Oliver Stone was at it again recently, tearing America and the Bush administration down over the war against terrorism. As is so often the case, he was doing it from foreign soil, this time from Spain, where he was attending the San Sebastian International Film Festival which was screening his recent movie, "World Trade Center."

The Spanish hardly need lessons on why putting up a serious fight against terrorism is, according to Stone, a bad strategy. After all, two days after the attacks in Madrid the Spanish people voted in an appeasing antiwar socialist to head the country. It was their way of trying to insure that they wouldn't be attacked again. And no worries, so far it looks like it's working.

But Stone was on a roll and was indiscriminately throwing red meat to his audience. Here are some choice morsels:

"We have destroyed the world in the name of security. From Sept. 12 on, the incident (the attacks) was politicized and it has polarized the entire world. It is a shame because it is a waste of energy to see that the entire world five years later is still convulsed in the grip of 9/11."

In other words, why in the heck can't we just get over it and move on?

"It's a waste of energy away from things that do matter which is poverty, death, disease, the planet itself . . . rather than fighting wars with others. Mr. Bush has set America back ten years, maybe more."

No mention of the terrorists having anything to do with that 10-year set-back, though. Anyway, why can't we all just join the Peace Corp, feed hungry Third World children and forget about a bunch of war?

"If there had been a better sense of preparation, if we had a leadership that was more mature. We did not fight back in the same way that the British fought the IRA or the Spanish government fought the Basques here. Terrorism is a manageable action. It can be lived with."

Ah-hah! Now we get to the crux of the matter. Terrorism is manageable and can be lived with. Of course! Why didn't Bush think of that? John Kerry thought of it, but then he's way smarter than Bush. He said that terrorism is basically like crime. You can't eliminate it, but you try and keep it at some acceptable level.

Sure, it's simple. So, let's see, how do we go about quantifying how many skyscrapers full of people we're willing to tolerate that will come crashing down in the streets of American cities, oh, let's say, every five years or so, just to start with an arbitrary time period? One? Two? Five? Ten? And what about chemical, biological or nuclear attacks in the future? How many?

We'll just send investigators out to the scene of every "crime" to sift through the destruction and carnage for clues. Then we'll try and prosecute the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law, or at least the non-martyred ones who aren't already in paradise having at it with their promised virgins.

Here's some news for Oliver Stone. Al Qaeda isn't comparable to the IRA or the Basque separatists. Neither the Irish nor the Basques were willing to kill themselves in the midst of apocalyptic attacks designed to kill thousands in one fell swoop and cripple the economies of the Western world, all with a further ultimate goal of establishing a worldwide Islamic caliphate. Can you see the difference in both scale and goals?

Why would I even bother asking?

See more at Greg's website: http://www.greg-strange.com/. 

And for another fun-filled column on Oliver Stone, go here.

Germany's interior minister has condemned a leading opera house's decision to cancel a production of Mozart's "Idomeneo" out of concern that a scene featuring the severed head of the Prophet Muhammad could spark yet another violent Muslim frenzy.

"This is crazy," said Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble, the country's top security official.  "This is unacceptable."

You can't blame him for being frustrated over his fellow Germans restricting their own artistic freedom out of fear of radical Islam.  That's no way to run the fatherland.  Schaeuble must be lamenting that it's not his father's, nor even his grandfather's, fatherland anymore.

On the other hand, if the show goes on, and given what's happened recently because of cartoons and a speech by the pope, it's a near certainty that people will die sometime shortly after the fat lady sings.

Coincidentally, German government officials and Muslim leaders were about to begin a summit to launch a dialogue on how to better integrate the country's 3 million Muslims.  Right, good luck with that one.  Maybe they need to flip-flop the concept of that dialogue and find a way to integrate Germans into the Islamic way of doing things.  Putting the kibosh on an opera that would have featured the severed head of Muhammad is a great way to start such an endeavor.

It might be worth noting that the opera was to feature severed heads not only of Muhammad, but of Jesus and Buddha as well.  And why all the severed heads?  Artistic license, one supposes, but it's not the way Mozart originally wrote it because all the severed heads are part of an addition by the current director, Hans Neuenfels, who must be an equal opportunity offender.

But the funny thing is, nobody was remotely worried about a Christian or Buddhist backlash.  As usual, it's all about the hypersensitivity, and the tendencies toward mad dog violence, of Muslims.

Oh well.  Why fight it?  Given that Western Europe shows little or no interest in preserving its civilization, and given simple demographic trends -- which have native Europeans dying off and Muslims multiplying like rabbits -- Europe will be Islamic by, if not before, the end of the century.  Might as well try and make the transition as smooth as possible.

See more at Greg's website: http://www.greg-strange.com/

Here we go again with another outburst from the Religion of Perpetual Outrage.  Muslims worldwide are angry again, this time at (Can you guess who?  Drum roll, please. . .) the pope!

Muslims are angry over some remarks made by Pope Benedict XVI during a lecture at a German university.  The Vatican later said that the pope did not intend the remarks to be offensive, but you know how that goes.  Anyway, here are some excerpts from the speech.  As a sort of amusing exercise, see if you can pick out the parts that, once again, have Muslims worldwide having conniption fits.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read... of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.

In the seventh conversation...the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God," he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats."

Sounds kinda like the pope was basically saying that violent jihad might not be a particularly good thing.  What could be more infuriating than that, especially coming from a pointy-headed chief infidel?  As my grandmother used to say, it's enough to make an imam -- er, I mean, a preacher -- cuss.

Reaction from various imams, clerics and other Islamic authority figures continues to pour in now.  Here are a few choice comments:

"He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. . . .  It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades."  So said Salih Kapusuz, deputy leader of the Turkish prime minister's party.

Sure, sure, it's the Crusades all over again.  Anyone can see that.

Or how about this from Pakistan's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam:  "What he had done is that he has quoted very offensive remarks by some emperor hundreds of years ago.  It is not helpful (because) we have been trying to bridge the gap, calling for dialogue and understanding between religions."

Really?  I must have missed that call for dialogue and understanding in between the alleged Gitmo Koran-flushing riots and the Mohammad cartoon riots.  I'll have to pay better attention from now on.

Ms. Aslam went on to say that Muslims had a long history of tolerance, adding that when the Catholic kingdom of Spain expelled its Jewish population in 1492 they were welcomed by Muslim nations such as the Turkish Ottoman Empire.

Well, they're not very welcome now, are they?  Iran's President Ahmadgenocide -- er, excuse me, Ahmadinejad -- wants to wipe that tiny little Zionist regime off the map and the funny thing is, I haven't heard anything about the Muslim masses protesting his intolerance of Jews.

But maybe the best comment of all came, once again, from the same silver-tongued spokeswoman:  "Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence."

Wait a minute.  If Islam was actually tolerant as the good lady says, then the mere description of it as intolerant wouldn't encourage violence, would it?  Doesn't her statement actually confirm the very thing she is denying, which is the intolerance of Islam?

There I go again, trying to make logical points about something that was said by a representative of the Religion of Perpetual Outrage.  Talk about an exercise in futility.

See more at Greg's website: http://www.greg-strange.com/

Do you believe in coincidences? Actually, I do -- but not in all cases. There are things going on out there that could conceivably be coincidental, but it strains credulity to the nth degree to believe that.

Let's begin with the fact that belligerent Venezuelan "president" Hugo Chavez has publicly stated his belief that it is possible that 9/11 was an inside job:

"The hypothesis is not absurd . . . that those towers could have been dynamited. A building never collapses like that. . ." Well, ordinarily that's true, but ordinarily buildings aren't hit by large, fuel-laden commercial airliners traveling at 500 mph. Nonetheless, Chavez continued:

"The hypothesis that is gaining strength . . . is that it was the same U.S. imperial power that planned and carried out this terrible terrorist attack or act against its own people and against citizens of all over the world."

And why? "To justify the aggressions that immediately were unleashed on Afghanistan, on Iraq."

Iraq you can sort of understand since it has oil. But Afghanistan? Where's the percentage in that? Unless. . . Maybe it was all about seizing Afghanistan's poppy crop. Then they could flood minority communities in America with cheap dope for the purpose of killing as many as possible and just keeping the rest down. Or something like that. I'm just brainstorming what might be going on in Hugo's head.

The important point is that Chavez believes that the theory of 9/11 being an inside job is completely plausible and guess who else does also? Drum roll, please. Oliver Stone!

But wait a minute. What about that warm and wonderfully fuzzy movie he made called "World Trade Center" that was completely non-political, that simply celebrated some of the heroes of that fateful day and that even most conservatives raved about?

Well, here's the thing. Once a paranoid conspiratorialist, always a paranoid conspiratorialist. Doesn't mean you can't do a few other things in between, but you always return to what you love most.

Accordingly, in Moscow recently, Stone hinted to journalists that he is considering making a movie that would look into the "conspiracy" around 9/11. "There is a great story in a movie, a conspiracy by a group of people in the American administration who have an agenda and who used 9/11 to further that agenda."

He went on to accuse President Bush of mishandling the fight against Osama bin Laden and using the crisis to stoke fear and bolster his own power at home in a way that was "right out of George Orwell."

You just had to know that the mind that directed the movie "World Trade Center" would not be inhabiting the body of Oliver Stone for very long. Okay, fine, but what does this have to do with Hugo Chavez? Well, try to follow me here.

Stone has been absolutely smitten with Fidel Castro for years now and has made not one, but two movies praising the bearded and seasoned dictator. Meanwhile, Chavez and Castro have in recent times become bosom comrades. Can you then see how there could be a connection between Stone and Chavez?

It's not exactly difficult to imagine these guys sitting up all night doing tequila shooters, bashing the Bush administration and hashing out a bare-bones script for Stone's next conspiratorial schlocku-drama. These evil geniuses could be working together on some sort of "agenda," the nefarious details of which we are not yet aware, that goes way beyond a simple Bush-bashing movie.

Add to this the fact that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadgenocide -- er, I mean, Ahmadinejad -- has embarked on a trip that will take him to both Cuba and Venezuela and you simply have too many coincidences piling up.

Am I starting to sound paranoid and conspiratorial? You bet. Could I start a website based on exposing all these "coincidences" and attract millions of hits? Most likely. Will I? I'm thinking about it. . .

See more at Greg's personal website: http://www.greg-strange.com/

Unlike the typical American, I suppose, I slept through the actual strikes on September 11, 2001. I worked overnight at the time and my wife, who worked at home, finally woke me up around noon when she couldn't stand it any longer.

She came into the bedroom practically in tears and announced that "there has been terrorism." She began to rattle off the events of the morning, the planes, the Pentagon, and the towers, not just being hit, but actually collapsing. Coming out of a deep sleep, it was more than my mind could immediately process, it all sounded so unbelievable. I dragged myself out of bed and began the ritualistic process of following the news.

You may recall the national unity that came as a result of having been attacked and which seemed like the only good thing to come out of 9/11. You may also recall how quickly the minority of America-haters began to come out of the woodwork to proclaim that the country had asked for it because of, well, its mistreatment of almost everybody on the planet.

After the war on terror was in full progress, one of my favorite left-wing wack jobs was renowned actor, Woody Harrelson. He was living and working in London at the time and he wrote an article which appeared in a British newspaper and in which he basically proclaimed that the root of all evil in the world was his very own home country. A few choice quotes from that article include the following:

"The warmongers who stole the White House . . . have hijacked a nation's grief and turned it into a perpetual war on any non-white country they choose to describe as terrorist."

"This is a racist and imperialist war."

And not in his article, but just said in public somewhere: "The war against terrorism is terrorism. The whole thing is just bullsh*t."

Turns out that this kind of thinking, while not typical of the majority of Americans, is widespread enough to make one wonder where the resolve will come from to do the things necessary to defeat the apocalyptic terrorists who would destroy not only America, but all of Western civilization as well.

We all realize that the unity of post-9/11 America is long gone. The terrorists realize that too and will seek ways to divide us as well as to attack us. One can't help but wonder how successful they might actually be, particularly if the solidly antiwar Democratic Party manages to take over the leadership of the country in the foreseeable future. 

If that happens, say goodbye to the war on terror and hello to crime scene investigators, lawyers, constitutional rights and endless trials for terrorists, even as the planes and buildings fall down around us. Not exactly a happy prospect.

See more at Greg's personal website: http://www.greg-strange.com/

Former President William Jefferson Clinton is reportedly livid over the upcoming ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11" because he says it grossly misrepresents his pursuit -- or lack thereof -- of Osama bin Laden.  To be more specific, he claims that, among other things, several scenes insinuate that he was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal to care about going after bin Laden.

Or in other words, it's as if he had declared to his advisors, "bin Laden, schmin Laden!  Just get me out of this jam!"

Nor does the miniseries offer much in the way of compliments for then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright or Sandy "pants" Berger, Clinton's national security advisor.  In fact, in terms of dealing with terrorism, the entire Clinton team was shown to be pretty much out to lunch.

It's not exactly surprising.  There are reasons the Clinton years are sometimes referred to as America's "vacation from history" and this is part of it.  The Cold War had been won (no thanks to Democrats, by the way, but rather to others who were actually serious about fighting the evil of communism) and it was thought that there were no more serious threats to civilization.  Wrong!

But at the time radical Islam didn't seem like such a big deal.  A terrorist bombing of an embassy here, a terrorist strike on a U.S. naval vessel there . . .  What did it all matter in the grand scheme of things?  The economy was cranking and the stock market was going through the roof.  And as John Kerry has said, dealing with terrorism is like dealing with crime -- you just try and contain it at some minimal but acceptable level.  You don't go and do something crazy like declare war on it.

But now the details of their negligence (which, by the way, were drawn from the official 9/11 commission report) are coming back to haunt them, and from a sector of America that has traditionally been a bastion of liberalism and extremely friendly to Clintonistas: Hollywood.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the protestations of Clinton, as well as plenty of others, are not about correcting inaccuracies for the historical record, but rather about two other things: the upcoming midterm elections and preventing further tarnish to the Clintonian legacy.

Concerning the elections, the math is simple.  Democrats are already perceived as being weak on terror.  The miniseries in question could serve to reinforce that perception, and given the emotions that are sure to be dredged up by the fifth anniversary of 9/11, it could influence the way some people vote and could conceivably prevent the Dems from taking control of one or more houses of Congress.

As for the Clintonian legacy, what do I mean by "further" tarnish?  Well, there was that pesky Lewinsky scandal, the juicy details of which reverberated around the world, escaping not even the remotest tribe of New Guinea headhunters and tarnishing the former president's legacy forever.

But that was just an overblown (if I can use that term) scandal which, after all, was only about sex and not about job performance (or at least not his).  As his popularity ratings from the time made clear, most Americans didn't hold it against him, probably because they credited him with orchestrating the greatest economic expansion in human history.

But the idea that he might have been negligent in his pursuit of terrorist bigwigs, which may have in turn led to the single worst attack on American soil in our history, would be a far more serious stain (again, if I can use such a term) on his legacy than Monicagate.

Impeaching Clinton just because he turned the Oval Office into the Oral Office may have actually made the Republicans look worse than the president.  But negligence that may have led to 9/11 is a whole other universe of potentially stained legacy that he would prefer not be broadcast on national television.

See more at Greg's personal website: http://www.greg-strange.com/