It was the stated purpose of the Bush Doctrine, as originally articulated, to eliminate this nonsense.  Terror sponsoring regimes were (ostensibly) given a choice — with us or against us, convincingly renounce terrorism or be treated like we (intended to) treat terrorists.  No more dancing on the head of a pin to avoid acknowledging that, for example, Iran was behind the 1996 Khobar Towers attack (19 US Air Force dead) — as the Clinton administration had done because, well, when you acknowledge such a thing you then have to do something about it, and Clinton had no intention of doing anything about it.

Alas (there's that word again, which becomes like a mantra when recounting the Bush administration), it was just words.  Whether there's a Republican or a Democrat administration, the State Department is the State Department.  Dancing on the head of a pin is what it does.  While Bush talked "with us or agin' us," State (with lots of help from the commentariat, including on the Right) refurbished the Bush Doctrine into an effort to eradicate terrorism through democratization — as if the lack of democracy rather than an interpretation of Islamic doctrine were the cause of Islamic terrorism. 

What you will find is that the State Department way is something into which Obama blends seamlessly.  So, for that matter, does McCain.  We can quibble about "preconditions" — and it really is quibbling:  What "preconditions" did the Bush State Department demand before negotiating directly with Iran? — but the fact is that at the Nuance U they run at Foggy Bottom there is no contradiction between saying you won't negotiate with terrorists and saying you are prepared to negotiate with Iran.

"Saudis to Bush: No reduction of oil prices. Bush to Saudis: OK, we'll give you nukes"

As he quotes AP:

President George W. Bush and King Abdullah formalized new cooperation on Friday between the kingdom and the United States on a range of topics, including the development of civilian nuclear energy in Saudi Arabia and US protection of Saudi oil fields.

The agreements came as Saudi Arabian leaders made clear that they saw no reason to increase oil production until their customers demanded it, apparently rebuffing a request made by the president directly to the king in an effort to stay the soaring US gasoline prices.

The nuclear power should go well with that $20 bill in military arms we sold the KSA last summer (while the Saudis continue to press Hamas's case).  But not to worry:  the Saudis will continue to depress the price of all that wonderful literature they provide us on the, er, internal struggle for personal betterment through good works in society.

... how Obama sat in Wright's church for 20 years and managed never to hear anything, but hears 20 seconds of a Bush speech that doesn't mention him and perceives a shameful personal attack?

Today, he explains that Martin Luther King Jr. is more admirable than Jeremiah Wright.  What insight!  Tune in tomorrow, when Michael dissects the relative merits of Peter O'Toole and the Aflac duck.

[A] McCain presidency would promise an entirely conventional, center-left, multilateralism. 

If you liked the second Bush term, if you liked Clintonian foreign policy, you will find much to admire in a Commander-in-Chief McCain. There would be the same agonizing over European and Islamic perceptions of America; the same doctrinaire commitment to the alchemy of democracy promotion; and the same fondness for heaping more unaccountable bureaucratic sprawl atop the already counter-productive agencies and multinational institutions that frustrate the United States at every turn.

Aside from my oft-stated objections to the underlying premises of the democracy project (which McCain may be even more entranced by than is the Bush administration if that's possible), here, fwiw, is my take on the League of Democracies:

His democracy infatuation is such that McCain also plans to create a “League of Democracies.” Evidently, this new multi-lateral behemoth would do what the United Nations is supposed to do, but doesn’t. We are not told what criteria would break a country into the league (Russia and Iran, for example, insist they are democracies), much less how those criteria would be enforced. McCain does take pains, though, to assure us that the league “would not supplant the UN or other international organizations but complement them[.]” Great. This initiative, meanwhile, will merely redouble his promised effort to “institutionaliz[e] our cooperation [with the European Union] on such issues as climate change, foreign assistance, and democracy promotion.” What’s not to love for a conservative?

Fox reports an Israeli shopping mall has been struck by a rocket fired from Gaza.  Palestinian Islamic [INSENSITIVE TERM DELETED] has claimed responsibility.  No word yet on when the peace-loving Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank will rise up in condemnation against this handful of criminals that is perverting the true Islam.

Did I mention that recent polling indicates that 50 percent of Palestinians openly support terrorist attacks against Israel?  On the bright side, this compares favorably with the 93 percent of young Palestinian adults (aged 18 to 25) who deny Israel’s right to exist — a figure that plummets to a mere 75 percent when the total population is factored in.  Obviously, this has nothing to do with Islam and is caused by foolish Americans who enhance the self-esteem of terrorists by referring to them as you-know-what-ists. 

For all of conservatism's evident virtues, it can have one furtive, seedy vice: A justified suspicion of government can degenerate into an anti-government ideology — rigid, stingy and indifferent to human suffering. --Michael Gerson

Conservatism is not the problem, it's conservatives like Gerson.

When Katrina struck, I was horrified by the reports.  Of course the voice in my head that said (a) why didn't these people leave when they had the chance, and (b) these people elected the likes of Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco, what did they expect?  But like millions of other Americans, I felt an obligation to help less fortunate people who were in need.  So I sent money to the Red Cross because the Red Cross is a reputable outfit with a good reputation help to the people who need it. 

Afterwards, I got so angry at the boondoggle government spending, which inevitably rewarded (and continues to reward) the worst tendencies, I ended up annoyed at myself for contributing — in the name of "compassion," the government is going to spend goo-gobs of your money anyway, and waste aplenty.

Why does Gerson think that the measure of compassion is whether the government moves when people are hurting?  Look at our experience:  Katrina, 9/11, or name your overseas catastrophe.  Americans pony up more dough than any people on the planet.  Government activism causes the dysfunction we saw in Katrina and, at best, it stands in the next Katrina to depress the charitable impulse.  That's compassion?

The New York Times:

To Nader and Enad, prayer is essential. In Enad’s view, jihad is, too, not the more moderate approach that emphasizes doing good deeds, but the idea of picking up a weapon and fighting in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Jihad is not a crime; it is a duty,” Enad said in casual conversation.

“If someone comes into your house, will you stand there or will you fight them?” Enad said, leaning forward, his short, thick hands resting on his knees. “Arab or Muslim lands are like one house.”...

The Times is spending too much time studying the government's new language purge guidelines. 

In Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the [INSENSITIVE TERM DELETED], and in this white paper for the upcoming Bradley symposium, I note Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman's explanation that jihad is “the peak of a full [embrace] of Islam….  There is no work that equals” it.  Contrary to our government's assiduous efforts to ignore the evidence of sense and deny that terrorists are representative of any legitimate interpretation of Islam, Abdel Rahman (aka "the blind sheikh") is a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence graduated from al-Azhar University in Egypt, the seat of Sunni learning.  Why we should think the Department of Homeland Security knows more about Islam than he does, I do not know.  In any event, he has recounted that since the concept was developed over a millennium ago, jihad has unambiguously and unapologetically called for the aggressive application of brute force against oppressors and infidels.  It “means fighting the enemies,” he said, no good works or internal betterment.  Nor, he instructed, can it be accomplished such everyday practices as prayer, mosque attendance, alms giving, or living a virtuous life.  At such suggestions, he scoffed:

Jihad is jihad…. There is no such thing as commerce, industry and science in jihad.  This is calling things . . . other than by [their] own name. If God . . .  says, “Do jihad,” it means do jihad with the sword, with the cannon, with the grenades and with the missile.  This is jihad.  Jihad against God’s enemies for God’s cause and his word.

He is unquestionably right about this.  The effort to portray jihad as a peaceful, virtuous, internal striving to become a better person by good works is no doubt motivated by the best of intentions when engaged by our bureaucrats.  But it's important to understand that it is a revisionist project — and it is thus doomed to fail given the premium liberals have taught us we must place on authenticity.  When it comes to jihad, it's the crazies who are authentic and the well-meaning reformers who are dancing on the head of a pin.

Conventionally translated “holy war” [jihad] has the literal meaning of striving, more specifically, in the Qur'anic phrase “striving in the path of God” (fi sabil Allah). Some Muslim theologians, particularly in more modern times, have interpreted the duty of “striving in the path of God” in a spiritual and moral sense. The overwhelming majority of early authorities, however, citing relevant passages in the Qur’an and in the tradition, discuss jihad in military terms.

In fact, the erudite former Muslim of the nom de plume Ibn Warraq points out that even

[t]he celebrated Dictionary of Islam defines jihad as ‘a religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad.  It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Quran and in the Traditions as a divine institution, enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims.”

It is no wonder that this should be so.  The Qur’an repeatedly enjoins Muslims to fight and slay non-Muslims.  “O ye who believe,” commands Sura 9:123, “Fight those of the disbelievers who are near you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty unto him.”  It is difficult to spin that as a call to spiritual self-improvement.  As it is, to take another example, with Sura 9:5:  “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them.  And seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war),” relenting only if they have accepted Islam. The hadith, lengthy volumes recording the words and traditions of the prophet, are even more explicit, as in Mohammed’s teaching that “[a] single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah’s cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all the world and whatever is in it.”

We can kid ourselves that this is not so.  But recognize, then, that we are kidding ourselves.

As I understand it, monotheistic religions believe in an exclusive God; most monotheistic religions today do not, however, hold their faith(s) to demand exclusivity:  most tolerate other religions (including conversion to other religions) but differ with them about ultimate truth.  Only Islam is an exclusive faith.  That's why the rest of Luttwak's article is about the wages of Muslim apostasy.

As Robert Spencer notes at JihadWatch, the UK's Telegraph reports Israel's assessment that Iran is helping Hezbollah's operatives become better people through good works in Lebanese society:

Israel has claimed that Iran was behind the terror group Hizbollah's armed struggle with the Lebanese government and warned that the conflict could spill into a wider Middle East crisis.

Hizbollah fighters spread virtually unopposed across west Beirut districts loyal to the pro-Western government.

After a night of firefights, the mainly Sunni Muslim residents of the capital's west woke to find Shia Hizbollah fighters patrolling the streets.

The main compounds of country's two senior political leaders were besieged in a dramatic demonstration of the shift in power. ...

Me: Look, the mullahs and their clients in Syria are probably just interested in a stable Lebanon, like the stable Iraq the State Department and the Iraq Study Group tell us they want.  So what's the problem?

Isn't it funny, though, that these opportunities come up and Hillary, despite her desperation, is in no position capitalize.  With Bill Ayers, she had the Clinton Weathermen pardons in her closet.  And now, Malley, the Hamas advisor, was also a Clinton advisor ...

At Contentions, Jen Rubin reports that Barack Obama, the King of Righteous Indignation, is righteously (actually, risibly) indignant over a "smear" by John McCain — namely, McCain's factually true (and totally understandable) observation that Hamas wants Obama to be president.

Remarkable. On a plane ride to Chicago, I caught up with our Mark Hemingway's superb article, "A Curious Kind of Friendship — Barack Obama's dubious record on Israel," in the current print edition of NR. There are gems throughout the piece, but Mark starts out discussing the Hamas endorsement:

When asked about the endorsement, Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, was flattered that Hamas compared his candidate to JFK: "We all agree that John Kennedy was a great president, and it's flattering when anybody says that Barack Obama would follow in his footsteps."

And an excellent, spirited response it is, from Mark Salter:

First, let us be clear about the nature of Senator Obama's attack today: He used the words 'losing his bearings' intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning.

We have all become familiar with Senator Obama's new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is.

It is important to focus on what Senator Obama is attempting to do here: He is trying desperately to delegitimize the discussion of issues that raise legitimate questions about his judgment and preparedness to be President of the United States.

Through their actions and words, Senator Obama and his supporters have made clear that ANY criticism on ANY issue — from his desire to raise taxes on millions of small investors to his radical plans to sit down face-to-face with Iranian President Ahmadinejad – constitute negative, personal attacks.

Senator Obama is hopeful that the media will continue to form a protective barrier around him, declaring serious limits to the questions, discussion and debate in this race.

Senator Obama has good reason to think this plan will succeed, as serious journalists have written of the need for 'de-tox' to cure 'swooning' over Senator Obama, and others have admitted to losing their objectivity while with him on the campaign trail.

Today, Senator Obama is complaining about comments John McCain made about a senior Hamas advisor stating that Hamas would welcome Senator Obama's election as president. Indeed, on April 13th, senior Hamas political advisor Ahmed Yousef said, 'We don't mind – actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance.'

The McCain campaign has never suggested that Senator Obama supports Hamas' agenda, but it is more than fair to raise this quote about Senator Obama because it speaks to the policy implications of his judgment.

Just today, the president of Iran, whom Senator Obama wants to meet with unconditionally, called the state of Israel a 'stinking corpse.' Iran is the paymaster and state sponsor of Hamas.

In his victory speech this week, Senator Obama stated that 'wisdom' is meeting with our enemies, including  Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, North Korea's Kim Jong Il, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Cuba's Raul Castro. John McCain couldn't disagree more. Rather than giving tyrants and dictators the prestige of meeting with an American president, John McCain will instead meet with the champions of human freedom around the world and opposition leaders fighting for liberty .

We understand why Senator Obama doesn't want to engage in a debate over leadership and judgment with John McCain, but the American people demand that debate take place.

These are serious times that call for a serious debate on the profound issues facing our future. John McCain is ready for that debate and we hope Senator Obama will one day get serious and join it.

But I want to weigh in on a more important point — this notion that we are not supposed to concern ourselves with someone's radical politics as long as she (at least ostensibly) rejects violence and agrees to work through a political process. 

This is not just a Democrat problem.  Not to beat a dead horse, but it is a big part of the Bush administration's democracy project (of which McCain is clearly a fan).  Our general approach to radical Islam has boiled down to:  as long as you are not actively blowing up a building, at least today, you are a moderate; as long as you pledge (however convincingly) to work through a political process, we're not going to trouble you with a lot of questions about what you hope to achieve through that process.  This is how we end up in the sack with Fatah, Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, to name just a few.  This elevation of process over substance is how we delude ourselves into thinking we can usefully negotiate with Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il.

Now, to be clear, I am not insensitive to the differences here.  Under the guise of "social justice," lefty radicals are trying to transform America because they despise it; today's Wilsonians, by contrast, recognize America's greatness and want only to remake other parts of the world in the dubious conviction that the project will make America safer.  That is not a small difference.  But we are undermining our ability to condemn radicalism here when we wink at it as viable politics elsewhere.

Caroline is her usual must-read self in the Jerusalem Post, beginning with:

Another ordinary week has come and gone in southern Israel. Bombarded by rockets from Hamastan in Gaza, residents of Sderot, Ashkelon and nearby towns watched as their national leaders conducted negotiations by proxy with Hamas to release hundreds of terrorists in Israeli jails and consolidate Hamas's weapons supply lines by suspending Israeli counter-terror operations during a "cease-fire." Between trips to the local bomb shelter, they watched Israeli trucks deliver fuel and supplies to Hamas in Gaza in the morning and they watched Hamas store the fuel and supplies in depots near the border in the afternoon. In the evening they watched news reports echoing Hamas's claims that Israel is depriving Gazan hospitals of fuel and Gazan civilians of basic foodstuffs.

The most depressing part is the discussion of Secretary Rice's recent speech to the American Jewish Committee.  In that setting at least, Condi apparently abandoned her standard nonsense about how most Palestinians simply want to live in peace, side-by-side with Israel.  It's downhill from there, though:

and meets his virgins (memo to self: ask State Dept, can we still say "virgins" or does this create some self-esteem issue for the moderate virgins?).

Reuters reports:

A Kuwaiti man released from the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay in 2005 has carried out a suicide bombing in Iraq, his cousin told Al Arabiya television on Thursday.  A friend of Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi in Iraq informed his family that Abdullah carried out the attack in Mosul, his cousin Salem told the Dubai-based television channel. "We were shocked by the painful news we received this afternoon ... through a call from one of the friend's of martyr Abdullah in Iraq," said Salem al-Ajmi in a telephone interview aired by Arabiya.

About this "martyr" thing, should we really be using that word?  Oh, wait, it's Muslims in Iraq who use that word for Muslims who kill themselves while trying to kill Americans during personal betterment efforts.  I guess that's cool.

BASIT’S NOT BASIT
Sometime in 1993 or 1994, a briefing at the Manhattan district attorney’s office was arranged for me and a few other federal prosecutors involved in the World Trade Center bombing cases. The briefer was Mylroie, then (if memory serves) a professor at Harvard, where she’d earned her doctorate in government. She was spouting a theory that the attack had been the work of Saddam Hussein and that we ignoramuses were completely missing the boat by charging Islamic terrorists, notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence that they had carried out the atrocity.

Mylroie’s theory was loopy. Indeed, for commentators (like Steve Hayes, Tom Joscelyn, and I) who have argued that there were, in fact, important ties between Iraq and radical Islam, Mylroie has been a thorn in the side for years — the analyst whose zany assertions are routinely used to discredit credible evidence of cooperation. Most notoriously, Mylroie has contended that Abdul Basit, the WTC bombing mastermind better known by his alias, Ramzi Yousef, is not really Abdul Basit. Instead, according to Mylroie, he is a shady Iraqi spy who was given the identity of Basit when the Iraqis invaded Kuwait and stole the identities of the “real” Basit family. In my book, I briefly discuss and dismiss Mylroie’s theory (at pp. 183-84 & 341-42, ch.14, n.3). Leaving aside various other implausibilities in her surmise, the government had several sources who knew Basit as Basit both before and after the time he spent in Kuwait.

Notwithstanding that at least 14 years have elapsed, I also well remember the Mylroie briefing because it was so shoddy. She contended our case against the jihadists was weak and ill-conceived, but her presentation actually had little to do with our proof that indicted defendants carried out terrorist acts. Rather, it focused on inferences she had drawn — some interesting, some daft, and none prosecution-worthy — that the conspirators were being guided by Iraqi intelligence. It was the work of a myopic academic who did not comprehend the difference between intrigue and evidence, between history and prosecution. On my questioning, she confessed that she had never read, and was otherwise unfamiliar with, the seditious conspiracy statute the defendants were charged with violating. I asked her how a student in one of her classes would fare if it turned out he hadn’t read the law used to indict a case he was attacking as unfounded. She mumbled something about planning to get to the statute soon.

Of course, even assuming for argument’s sake that Saddam had choreographed the whole 1993 bombing operation, the government’s charging of some people with a crime does not discount the possibility that others — including even state sponsors of terror — are also complicit. Mylroie seemed unable to grasp this simple concept. In a jury trial, you naturally train your sights on the defendants you have charged, placed under arrest, and brought into the courtroom. You get into uncharged conspirators only to the extent it is necessary for the jury to understand the case against those standing trial. That co-conspirators have not been charged — whether because they have diplomatic immunity, or are fugitives, or are outside the country and beyond government’s ability to apprehend, or are actors as to whom the government has not yet developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or any of a thousand other reasons — does not mean that they are innocent, much less that the people who actually have been charged are not guilty.

In any event, although it was not particularly complex, Mylroie didn’t understand the law or the evidence back then. Her review demonstrates that things haven’t improved.

THE “WEAK” CASE AGAINST THE EMIR OF JIHAD
Mylroie has long been on a mission to trash the case against Omar Abdel Rahman, the Blind Sheikh known to his acolytes as the “emir of jihad.” Perhaps this is because she remains studiously uninformed about the jihadist threat. Perhaps it owes to the incorrigible delusion under which she labors, namely, that if the Blind Sheikh is guilty that somehow must mean the state sponsors she prefers to blame are off the hook. In either event, she asserts in the Sun that “Sheik Omar is a loathsome figure, but the case against him was weak.” He was convicted, she elaborates, only because I devised a “clever strategy” to link several terrorist plots together in what she refers to as “a conspiracy ostensibly carried out by the Jihad Organization of which Sheik Omar was said to be the leader.”

Plainly, even all these years later, Mylroie still hasn’t gotten around to reading the relevant statutes. And while I’d love to take credit for being extraordinarily clever, the truth is that the case against Abdel Rahman was overwhelming...

keep reading here.

A very interesting and entertaining interview by Lesley Stahl.

Roger deconstructs the Times' approach to McCain.

At the Counterterrorism Blog, Bill West on the absurdity of the Bush administration's new speech code.

On the same theme addressed on NRO by the editors yesterday and Pete Wehner on Friday, Powerline's John Hinderaker asks an excellent question. 

At a blogger conference call last week, Jen Rubin of Commentary's excellent Contentions blog, asked Sen. McCain about Hamas's endorsement of Sen. Obama for the presidency.  Did McCain get indignant?  Did he spew that an insinuation that Obama might be popular with Islamic terrorists would be "out of touch with reality in the Republican Party"?  Not exactly.  He said:

All I can tell you Jennifer is that I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. So apparently has Danny Ortega and several others. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare.... If senator Obama is favored by Hamas I think people can make judgments accordingly.

Of course, he's right about that.  But, as John observes:  "Why it is OK to pin Hamas's endorsement on Obama, but, in McCain's world, 'unacceptable' to tie Obama to another supporter, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, to whom he is obviously far closer."  Exactly:  the Hamas endorsement of Obama, while understandable, was unsolicited; Wright, on the other hand, is someone with whom Obama was tight for two decades and who Obama chose to incorporate in his campaign as an advisor.  Why does McCain figure the former is fit for criticism but focus on the latter is an occasion for smug condemnation of conservatives?

As elements of the Bush administration continue their jihad against any discussion of jihadism (i.e. — as I outline in Willful Blindness — the ideology that fuels radical Islam's war against the United States and the West), the State Department is reportedly funding the soft jihad being practiced by faux "moderate" Muslim groups.  See this from Belia Rabinowitz and William Mayer of PipeLineNews.com:

A grant made by the U.S. Dept. of State to the Islamic Society of North America [ISNA] ... and the left wing National Peace Foundation is being used to fund Islamic da’wa via a spurious "citizen exchange" program.

The grant is confirmed on ISNA's website, here. 

What is State buying with your money?  Well, Islamic da'wa, you may be interested to know, is the "call to Allah" — the summons to Islam.  ISNA, as Rabinowitz and Mayer elaborate, is "an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood and named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the ongoing Holy Land Foundation terror funding prosecution," principally involving the Hamas jihadist terror organization.  (Link to NYSun article added.)  The Muslim Brotherhood is the ideological engine of modern jihadism, and though it purports to have abandoned violence in favor of other means of persuasion that we should all be governed by Sharia, its mission statement remains:  "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." 

Wonderful!

The PipeLine report continues: 

As the ISNA press release states:

"...This program brings young professionals from the Middle East, specifically from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, to the United States...The goal of this project is to explore Islam, the functions of Islamic institutions in the United States, and the activities of interfaith work."

As we have noted in previous pieces, for example Bush Administration Moves To Legitimize The Muslim Brotherhood?, there has been a move afoot, primarily originating within the State Dept., to recognize the Muslim Brotherhood as a moderate organization, an idea so spectacularly stupid it could only originate in Foggy Bottom.

It follows then that if the reputation of the Muslim Brotherhood, which created Hamas and is a constant specter in terror prosecutions, is on the verge of being whitewashed, then making nice with ISNA seems equally reasonable.

The ISNA press release stated that one of these State Dept. funded delegations met with Dr. Ali Goma, the Mufti of Egypt:

"...I think there were two events of the many, many that transformed us (the delegation as a whole). One was the meeting with the personal representative of the Dr. Ali Gomaa, the Mufti of Egypt..."

Regarding suicide bombings, the supposedly moderate Ali Goma was quoted in a 2003 interview in Egypt's "Al-haqiqa" newspaper as defending this terror practice on religious grounds:

"...he is a Shahid [martyr], because Palestine is a special case and not the ordinary case existing in the world...This is because in Palestine there is an enemy that rules the land. This rule is considered a crime by international conventions and resolutions. The world has let the Jews spread corruption throughout the land and they have succeeded in obtaining international legitimacy to territories that were conquered after 1967, Israel is a special case that does not exist [anywhere else] on the face of the earth. We are facing a criminal occupation that is the source of terror...The one who carries out Fedaii [martyrdom] operations against the Zionists and blows himself up is, without a doubt, a Shahid [martyr] because he is defending his homeland against the occupying enemy who is supported by superpowers such as the U.S. and Britain."

Mindful that their warriors are being defeated on the ground in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, the Islamists continue to transition from violent to a stealth jihad mode, confident that they will triumph by following the Muslim Brotherhood's plan to use the West's freedoms to subvert it from within....