you know. Besides, I am so sick of hearing this argument. Yes, we all know terror is a “tactic” and the perpetrators are “islamofascists” for the millionth time. Who gives a sh#t as long as they are killed or captured before they carry out their mission.

labrat on January 30, 2008 at 12:49 AM

Debbie Schlussel on January 29, 2008 at 6:21 PM

One last thought. Extremism is not a virtue.

jerrytbg on January 30, 2008 at 9:41 AM

Debbie Schlussel on January 29, 2008 at 6:21 PM

As you know, but you conveniently omitted, I had a whole paragraph before that on why Romney’s top Michigan organizer is a political prostitute and how she helped pro-choice, liberal Democrat, trial lawyer candidates.

I read all of that, Debster. Calling someone a ‘whore’ because of who they date is a vile smear tactic, no matter what side of the political aisle you stand on.

Oh, and by the way, you’re still buying into that misplaced “Buy Danish” stuff? Hilarious. I proudly do NOT buy Danish.

I chose that name during the Cartoon intifada and have stuck with it for its anti-jihadi/free speech symbolism.

By the way, I note this from HotAir’s headlines today:

Danish library to exhibit Mohammed cartoons

Kasem Said Ahmad, a spokesman for the Danish Muslim Society, which led the campaign against the cartoons said: “We will not be holding any demonstrations as we got nothing from the Danish courts when we tried to sue the newspapers. We will ignore all provocations in future.”

Thanks Denmark!

Buy Danish on January 30, 2008 at 10:42 AM

One last thought. Extremism is not a virtue.

jerrytbg on January 30, 2008 at 9:41 AM

Agreed, and the fact that D.S. considers it her business to smear someone because (horrors!) they started dating Jack Kemp’s campaign official is disgusting.

Buy Danish on January 30, 2008 at 10:52 AM

An “expert endorsement” might have meant something two months ago.

But when you wait until this point in the primary process to pick a candidate, you’re not basing the decision on “expertise,” you’re basing it on political gamesmanship.

logis on January 30, 2008 at 11:55 AM

Debbie Schlussel on January 29, 2008 at 6:21 PM

Is there anything substantive to your objections, re: Mitt Romney’s candidacy, aside from the typical petty political disputes you trot out at every available opportunity?

Gerard on January 31, 2008 at 6:17 PM

Debbie Schlussel on January 29, 2008 at 6:21 PM

Gosh, with four links to your own blog no less!

Not one of ours!

SouthernDem on January 31, 2008 at 7:03 PM