Tony Blankley writes about institutions in denial:

The media has pointed out that there is no evidence he was connected to Al Qaeda or another terrorist cell. But that is exactly the point. As I discussed in my book last year, the threat to the West is vastly more than bin Laden and Al Qaeda (although that would be bad enough.)

The greater danger is the ferment in Islam that is generating radical ideas in an unknown, but growing percentage of grass-roots Muslims around the world -- very much including in Europe and, to a currently lesser extent, in the United States.

A nation cannot design (and maintain public support for) a rational response to the danger if the nature and extent of the danger is not identified, widely reported and comprehended.

What are we dealing with? A few maladjusted "youth"? Or a larger and growing number of perfectly well-adjusted men and women -- who just happen to be adjusted to a different set of cultural, religious (or distorted religious) and political values. And does it matter that those values are inimical to western concepts of tolerance, democracy, equality and religious freedom?

The public has the right and vital need to have the events of our time fully and fairly described and reported. But a witch's brew of psychological denial and political correctness is suppressing the institutional voices of government, police, schools, universities and the media when it comes to radical Islam.

The worst part of this is the resistance of any sensible _label_.

CAIR even protested 'Radical Militant Islamist'... as overly broad.

'Jihadist' makes the most sense to me. It doesn't have the attachment to 'Islam' in the name itself, which deflates some people. One perceived deficiency is 'you're making a circular definition'.

But I'm perfectly happy being 'at war' with _everyone_ that has declared themselves 'at war' with _us_.

It's funny to see the biases on display. Saddam was off limits because his relationship with Bin Laden was something less than, say, Brokeback-esque. And yet we see any relationship with the Saudis portrayed as the height of evil (for westerners anyway) a la Fahrenheit 9/11. And we see transportation dealings with Dubai as a grave threat to our nation's security. And, of course, you have the idea that all of Iraq hates the US.

So, on the one hand you have the idea that we can't attack any nation or organization who isn't very directly connected to 9/11. But on the other hand you have the idea that all of Araby is America's implicit enemy and not to be trusted. This, I think, is a very dangerous combination.

Blankley is dead right. But there is also a witch's brew of Leftism, Bush-hatred, and utter indifference to brown-skinned people-far-away, that suppresses information about decent good-hearted Muslims. Bloggers know that our soldiers in Iraq have reported countless incidents where Iraqis have thanked them or helped them, and they often risk their lives to work with our forces. But those stories are almost never reported in the news.

Likewise tales by travelers who visit Iran or Kurdistan, and discover that Americans are hugely popular among the people.

And there's the curious dog-that-didn't-bark-in-the-night...India has one of the largest Muslim populations in the world, but I've never heard of any of them signing up with the jihad. Could it have something to do with that democracy stuff that "democratic imperialism" is always imposing on hapless people?

You have two groups of competing interests. One group says the Islamic extremists don't represent true Islam and another group that says until "moderate" Muslims take control of their own faith the extremists do represent Islam. I'm with the second bunch. Christianity went through a similar period with heretics and witches burned at the stake and the Spanish Inquisition while kings and queens consulted with religious leaders in matters of state.
Education and prosperity brought about by democracy did away with the ability of those clergy more interested in power than salvation to control the religious masses. The same thing needs to occur in Islam. Imams sermonizing about death and destruction to the infidel need to be defeated by the education of the faithful and a prosperity not currently enjoyed by the majority of Muslims. Democracy will give people the best chance at education and prosperity.