October 2006 Archives

John Kerry is defiant in his response to America's anger over his slur against our troops, but there's more to it than that. Watch his press conference closely and see if you notice what I noticed.

Did you catch it? None of his fellow Democrats are standing behind him. Cowards.

Remember that the Democratic Party is the home of politicians who despise our troops. Vote accordingly next Tuesday.

Are you sitting down?

You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and do your homework, and make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.

-- John Kerry
[audio here]

And this guy wants to make another run at the presidency? I'll make the call right now. Kerry's run in 2008 is D.O.A.

The only difference between this colossal twit and Hillary/Obama/Feingold is that the other contenders know better than to reveal their disdain for our troops. As a veteran, I'm disgusted but not surprised.

Michelle Malkin has the mother of all round-ups of blogosphere reactions.

--

Update: "I apologize to no one." (Hat tip: RedState)

Please, John. Keep talking.

It's frustrating when a smarter blogger beats me to the punch on a topic I've been thinking about, but I have to give credit where credit is due. Dafydd ab Hugh just posted an excellent think piece on the benefits of killing Muqtada al Sadr, leader of the Mahdi Army. It's not a short post, but it really made me rethink how we should tackle what's going on in Iraq.

For starters, he sees the forces behind the current bloodletting differently than most western commentators. He doesn't completely buy the "sectarian violence" meme as a catch-all explanation for the increase in deaths in Iraq. He looks at the country as a loose collection of competing tribes (many including both Shiite and Sunni members) engaging in gangland-style violence like we saw in New York some decades back:

I suspect the killing continues because a small but very determined group of people thinks the gang-war is "winnable," and each person sees himself as the victor. It's less like the Civil War and more like the Mafia wars of mid-20th-century New York City: those, too, went on for decades... yet at no time could one say that the Italian population of that city "demanded" such killings.

If the leadership of that small cadre which is carrying out the slaughters were to be removed (by any means necessary), I cannot imagine that the Shia and Sunni residents of Baghdad would pine for the good old days of death squads committing 100 murders a day.

Dafydd then steps into Prime Minister Maliki's shoes and discerns why he hasn't exactly been helpful to us in squashing al Sadr. It's all about al Sadr's 28 votes in the Iraqi parliament:

I believe Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki would actually like to see the militias disarmed. Not because he's a good guy; don't mistake my point. Rather, I think Maliki reasons thus:

1. I am the titular tribal warlord of Iraq.
2. Yet I control no personal forces: the army and police belong to the state, not me personally; and I control none of the large militias.
3. Now that I'm on top, it's time to blow the whistle and end the game. If the militias would all just "softly and suddenly vanish away," then there would be nobody who could challenge my military authority (except the infidels, and they don't really care anyway).
4. But I cannot actually go after the militias... because that would require me to crack down on Moqtada Sadr, and I desperately need his voting bloc to stay in power.

Then, the really brilliant analysis, which predicts the reaction of the rival Shiite militia, the Badr Organization:

I would suggest killing not just Sadr, but the number two and number three guys, all more or less simultaneously (within a few days of each other). This would leave the lower tier people wondering which of them would become the new leader.

...

If Sadr were killed, and if Maliki were clearly not involved, then what would the "28" do? I can't see them allying with the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), for they control the Badr Brigades. And they're certainly not going to support a Sunni or a Kurd.

This leaves the Dawa Party as the only other powerful Shiite political party. The head of Dawa is Ibrahim al-Jaafari, and his principal deputy is (ta da!) Nouri al-Maliki. Jaafari cannot be prime minister again; he was the one chucked out last time and is completely unacceptable to SCIRI, to the Sunnis, to the Kurds, and to the secularists.

So the only choice left for the 28 seats currently controlled by Sadr, in the event of his untimely demise, would be to continue supporting Maliki, as they have been doing all along.

Thus, were the Coalition to kill off Sadr, Maliki would still have the 28 votes of Sadr... but no Sadr sticking his hand up Maliki's badonkadonk (eew) to work the PM's mouth. Not only that, but with Mahdi in such distress, Maliki would have the green light to crack down hard on the Badr Brigades... the other Shiite party's militia. After all, Mahdi would be out of commission for a while.

So we would get a "twofer" -- the Mahdi Militia would be bereft of its leadership, leaving it to flop around like a beheaded snake; and the government of Iraq would likely move heavily against the Badr Brigades... and maybe even against the Mahdi Militia, once Maliki is sure of his power base in the absence of Muqtada Sadr.

Sometimes, when a situation has crystalized in a very unuseful position, the best thing we can do is vigorously shake the box: whatever we end up with will probably be better than what we have now.

Dang it, I wish I'd thought of that! I was about to post something along the "shaking the box" line of thinking, but I hadn't even considered the twofer involving the Badr Brigades. I was merely thinking "at this point, what could killing al Sadr hurt?" Since the culture over there respects strength much more than reason and rational argument, I simply figured that killing this loathsome oxygen thief would remind the enemy of our willingness to vaporize them (a good thing in itself). I just didn't take my analysis a step further. I'm glad Dafydd ab Hugh did.

Read the whole thing.

Just try not to smile.

Have a good week.

Hat tip: Newest SOB Alliance member Connect the Dots. Good find!

I won't clutter up this post with my own opinion. Just go watch the interview.

If you haven't bought Mark's latest book, America Alone, do so now.

David Zucker, creator of the hilarious Madaleine Halfbright Albright ad, has done it again:

Share this one with your voting friends.

There's more than a grain of truth in this cartoon. Don't let your emotions overrule your brain.

Dave at NixGuy highlights the double standard applied to Ted Strickland when it comes to politicians and pedophiles:

The Foley standard, as we now know, is that when someone brings you allegations of sexual impropriety, you must immediately launch an investigation, AND call for full public disclosure of everything that is known. This is true if you are merely an associate of the person in question, much less the guys employer.

Anyone who fails to take these steps on the first hint of a sexual impropriety must resign their positions.

...

How does Strickland measure up against this standard? The actual hiring of a guy with an actual conviction, notified of it, handed the police reports. What does Strickland do?

No public disclosure, no firing, keeps the guy after the election, and keeps him close enough for an after campaign reward trip to Italy.

This is exactly the issue, yet the dinosaur media keeps talking about the controversy as if it's all about sex (and therefore, á la Bill Clinton, it doesn't matter). Barring any crippling lawsuits (ha!) we in the SOB Alliance will keep trying to put the focus where it belongs: on Ted Strickland's poor judgment in hiring, and on the likely statewide policy implications of a Strickland Administration's refusal to take pedophilia seriously.

Now the Democrats have two choices here. They can take a step back, look at the Foley standard, look at Strickland, and honestly admit that maybe they were a little harsh on Pryce, Boehner and the rest.

Or, they can throw Strickland under the bus.

...

You can have Strickland, or you can have the Foley standard. You can’t have both.

Exactly right.

Kirsten Powers, a Democrat who's intellectually honest, gets it too (scroll down). We'll see how many other Dems take her approach. What say you, Buckeye State Blog?

Read Dave's whole post. It's worth your consideration.

MLM Liberal (profile here) appears to be threatening legal action against any of us in the State of Ohio Blogger Alliance who don't quit the Alliance, starting with Nathan R.C. Warden:

As the campaign nastiness gets more personal, MLM Liberal is fulfilling his promise to "Swift Boat the Swift Boaters."

Interesting. There's more:

Such comments are indicative of Ken Blackwell's base. Those of us who really do care about the future of this state, as well as our nation, are not about to cave in to people like Nathan R.C. Warden. And, as is stated in the Miranda rights, anything he says can be used against him in a court of law. Granted, we are talking civil as opposed to criminal proceedings. Nonetheless, every one of his blog entries, like mine, would be subject to court scrutiny.

Of course, I'm no lawyer. I just work with law enforcement on a daily basis.

A note to other members of the SOB Alliance who have not been a part of the continued smearing of Ted Strickland, much less getting on Scott Pullins' bandwagon: If you oppose what Scott Pullins is doing, leave the Alliance now before you get caught in the crossfire.

Oooooo, I'm terrified.

I have visited every blog in the Alliance, and a number of them haven't participated in the smear tactics or even discussed the matter at all. You should not have to suffer for the actions of others. Because once more bloggers on the left get wind of the situation, they will be speaking out in force.

It's only about to get nastier.

I wonder if MLM Liberal cares to be more specific? Since I've been covering Ted Strickland's Foley problem, am I also a target for this guy's not-so-veiled threat? On what grounds? Defamation? Intentional infliction of emotional distress? Being a mean old conservative poopy-head?

I suppose that beyond his hatred for Scott Pullins, MLM Liberal's also got a craving for revenge against my colleagues Dave at NixGuy and Tom Blumer. Who else will he sue, Sean Hannity, Bill Cunningham, Bob Frantz, and Jerome Corsi?

I wonder whos' covering MLM Liberal's legal expenses? Is he seriously hoping that some lefty lawyer's going to take his case on a contingency fee basis? Maybe he knows a lib attorney looking to do some pro bono work.

This just goes to show that the typical leftist can't win policy arguments on the merits, and can't hope to have anything useful to contribute to a discussion about moral behavior. Their motto seems to be "If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em."

I await MLM Liberal's response, but I'm not holding my breath.

--

Update: I never knew I was a member of the al Qaeda Boosters Club of Ohio.

The star of Mystery Science Theater 3000 just rolled out the next best thing, RiffTrax:

Do you feel that some of the movies coming out of Hollywood are just, well, missing something? At RiffTrax, you can download Mike's running commentaries and listen to them along with your favorite, and not so favorite DVDs. It's like watching a movie with your funniest friend. And it's easy to do. Just check out our FAQ; more than likely, you have the tools to do it already.

Don't just sit back and take whatever Hollywood throws at you. Transform the DVD experience with RiffTrax. It's the most fun you'll ever have at the movies.

I'm going to try one, and soon.

Hat tip: Chuckoblog

The Pullins Report just posted news of two new rumors that, if true, will doom Ted Strickland's candidacy.

Scott Pullins' disclaimer:

WARNING - As I stated above, these are entirely rumors at this point with no substantiation whatsoever! We have requested records from Shawnee State University and the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility and will report if and when we obtain further information.

Keep your eyes peeled.

--

Update: Something's been bugging me awhile. I agree with Paul at Newshound that if the Blackwell campaign makes an issue of Strickland's sexual orientation (and whether his celebratory trip to Italy was a "tryst"), then it would be crossing the line into territorry marked "Here Be Scumminess." I hope Blackwell knows better.

Howard Dean's latest appeal to conservatives is out, and he's finally speaking my language.

Poor Ted. It can't be much fun waiting for the next bite.

Ah, sweet irony.

On Wednesday, Hugh Hewitt interviewed Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell just before both men dropped in on a TownHall.com meeting in the Cleveland suburbs. The topics ranged from economic revitalization to Ted Strickland's "Foley problem."

Here's the audio in MP3 format.

First watch the video from Wednesday night's Hannity & Colmes ...

... then listen to the audio from Wednesday afternoon's broadcasts of The Sean Hannity Show and The Bill Cunningham Show (hour 2 and hour 3).

Once Ted Strickland's "Foley problem" gets traction, Ken Blackwell will get another chance to dispel the myth that electing Blackwell means four more years of Bob Taft's disastrous policies.

I'm going to head on over to the broadcast with Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Prager and Ken Blackwell, so I'll see y'all later!

Newshound rounds up the past seven days' worth of Ohio political blogging from left, right and center.

This week Wictory Wednesday presents Senator Mike DeWine from Ohio for re-election to the US Senate. He is currently trailing Democrat challenger Sherrod Brown.

He supports the tax cuts and understands the best way to grow an economy is to bring business out from under the stifling arm of government taxation and regulation. Ultimately ever tax or regulation is paid for by the consumer.

Senator DeWine understands that affordable health care doesn't mean that the government pays for and runs the system. Even Europe is moving away from such economically naove models. A strong health care system requires that the consumer be in control, not some bureaucrat hundreds or thousands of miles away.

National security has never been more important. While terrorists attacks continue overseas, nothing has been successful in the United States since 9/11 and the Anthrax attacks. Senator DeWine understands that it requires strong intelligence agencies, a military with the necessary tools, and law enforcement who treats the problem as warfare against the citizens of this country, not as some petty criminal gang like the Crips.

Please consider supporting Senator DeWine's re-election.

This has been a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst. If you would like to join Wictory Wednesday, please see this post or contact John Bambenek at jcb (dot) blog [at] gmail {dot} com. The following sites are members of the Wictory Wednesday team:

Reflecting on frequent conservative threats to punish the Republican Party by sitting out the 2006 election, Tony Blankley warns against the temptation to be stupid:

Here are some telltale signs of the sort of person who would vote (or not vote) to cause the election of a party that would act to defeat every value and interest he holds dear (merely because the party that will at least try to advance most of those issues has not done as well as he might have hoped):

1. When offered by a car dealer 25 percent off on a car, he insists on paying the full factory-recommended retail sticker price -- because he is damned if he will accept 25 percent when he deserves 30 percent off.
2. When the prettiest cheerleader asks the nerd to take her to the prom, he turns her down -- just because he can.
3. When stopped for doing 70 in a 65 zone, he tells the trooper that's not possible because he had the cruise control set on 90 -- he just resents being falsely charged.
4. When diagnosed with a serious illness, he promptly cancels his medical insurance -- in order to save the cost of premium payments to help pay for the upcoming hospital stay.

...

This current conservative petulance -- if it actually occurs on Nov. 7 -- will increase the chances of electing Hillary, or worse (if such a thing is possible) in 2008.

There is no rational policy or political basis for conservatives not voting. I'm not sure the country can take the current Democratic mob in power for long.

A realist once observed that the history of mankind is little more than the triumph of the heartless over the mindless.

The Democrats are obviously heartless. Conservatives must guard against falling into the category of the mindless. Ignore your heartfelt peevements, use your brains and vote.

Be optimistic, keep fighting, don't believe the hype, and VOTE.

I'll be attending tonight's town hall meeting featuring Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, and Ken Blackwell. If I get a chance to ask a question, what would you folks like me to bring up?

The rumored Republican capitulation in Ohio's Senate race turns out to be yet another example of wishful thinking by The New York Times.

Yesterday the UN Security Council unanimously passed toothless sanctions against North Korea:

The resolution demands North Korea eliminate all its nuclear weapons but expressly rules out military action against the country, a demand by the Russians and Chinese. Bolton warned Pyongyang, however, that if it continues pursuing nuclear weapons, the U.S. would seek further measures.

Great. This is the international equivalent of saying: "Stop, or I'll tell you to stop again."

My USCG Academy classmate LCDR Russ Bowen has just published a very well-reasoned thesis on the need to create Coast Guard Special Operations Forces. Here's the foreword written by Air Force Lt Col Michael McMahon (click the graphic to download the thesis):

This paper examines the Coast Guard's historic participation in special operations and posits a requirement for the Coast Guard to designate a special operations force today--Coast Guard SOF. Lieutenant Commander Bowen advances a timely argument for the formation of additional SOF units, Coast Guard (CG) SOF units, at a time when USSOCOM is under pressure to expand SOF capabilities. Bowen argues that the Coast Guard has considerable experience fighting terrorists, insurgents, and criminal networks, all of which have the cellular, compartmented structures that describe the current threats in the global war on terrorism. These are the same threats that US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) seeks to thwart by means of its global campaign plan to synchronize the counterterrorism efforts of the Department of Defense.

He points out that Title 46 of the US Code established the Coast Guard's Maritime Safety and Security Teams to respond to terrorist activity. These teams are a rapid response force capable of deployment in response to various threats against seaports and waterways, and they provide protection for strategic shipping, high interest vessels and critical infrastructure. Plus, Coast Guard teams are active on the high seas as well. With its maritime assets fully committed, augmentation by properly trained and assimilated CG SOF could advance USSOCOM capabilities in difficult mission areas.

Bowen suggests that forces of a CG SOF component could fill the gap he finds in maritime control and interdiction. While we have a few highly qualified teams that can do this type of work, many more are needed, and they can be made available from the Coast Guard. In this paper he writes that maritime security response requires prolific, robust, all-weather, day-night, opposed boarding capabilities with highly discriminate use of force to respond immediately to real-time, all-source intelligence.

Especially useful could be the Coast Guard experience and involvement in Foreign Internal Defense (FID) and the potential that CG SOF hold for augmenting USSOCOM's mission requirement in maritime environments around the globe. Indeed, Lieutenant Commander Bowen relates current Coast Guard special purpose force capabilities to six of the nine SOF Core Tasks--including FID and Civil Affairs Operations.

A Coast Guard SOF component in USSOCOM could potentially enhance SOF operations with both tactical maritime and law enforcement capabilities, particularly in the demanding environment of homeland defense. One of the conundrums of military support to homeland defense operations is the Posse Comitatus stricture that, by law and augmenting DoD policy, circumscribes the use of Federal armed forces for domestic police work--search, seizure, arrest and the like. But countering radical extremist groups that are intent upon killing Americans at home is both a military and a law enforcement concern. Lieutenant Commander Bowen's paper suggests that CG SOF can address both requirements since CG SOF can be at once badge-carrying law enforcers and counterterrorist fighters.

Lieutenant Commander Bowen steps to the front rank of military thinkers who approach our most difficult military challenges with new ideas and fresh concepts for future operations. The reader will agree that his vision for a CG SOF is worth consideration.

Lt Col Michael C. McMahon, USAF
Director, Strategic Studies Department
Joint Special Operations University

Now I have zero SOF experience, but it sounds to me like LCDR Bowen is suggesting that a USCG Special Operations Force would span the gap between the Navy SEALs' counterterrorism mission and the Green Berets' mission to train, advise, and assist foreign military or paramilitary forces:

The research suggests two critical ways in which the Coast Guard can contribute to the global counterinsurgency:

• with a credible, kinetic counterterrorism (CT) capability at knife-fighting distances in the nation's Tier One ports


• by using its influence and access abroad, integrated with theater special operations command campaigns, to build the capacity of foreign forces, deny sanctuary to terrorists, and provide early warning on the strength or collapse of maritime security forces around the world

Some may counter that the Coast Guard is not the place for special operations, but in point of fact, the Coast Guard has been a place for special operations and must be a place for special operations if it is to contribute the full weight of its authority, expertise, and capability to help the nation defeat the radical-Islamist insurgency.

This makes sense to me, but I'll be publicizing this thesis with milbloggers who know more about this subject than I do. I can't wait to hear what they think.

In a fascinating post, J. Peter Mulhern of The American Thinker wonders what might happen if the Democrats fail to take over either the House of Representatives or the Senate:

Predicting what will happen if the Democrats win control in one or both houses of Congress next month is a burgeoning cottage industry. It is, however, both more interesting and probably more useful to consider what will happen if they don’t.

...

Some Democrats will claim that the party must take the war more seriously and appear more moderate to win. Others will argue that the party must be true to its ideological roots on the far left so that it may win a majority by the power of passion and persuasion. Neither side of this debate will grasp the true nature of the Democrat dilemma.

The would-be moderates don’t understand that Democrats can’t win without the left. The ideological purists don’t understand that Democrats can’t win with it.

...

Professional Democrats have tried for years to have their cake and eat it too. They have tried to keep the loyalty of the left without getting identified with it. That worked during the ersatz peace of the Clinton years when they were still winning, at least sometimes.

The pressure of war and defeat has made it much more difficult for Democrats to have it both ways. They have tried desperately to straddle the divide between those who want to defend America from our deadly enemies and those who don’t.

Rush Limbaugh has been making similar points all week, trying to buck up the conservative base. I've found my own reflexive pessimism about the electorate melting away. I really think this election's going to go well for the vast majority of Americans who have deep reserves of common sense. As long as the mainstream media doesn't poison the debate with their desperate left-wing bias, we should be OK come Election Day.

The morning host on Cleveland's blowtorch talk radio station WTAM, Bob Frantz, wants to know where Ted Strickland stands on pedophilia. Tom Blumer at BizzyBlog has been agitating for a straight answer from Strickland too, as has NixGuy.

Maybe Mike Trivisonno will ask Ted about it on the air during the "non-debate debate" this afternoon at 3 PM. I sure hope so.

--

Update: BizzyBlog helpfully provides an index as a jumping-off point for all of his Strickland posts. Helpfully enough, NixGuy has done the same.

It looks like recent criticism of Ted Strickland's stance on pedophilia has prompted some urgent damage control by the Strickland campaign.

Don't miss NixGuy's takedown of a leftie blogger's feeble attempt to pooh-pooh the issue.

--

Update: Radio talk show host Bob Frantz joins the fray and swats down another weak defense of Strickland and his non-stance on pedophilia.

Election Day is coming, and Ohio's in the spotlight as usual. Newshound has the latest week's Buckeye State political blogging wrapped up and tied with a bow.

Courtesy of GOP Bloggers, here's the GOP Primary Straw Poll for October 2006:

David Zucker's new ad poses the question: "The security of the United States is not a game. Can we afford a party that treats it like one?"

It's hilarious and dead-on accurate! The Republicans are wusses for not running the ad, so I will.

BizzyBlog's Tom Blumer has written a must-read four part series on Ted Strickland's refusal to condemn pedophilia ... and why it matters. The roll call on the vote is here.

Over on NRO, Patrick Lee & Robert George review Lee Silver's new book on bioethics and dismantle his arguments against "religious fundamentalists" who supposedly wrap their religious objectives in scientific rhetoric.

A sample:

Silver says that the claim that human embryos are human beings at an early stage of development is "hidden theology." This could mean two different things. First, as this claim is presented in the book, Silver asserts that we actually hold our position on the status of the human embryo on theological grounds. We are, he suggests, hiding this fact, manufacturing arguments that sound scientific, but are in reality merely a cover for our real, theological, and indeed, "fundamentalist" grounds.

To describe such a claim as an ad hominem argument is to exaggerate its standing. It is nothing more than ad hominem abuse. Silver knows that we are Catholics, and so he uses that fact to suggest that our real ground for believing that human embryos are human beings is Catholic doctrine. But here he has things exactly backwards. Our ground for believing that human embryos are human beings is the indisputable scientific fact that each human embryo is a complex, living, individual member of the human species. Although our claim does not rest on the authority of the Catholic Church, or any other religious body or tradition, we find the Church's teaching against human embryo-killing credible precisely because it -- unlike Silver's contrary teaching -- is in line with the embryological facts. If "fundamentalism" consists in obstinately clinging to a moral, religious, or political view in defiance of empirically demonstrable findings of science that falsify its premises, we are not the fundamentalists in this debate. It is Lee Silver himself who has fallen into a form of fundamentalism.

The biological fact that human embryos are human beings in the earliest stages of their natural development is, to say the least, inconvenient for Professor Silver. So he commits the very offense of which he accuses us and others who oppose his agenda. He hides his ideology under a veneer of science. But the veneer is easily pulled off and the truth exposed. Just examine any of the major embryology texts now in use in American medicine. What you will find is the teaching that a new human individual exists from the earliest embryonic stage forward. That individual is a complete, though, of course, developmentally immature, member of the human species, whose life -- whether it lasts for nine minutes, nine days, nine years, or nine decades -- is a human life.

Read the whole review.

You don't need to refer to any religious or scriptural authority to make a solid case that the unborn are people too.

Hat tip: LTI Blog

Woe unto him who speaks in the loo.

Matt Hurley has pointed questions for Ted Strickland about his stance on child predator issues (like employing a man convicted of indecently exposing himself to children, and failing to condemn adult-child sex).

The scummy ex-Congressman's sexual predation deserves moral condemnation. Period.

Michelle Malkin tracks the ins and outs of the story. I'm just glad the guy's history. His party affiliation is irrelevant to the severity with which he deserves to be punished.

Now that two American physicists have won this year's Nobel Prize for proving that the Big Bang happened, the next logical question is "why is there something, rather than nothing?"

Why, indeed:

Why does something exist instead of nothing? Leibniz answered this question by arguing that something exists rather than nothing because a necessary being exists which carries within itself its reason for existence and is the sufficient reason for the existence of all contingent being.

...

Does Leibniz's argument therefore leave us in a rational impasse, or might there not be some further resources available for untangling the riddle of the existence of the world? It seems to me that there are. It will be remembered that an essential property of a necessary being is eternality. If then it could be made plausible that the universe began to exist and is not therefore eternal, one would to that extent at least have shown the superiority of theism as a rational world view.

Now there is one form of the cosmological argument, much neglected today but of great historical importance, that aims precisely at the demonstration that the universe had a beginning in time. Originating in the efforts of Christian theologians to refute the Greek doctrine of the eternity of matter, this argument was developed into sophisticated formulations by medieval Islamic and Jewish theologians, who in turn passed it back to the Latin West. The argument thus has a broad inter- sectarian appeal, having been defended by Muslims, Jews, and Christians both Catholic and Protestant.

The article I've just quoted is a defense of the kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God.