Well, you know, Tookie got 6 nobel peace prize noms, and arafat won it. And numerous academics are willing to write that Bush committed numerous impeachable offenses.

So, you know, the Ivory tower is all about the integrity of the academy.

Sometimes I can not express how much I hate the left.

When you hate, it affects your ability to point and laugh.

Don't be no hater.

I can't say this was much of a surprise.

Don't be no hater?

You're starting to sound like my favorite statesman, Spurwing. lol!

Does anyone out there know how you go about nominating someone for the Nobel Peace Prize? I'm serious. UBL needs to be nominated. I'm REALLY serious! The peace prize has been perverted into a leftist weapon (how ironic-go figure) to bolster moral superiority and what better way to neutralize it's efficacy.

Oh man, I just got an eye-twitch reading that.

"Sometimes I can not express how much I hate the left" - anonymous

Sadly, I can assure you that however much you (and I) hate the left, they hate us far more.

Think of how much they must hate to be able to find a way to 'normalize' a monster like bin Laden.

You're starting to sound like my favorite statesman, Spurwing. lol!

Spurwing for Prez in '08! I'd vote for him over Hillary or McCain any day.

I don't know, this seems like a book I'd love to read. I imagine that Bin Laden, like Hitler before him, must have had an incredible way with words in order to convince so many people to embrace such an astoundingly irrational and evil cause.

I believe it's perfectly reasonable to want Bin Laden to die a slow and painful death and also be impressed with his ability to convince others to pursue terrible ends.

To add a further example to the post above, I don't think it would be wrong for a Christian to be impressed with Lucifer's speech in Paradise Lost, and he shouldn't feel guilty about praising its persuasive quality even if he knows that it's an argument from evil and in direct opposition to everything he believes in.

None of this is meant to excuse in any way treating Bin Laden's speeches as "right," which is what some on the hard-left have apparently done according to the linked article. But it should excuse people from praising Bin Laden's way with words, so long as those people don't also praise his goals.

For a long time I have pointed out the parallels in statements by our enemies and the Democrats/liberals. So it is indeed ironic (and laughable) that the leftist/liberals characterize bin Laden as "right-wing."

Intellectuals have had a long history of supporting the enemies of freedom in general, and America in particular. Remember, fascism was the totalitarian opiate for the college set in the 30's. Mussolini was the Che of his day.

BTW, the following content was deemed objectionable org_._uk (WTF?)

Dont forget that YASSIR ARAFAT received the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE and he was a terrorist and JIMMY CARTER also recieved it what a waste when there better qualified persons

"Thanks to Allah"

Getting pretty informal with the Big Guy, aren't ya, ace?

Yeah, I was just about to say I think it should be, "Thanks BE to Allah." Heh.

Gene,

1. In praising Lucifer's speech in Paradise Lost, you're not praising the devil himself, but rather John Milton, the author of Paradise Lost , a very different thing from praising an embodiment of evil such as the devil or bin Laden.

In any event, why focus on the quality of an evil person's writings when the essence of that person is that they're evil, not that their writings sound like say, to use a Leftist's idea of a compliment, Frank Rich's and Maureen Dowd's columns put in blender.

2. Since you say that bin Laden 'must have had an incredible way with words', I guess you didn't read the linked article, but here's what the reviewer had to say about bin Laden's writing ability:

"I do know, however, that something must definitely get lost in translation, because this English end product is turgid, repetitive and irritatingly religious: bin Laden can't get through a sentence without mentioning God, peace, mercy or blessings. Is it that the dumbing down of public life is now so complete that even a loon like bin Laden can get five stars from literary pundits for saying things like 'kill the Americans and seize their money wherever and whenever [you] find them' (December 1998) and 'My kidneys are all right' (November 2001)?" (emphasis added)

Max:

1.) Regarding Paradise Lost, it's true that when one praises Lucifer's speech, one is actually praising John Milton's writing. But I think most people actually are imagining Lucifer giving the speech when they read Paradise Lost, not Milton (that's one of the reasons why it's so good--you become immersed in the work and forget that it's not real while reading it). I don't think anyone praises the speech because of the message (except for Khan in Star Trek); they praise it because can almost convince the reader that up is down and wrong is right.

2. I have no doubt that the writer of the Spiked article is being misleading. I've actually heard a radio interview with the book's editor on NPR where he read excerpts of some Bin Laden speeches (and also provided religious context to them), and they certainly consisted of more than just updates on Bin Laden's kidney condition. Again, one can be impressed with someone's verbal skills and still think their message is bunk and that the person should be tortured to death.

Gene,

You listen to NPR - that explains everything :)

Was it typical NPR quisling behavior -'religious context', but I assume no mention of 3,000 murdered and the desire to murder millions more or of bin Laden's hatred of the West, of Jews and of Christianity.

I doubt the Spiked reviewer is being misleading - he is giving his honest opinion of the book as the portion I quoted shows. The kidney quote is there for laughs imo.

In any event, the book is clearly designed to 'normalize' bin Laden instead of to remind us of the threat he poses to all of us. It does not matter how good a writer bin Laden is - he is evil and it is contemptable that he is being whitewashed and sanitized in this way.

PS "they praise it because [it] can almost convince the reader that up is down and wrong is right" - Just like the nyt and the rest of the quisling media try to do every day.

Last was mine.

PPS Ace has written many excellent posts; however because he doesn't hate the West and hasn't murdered 3000+ people no preening academic or NPR quisling will touch his writings with a 10 foot pole.

Max:

Hey, I was driving through Appalachia when I heard the NPR interview--it was either listening to that or country. :)

Seriously though, neither the NPR radio host nor the book's editor were coming off as hard leftists who thought Bin Laden raised some "good points" (though I did get the subtle impression that the editor was left-of-center). Instead the editor discussed how Bin Laden used and distorted Muslim history and text to convince people to do completely unjustifiable things. The discussion admittedly focused on Bin Laden's means of persuasion, not their ends, though those ends were never ignored, either.

Better yet, you can listen to an interview here and judge for yourself:

http://www.ibiblio.org/wunc_archives/sot/index.php?m=200511

A small point, but I disagree with his assessment that Bin Laden gets a lot of his stupid arguments and claims from the Western Media. I agree that "he sounds an awful lot like them," but it seems to me it's the other way around. Our own media seems to fall all over itself broadcasting everything OBL and AQ say, in the same manner as Al-Jazeera.