Vote for the one who behaved in the most pusillanimous, abject, and/or suicidally stupid way in the face of Islamic jihadist bullying and intimidation, peaceful or violent. To avoid confusion, long tedious ballots, and hanging chads (remember those?), we have placed only the top six choices on the ballot:
I sure hope this works. More voting coming shortly.
Looks real spiffy Robert!
Hmm. Lemesee: Ramsey Clark concedes that Saddam is guilty as charged but with a reason -- he had to sl@ughter and tIrture hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for decades and decades because he was at war with Iran after Khomeini came into power. Chomsky and Esposito -- pretty much on a morally relative par, with Chomsky paving the academic road to dhimmitude. Well, Karen, Condi and George -- they all mean well. They really do.
Ramsey Clark has commotted treasonous acts against the U.S. and for that he should win this.
I think it's unfair to include Bush and Rice in this list. While some of what they say and do is absolutely infuriating, overall their record is light years ahead of the previous administrations. I find it really absurd that anyone would consider Bush to be Dhimmi of the Year, given his response to 9/11 and Islamic terrorism (now that he's finally calling a spade a spade). As international state leaders, Bush and Rice are far more encumbered than academics are in what they can say out loud.
Chomsky, Clarke and Esposito clearly believe the nonsense that they write and say. I think that Bush and Rice have no choice but to do a certain amount of groveling and appeasing. Ever held a political office? Poor Hughes. She's way over her head on this matter.
kelley said "I find it really absurd that anyone would consider Bush to be Dhimmi of the Year, given his response to 9/11"
Yes, he responded very vigorously and powerfully and with military force. Unfortunately, it was against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
The country with the true connections to 9/11, the one from which the leader came, as well as almost all of the participants, as well as the source of funding, well, they came out of it a bit easier. For them, one could almost say the aftermath of 9/11 was like a walk in a rose garden.
l find it disgusting that Pres.George Bush was included in the Dhimmi award section. you might disaggee with his method, but at least he not a paper tiger! there are many more go on the Dhimmi list any Hollywood leftie, George Clooney he is the real Dhimmi, you have Michael Moore, clintons, Carter..lots to chose from...
I voted for Bush because he's the guy at the top of this mess. Don't get me wrong, I voted for him twice, but if I have to hear "Islam is a religion of peace that has been subverted by the terrorists" out of his lips one more time, I'm going to vomit.
In short, while I overall support both the action in Afganistan and Iraq, I don't think that the problem has been framed correctly, and without that, it's going to be hard to find a solution that is another other than an American political compromise (and that means a mess).
Further, Bush has not driven any accountability with the Saudis (or the Egyptians, or ...). On the other hand, you could argue that his hands are tied with the Saudis because of the oil situation and our inability to get free from that noose in which we put our own heads (we should have just invaded the whole peninsula post WW2 and blown up Mecca in the process).
I find the listing of Bush as dhimmi odd.
With all the dramatic dhimmis in America, this list has as a dhimmi:
-- creator of Guantanamo Bay prison camp
-- leader of enemy combatant rules
-- sending troops to Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. to fight Islamists
-- the person singularly most hated by Islamist Extremists around the world and apologists for the same....
Very odd choice... with the 1000s of American dhimmis
One question:
Does anyone believe that there is a person that Islamist Extremists hate more than George Bush?
Over at LGF they were surprised by Bush's inclusion among the nominations. Someone posted, "That's a tough crowd over at Jihadwatch!"
Personally, I like Bush, voted for him both times, too. I don't think I will vote for him for this honor. Still, a lot of people nominated him. Even I have to admit that he is weak on immigration, and that it is foolish to say, "Islam is a religion of peace' when one doesn't know a blasted thing about the religion.
Sooooooo, everyone vote, and may the worst man win!
I share the sentiments of all here who are disappointed at Bush's presence on the list. I see it as one of the few aspects of educational failure of this fine institution...that Bush has been vilified here with such regularity (particularly by Mr Fitzgerald) that many have turned against the President. One can agree or disagree with the Bush's policies, but to brand him America's Dhimmi of the year is just absurd. As Jeffry suggests, there is no more hated man in the Muslim world than George Bush.
PS - Condi Rice is a diplomat for God's sake. Her job is to engage in dialogue and build bridges. How about a little context?
Until the leaders of the world call the enemy exactly what it is, they are ALL Dhimmis, as far as I'm concerned. The enemy is a large section of the Muslim world. We must fight them as we would defend ourselves if being raped or attacked in any way. The enemy doesn't care about our feelings, and we can't care about theirs. The enemy is bent on exterminating us. We cannot always be the "good guys". You know what they say about "good guys" - I think this instance is a perfect example of what will happen to the "good guys". Islam must be torn down and rebuilt. We should not have to adapt to their savagery, but they should be made to act like civilized people, or be treated like beasts.
I have several problems with these choices: The inclusion of Bush and Rice, for many of the reasons others have pointed to (if THEY are dhimmis, then what word is left to describe all those to their left? ). The inclusion of Chomsky and Esposito is problematic to me because I don't recall them standing out in the news in the year 2005, in particular (I'm a literalist - this is supposed to be an award for dhimmi 2005!). Ramsey Clark is problematic because he's just a tyrant apologist in general. I don't see dhimittude in the face of Islam in particular. Karen Hughes - well, public relations is tough and I haven't followed her pronouncements closely enough to make a judgement. Too bad groups couldn't have been included in the nominations - WRAL for firing Graham and the architects who designed the Crescent of Embrace both come to mind as displaying pusillanimous conduct in the face of Islam in particular and in the year 2005 specifically. I guess that leaves me leaning towards Esposito, actually, because of all those on the list, he is the one who most clearly displays dhimmitude in the face of Islam, even if he doesn't particularly stand out in the past year. Hmmm. Decisions, decisions. What's a girl to do?
Poor Bush, he is on everyone's hatred list ! Some people blame him for being too tough, and other people for being too weak.
So is Bush a dangerous nazi and Christian "fundamentalist"... or a friend of Islam ? Enlighten me, I am lost.
As if there were not enough cowards !
I personally voted for Shirak (oops I mean Chirac) but it is because I am French and I know him so well. Come on, I am sure you have plenty of Shiraks in the US...
another "Lesbian Neo Con" from the Old Europe.
The President and Ms. Rice will sort themselves out. Unless we get a massive influx of democratic underground types, it is a fair bet they'll stay way down the list.
Poor Bush, he is on everyone's hatred list ! Some people blame him for being too tough, and other people for being too weak.
So is Bush a dangerous nazi and Christian "fundamentalist"... or a spineless friend of Islam ? Enlighten me, I am lost.
As if there were not enough cowards !
I personally voted for Shirak (oops I mean Chirac) but it is because I am French and I know him so well. Come on, I am sure you have plenty of Shiraks in the US...
"Lesbian NeoCon" glad to see there are some lesbians around >>> bows to you. How amusing to be right wing and gay. Ask me !
joiesauvage,
What does ***another "Lesbian Neo Con" from the Old Europe*** mean?
Ok, disregard my question! Nice to see you, too, joiesauvage!! Email me if you'd like. Go to my profile and click the email.
For the record, friends:
Bush and Rice were nominated on the original nomination threads. Both several times.
Hence their inclusion here.
Don't vote for them if you disagree.
And I don't recall Chomsky and Esposito garnering headlines in 2005, but again, they were nominated, both several times.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Lesbian Neo Con
"another "Lesbian Neo Con" from the Old Europe" meant nothing... I was just trying to steal your nickname because I was jealous of it I guess. But ok, I will remain "Joie Sauvage" from Paris...joiesauvage is a great nickname if you understand French because there is a pun in it.
I guess I should have called myself Charles Martel, but I am not sure he was a lesbian.
Lesbian Neo Cons are the future of the world because we know how awful the imams are, they want to prevent us from having wild sex with other women and ... I want to sulk now.
and by the way, to all those who hate Bush because they think he is a dangerous fascist and "religious fundamentalist": Bush will never question my right to have a private life... whereas the Islamists will.
special_guest, you wrote :
***The country with the true connections to 9/11, the one from which the leader came, as well as almost all of the participants, as well as the source of funding, well, they came out of it a bit easier. For them, one could almost say the aftermath of 9/11 was like a walk in a rose garden.***
The war on this disease isn't over. It can never be over. Saudi Arabia (& the rest of the Arab/Muslim world) will either reform, or be on the list to be reformed. Until the entire population of the enemy can behave like civilized people, they will continue to be treated like beasts. Islam must take accountability for itself, for once in its existance. This is its chance to create a better world for everyone. I don't think have it in them.
To switch gears a little -
Moonbats think we are trying to impose democracy on the common people of Iraq (& the rest of the Arab/Muslim world). That is incorrect. We are imposing it upon all despots and tyrants of the Arab/Muslim nations, who don't give their people any choice about anything. Why don't the leftists get that??? Can't they see we're trying to give ordinary people the freedom to choose?? It's a good thing!!! It almost makes it seem as if they can't tell the difference. Actually, it doesn't seem like that at all. It's exactly what it is, and that scares me. They always seem to be on the wrong side of things, don't they?
Spencer: "Bush and Rice were nominated on the original nomination threads. Both several times.
Hence their inclusion here.
Don't vote for them if you disagree.
And I don't recall Chomsky and Esposito garnering headlines in 2005, but again, they were nominated, both several times."
Hey, maybe it's a good sign for the US as a whole that folks are hard-pressed to come up with some genuine American dhimmi nominees, circa 2005, that everyone can clearly agree on. Fine by me!
(Too bad whatever Grover Norquist has been up to this year didn't garner more public attention...)
I'm also offended by the inclusion of George W. Bush as dhimmi of the year.This the same President Bush who avenged 3000 dead Americans by taking down two fascists Muslim governments while sending AQ scum scurring for their caves.Bush's enemies included people like Cindy Sheehan,Saddam Hussein, Michael Moore and Osama Bin Laden.I don't think that's because Bush is a great friend of Islam.
joiesauvage writes:
"Lesbian Neo Cons are the future of the world because we know how awful the imams are, they want to prevent us from having wild sex with other women and ... I want to sulk now. "
Stop that, I'm getting all hot and bothered now!
Don't you realize what all this girl talk does to
us poor straight guys? ;-)
Anyways ladies, if you haven't already, take
some time off from your other activities to become acquainted with firearms. Sadly, you will
be a target of the enemy, and I doubt you'll
get a lot of sympathy from the mainstream. Take
responsibility for protecting yourself.
BUSH ABSOLUTELY DESERVES to be on the America Dhimmi List. If I hear any more suggestions from the Whitehouse that Islam is peaceful, I will vomit so hard that my eyes will turn yellow. Islam means SUBMISSION.
Speaking of Bush, an item that may have heard about is the Cybercrime Treaty coming before the Senate. Bush supports & touts this measure, which could lead to foreign governments having access to records of the online activities of Americans. And American law enforcement would be compelled to AID the investigation of the foreign treaty-signing nation.
While your online activities may be legal in the US, they may not be legal in some other countries. Take FREE SPEECH for example. Your free speech might be a "hate crime" in France, Canada, Australia, to name a few. The present writing of the bill allows YOU to be investigated by foreign countries.
Unless an amendment of "DUAL CRIMINALITY" is added to this measure to make it function as it should, it ought to be REJECTED by any American who values an UNIMPEDED right to free speech.
Column on Cybercrime Treaty:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10723
Thanks, American! Some of my best friends are straight guys!!
;-)
Jim, your info is chilling. What the hell is going on?
OK, I've made my 4 choices:
Chirac/Esposito...Fallaci/Tancredo
There's a rhythm and a rhyme and a reason for it.
Where's the poetess when you need her most?
There's also this combination (which I like even better for its rhyming and symmetry):
Chirac/Tancredo
Fallaci/Esposito.
Robert -
Sure that's fair - but of course it is your site, and you have the final say. I also admire your seeking public feedback, I wouldn't do it if I were you. As you know, I give you credit for having the guts to do so.
But my only question to those who nominated Bush:
Does anyone believe that there is a person that Islamist Extremists hate more than George Bush?
Yes or No?
I think that is a totally fair question, if Bush is going to be held up even as one of the biggest dhimmis in America. Because obviously Islamist Extremists are not going to hate a compliant dhimmi, and if the Islamist Extremists hate someone in America more than George Bush, I would be very interested to hear who that is.
Those who nominated Bush - any takers on the question?
Pres.Bush is not a perfect man, he has been the most assertive president in recent years, will not bow down to the alter of the U.N., beleives in the good ness of the US and Western Values. yes he needs more education on Islam, but with the PC media he is already regarded as hateful! l dont understand when the liberal media and terrorist are on the same page on being Bush bashers.
I don't agree with G.W. Bush being nominated in the American Dhimmi of the Year category. Mohammedans hate him more than anyone on the face of the earth. They refer to Bush as a "crusader" and a bully. I would have preferred to have seen on the American dhimmi list:
Cindy Sheehan
John Kerry
Edward Kennedy
Nancy Pelosi
It's only my opinion.
Quite amusing to see the angst amongst the Bush apologists that the dhimmi-in-chief might indeed win the coveted prize. Not to worry, many here on JW/DW are amongst the 42% of Americans who approve of the job Bush is doing and they will ensure that he receives only a dishonorable mention. History will judge him more harshly.
jeffreyimm
I commented on your post the other day noting the false choice you presented between going to war against Saudi Arabia and the Bush-conceived Saudi Affirmative Action Programme which includes a litany of absurd and dangerous benefits bestowed on the Saudis, the chief patrons and financiers of Da'wa and Jihad. I suspect that for many of us here, this sycophantic behaviour is enough to qualify him for a nomination.
To answer your question:
Bush is the leader and most visible symbol of the Great Satan, the country and value system most anathema to Islam. Given their hatred for all infidels -- as well as the House of Saud -- do you really expect the average Muslim on the street to be enamored with the Chairman of the Board? As an analogy, I used to work in IT and as a result of my experience in the industry, I have a very strong dislike for Microsoft and their products. Who do you suppose I blame for Microsoft's shortcomings?
joiesauvage
Charles Martel a lesbian? Who knew?
Jeez, people - we all know it's not about party-politics. I think Bush, Rice and Hughes (who I voted for) deserve to be on the US dhimmi shortlist. They couldn't make any more "enemies" if there started to say "Islam does not mean peace" because more than half of the world is against them anyhow.
If you want conservatives with a back-bone look no further than Romney or Tancredo.
Tom Tancredo for president, Mitt Romney for vice-president. Thank you very much.
CHARLES MARTEL: "Bush is the leader and most visible symbol of the Great Satan, the country and value system most anathema to Islam. Given their hatred for all infidels -- as well as the House of Saud -- do you really expect the average Muslim on the street to be enamored with the Chairman of the Board?"
Doesn't wash. Clinton was Chairman of the board for 8 years and he never engendered this kind of passionate hatred from the Muslim street...undoubtedly because his policies were Muslim-friendly...Kosovo, Somalia, his chumminess with Arafat, who was feted at the Clinton WhiteHouse more often than any other foreign leader...the same Arafat Bush refused to meet.
disillusioned_german, you wrote:
"Tom Tancredo for president, Mitt Romney for vice-president. Thank you very much."
No, thank YOU!
I wrote to Tom Tancredo, a few months back, after he suggested we bomb Mecca. I expressed my support, and if I were to ever reside in Colorado, he would have my vote. Would you believe, a couple of months later, I received a personal letter (snail mail) thanking me for my support? It was a proud moment. It's also nice to know there are politicians who are not afraid to speak the truth about the enemy.
I worry Ramsey Clark has an ironclad insanity defense to this 'award.' He clearly has no concept of right and wrong.
WineDrinkingInfidel:
Cindy Sheehan
John Kerry
Edward Kennedy
Nancy Pelosi
To the best of my recollection, none of them were nominated even once.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
CharlesMartel:
You did not directly answer my fair and objective question:
"Does anyone believe that there is a person that Islamist Extremists hate more than George Bush?" (especially in America)
Yes or No?
If you believe Bush is a major American dhimmi, this should be a question you can readily answer.
But you won't. Why?
By the way, for the record, not only am I a Democrat, but I used to be a party activist and a liberal. But my country is # 1 in my priorities.
And whether I agree or not with Bush on issues, I also believe in fairness and intellectual honesty. So please answer my reasonable question
- Yes or No.
CharlesMartel:
you say - "I commented on your post the other day noting the false choice you presented between going to war against Saudi Arabia and the Bush-conceived Saudi Affirmative Action Programme which includes a litany of absurd and dangerous benefits bestowed on the Saudis, the chief patrons and financiers of Da'wa and Jihad. I suspect that for many of us here, this sycophantic behaviour is enough to qualify him for a nomination."
CharlesMartel:
I didn't see it. I rarely post here, because I am focused primarily on facts about real anti-terrorism research, rather than opinions by Internet public. I of course have stated repeatedly my view of the Arabian enemy which are the chief patrons and financers of Jihad, as you state. That is why 4 years ago I switched to a hybrid auto, and I have a web site that promotes not using Arabian oil with specific alternatives. If you want to pick a REAL DHIMMI then, you need to identify GM and Ford, and the SUV-driving American public that are directly funding the Arabian enemy every day. As you can see, the war with Arabia is a complex subject, certainly not something you can slap just a dhimmi label on Bush over, and that's the end of it.
jeffrey
I'm happy to hear that you have taken to driving a hybrid auto and advocate others to effectively boycott the use of oil from Saudi Arabia. I wish other Americans would follow your example.
Since you didn't read my post, here is a brief list of benefits/concessions the Bush WH has provided the House of Saud (from my post 12/6):
Facilitating Saudi entry into the WTO, even as they maintain a boycott against Israel (in violation of WTO rules);
Approving over 10,000 visas for Saudi students to attend school in the US (some of the 9/11 hijackers were here on student visas);
Suspending Congressionally-mandated sanctions against SA for their perennial human rights offenses;
Providing US financial assistance to SA for their efforts in fighting Islamic terror(!);
Accommodating and propitiating to CAIR (the chief propaganda arm of Wahhabi Islam in America);
Failing utterly to curb the introduction and dissemination of Saudi-funded hate materials in Saudi-funded mosques.
GM and Ford are in business to increase the wealth of their shareholders, i.e., maximize profit. What is George W. Bush's excuse?
CharlesMartel: "What is George W. Bush's excuse?"
I would ask what is the American public's excuse in buying automobiles that will increase funds to Saudi Arabia? If you want to be unpopular - put the SUV-driving American public up for dhimmi of the year.
In the meantime, you refuse to give me a straight answer on a Yes/No question:
"Does anyone believe that there is a person that Islamist Extremists hate more than George Bush?" (especially in America)
Yes or No?
If you believe Bush is a major American dhimmi, this should be a question you can readily answer.
But you won't. Why?
jeffrey
Your question is not "fair and objective"; it is loaded. I answered it by pointing out that the reason Bush is disliked by many Muslims (which does not give him a pass from dhimmi status as illustrated above) is because he is the leader of the free world and the most visible and powerful symbol of the infidel nation. Bush is also disliked by 58% of the American public; would you suggest that that statistic makes Bush a quisling?
jeffrey
You insist on others providing answers to your loaded questions but refuse to address the reasons Bush has been nominated as Dhimmi of the Year -- which was ostensibly the purpose of your original query. Why is that?
CharlesMartel:
I didn't ask if George Bush was disliked "by many Muslims". I specifically asked about Islamist Extremists.
"Does anyone believe that there is a person that Islamist Extremists hate more than George Bush?" (especially in America)
I think this question deserves a Yes/No answer.
And if you don't have the courage to answer it, how can you promote Bush as a dhimmi?
Again I am not a Bush-only fan. But I see people with the "courage" to criticize, but not the courage of intellectual honesty on such a basic question.
And why do you think the Islamist Extremists seek "Death to Bush", because he is a dhimmi? You say it is only because he "represents" America. OK but where were the Death to Clinton, Death to Kerry, etc. protests. I am not unwilling to criticize Bush on things I don't agree with. But I don't see intellectual honesty here among those promoting Bush as a dhimmi, and that is very disappointing.
Especially given the untold thousands (to be modest) of greater dhimmis in America...
CharlesMartel says: "You insist on others providing answers to your loaded questions"
How is this question "loaded"?
I think it is a very simple, straightforward, yes-no question?
"Does anyone believe that there is a person that Islamist Extremists hate more than George Bush?" (especially in America)
I think those who propose Bush as a dhimmi should have the intellectual honesty to answer that question.
Do the Islamist Extremist hate:
-- Communist-IAC leader Ramsey Clark who has been directly supporting Jihad groups for many years?
-- Noam Chomsky who is long-standing apologists for jihadism, and incited hate against the USA in Pakistan after 9/11?
-- John Esposito who is an unquestioning apologists for Jihad who holds America responsible for Islamist extremist terrorism?
See how easy this type of question is?
No brainer - everyone knows the answer.
But you can't answer the same question about Bush.
Why?
Would it force you to have to reconsider your position?
Candidly - I am somewhat flabbergasted by the outrageousness of putting Bush up as American dhimmi of the year, and I trying to address this logically. It is every bit as outrageous as if someone called Natan Sharansky the Israel dhimmi of the year, because he has promoted democracy as a means to fight terrorism. Frankly, it is really beyond outrageous, and really is inconsistent on a web site where so much solid research and good work has been done.
jeffrey
We can see that your flabbergasted. So rather than continue to beat a dead horse here, let me offer a book recommendation. It's an apolitical book so I am not trying to convince you of the superiority of my views, but it may provide pause on your feelings of outrage that roughly 17% of the JW/DW readership believe GWB qualifies as a leading dhimmi. The book is called "The Wisdom of Crowds" by James Surowiecki. As a bonus, it may help you make some dough in the stock market, if you are so inclined.
Cornelius
Clinton was Chairman of the board for 8 years and he never engendered this kind of passionate hatred from the Muslim street...undoubtedly because his policies were Muslim-friendly...Kosovo, Somalia, his chumminess with Arafat
That proves nothing other than possibly, Clinton was a bigger dhimmi than Bush. As a Bush supporter (and perhaps a Clinton hater) you will probably take exception to this but my view is that had the presidencies been reversed, it is likely Bush would have supported his buddy Tony Blair and Western European nations in their campaign against Milosevic, and Clinton would have been obliged to counterattack the Taliban after 9/11. The Muslim world might feel very differently about the two presidents.
With respect to their positions on the Palestinians, Clinton wined and dined a terrorist in a keffiyah; Bush wines and dines a terrorist in a suit. Clinton invited Arafat to the WH for negotiations on a Palestinian state; Bush is the only American president to ram a Palestinian state down the throats of the Israelis -- despite the murder of over 1,000 civilians and continued Arab Muslim terrorism/rejectionism.
As I noted to jeffrey above, Bush was nominated for Dhimmi of the year because he is a sycophant to the Saudis, bending over backwards to accommodate them, even as they advance Da'wa and Jihad in America and around the world.
jeffreyimm,
I was one nominating Bush. You know it’s funny, but I like Bush even though I feel he is a major dhimmi. I voted for Bush twice Jeffrey. I line up with a majority of his views and I’m glad he crushed the Taliban and kicked Saddam’s ass. There’s this matter of jihad and Islam though, a most important matter in my eyes. Your right, Islam hates Bush and, thank God, he fights them hard, but then he smiles and calls it a religion of peace. He dismisses the whole concept of Islam’s core blackness seemingly out of hand, like a swatted mosquito on a fishing trip. Well I won’t have it. It’s a dangerous metastasizing cult and I want my President to tell me the truth, Churchill style if you will. Bush is the leader of the free world for heaven sake! Lead! Don’t send them money, don’t let them into our country, and don’t call them friends. And he could most certainly affect the public statements of those on the list who work for him. By the shear weight of his office and its orbit, he has the authority and the power to put us on the path to effective anti-dhimmitude, but he doesn’t. He’s spraying the corners for cockroaches while termites are devouring the structure. My perception of his role as President, protector of life and freedom, puts him on the list.
That’s the best I can do Jeffrey, please feel free to flame me.
I forgot this part.
“"Does anyone believe that there is a person that Islamist Extremists hate more than George Bush?" (especially in America)
I think this question deserves a Yes/No answer.”
No.
A correction to one of my previous comments:
roughly 17% of the JW/DW readership believe GWB qualifies as the leading dhimmi
It's likely a much large percentage believe he qualifies as a leading dhimmi
“"Does anyone believe that there is a person that Islamist Extremists hate more than George Bush?"
-- from several postings above
The question is a false or, rather, misleading one. "Islamist Extremists" itself is a phrase worthy of examination, for it is not a question to be answered by "Islamist Extremists" (whatever those are) as if their ignorant perceptions are necessarily correct. It is we, not ill-informed Muslims, who have been asked to select from among a list of candidates the one whom, by his attitudes and his actions, has earned the title. These attitudes and actions can be prompted by evil motives, ideological or financial (George Galloway, the International Winner, gives signs of both). They could also be promped by an inability to grasp what Islam, what the Jihad, is all about, which in turn can reflect a too-great automatic respect accorded anything called a "religion," or out of ignorance (and the higher you rise, the greater the duty to inform yourself), or out of obstinacy and stupidity, which prevent you from being flexible, from freeing yourself from an initial policy that turns out not to take full account of the situation, and that prevents you, or those whom you purport to lead, from understanding the nature and dimensions and instruments of Jihad.
"Islamist Extremists" only recognize a handful of Infidels in any case. They know that Bush is the leader of the United States, the most powerful Infidel country, the country that appears least likely to be willing to succumb to Islam. But if such figures as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Bat Ye'or and Oriana Fallaci were better known to those "Islamist Extremists," surely they -- and a good many others not listed -- would be hated far more, and with far better reason. Are you quite sure that the House of Al-Saud "hates" Bush? And are you quite sure that the House of Al-Saud's failure to "hate Bush" reflects the decency of the Al-Saud, or reflects the fact that they have taken his measure, and know the limited ways in which he will act, and the many ways in which he will not act, cannot possibly ever act (see, elsewhere at JW, "Reading the Saudis the Riot Act").
The contest is not to be decided by what ill-informed Muslims may think, but by what we, informed Infidels, underwstand to be the varied duties of those who instruct or lead or attempt to protect us, over the long term, or fail to do so. All those who miss an opportunity, the one that Iraq presents to divide and demoralize Islam, and instead, as True Believers in the Free Market and Growth and eseentially, Economic Determinists, insist that ending "poverty" and "giving Muslims hope" is the solution to the menace of Islam -- by making Iraq a thriving nation-state and thereby...well, thereby achieving something to do with the threat of Islam, but exactly what is still entirely unclear, and the Administration simply cannot explain this little leap of logic coherently.
Among the candidates there were not only the ill-informed or the ignorant, but the crazed and the evil, or the evilly crazed (Ramsey Clark and George Galloway and Noam Chomsky all come to mind), and they deserved full recognition. But the idea that Bush, simply because he is "most hated" by "Islamist extremists" cannot be subject to criticism for his attitudes, and policy, on the Jihad, is false. He can and should be. And so should others in his administration. And so should those, possibly even more strongly, who criticize Bush, and the misadventure in Iraq, for all the wrong, instead of all the right, reasons.
I thoroughly believe that, in my opinion this being strictly a grass-roots movement, that it is wrong to criticize Bush and his administration for their relationship and perception of Islam.
Politics is about expediency. If Bush comes out and says what Islam is, he'd be destroyed. Watch what they do to Tancredo if he runs for president.
And it'll work, too.
That's because the average American's perception of reality when it comes to religion must be overcome before honest and serious dialogue can begin at the higher levels of our government. Bush and Rice and Hughes, et al, are not just saying what Muslims want to hear; they're saying what most Americans want to hear as well.
The only thing WE can do is teach those around us, and encourage them to do the same, until the tide rises enough so that it ceases to be politically-expedient to defend and apologize for Islam, and becomes politically expedient to condemn it.
That destination is far down the road.
RE: Unfortunately, it was against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the '93 WTC bombing was an Iraqi agent. He fled to Iraq after committing his dastardly deed.
Four members of bin Lafen's original upper council were Iraqis.
Read "The War Against America" by Laurie Mylorie
She was Clinton's Pres Advisor and she crucifies him for his inactions against terrorism.
Saddam had the greatest motive and he promised revenge for losing Kuwait and he is devious enough to hide his tracks. The fact that so many of the hijackers were Saudis means nothing > they are all against us.
Although I am not a US citizen I would like to comment a little bit on Bush as the US dhimmi of the year 2005. If I had been a US citizen I would have voted for him in last year's presidential election, but that is only because I considered him the lesser of two evils. Now I had the opportunity to vote for him as the US dhimmi of the year instead, and I did.
He is guilty of high treason merely for tolerating the existence of islam on American soil, just av every other politician in any civilized (non-muslim) country is gulity og high treason for tolerating the existence of islam in their respective countries. And he goes further than that. Forming an alliance with Saudi-Artabia and Pakistan to fight terror (which is another word for islam, and vice versa) is about as sick and pervert as forming an alliance with Mussolini against Hitler. And it does not stop there. He celebrates Ramadan together with muslims, he never misses an opportunity to praise islam as a "peaceful" and "great" religion.
And it does not stop there either. The US still supports muslim separatists and terrorists in Chechnya and in Xinjiang in western China. The US military aid which is pouring into Pakistan is also the source of supply for muslim terrorists killing hindus in Kashmir and elsewhere in India. Under his presidency the US has also replaced an essential secular dictator in Iraq with an islamist regime, a small sted forward, and a giant leap beackward.
Not that European politicians are any better, in many respects they are even worse, I voted for Tony Blair as the international dhimmi of the year. As a matter of fact Europe, or at least Western Europe, is already doomed, its too late to prevent the continent from falling to islam. My concern is that unless the US gets its act together, and quickly, The Statue of Liberty and Mount Rushmore will some day suffer the same fate as the Buddha statues at Bamiyan in Afghanistan, and Bush is nowhere near the kind of president you need to prevent that from happening.
Viking
Special_guest said,
"Yes, he responded very vigorously and powerfully and with military force. Unfortunately, it was against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11."
Well, I disagree with the statement that Afghanistan and Iraq had NOTHING to do with it, as they were minor players. I do agree that Saudi Arabia was MORE at fault than any other country and possibly more than all others combined.
My brain blows a fuse even trying to consider the results of Bush attempting to take out Saudi Arabia though. (possibly the same thing happens to Bush?)
Would someone explain to us what the ramifications of our invading Saudi Arabia would be, how we would accomplish it, and how we would resolve the results?
(can one still say Cold War??)
Bush and Rice but no Democrats at all. No Micheal Moore, no Sean Penn. What a joke.
Dennis Kucinich should also be on this list, and so should Cynthia McKinney, but there's only so much room.
"Would someone explain to us what the ramifications of our invading Saudi Arabia would be, how we would accomplish it, and how we would resolve the results?"
-- from a posting above
The oil of Saudi Arabia is conveniently located in the eastern, Shi'a-inhabited province of al-Hasa, on the Persian Gulf, and the place could be seized without bothering with the rest of the country. There may also be fields -- there is now exploration going on by Totalfina and Elf -- in areas close to the Empty Quarter, and that area too could easily be isolated.
There is no need to worry about an Al Qaeda takeover of Saudi Arabia. The Americans would never permit a takeover of the oilfields by Al Qaeda, and they could seize them with far less difficulty (despite the Saudi-sponsored stories about how they, the Saudis, have in advance mined or otherwise sabotaged all the fields -- this is nonsense), than the three weeks it took them to seize all of well-armed Iraq.
The question is: then what? In normal warfare, one routinely seizes or destroys raw materials important to the enemy. There was bombing of the Rumanian oilfields at Ploesti, annd sabotage (and defense against sabotage) of the Iraqi oilfields, both during World War II. Synthetic rubber was developed because the rubber plantatinos of Malaya had fallen into enemy hands. But the Jihad is now being conducted by not by qital, or combat, but by other means, and this makes it harder for Infidel governments to act as they might otherwise.
Should the government of Saudi Arabia fall, the West could certainly find justification for seizing oil fields now controlled by the Al-Saud, and even the oil and gas of Kuwait, the U.A.E., and Qatar -- for "safekeeping." The oil would continue to be sold at market prices, but supplies would be guaranteed. And some of the money might be given to the non-Arab and non-Muslim states, such as those of sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, by way of compensating them for the exorbitant prices they have had to pay for oil from the Arab and Muslim states in the past. This might dampen criticism, at least from the beneficiares. Meanwhile, within what be left of Saudi Arabia, internecine warfare could continue, and attempts to force the Western powers to give up the oilfields would be in vain, and at long last make clear that the counter-Jihad is based, now realistically, not on ending "poverty" by reconstructing this or that Arab or Muslim country, but by limiting the financial resources that go to fund the Jihad.
A different attitude, a different approach, but not possible as long as the preliminary study of the tenets of Islam, and the history of Islamic conquest, continues to be put off or deemed irrelevant or otherwise wilfully ignored.
MARTEL: "With respect to their positions on the Palestinians, Clinton wined and dined a terrorist in a keffiyah; Bush wines and dines a terrorist in a suit. Clinton invited Arafat to the WH for negotiations on a Palestinian state; Bush is the only American president to ram a Palestinian state down the throats of the Israelis -- despite the murder of over 1,000 civilians and continued Arab Muslim terrorism/rejectionism."
Utter nonsense. Bush convened a summit at Taba during Abbas's first stint as PM and tried to push the parties down the so-called 'road-map.' When the Palestinians made no effort to disarm Hamas and IJ, the entire process went moribund until this year when Ariel Sharon, AT HIS OWN INITIATIVE, decided to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza.
Get your facts straight.
PS - The criticism of Bush from many on the Left, in Europe and the Arab world is that he's sat on his hands and done nothing to move the peace process foward for 3 years. But in your universe, he's "rammed a Palestinian state down the throats of the Israelis."
The poster above may wish to start with the article by P. David Hornik at the website whose founder that same poster has repeatedly told us he thinks so well of.
This article treats of only one of the consequences of the Adminstration's incredible mistreatment of Israel, which may possibly be explained by the fact that, having come up short in the Iraq-the-Model and Democracy-Is-On-the-March projects in Redoing of the Middle East, the Bush Administration is determined to come up with some "success" -- i.e. a "solution" -- i.e. a "two-state solution" -- to the Jihad againnst Israel that has no conceivable "solution" or end.
Here's the article:
Folly in Gaza: The Sequel
By P. David Hornik
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 17, 2005
Under intense American pressure, Israel recently signed with the Palestinian Authority a new deal that effectively ensures a steady flow of weapons and terrorists into Gaza. From there they will make their way to the West Bank, thereby guaranteeing that the “cycle of violence” will continue far into the future on terms detrimental to Israel.
The architect of the deal is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Rice came to Israel after suffering a defeat at the conference on Arab democracy in Bahrain. Egypt had blocked a draft declaration by insisting that Arab governments keep control over money transfers to NGOs and democracy groups. But while Egypt is hard to bully and insists on what it considers its interests, Israel under Prime Minister Sharon and Defense Minister Mofaz—even after the disengagement that was supposed to give Israel “moral capital” to resist further American pressure—easily submits to the will of the U.S. That works to America’s advantage: When meeting with Arab recalcitrance, the U.S. can always save face with a few shoves of its "sole democratic ally."
By all accounts, Rice had no patience for any further haggling on security matters. She demanded a deal posthaste. She even stayed one extra night in Israel and got the deal by Tuesday, before heading off to join President Bush in South Korea. Nothing that has happened in Israel in recent years seems to have convinced her or the president that Israeli security concerns are anything more than tiresome nuisances. Nor has anything dissuaded Sharon and Mofaz that bowing to the U.S. and propitiating it is, as always, the cardinal Israeli interest, easily trumping sanity in the security domain.
It goes nearly without saying that Israel’s autonomy as a sovereign and democratic state is irrelevant when there are larger matters at stake. Matters such as demonstrating America’s ability to keep the Palestinians happy. The new agreement itself makes clear how little, more than half a century after securing its independence, Israel has been able to establish, even in the eyes of its U.S. ally, that it is a genuinely sovereign entity entitled to all the security prerogatives this entails.
That much is evident in the new agreement. It contains astonishing clauses that compromise Israel’s basic rights in a way that no country, democratic or non-democratic, would tolerate—except, that is, for a small, outcast Jewish state dependent on a single powerful supporter.
For instance, at the Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza, incoming traffic of Palestinians and others from the Sinai is to be “monitored” by Egyptians on the one side and Palestinians on the other. Monitoring the monitors will be a contingent of EU personnel who, as EU officials have already made clear, will not serve as policemen, border guards, or customs officers; this will leave them little role except as passive rubber stamps. Considering that the EU has consistently backed Palestinian terror against Israel since the 1970s, one could not rationally have expected anything better.
The agreement also calls into question, yet again, the wisdom of Israel’s recent disengagement from Gaza. Back in the days when the disengagement was being sold as a clever maneuver, whereby Israel would leave Gaza but seal it off as a security threat, the assumption was that Israel would maintain a presence on the Gaza-Sinai border—an obvious conduit for terrorists and weapons. This was a reasonable demand given that the Palestinian Authority, of which Gaza is part, is not a sovereign entity, but is anarchic, infested with terrorists, and has shown more than a little hostility to Israel.
But now that the Palestinians and Egyptians, with American backing, have stipulated that not a single Israeli security operative is to remain on this border, Israel has settled, instead, for surveillance cameras at the Rafah terminal. These will send video feeds to a liaison office at Kerem Shalom, which is in Israeli territory south of Gaza. Incredibly, the liaison office—to repeat, on sovereign, supposedly undisputed Israeli territory—is to be staffed by Israeli as well as European and Palestinian personnel. In this theater of the absurd, Israel not only loses the right to a presence on the Gaza-Sinai border; it also loses the right independently to monitor the monitors by video feed on its own territory without being monitored there, in turn, by other Europeans and Palestinians!
Then there is the matter of the Karni crossing from Gaza to Israel. Since the disengagement, 35 Gazan export trucks have gone through it daily. Under the agreement, this will increase to 150 by the end of this year, and at least 400 by the end of 2006. But the agreement also stipulates that bus convoys, by December 15, and truck convoys, by a month later, will pass through Karni to the West Bank. “The result is easy to see,” former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Tuesday, noting that “Kassam rockets and mortars will be transported through Judea and Samaria to be launched at Israel. . . . The biggest danger is that the Palestinians would be able to transfer the Strella [anti-aircraft] missiles, which are already in Gaza, to the area overlooking Ben-Gurion Airport and threaten planes landing and taking off.”
He went on to note what would seem obvious to anyone genuinely concerned with Israel’s well-being (whether or not that includes the Bush administration): “You can't treat the Palestinian Authority like a properly run state. It’s a failing regime that does not fight terror, and the security ring around it cannot be loosened.” Indeed, it cannot be. But it has been. And not just loosened, but almost obliterated. Starting next month, each day dozens of buses and trucks will be crossing sovereign Israeli territory, carrying people and weapons from one part of an anti-Israeli terror entity to the other.
The problems with the Rafah and Karni crossings, however, pale in insignificance compared to the agreement’s coup de grace: Israel has given the Palestinians a green light to start building a seaport in Gaza. Back in the misty past, less than four years ago, Israel created some hoopla over its capture of the Karine A cargo ship, which was attempting to smuggle a large consignment of weapons and explosives from Iran to Gaza. It need not have bothered. Under the new deal, the Karine A will be a harmless fishing boat compared to the munitions, certain to include long-range missiles sooner or later, that the Palestinians will be able to bring in routinely.
In the short term, the U.S. may feel that it has given the Palestinians breathing space and shored up its faltering image in the Arab world. In the long term, the new agreement advances the cause of Islamic terror and puts a loyal but obsequious ally in great jeopardy."
An Administration that:
1) Puts continuous pressure on Israel so that it is no longer in sole control of its own border crossings
2) Cannot come up with any way to dampen Saudi and other Muslim oil revenues and steadfastly refuses either to tax gasoline as it should be taxed or to spend the hundreds of billions that should be spent on nuclear, solar, wind energy and every conceivable kind of conservation project
3) Dithers in Darfur, instead of taking the occasion of the continued murders there, and the death (and likely killing) of John Garang, the leader of the southern Sudanese, to make a move into the Sudan, and showing that Dar al-Islam can itself be stopped in its expanding tracks, and pushed back -- and not inconsquentially, heartening black Christians in Africa, and possibly usefully driving a further wedge between blacks (who have been targetted for Da'wa) in the West, and Muslims
4) Shows little sign of preparing world opinion appropriately for an attack on Iran's nuclear project.
5) Continues to prate of "victory" or even "total victory" over a misleadingly-named "war on terror" that fails to instruct people in either the nature, or the instruments, of Jihad
6) Continues to believe, without the slightest evidence, that "democracy" in the Arab and Muslim countries necessarily will have an outcome favorable to Infidel interests, when the past century suggests that Islam can be weakend only by quasi-enlightened despots who are determined to limit its political and social role because they had decided the wellbeing of their own countries required it -- such despots as Ataturk, and Bourguiba of Tunisia, and the Shah of Iran.
The "Democracy-Is-On-the-March" disappointment, and the horrific misallocation of resources and attention to Iraq, necessarily will lead to renewed pressure by an embarrassed administration eager for some seeming "success" in the Middle East; this success will be the failure to limit or rein in the PLO, or whatever it now calls itself.
Never heard of Hornik, Hugh.
But I stand by my statement. The Bush admin. has done little or nothing by way of Middle East diplomacy since the meeting in Taba back in 2002. The Europeans, the Arabs and the American Left have all castigated the President for his lack of engagement. Bush has been stubbornly waiting for Abbas (and Arafat before him) to disarm the terrorists before committing himself to another round of summitry.
The Gaza withdrawal was entirely an Israeli initiative. The US gov't has since gotten on board and has tried to smooth the transition.
Your contempt for the Bush Administration is no secret Hugh. You might want to contemplate the policies of his predecessor.
"Never heard of Hornik..."
-- from a posting above by a professed great admirer of www.frontpagemag.com and of its founder
P. David Hornik can be found under "Columnists" at frontpagemag, where dozens of his articles appear regularly. The one offered above gives chapter-and-verse as to what is wrong with the latest surrender by Israel, to the Adminstration demands on the sharing of "security" at Israel's borders -- imagine the United States agreeing to let Al Qaeda monitor, side-by-side with Americans, and possibly Saudis, what goes into the United States, and you will have some idea of what the Israelis were pressured into agreeing to.
That most recent article, on border security arrangements, has already been cut-and-pasted above.
Recent Articles by Hornik, who appears weekly at www.frontpagemag.com, include:
“Israel Out of Jerusalem”
Published: Friday, December 02, 2005
Intifada Ad Infinitum
Published: Monday, November 28, 2005
The Saudi State vs. the Antiterror Teacher
Published: Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Folly in Gaza: The Sequel
Published: Thursday, November 17, 2005
Finkelstein’s Fan in Israel
Published: Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Friendly Fables About Israel
Published: Friday, October 21, 2005
Politically-Correct Hell
Published: Thursday, October 20, 2005
UN Envoy Calls for End of Israel
Published: Friday, September 30, 2005
Israel's Latest Friendly Policeman
Published: Friday, September 09, 2005
Israel Uproots Graves, Palestinians Up the Rhetoric
Published: Thursday, September 01, 2005
Inbreeding and the Arab World's Pathologies
Published: Thursday, August 25, 2005
Sole Democratic Punching Bag
Published: Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Earth to Google: The Jewish State Exists
Published: Thursday, August 18, 2005
Israel's Delusionary Politics
Published: Thursday, July 21, 2005
The EU's Unholy Alliance
Published: Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Israel's Perilous Patience
Published: Thursday, June 16, 2005
The Palestinian Authority: Hothouse for Teen Terror
Published: Thursday, June 02, 2005
Al-Qaeda Comes to Gaza
Published: Wednesday, May 25, 2005
The Church of Anti-Semitism
Published: Friday, April 29, 2005
Anti-Semitic Teachers
Published: Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Alistair Crooke's Meeting with Sheikh Yassin
Published: Friday, April 15, 2005
The Smugglers Have Won
Published: Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Israel's Brave New World
Published: Friday, April 01, 2005
Sharansky's Straight Talk
Published: Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Israel's Radical Oasis
Published: Thursday, March 03, 2005
The Old Middle East Comes to Gaza
Published: Thursday, February 24, 2005
Capitulating to Terror
Published: Friday, February 11, 2005
The Other Elections
Published: Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Israeli Agency Sheds Light on Terror Axis
Published: Wednesday, January 26, 2005
A Speech for Ariel Sharon
Published: Friday, January 21, 2005
Jenin Jenin Film-Maker Admits Fraud
Published: Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Haaretz's Travesty of Language
Published: Friday, December 31, 2004
Palestinian Weapons: The Ominous Facts
Published: Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Candidate Barghouti
Published: Friday, December 10, 2004
The Arafat Lovefest
Published: Monday, November 15, 2004
Arafat’s Death: Even Worse Than His Life
Published: Thursday, November 11, 2004
Don't Disengage from the Truth
Published: Wednesday, November 03, 2004
The Israeli Right -- All Too Right, Again
Published: Wednesday, October 06, 2004
A Frontpage Exchange Over "Jewish Anti-Semitism"
Published: Friday, September 24, 2004
Want to Be a Terror Master? You're Dead
Published: Thursday, September 16, 2004
American Jews and the Iranian Threat
Published: Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Keeping Jews Out of Judea
Published: Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Israel's Demography Scare
Published: Thursday, August 05, 2004
All's Quiet on the Israeli Front?
Published: Thursday, July 29, 2004
Outrage at The Hague
Published: Thursday, July 15, 2004
Professor of Politicide
Published: Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Israel Inside the Box
Published: Thursday, July 08, 2004
Dangerous Peaceniks
Published: Monday, June 21, 2004
Palestinian Moloch
Published: Thursday, May 27, 2004
Palestinian Hatred in "The Territories"
Published: Monday, May 24, 2004
Israel and the Ghost of Gonen
Published: Friday, May 07, 2004
Sharon’s New War on Terror
Published: Tuesday, April 20, 2004
World Kangaroo Court
Published: Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Israel’s Gaza Gamble
Published: Thursday, March 11, 2004
The Strange Case of Bethlehem
Published: Monday, March 01, 2004
Israel's Self-Hating Newspaper
Published: Monday, February 02, 2004
The Routinization of Terror
Published: Friday, January 16, 2004
The EU’s Aid to Terror
Published: Monday, January 12, 2004
Palestinians Mourn Their Hero
Published: Tuesday, December 16, 2003
Words of Terror
Published: Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Israel's Deadly Prisoner Deal
Published: Wednesday, November 12, 2003
How Arafat Survives
Published: Tuesday, September 16, 2003
Israel and the Death Credit Syndrome
Published: Wednesday, September 10, 2003
Egypt's Helping Hand For Terror
Published: Wednesday, August 27, 2003
Looks like I'm not the only fan of Horowitz's 'Front Page Mag.'
If only Bush had not been photographed kissing the Saudi Royalpain...sigh...
The piece by Hornik printed in full above was sent in by a steady poster. The list, on the other hand, of Hornik's other pieces at the site in question was simply a cut-and-paste matter, to make a point.
Cornelius
Bush is the only US president to formally and repeatedly call for an independent Palestinian state. Despite 14 critical reservations issued by Israel, Bush officially submitted the Road Map (originally an invention of the Saudis) for implementation by the United Nations AS IS, effectively binding Israel to the plan.
I could link article after article that chronicles the last four years of Bush’s efforts directly and through the State Department to lay the groundwork for a Palestinian state – including the provision of hundreds of millions of dollars, bullets and training for the PA, acceptance of Hamas in elections, and political pressure on Israel -- while failing to hold the Arabs to ANY of their obligations spelled out in the Road Map, i.e, an end to incitement, the disarming and dismantling of terrorist groups, etc. Actually, the situation is even more grotesque today because Bush has effectively rewritten the Road Map to forge a contiguous Palestine by carving sovereign links between Gaza and the West Bank, thus bisecting Israel.
Bush has been stubbornly waiting for Abbas (and Arafat before him) to disarm the terrorists before committing himself to another round of summitry.
Abbas has repeatedly said he won't disarm the terrorists; this has not prevented Bush from pressuring Israel to pave the way for a Palestinian state as documented in the Hornik article and elsewhere.
Get your frigging head out of the sand.
Hugh -
Would you please clarify a point on your following comment?
"There is no need to worry about an Al Qaeda takeover of Saudi Arabia. The Americans would never permit a takeover of the oilfields by Al Qaeda"
I believe I understood that one of your main criticisms of Bush was his cozy relation with Saudi Arabia. And I understand that is because you view (as I do) that Arabia is the source of much of the Jihad funding and violence. I am certain you are aware of the historical role of Wahhabist Islamists in both the culture and the control of the Arabian people. And Osama Bin Laden, an Arabian, came from precisely this culture.
Am I to understand that you believe that the US would be able to effectively use troops to control oil fields in Arabia from both a nation of prodominantly Wahhabists, and from the highly predictable flow of foreign Islamist terrorists into Arabia if Saud was deposed and US troops were on the ground?
Because if we are going to criticize loss of life to promote a questionable democracy in Iraq, I certainly don't see how we would have any better (and mostly likely much worse) situation if US sent troops into Arabia. Do you think that there is likely to be anything OTHER than an Islamist government in Arabia in the future?
Just scratching my head here, trying to see how the arguments fit together. In my mind, they would seem to be contradictory. What am I missing in your argument?
MARTEL: "Bush is the only US president to formally and repeatedly call for an independent Palestinian state."
Jimmy Carter called for the creation of a Palestinian state. Bill Clinton advocated the same.
MARTEL: "Abbas has repeatedly said he won't disarm the terrorists; this has not prevented Bush from pressuring Israel to pave the way for a Palestinian state as documented in the Hornik article and elsewhere."
As I wrote earlier, unlike Clinton, who hosted Arafat for more visits than any other leader in the world, Bush refused to meet him. This principled stand was based on Arafat's ties to terrorism and the Chairman's refusal to disarm Hamas and IJ.
Bush met Mahmoud Abbas in Washington this year. It was their first and only meeting since Taba. Again, the reasons for the diplomatic freeze was Palestinian non-compliance with the 'Road Map.'
The dynamic that facilitated the recent diplomatic initiative was Israel's unilateral decision to withdraw from Gaza. Ariel Sharon essentially put the world on notice that Israel was no longer responsible for Gaza. The Bush Administration quickly engaged itself, working closely with Egypt in order to avoid having Gaza slip into chaos and become a base of operations for Al Qaeda. It was the responsible thing to do.
I certainly don't know how accurate Mr Hornik's article is. If true, some of the details are disturbing.
As for your "bisection" of Israel, it is mearly a rail line over Israeli territory linking the West Bank and Gaza. Such overstatement doesn't serve the exposition of the facts.
As for your "bisection" of Israel, it is mearly a rail line over Israeli territory linking the West Bank and Gaza
A transportation corridor that will -- by the end of 2006 -- have over 400 Palestinian lorries traveling between Gaza and the West Bank and where Israel will not have the rights of a sovereign to inspect or impede convoys. How many lanes of traffic will be required to ensure the free flow of goods, weapons, and terrorists? And what happens when the Palestinians argue that their economy is being "strangled" because those transportation links are insufficient? Will there be a special meeting of the Quartet to demand further land concessions from Israel?
Thus far, the entire Road Map has been a slippery slope for Israel. Each time they concede on land, border crossings, work permits, checkpoints, and prisoner releases, the result is more dead citizens. Enough. When Abbas demonstrates that he can control the barbarians, Israel will happily submit to international pressure and reciprocate with further territorial and economic concessions.
Interesting that in over 70 comments spread across several days on the question of why GWB was nominated for Dhimmi of the Year, not one Bush apologist has even attempted to explain/justify/rationalize the Bush Saudi Affirmative Action Programme. There is widespread agreement that Saudi Arabia is the enemy in this war between the West and Islam, yet the silence is deafening on why the Commander in Chief continues to confer on the Saudis, the most beneficient financial and political benefits.
CharlesMartel: "There is widespread agreement that Saudi Arabia is the enemy in this war between the West and Islam, yet the silence is deafening on why the Commander in Chief continues to confer on the Saudis, the most beneficient financial and political benefits."
Two management concepts apparently elude you:
1. Stalling for time until you are ready to make your move.
2. Having to decide between "bad" and "worse". Anyone with any principles can decide between good and bad. Decisions between "bad" and "worse", however, are the most frequent decisions that most executives have to make.
-- Enemy Saudi-run Arabia is bad
-- Enemy Al Qaeda-run Arabia is worse
In my mind, this is so obvious, that I fail to understand the need to explain it. Perhaps there needs to be a separate topic on this somewhere this type of subject is explored. I don't share the optimism that a nation of Wahabbists is either stable or should Saud be deposed, that US could protect such oil fields. I admire such optimists, but I don't share such optimism. I also believe that is a matter of WHEN, not IF, Arabia will openly become an Islamist Extremist nation, run by AQ Islamist Terrorists. Again, I am not an optimist on this. I think the day will come when will be fighting an Islamist Terrorist-led Arabia.
But I believe President Bush felt it was better to wait for that day to come, and try to become more prepared, than to force such a day now. Of course, what executive could come out and "say" that - none - that ever would get elected.
History will be the judge if that was a good or bad decision.
At the end of 2005, what is frequently forgotten after 9/11/2001 was that at the time the global economy was tanking, and the twin goals were to strike back at AQ and also preserve the economy. I think half-measures and stalls were employed. Not my favorite choice of tactics, but then I don't have to take responsibility for such choices either.
On 9/11, I thought that ending the Arabian enemy would and should have been the right thing to do. It would also have started a larger global Jihadist war that would make Iraq look like a picnic in comparison. And there would be other massive economic consequences to the world, all while US didn't even have the most rudimentary Homeland Security in place. So yes, I would have preferred to punish the guilty enemy of Arabia.
But executives don't often choose between good and bad, and they have to think about the long-term consequences of their actions. They frequently have to choose between bad and worse. They won't get any praise or any credit for such tough choices, but that is why they are the executives.
Again this is not the place to discuss such a long and complex subject, but those are a few of my general thoughts. But there are TWO sides to this argument, and since we seem to only here one side, I will toss in my thoughts on the other side of the issue. Fighting Jihad requires that we investigate all issues and take nothing for granted.
Charles Martel says:"...Saudi Arabia is the enemy in this war between the West and Islam,yet the silence is deafening on why the Commander in Chief continies to confer on the Saudis,the most beneficial and pilitical benefits". The reason is simple -Our President plays a little game of 'takiyya'(deception),Which was ordained only for the Koranists. He is not a fool to burn his boat,when Soudi oil is desperately needed, and at the same time,once you are an open enemy of Soudies,all his plans in the middle east will go further haywire. Remember,he is the President of America,and he cannot openly show his revnge or friendship just like how we express ourselves in J/W. So I think Mr. JWB should be out of Dimmi of the year
Two management concepts apparently elude you:
1. Stalling for time until you are ready to make your move.
2. Having to decide between "bad" and "worse". Anyone with any principles can decide between good and bad. Decisions between "bad" and "worse", however, are the most frequent decisions that most executives have to make.
jeffrey
I have a Doctorate in Management so those concepts are not unfamilar to me. The problem with the notion that Bush is "stalling for time" is that while Western governments dither and wage police actions against Islamic terrorists, the Saudis are continuing to build mosques and madrassas, funding Islamic and Arabic studies departments, and buying controlling stakes in media companies around the world which will result in the further propagation of Da'wa and Jihad and make it that much more difficult for the West to win the war against Islam when Bush is finally ready to "make his move".
Further, Bush is actively fostering and facilitating Da'wa and Jihad with his Saudi Affirmative Action Programme. As I pointed out in my previous posts, you are proposing a false choice between war with Saudi Arabia on the one hand, and conferring absurd financial and political benefits to the Saudis when they are already generating profits in excess of $150 billion/year from the sale of oil. Since 1975, they have spent over $70 billion on Da'wa. Why contribute to this?
"As I pointed out in my previous posts, you are proposing a false choice between war with Saudi Arabia on the one hand, and conferring absurd financial and political benefits to the Saudis when they are already generating profits in excess of $150 billion/year from the sale of oil. Since 1975, they have spent over $70 billion on Da'wa."
Charles -
You keep wanting to put words in my mouth that I am not saying.
I do not contribute to it and I have been driving a hybrid in the DC area for 4 years.
I don't agree necessarily with Bush's energy positions.
But even though I don't agree I understand their point of view.
I believe the administration is hostage to current global economy and wasteful oil users in USA.
I believe administration believes it can stall with Saudis while it tries to build defenses and alternatives. I believe that the administration absolutely DOES believe the Wahabbist population in Arabia would put OBL in charge if Saud is deposed. And they are trying to avoid that from happening via ugly and disgraceful compromises.
But they feel they have no choice but compromise.
PS - Regarding having to make bad vs worse decisions, a doctorate in management is impressive. However, it is not the same as actual executive experience. Any real executive will totally understand what I am talking about.
jeffrey
Loaded questions, false choices, and blind spots. That's quite an interesting hall of mirrors you have there between your ears.
The question is, why is BUSH contributing to Da'wa and Jihad by providing the Saudis with the benefits I have listed above? Taking those benefits away will not put OBL in charge.
What is the strategy jeffrey?
"Loaded questions, false choices, and blind spots. That's quite an interesting hall of mirrors you have there between your ears."
Mr. Martel -
I have presented my thoughts in what I view to be objective, calm, manner, that respects disagreement and different opinions. You seem to have trouble with that, and thats a lot of insults that you have in your comments. Talk to me in a civil tone and will continue to discuss things, if not, find someone else to fight with. I'm not interested.
The enemy is the Jihadists - not each other.
I think a lot of people should stand back and reflect on that. That very important point is getting missed.
This is precisely why I rarely come to these comment sections, we all have more important things to do than fight among each other. Especially when we have an enemy determined to destroy us. Looking at and discussing alternatives (right and wrong) must be done in a civil manner that respects different views.
So the West Bank and Gaza is now "contiguous" because of a single rail link. And Israel is "bisected" even though the rail line will be elevated, in no way impeding Israeli road traffic.
This is the kind of hyperbole one usually expects from Liberal/Lefties.
As for the Bush-Saudi relationship, I think it's obvious to everyone that it's all about oil. For all their sins, the Saudis are price "doves" and the only country in the world with the excess production capacity to moderate prices.
jeffrey
Here's my perspective (calmly):
You insist on intellectual honesty yet ask questions that are specifically engineered to produce the answer that you want to hear (Y/N), rather than to shed genuine light on the inquiry and therefore give everyone (including yourself) an opportunity to learn from the interaction;
You refuse or are unable to answer questions that are repeatedly put to you;
You make snide remarks to other posters (Two management concepts apparently elude you; Any real executive will totally understand what I am talking about) and are then thin-skinned when those posters respond with similarly disparaging remarks.
Now, I am completely prepared to be civil and ask again:
What is Bush's motivation in providing the Saudis with a host of political and financial benefits (listed above) which directly contribute to their efforts to spread Da'wa and Jihad, when there is no reason to believe that the withdrawal of these benefits will lead to OBL coming to power?
So the West Bank and Gaza is now "contiguous" because of a single rail link. And Israel is "bisected" even though the rail line will be elevated, in no way impeding Israeli road traffic.
If you read the Hornik article above or any of the other stories on this issue, you'll see that it is not a "single rail link" but actually 3 separate road routes between Gaza and the West Bank that are being advocated. And the issue is not whether it "impedes Israeli road traffic" but whether, as I stated in my post, they are subject to Israeli policing as would be the right of any sovereign. They will not be because the international community will consider them to be Palestinian territory.
This is the kind of hyperbole one usually expects from Liberal/Lefties
Lol! No surer testament to having lost the argument.
Martel,
1) It remains to be determined how accurate the Hornik article is. It's quite obvious the author is unequivocally opposed to Israel's recent Gaza withdrawal (as am I, not because I'm opposed to concessions per se or the two-state solution, but because I'm opposed to unilateral Israeli concessions as that gov't trades away all its cards before a comprehensive solution can be negotiated).
2) While Israel's control of the Rafah crossing from Egypt to Gaza appears to be compromised (according to the article), there is nothing to indicate that Israel will be prevented from searching truck traffic proceeding through the Karni crossing from Gaza through Israel to the West Bank.
Where does the article indicate that Israel has lost sovereignty over the truck corridor through its territory? This is the basis of your "bisection" theory.
Please elaborate my Bush bashing friend.
Cornelius
Here's an article with more detail about the transportation link demands made by the Palestinians and support for these demands from the EU and the US. The World Bank has also weighed in with support for 3 "safe passages" between Gaza and the WB with a sunken road approach that would be technically outside of Israeli territory. I'll dig for that article tomorrow after I've had some shut eye. Go easy on me for the next 8 hours.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=94463
Bush and Rice and Hughes, et al, are not just saying what Muslims want to hear; they're saying what most Americans want to hear as well.
Posted by Iblis
Look, Bush is THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD, as several posters have pointed out. It is his DUTY to protect American citizens and he is not doing that when he lies to the public about Islam, or any other crucial issue. Political correctness and an aversion to speaking the unpleasant truth is inexcusable when the future of this country is at stake. Most Americans would much prefer to know the ugly truth now, rather than after the next catastrophic terror attack.
Since he is in the midst of the impossible, foolhardy mission of "democratizing" the Middle East, he is not in a position to denigrate the religion of its inhabitants. However, when he stands at a podium with several pompous, seditious, sneering American muslim "leaders" and touts the virtues of their barbaric death cult, he sounds like an utter fool. The asinine platitudes about Islam are insulting and unnecessary. Silence is preferable to blatant falsehoods, but does he even know he is lying? That uncertainty is as exasperating as the lies themselves!
Mr. Martel -
No my questions regarding management policies and executive experience are not personal insults, like your comments of what is "between my ears".
Apparently here at JW discussion commentors think that personal attacks are ok. Thats why I won't be back.
But your question:
"What is Bush's motivation in providing the Saudis with a host of political and financial benefits (listed above) which directly contribute to their efforts to spread Da'wa and Jihad, when there is no reason to believe that the withdrawal of these benefits will lead to OBL coming to power?"
How would I know? I don't work for Bush, I am not even a Republican. I am tired of being viewed as a Bush apologist simply for asking some objective questions.
But my guess is (and I have qualified such "opinions" as such) is that again Bush is stalling for time for several reasons.
One, I guess that he believes, correctly or incorrectly, that a democratic Iraq might provide a counterbalance to an Islamist Arabia.
Two, I guess that he believes that a Saudi-managed enemy of Arabia is less of a bad enemy, than an OBL-managed enemy of Arabia as a worse enemy.
Three, I guess that he has global financial issues to consider in terms of investments by Arabia and the oil market that requires complex handling and timing.
Four, Perhaps he has been misguided on Arabia by advisers and perhaps he does not fully understand the threat they pose.
Any or all of these could be true.
Or there could be another reason.
Rumors have spread over the past 2 years that Bush has made a specific threat regarding Arabia that has managed to get the Sauds to reduce some of their activity.
Who knows outside of Bush himself?
The question of Arabia and Oil should have been the top questions in the 2004 elections.
I personally worked hard to get these questions before candidates for office.
As you can of course imagine, I did not succeed, since no political individual in any party wants to address these tarbabies.
Another problem of course is the American people themselves.
Ignoring their role in the Arabian problem is denial.
I have been driving a hybrid for 4 years. How many others are?
Clearly not enough.
And how many others have been promoting alternative fuel vehicles for years, as I have at:
-- Driving-Out-Terrorists.com ?
And how many individuals criticizing Bush for his role in Arabia have made such commitments themselves?
Absolutely no one here has answered that question, I have posed several times - why?
Finally, it really boggles the imagination, no matter how potentially misguided or potentially wrong, President Bush may (or may not) be on Iraq and how he is handling Arabia, that he is a Dhimmi of 2005.
President Bush, October 2005
"Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom."
"The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century," he said. "Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy teaches that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision."
"The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia," Bush asserted.
"Against such an enemy, there's only one effective response: We never back down, never give in and never accept anything less than complete victory," Bush declared.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051006-3.html
--- OK - those are the words of a DHIMMI???
Lets be intellectually honest here on this subject; credibility matters.
Who among the Dhimmi candidates: Ramsey Clark, Noam Chomsky, John Esposito would say such a thing?
Answer: NONE of them.
And this is not the first time Bush has spoken out against Islamist extremists.
But just two months after this speech by a President of the United States, he is nominated as American Dhimmi of 2005?
And does anyone think that Daniel Pipes is praising America's biggest dhimmi?
Bush Declares War on Radical Islam
by Daniel Pipes
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3026
Especially given the complexity of this subject of Jihad, the waning interest of the American people, and the growing complaceny of the American people, it is IMPERATIVE that those who try to educate on Jihad remain balanced and credible.
I think this nomination of Bush as American Dhimmi of 2005 was a backwards step in that direction, that does not further the goal of educating on the danger of Jihad.
Not being a major Bush supporter or a Republican, I feel awkward having to make such comments, but I am a firm believer that fighting the war against Jihad does require intellectual honesty on the subjects, to ensure credibility.
Since 9/11, I have dedicated my "free time" to this war against Jihad on UnitedStatesAction.com for the past 4 years trying to educate, inform, provide guidance. And many others have also done so. But no one has been as successful as Robert Spencer's JihadWatch. For all the efforts of other individuals and groups, JihadWatch stands out there as the benchmark in educating the global public on the threat of Jihad. I value its efforts and reasonableness. People around the world look up to JihadWatch and its great work.
Bush may (or may not) be misguided, wrong, made many mistakes - but to label him as a dhimmi really stretchs a point. Credibility matters.