Now, Wimpy Time Magazine Wants Iraqi Immigrants
Time magazine has proved itself to be wimpy for many months, urging President Bush to turn tail in the Middle East, criticizing Israel for defending itself against terrorist bombings and kidnappings, and generally becoming an exponent of American guilt in the War on Terror. To Time, as with too many American liberals, it isn't the suicide bombers of Al Qaeda or Muslim fundamentalist crazies who are to blame for the wars we are fighting, but the USA.
Now, the latest issue of Time goes beyond ever before in wallowing in disgraceful positions. The magazine has a long article urging the U.S. to take in Iraqi refugees, and a page long column advocating that we take on the health problems of Vietnam on grounds that our Agent Orange used in the Vietnam war may have caused some of them. Finally, the magazine outdoes itself by devoting a complimentary page to Dennis Kucinich, the nutty peacenik from Cleveland who is running for President while, again, very few pay any attention. The Kucinich article is written by that transcontinental journalistic ditz, Joel Stein, who repeatedly embarrasses both Time and the L.A. Times with his offbeat views.
Time says the U.S. admitted just 18 Iraqi refugees in 2005 and 202 in 2006. But that is exactly 220 too many. Why would this country want to admit any Iraqis at all?
Woe has come to France for foolishly admitting hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees from Algeria after conclusion of its war for independence. These people, with rare exceptions, not only have not assimilated into France, but have rioted, added to the crime wave and rendered many Paris suburbs and other locales virtually uninhabitable.
The same thing has happened with Pakistanis admitted to Great Britain. The country now is saddled with a major terrorist problem, and in the summer of 2005, Muslim malcontents bombed the London subway and bus system, killing 52 and wounding hundreds. Later, it was shown they were trained by Al Qaeda.
In fact, look around Europe. Where ever Muslim refugees have gone, there has been trouble -- attempted train bombings in Germany, murders in Holland, a terror attack on trains in Spain that killed 191, and sedition in Italy.
Why should we wish to encourage such problems in the U.S., simply to satisfy the liberal dilettantes at Time magazine?
As for Vietnam, Vietnamese immigrants to the U.S. have often assimilated well, and are an asset to the U.S. There are no religious problems there.
Relations with between the U.S. and Vietnam have improved in the meantime. Why should we go back 30 years after the war and assume responsibility for Vietnamese problems? There's no more reason we should do this, than that they should come over here to provide care for U.S. Vietnam veterans.
No wonder Time circulation is going down. The magazine is no longer quite respectable on these issues.
Now, the latest issue of Time goes beyond ever before in wallowing in disgraceful positions. The magazine has a long article urging the U.S. to take in Iraqi refugees, and a page long column advocating that we take on the health problems of Vietnam on grounds that our Agent Orange used in the Vietnam war may have caused some of them. Finally, the magazine outdoes itself by devoting a complimentary page to Dennis Kucinich, the nutty peacenik from Cleveland who is running for President while, again, very few pay any attention. The Kucinich article is written by that transcontinental journalistic ditz, Joel Stein, who repeatedly embarrasses both Time and the L.A. Times with his offbeat views.
Time says the U.S. admitted just 18 Iraqi refugees in 2005 and 202 in 2006. But that is exactly 220 too many. Why would this country want to admit any Iraqis at all?
Woe has come to France for foolishly admitting hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees from Algeria after conclusion of its war for independence. These people, with rare exceptions, not only have not assimilated into France, but have rioted, added to the crime wave and rendered many Paris suburbs and other locales virtually uninhabitable.
The same thing has happened with Pakistanis admitted to Great Britain. The country now is saddled with a major terrorist problem, and in the summer of 2005, Muslim malcontents bombed the London subway and bus system, killing 52 and wounding hundreds. Later, it was shown they were trained by Al Qaeda.
In fact, look around Europe. Where ever Muslim refugees have gone, there has been trouble -- attempted train bombings in Germany, murders in Holland, a terror attack on trains in Spain that killed 191, and sedition in Italy.
Why should we wish to encourage such problems in the U.S., simply to satisfy the liberal dilettantes at Time magazine?
As for Vietnam, Vietnamese immigrants to the U.S. have often assimilated well, and are an asset to the U.S. There are no religious problems there.
Relations with between the U.S. and Vietnam have improved in the meantime. Why should we go back 30 years after the war and assume responsibility for Vietnamese problems? There's no more reason we should do this, than that they should come over here to provide care for U.S. Vietnam veterans.
No wonder Time circulation is going down. The magazine is no longer quite respectable on these issues.
Labels: War Politics
posted by Ken Reich at 8:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home