Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald offers his impressions of President Bush's State of the Union Address last night:
I just watched the depressing spectacle. The smug speaker. Not a hint of recognition. The "noble faith." Those who would misuse that "noble faith." The cure-all of "freedom" and "democracy" and America's duty to bring that "freedom" and "democracy" to the whole wide world. Freedom on the March in Egypt, Lebanon. Democracy at work, quickly blurred, among something called the "Palestinian people." Staying the course in Iraq. Helping the "Iraqi people" who, in finding "freedom," would naturally come to desire what all those who have found "freedom" have come to desire. Peace, justice, the American way. How true. From Moscow to Beijing, everyone is embracing the same thing. This means, of course, only one thing: Economic Man, homo economicus, who now is the perfect man, al-insan al-kamil, the model of all our striving.Great applause. Applause lines, at which everyone (or sometimes just the Republicans, or on one occasion just the Democrats) rose in stupid appreciation of a stupid speech by a stupid man. How could they stand it? I thought of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and how they delivered their own eloquent speeches, that they wrote themselves, with no cheap "applause lines" and no equally cheap rising to applaud those cheap applause lines. What an undignified farce it has all become.
The great energy plan? Oh, if we put the pitiful amounts left over from Bringing Democracy to the Muslim World (put Albert Brooks in charge, for god's sake, he can't do worse than is now being done) to work in cleaning coal-fired smokestacks, and the nuclear and solar and wind energy that brought applause, we might -- this is our great goal -- diminish by 75% our dependence on oil from the Middle East.
And all this by the year --- I waited, thinking he might say 2010, or possibly even 2012 -- 2025. Twenty years to go, at a trillion or so a year, flowing into OPEC pockets. This cannot be. This must not be.
Twenty to thirty years to free ourselves from oil. 2025. And how bitter it is to realize, through a simple calculation, what has been lost by failing to comprehend either the nature of Islam and of Muslim believers, and therefore of the uses to which, inevitably, OPEC revenues would be put. And further, how much time has been lost by the willingness to believe that there were "allies" among the Arabs and Muslims, and that chief among those "allies" was that "staunch ally" Saudi Arabia. And we knew it was true because an army of Westerners, ex-diplomats, ex-intelligence agents, public relations men, businessmen of every doubtful sort angling for Saudi contracts, politicians on the Saudi take or make, kept telling us that it was so. And not one of them has been hauled before Congress. Not one of them has been investigated or has been the subject of books. Not one of them has been forced to disgorge his money or has had to face any charges or any public disgrace. Yet all this is needed, if the treasonous farce is not, in a less open fashion, to continue even now.So it is now going to be, in Bush's scheme, 20 years hence. But what if the government had been led by people who saw things aright, and had begun with a real energy plan in 1973, thirty-three years ago? We might now have no need for any oil from the Middle East. And what's more, had we taxed gasoline and taxed oil in other ways, we might have funded alternative energy programs that, in turn, by now might have made advances, expressed as lower costs. And that would have allowed the export of such technology around the world, to India and to China as well, and thus further cut down on the need by others for buying oil and thus, unwittingly or unwillingly, supporting the Jihad.
Wormwood and gall.
And besides, we can't continue like this with fossil fuels for other reasons. Our rulers have got to start listening to scientists on this matter. This is above, beyond, before, behind, all political and economic calculation.
If Bush wants an American Burden, let it be to find a way to end reliance on fossil fuels, and at the same time, to convince people to locate and derive the source of their happiness in less energy-intensive pursuits. Start, say, with instilling an interest in language, in playing with it as she is spoken, in admiring it as she is written. How's that for an old idea whose time has come once again? And then in studying the laws of nature, possibly beginning with a little taxonomic Latin to enliven those admiring walks in the woods. No more making fun of Muir or Thoreau.
Get with the program.
France gets 70% of it's electricity from
nuclear reactors. Why not the USA > because the
Democrats and enviromentalists blocked them.
Domestic oil exploration has been blocked also.
Wind and solar is a pipe dream......
Your comments Hugh are "hindsight" and time to get off your "high horse".......
HERE IS A LINE OF THOUGHT
http://www.fomi.nu/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=22763&highlight=#22763
2025 is too far away of a goal
American needs to start RIGHT NOW, TODAY, THIS MINUTE
Every day is another day that petrodollars flow to Islamist Extremists
We can start this RIGHT NOW, TODAY
I have listed ideas at:
http://www.driving-out-terrorists.com
But I think Hugh is missing the real target of responsibility for this (since all politicians duck this) - the American people. Whoever is in government, the American people need to look in the mirror and ask themselves - what are their real priorities:
-- Oversized vehicles for extra physical comfort?
-- Low oil use vehicles for moral comfort in fighting the enemy?
"Your comments Hugh are "hindsight" and time to get off your "high horse"......."
- from a posting above
What are you talking about? Everything I insist now about Iraq, and what it is good for (those ehtnic and sectarian divisions not healed -- an impossible task -- but left to simmer, and play themselves out, so as to demoralize and divide the forces of Islam), and the "great intelligence failure" which was, and remains, that of misunderstanding Islam, and misunderstanding Iraq. I have written this -- why don't you look at past postings, beginning with August or September 2003 -- since a few months after the end of the invasion (which I thought and still think, was rational, if intended only to find and remove all major weaponry, and to bring down, as a bonus, the regime). Not a trace of "hindsight." Everything noted about the Western hirelings who helped convince assorted figures in the American government and population that the only energy policy they needed was to count on their "staunch ally" Saudi Arabia has been constant.
What mere benefit of "hindsight" in all of this? None.
As for that "high horse," Hi Ho Silver, Away!
"stupid speech by a stupid man"
Please, say it ain't so, Hugh.
As far as opinions of "W" go, you are now in perfect harmony with the euro masses of dhimmi cheese eating surrender monkeys bent on cultural and genetic suicide. This causes me distress because I am in perfect harmony with most every opinion you express with regard to the threat we face from Islam.
The "stupid man" you so emotionally malign is the only world leader ... the ONLY WORLD LEADER ... who has done ANYTHING to stand up to the threat. He has overcome enormous cultural and geopolitical opposition in order to kill the bastards. Kill them with enthusiasm. You have to admit that that is a hell of leap for any "civlilzed", culturally sensitive, touchy-feely democratic western country. Most western nations will never take that leap. They would march like docile, towel-headed, hijab-wearing, good little european sheep into the ovens of dhimmitude.
The response to the muslim threat is something that, unfortunately, will have to evolve. Post-modern euro-western ethics cripple our ability to grasp the true nature of the threat and the draconian methods required to survive in the face of jihad. The United States, under the presidency of George Bush, has evoloved more than any other country on earth in this regard. So much so, in fact, that we stand almost alone in our willingness to punish and defeat our muslim tormentors.
I truly believe that the ultimate goal of George Bush is the same as mine and that of Hugh Fitzgerald.
I am also frustrated and impatient to see more aggressive and politically incorrect methods adopted in the war against islam and its jihad but I do not recognize the helpfulness of gratuitously insulting a world leader who is undeniably light years ahead of any other world leader when it comes to standing up to the treat. It could be alot worse.
Surprised that this was taken as an attack only on Bush: "Stupid appreciation of a stupid speech by a stupid man." That was non-partisan fury enough.
Right on Mr. Fitzgerald! I have no other comment.
France gets 70% of it's electricity from
nuclear reactors. Why not the USA >--from above
If we dot the country with tenfold the number of nuke plants, remember
that we make the U.S. that much more of a target rich environment. And
nuclear targets are much more valued than any other in terms of destructive
ability.
I also echo the views of THw6kds above. Bush is far from perfect, but he's
the least of the evils we have to choose from here in the U.S. There is a
huge amount if inertia in the west. Almost enough to convince me it's hopeless.
It would be nice to hear President Bush speak truthfully about the "noble faith", but can you imagine the reaction of the PC monster both here and abroad? As much as we would cheer here, the reaction worldwide would make any criticism he's received before pale into insignificance. The President's ability to govern would be greatly hampered by this "scandal."
The fact is most of the Western World isn't ready to hear the truth. You would think by know people would be wising up but the fact is most still don't want to hear it. My own efforts to discuss Islam with people have convinced me of this.
Yet we must keep trying. Dhimmitude is not an option. Slowly but surely, more and more people are starting to see the truth. Hopefully, enough will before it's too late.
i'm a bit surprised at Hugh's stance. as a European who formerly was anti-Bush, I found a lot to be hopeful for in his speech.
considering Bush's background in the oil industry , to actually mention the phrase "oil addiction" is staggering.
it marks a major sea change in U.S. strategic thinking.
i also thought that the president's references to alternative energy sources was highly encouraging , in terms of the whole global warming debate.
yes, the timeline (2025) is way too long - but with increased billions going into seeking alternative energy, who's not to say that some breakthrough might not occur before then, in some exotic area of science :
e.g. zero point energy?
As far as attacking Bush...
He is far from perfect. It would have been much better for my beloved nation if John McCain, a bona fide war hero, had gotten the republican nomination in 2000. McCain deserved it more, but W had an unlimited bank book and nasty attack adds.
True, Bush is not only a fool for Islam, he is financially beholdent to the Saudi Snakes ( who are our enemy).He is an oil man who is only now talking about reducing our dependence on foreign oil. But, and I have said this before -HE IS BETTER THAN A LIBERAL. Just look at Jimmy Carter, stumping for f@#$ing HAMAS in the west bank.That is a borderline TRAITOROUS activity in my book.Liberals blame the USA and Israel for terrorism. They are civilization-threatening, those airhead libs.And the democratic party is hijacked by the self-loathing, civilization threatening airhead libs... and until that changes, those who revile Islam should vote republician.
Hugh is 100% correct as regards his stance on the US thirst for fossil fuels.
What we have to understand is that all of our energy comes from the sun, with insignificant exceptions.
Every drop of oil, every clump of coal, every cubic metre of natural gas is all the product of organic material stored in the earth for millions of years.
And all organic material, with few exceptions, relies on the sun for energy. An oceanic biomass that survived by using the sun's energy to covert sugar into flesh and movement.
Our problem is we are consuming that converted biomass faster than it is being replaced by a factor of millions to one. Every year we mine, pump and suck out and burn a million or more years worth of contained biomass. A million plus years of sun shine and life for a single year of driving our BMWs back and forth to work.
Every hydro electric damn converting rainwater into electricity is converting the suns energy in putting that rainwater into the sky in the first place.
Every gallon of ethanol is a product of growing a biomass to convert into a gasoline substitute.
There are exceptions, of course, like geo-thermal and tidal flows that are a product of geology rather than the suns radiant energy.
And the sun is an atomic energy plant with enough fuel to last another ten billion years before it cools, swells up and consumes the earth.
So, the next time somebody wants to oppose atomic energy, be sure to let them know that practically ALL energy on earth is derived from atomic energy.
CD 'Bar' Baric
THw6kds said:
"The "stupid man" you so emotionally malign is the only world leader ... the ONLY WORLD LEADER ... who has done ANYTHING to stand up to the threat."
No. He may have been the only leader capable of stepping up to the plate, but he failed to do so. Congratulating the Saudis on being good friends makes me glad I don't know any of his other friends. That thought frightens.
And Hugh said:
" Start, say, with instilling an interest in language, in playing with it as she is spoken, in admiring it as she is written. How's that for an old idea whose time has come once again? And then in studying the laws of nature, possibly beginning with a little taxonomic Latin to enliven those admiring walks in the woods. No more making fun of Muir or Thoreau.
"
Hugh, you must have been standing outside my house peering in through the window. This is how my children and I live. The entire article was brilliant, and I enjoyed it immensely.
Applause lines, at which everyone (or sometimes just the Republicans, or on one occasion just the Democrats) rose in stupid appreciation of a stupid speech by a stupid man.
Hugh
The tone of this strikes me as needlessly bitter, and is unlikely to convince people that struggle against Islam is the right cause. It'd be one thing if the president at one time had the right idea towards Islam, and recently started getting soft. But the trend here is in the right direction - from the point 4 years ago when Islam was hardly mentioned to a point now where at least he takes on Islamo-fascism (granted a redundant term), it's certainly a preferrable trend to the groveling before Islam that's taking place in Europe, including Russia.
Also, if one wanted the president to describe Islam the way it is - a vile religion, as opposed to a 'noble' one, all the pieces of the puzzle would have had to be in place: a major cold shoulder towards the likes of Saudi Arabia, Egypt & Pakistan, freezing of ties with all 53 members of the OIC, ensuring that no Americans are anywhere unwittingly in Dar ul Islam, and similar measures. Once such things are in place, one can denounce Islam all day long.
Also, the energy independence segment of his speech was a welcome part, given that he explicitly stated the problem - dependence on Middle East oil. Here again, that term is preferrable to Islamic oil, even though everyone knows the world doesn't get its oil from Israel or Cyprus. And when someone talks about getting ethanol "not just from corn but from wood chips, stalks, or switch grass", you can bet that there is a seriousness about this problem.
It may take 20 years for the US to reduce its dependence on oil by 75%. But why assume that the Saudis and others can build a gazzilion mosques all over until the camels come home? Measures can easily be taken to limit that, particularly under the auspices of homeland security. Also, even if US reduces its dependence, such an independence from oil has to be spread all across dar ul Harb - China, India, Brazil, and the world over.
As for "what if those people had created, had forced upon us all, an effective energy plan beginning in 1973, that is 33 years ago", isn't that water under the bridge by now? In 1973, the US was winding down operations in Vietnam, India had just created another Islamic country - Bangladesh, Israel had just trounced Egypt in its 4th Arab-Israeli war, so how would that have been a major focus when the enemy was communism, not Islam? Besides, there were plenty of infidel countries that allied with the Soviets, and so the US had to make unscrupulous alliances with regimes like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and for a good while, even Iraq.
Also, while it is true that this research takes time, once it crosses a threshold, it becomes relatively easy or at least inexpensive to manage. Look at lasers, microchips or any other invention that was very expensive at one time, and today costs just a few cents to manufacture due to mass production. Once we get over that hump with energy, the days that Islam has any trump card on the infidel world will be behind us.
Lear Jet, no matter what you may think about Huge's commentary, it is on the money. I lived through the Arab oil embargo. Waited in the long gas lines. 1975-76 should have been a wake up call for our government. But it wasn't. President Carter's solution was no solution.
He encouraged Americans to carpool, but the thing about it was that Americans were doing that anyway. Then he reduced the speed limit from 65 to 55 across the nation. This did nothing to help produce the oil glut of the late 70s and early 80s. It was American enginuity. The auto makers were responding to the Japanese competion to make more fuel efficent cars and trucks. It took a lot of effort, but the American comsumer soon came back home to the American automobile. The American auto makers responded to he need for more fuel efficent cars by doing what they had to do. They made the statement "Made in America" mean something again. Showing the world that while they were down, they were not out. General Motors, Chrysler, and the Ford Motor company pushed the Japanese auto makers to make bigger cars for the true American comsumer that were fuel efficent. Americans love big cars. Not cars with lawnmower motors. Big cars with big gas tanks, that save you money at the gas pump. American enginuity!
This also caused OPEC to reduce the price of oil per barrel. They were kicking and screaming, but it happened.
But yet, with all the advances that were made, our government did not move fast enough to produce an alternate source of energy. We have the wind fans in California that generate electricity. We have solar energy. And we have hydro powered energy. But none of these programs have been expanded upon in over 30 or so years.
We have the environmentalist that are so afraid of progress that they see every thing as a threat to the environment. I was very disappointed in the President when he didn't mention drilling the Wildlife reserve in Alaska. Or the offshore drilling in the Pacific on the California coastline. If we were going to take our time in producing alternate energy sources, these would have been positive programs to pursue to keep us from becoming "addicted" to Arab oil. But the environmentalists just had to raise the the issue of the "environment."
Back during the early years of the industrial movement, we didn't know a whole lot about what kind of damage our advances were doing to the environment. But in later years we've learned, we've corrected those mistakes and we now produce goods that are enviromentally sound. The factory emisions are much more cleaner than in the early years of the industrial years. We have vehicles that are running off of natural gas. Water is being filtered to make it more safe to the environment.
This thing about "greenhouse gases" is a myth. There is no way that man can produce enough gas to eat away at the ozone layer. There is not enough carbonmonoxide emisions produced by man to cause a complete blocking of the sun nor to keep heat from escaping. The volcano eruption in the Philipines in the late 80s, early 90s produce more florocarbons in the atmosphere than man could even think about producing.
The fears of the evironmentalists wackos are unfounded. especially in light of the new technology that is helping to keep the environment safe and clean.
If we have to be reliant on fossil fuels, let it be the fuel that we produce in our own country. In our own oil fields. As I've said before, Our grandfathers and greatgrandfathers taught us how to be self reliant. To depend on no one but us. We as Americans need to go back to that philosophy. We have our own resources right here in the Good ole' US of A. Why should our allies have to buy oil from the most unstable part of the world when we can help them to produce their own oil or buy from us? With Hugo Chaves' acting up in Venesuela, it time for us to start moving in the direction of being self-reliant.
This November, we have a chance to help us move in that direction. The democrats have been an obstruction to the progress "We the People" have to make to eliminate the Arab oil from our future and make it a thing of the past. It's the ecological agenda of the environmentalists left that they are busy pushing. We must let them, the democrats, know that we no longer want to be dependant on foreign oil. That we want to be self sufficient, depending only on us. Not being isolationists from the world, but leading it into being totally independent of Arab oil.
That way the world can say to the Arab world, "Nuts to you and your oil!!!" We don't need it any more, so you can keep it. That way Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and all the other Arab states won't be able to finance terror or terrorists. And they can live in the 4th century all they want. We'll just keep progressing to the bigger and brighter future ahead. Lets help to forge the path that others can follow. This November, it will be our time.
God Bless America!!!
"I really haven't witnessed such complete animosity from you.."
-- fromo a posting above
Please see my comments on Clinton after his Qatar speech, posted just the other day. See my anecdote about Kerry, staring right past me because he cares, this Julien Sorel, only for Possible Big Contributors and Others Who Can Help Him. See commments on Putin, Blair, Chirac, Chris Patten, Javier Solana, Romano Prodi, Dominique de Villepin, James Baker, John Simpson, Edward Mortimer, Kofi Annan, not to mention Jeffery Sachs, Mary Robinson, Louise Arbour, Ward Churchill, Cornel West, Diane Eck, William Graham, Zainab Bahrani, Edward Said, Hamid Dabashi, Omri Safid, Mark LeVine, Rashid Khalidi, John Esposito, Karen Armstrong, Leila Ahmad, Fatimia Mernissi, Tariq Ramadan, and many others.
That's not "animosity"?
In other words, If any person disagrees with Hughs seemingly superior intellect, they are stupid.
Hugh, I painfully admit so much of what you wrote is on target. The speech fell short. Bush is not a great speaker and his State of the Union was the typical laundry list of nonsense that Presidents typically make. Still, much of your criticism is on target. Can he believe the democracy arguement after The Iraqi elections, The 'Palestinian' elections, and what of Iran? Like an alcoholic, you first have to admit their is a problem; Bush has not--or cannot. He clings to the democracy arguement as if their is some undercurrent of high culture and civilization just waiting to burst onto the sceene . . . if only the people would have their way. His is a grand utopian arguement. This is why I get upset when the 'W is manipulated by the neocons--Strauss, Kristol or name your favorite neoconservative with a Jewish last name.' Not only does this critique smack of antisemetism, but, even if true, W is the biggest neoconservative of them all. His last State of the Union sickened me. It was so over-the-top in this democracy saving the world arguement . . . and has palpable echoes of communism saving the world--heard not so long ago. Democracy is discussed as a fervrent pray, a complete panacea for all of society's trouble. Would that it were! The 'setback' in Hamastan is rationalized away as baby steps to adulthood. It's so pathetic, untrue and diversionary what the real problem is. It's as if the cowboy is at heart either completely out of touch with reality or too politically correct to glimpse the truth. He mentions Islam and radical Islam but only with the bromide of how a small minority corrupts a great religion. But what choice is there? Kerry, Clinton and the rest are more of the same . . . probably worse. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop . . . the sequal to 911 . . . to wake us up, and, sadly, I don't think the wait will be long.
"It would be nice to hear President Bush speak truthfully about the "noble faith", but can you imagine the reaction of the PC monster both here and abroad? "
If he could just start referring to it as "islam", without the "noble", or the "peaceful" or the "great", that would be a start. No adjective at all is to be preferred to exact wrong one. I cannot think of any creation of man that is less noble.
This is all a moot point Islam is what it is no one will change the Arabs they have had 1400 years to learn to hate everyone and everything including themselves the only answer is to take away their money revenue. No money no power to hurt anyone.
The answer is so simple its called diesel fuel made from algea.
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/biodiesel.html
We have the means and the technology now it just requires critical mass to be reached and with gas quickly aproaching 3 bucks a gallon im not sure how it has not yet!!!!
President Bush named the enemy as 'radical islam' blissfully unaware that the radical part was redundant.
Then went to call islam a 'nobel faith'. At that point I gave up on his ability to be honest about the truth. Perhaps is not yet time. Even the pope has to whisper about islam, they say. The POTUS hopefully knows this RoP and nobility thing to be as much a sham as we do.
Infidel Pride: "Once we get over that hump with energy, the days that Islam has any trump card on the infidel world will be behind us."
I agree with you on that.
In the meantime, why couldn't the American people be encouraged to drive more fuel efficient vehicles RIGHT NOW?
Certainly they could and certainly they should.
The assumption is that such a technological breakthrough will even be achievable in 20 years - not in a laboratory, but in a production environment at a price Americans can afford. Big big assumption. If this is vital to our security, why do we fund NASA? Do we need to be energy independent or go to Mars? Obvious answer, right. But we need REAL action and REAL priorities.
And Americans can start RIGHT NOW today - by leaving their SUVs at home.
I noticed Fox News was also running an item about the gas guzzling American culture and how to cut down on oil dependency. This is really the key to ridding ourselves of these corrupt jihadist regimes. But will Americans be willing to give up their SVUs and complete dependence on the car? For one thing, it would be healthier and more beneficial to the environment to walk more and take the bus or train. The West should work towards completely cutting any links with Arab countries and halting the flow of Muslim immigration to the West now.
The president cannot and should not brand all muslims with a broad brush as to say they are all committed to a dar-al-Harb against the west. To do so could only polarize all of the 57 Islamic nations against us. The president needs some wiggle room to have some degree of peaceful coexistence with Islam no matter how much animosity,anti semitic,and hate ideology is out there.
Try as we may, we simply cannot take on the entire Islamic world. Realistically our dependency on middle east oil is an obvious fact that no one can dispute.
"I'm glad that we at least have someone with balls in office."
Balls without brains isn't worth much. Jihadwatching Bush supporters tend to put forth the hypothesis that Bush is cleverly deceiving the public whenever he calls Islam a "religion of peace" and a "noble religion" and a "great religion" -- a little bit of counter-taqiyyah. But there is not a shred of evidence for this. Jihadwatching Bush supporters simply assume this must be so because Bush seems like the kind of good ol' boy who must be on their side -- and because of the logical negative argument that Bush can't be candid, at this particular JUNC-TURE, about what must be his true thoughts on the matter. That's hardly a reassuring hypothesis, resting on thin air and speculation.
At best, Bush probably has instinctively suspicious and flummoxed -- but only vaguely informed -- feelings about Muslims in general, which in private conversations among close friends, he might reveal:
GWB: "Man, those Muslims are some weird sumbitches!"
DC: "Yes, Mr. President, they sure are."
GWB: "I mean, why do they do the things they do!? I just can't understand those danged sand mon-- er, I mean those fellers."
DC: "Indeed, Mr. President."
GWB: "I'm trying to do right by them. You don't think my Wilsonian plans to demo-- to democrat-- to D-e-M-O-c-r-a-t-i-z-e -- heh heh -- them is goin' out on a limb, do ya, Big Time?"
DC: "Er... not at all, Mr. President. Not in theory."
GWB: "I'm glad you're with the plan. I think it's a good plan, but sometimes when these doggone Muslims do the things they do, it really makes me wonder, what in hell is cookin' in those minds of theirs, you know what I'm sayin'!?"
DC: "I do indeed, Mr. President."
GWB: "I mean, has that desert sun made them a little stir-crazy?"
DC: "I'm sure that has something to do with it, Mr. President."
GWB: "Well, we'll figure it out soon enough, you know what they say, 'you wrassle a bum steer with enough plum determination and after a while it'll calm its conniptions down'..."
DC: "Has Lucky Lou told you about his recommendation?"
GWB: "No, what's that about, Big Time?"
DC: "Shirley said he had a book you should read, something by a Roger Spinter, or a Romney Spatser, or a Robert Spencer or something..."
GWB: "Oh right, Dunleavy mentioned something about that. I put Flack right on it; he'll look into it, see if Tommy Boy can digest it and put out a briefing circular for my lower echelon aides to maybe read and then put together a 2-page synOPsis for my Under-Secretary of Secondary News Items to mark out some passages on for me to take a look at while I'm on the crapper on my next vacation."
D: "Yes, Mr. President."
I don't think Bush is stupid, per se.
*whispering* But I'm pretty sure I'm smarter than him! ;)
Re President Bush and his hopes for democracy in the Arab world: Each time I read an article about the Hamas victory in the recent election, I think of a Palestinian columnist quoted in Michael Field's 1994 book Inside the Arab World (page 4): "Arab democracy is like a medicine which if taken all in one dose kills the patient and embarrasses the doctor."
Good luck, Doc Bush.
Frank
OT, but does everyone have their flag out?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/009830.php
Words,words,words....the whole world is listening to the head master. Meanwhile the real education is in the classroom...ie;Jihadwatch!
Do the Democrats really offer us any alternative? The criticisms of Islam do not come from the Left. Clinton refused to acknowledge OBL or act on the first attack on the WTC or the USS Cole. Carter was even worse, putting the US at the mercy of the Iranians. If Bush is stupid then his political opponents are flat-lining.
As far as the S.O.T.U. went, much that was said was expected.
Bush is only tring to do his best, at every turn he is opposed, questioned, and threaten to be removed from office. All with the war going on,and I don't know how it will all turn out.
He is the leader we have at this time, not one other will be, until his term is up, lets try to work together to move forward.
As far as funding Islam, YOU can start today to make that change. Look into off the grid power, solar, independent wind generators, and small hydro power if you live near flowing water. Don't wait until somthing comes along, it is all here NOW.
Cars with small engines, or electric powered, here NOW.
The point is it can be started by YOU today, not 20 years from now, and it is better for every reason to start today.
Just do what you can, as nobody will have control over the masses, but you can decide what is best for your needs at this time. Just do what you can.
Nuclear power is a direction, do you wish to wait? Also, the toxic waist is a problem. It IS a target, and new reactors are years away. I would hope we would go away from this direction, focus on clean, safe tech as it is here NOW.
Take steps, plan, do what you can as soon as it is can be done.
" Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what can YOU do for your country" J.F.K.
Dr. Pepper:
Hilarious.
Once again, the same PC crap coming from the President in regards to our open border with Mexico. I was listening to hear something new on this topic, but he failed me again. Until I see something protective being done on our southern border, I will not be able to take the President seriously on protecting the American Citizens against another terrorist attack! The President continues to dance the CHA CHA around this problem, leaving the American Citizens no other choice but to take actions into their own hands. When our Government can't even control the MS-13 gang crossing the Mexican Border, how in the H#LL can I go to sleep at night thinking my Government can protect me from Terrorists wanting to practice Jihad. The President can list all of his wonderful ideas for our Congress to implement, but if our borders are open for Terrorists to walk right through, there will be no need to even worry about Social Security for our elders.......because daily survival will be on every American's agenda.
As most here know, I'm a tough critic of GWB, but he has come through today.
For about 15 years, I've been advocating a possible solution to the ME conflict: in exchange for some of the territorial concessions the Arabs and UN have been demanding, make Israel a full member of NATO thereby binding the US and Europe to defend her against any attacks by Arab nations. Given Europe's perfidy over the years, I understand Israel's reticence to place her security in the hands of any nation but membership in NATO would have the effect of drawing a line in the sand with the Arabs. Bush's statement today goes a long way in that direction.
President Bush is well intentioned. Unfortunately, his current stance is the worst possible scenario for America because it looks like he is doing something but he is deflecting all the correct efforts that need to be done.
In the current situation, it appears that America will not wake up to what we are facing without what Rush Limbaugh describes as another 9/11 or 3 God forbid.
The people of this forum are the ones that understand the current situation. We need to pressure president Bush the way he was pressured to drop Miers and replace her with Alito. We need to create a storm from the Republican base and the general public demanding that the reality of the situation be acknowledged and handled appropriately.
Dr. Pepper, ROFL!
Here's my take on the whole thing:
1. I voted for Bush twice.
2. The alternatives to Bush are worse.
3. He may not be a rocket scientist, but he's not as dumb as he looks. Being a rocket scientist is not a requirement to be the POTUS.
4. He is one of the worst public speakers I have ever seen, particularly when delivering a "canned" speech as opposed to a "town-hall meeting." He's certainly the worst public speaker of all the POTUSs in recent memory. This contributes to #3.
5. I can't quite tell what he believes about the RoP. If he's being sly as a fox, he's doing a bang-up job. My hunch is, he doesn't get it.
6. Last night, the "noble religion being corrupted by extremists" comment made me want to vomit.
7. The energy "plan" (non-plan, really) was weaker than weak. Nothing that would focus anybody's creative energies (pardon the pun), really.
8. In short, I was underwhelmed.
9. I go back to Robert Spencer's posting yesterday, bemoaning the lack of alternatives.
10. As a lifelong Republican, let me go on record as saying that I'll vote for any Democrat who will actually articulate the reality of the RoP and put forth a credible action plan for dealing with it. Unfortunately, this will never happen.
I just posted: 5. I can't quite tell what he believes about the RoP. If he's being sly as a fox, he's doing a bang-up job. My hunch is, he doesn't get it.
Just had a thought strike me. Bush has been going around doing these little PR events lately and the PR flaks have been making a point of saying that the audience questions he's been answering are not pre-screened.
Can anybody remotely-associated with JW show up at one of these events and put forth a well framed, "Mr. President, why do you keep calling Islam a 'noble, peaceful religion' when the Koran clearly has teachings that command Muslims to make war on anybody who is non-Muslim, killing most everybody who does not convert and leaving the rest in a state of second-class citizen-ship? Do you actually believe that OBL is outside the Muslim 'mainstream?'"
Anybody want to go for it?
"stupid speech by a stupid man"
How is it that I find myself in agreement with Hugh? It can't be -- or can it?
Like all stupid men, he has supporters that will go to the bottom with him -- after all, it is the party line that is important; let the country be damned.
But gawd -- look at the (gulp) alternative -- Kerry?
What to do??
There are others.
Hugh: There are others.
Hugh, with all due respect, this is content free. Who?
France gets 70% of it's electricity from
nuclear reactors. Why not the USA?
From a posting above.
I used to work for the local electric utility. They had four coal plants running when they decided to build a nuke. They budgeted the same amount to build the nuke as they had for the coal plants: 750 million. Due to bureaucracy and red tape, the project balloned to five billion and then came the accident at Three Mile Island. By the time the job was finished, they had poured 12 billion into it. It's the best plant they have but they're still paying for it and that's why they'll never build another nuke.
You want nukes? Get your Congressmen and Senators to get the NRC off the backs of the utilities.
Tancredo, the student and teacher of History, who cannot be fooled. McCain if he stops being sentimental about "Iraq" and the "Iraqis" and decides the exploitation of divisions within Islam is not something to dismiss. More intelligent, more flexible, less wedded to this Democracy-Is-On-the-March stuff. A good representative of the Other Republican Party (not the part that consists of the defenders of privilege part, but those who who traditionally defend and protect it, including all those Reservists and National Guardsmen). Newt Gingrich. In the last few months he has said things about Islam that are exactly what need to be said. Possibly Giuliani -- don't know enough. The implacably principled Ward Connerly.
I don't know about Democrats -- I'm waiting for Henry Jackson to come back, or someone very much like him. I hope such people can succeed in the Democratic Party even as presently constituted. But I'm such an innocent.
One never knows, do one?
Fats Waller, too, if he were running, as Master of Ceremonies.
But will Americans be willing to give up their SVUs and complete dependence on the car? For one thing, it would be healthier and more beneficial to the environment to walk more and take the bus or train.
Posted by: londongirl
londongirl,
Come to the south and southwestern US and you'll see why public transit simply is not practical here. It's good for going to work in the big cities, but not for much of anything else.
What we need is a revolutionary new fuel, like hydrogen, that will eliminate the need for ME oil and allow us to have our cars and SUVs. I know that sounds like wanting to have your cake and eat it, too, but why not? Oil gave us that ability, why not something else?
Yes, George, there is a jihad:
http://www.motime.com/myblog/edit/view/17861
Here is what GWB said last night:
No one can deny the success of freedom, but some men rage and fight against it. And one of the main sources of reaction and opposition is radical Islam -- the perversion by a few of a noble faith into an ideology of terror and death.
If I could have edited his remarks, this is what he would have said instead:
No one can deny the success of freedom, but some men rage and fight against it. And one of the main sources of reaction and opposition is Islam -- a perverted faith that has spawned an ideology of terror and death.
I didn't watch the speech. I was reading bed-time books to my kids. I rarely watch political speeches. They always make my skin crawl. Anyway I can read faster than he can talk.
Hugh says he saw "a stupid speech by a stupid man" being applauded by a stupid audience (Congress). Well yeah, that's every SOTU speech isn't it? Where we differ is in Hugh's belief that these same people are capable of determining by fiat the best solution for 280 million people to provide the energy needs of 280 million people. If central planning was the royal road to truth and power then the Soviet Union would be the world's economic powerhouse.
There is no magic bullet out there waiting to be discovered. We have been looking into energy alternatives to petroleum for at least 30 years. There are people I know who have been involved in this field for the last thirty years. It is not a question of the ability to find alternatives. It is a question of finding alternatives that are economically feasible and competitive at less than $5/gallon gasoline. Even if the government were to subsidize them the cost to our economy is still $5+/gallon.
If you are a true green worshipper of the goddess Mother Nature and have bought the whole global warming "science" then no sacrifice is too much. If what you want is to reduce our economy's vulnerability to economic disruption by unstable oil prices and supplies then it does not make sense to advocate more disruption then what you are trying to prevent.
The Saudis have be good over the years (i.e. clever) at letting oil prices go up, raking in the cash, and then pumping oil to drive prices down (oh our good friends) to discourage investment in alternatives. We could stabilize prices by raising taxes when prices fall.
You criticize the size of increases in the alternative energy program by comparing it to expenditures on the Iraq war. There is a limit to the number of R&D projects that can usefully be explored. Five battalions can fight better than one. Ten laboratories researching the same project aren't that much better than two.
The headline in the Chicago Tribune this morning was "Bush says 'U.S. addicted to oil'" so he certainly put the issue on the agenda.
I don't think that any achievable change to our oil imports is going to have any measurable effect on Saudi or other Arab behavior regarding funding dawa or jihad. The Saudi royals can easily suppress/torture/kill any pro democracy dissenters. What they cannot survive is any widespread perception that they are not "Muslim enough". If money gets a little tight the last thing they will cut back on is support for the whole Wahabi program. For those of you would brag about what your gas mileage is doing to stop jihad I've go news for you. There will be baccarat dealers and call girls complaining about their smaller than average tips long before jihad (or dawa) slows down from lack of funding.
I admit I was discouraged by how much emphasis Bush put on staying the course in Iraq. I did not expect or want him to announce a time-table but was hoping that he would do more to set the stage. I also cringed at every mention of the 'Palestinians'.
As far as the borders he did mention that we need "orderly and secure borders (applause)". ("Hey you Al Qaeda guys at the back of the line: stop pushing!") I was hoping for more specifics.
Tancredo doesn't seem to be a presidential candidate so far, maybe someone's Veep. But of the candidates on the GOP side, I am hopeful. Romney seems unafraid of incurring the wrath of Islam by being willing to survey mosques. Giuliani could be right - he showed his principles by returning the Saudi check that he received days after 9/11, although he seems to share Bush's assertion that Islam has been hijacked. McCain, given his penchant for being liked by Democrats is untrustworthy - there was a time when he was solidly in Phil Gramm's camp, but after he switched to Dole in 1996, he's votes have been trending heavily leftwards.
On the Dem side, other than Lieberman, I don't see anyone who recognizes the threat of Islam. Like Open Eyes, if I were voting, I'd be willing to hold my nose on things like taxes, Social Security, Education and the like, and vote in a Dem who clearly stated the threat of Islam, and made that his #1 priority. Given their penchant for political correctness, I won't have to, nor would I be holding my breath. Any suggestions from any Dems here?
The primaries are where that battle should be fought. Ideally, if we could get anti-Islamic candidates on both tickets, and let them differ on everything else - taxes, social security, govenrment regulation et al, that would be ideal.
Mackie said:
"The president cannot and should not brand all muslims with a broad brush as to say they are all committed to a dar-al-Harb against the west. To do so could only polarize all of the 57 Islamic nations against us."
I think I missed something - which of those 57 are our loyal allies?
"The president needs some wiggle room to have some degree of peaceful coexistence with Islam no matter how much animosity,anti semitic,and hate ideology is out there. "
And if those allies from above still indulge in hate ideology and anti-semitism, then how can we tell the difference between them and the ones who would destroy us? And pardon me for saying this, but asking for 'wiggle room' for those countries is the very definition of dhimmitude, IMO.
Infidel Pride:
Romney is "willing to survey mosques"?
How bold.
I believe you mean "surveil."
... everyone (or sometimes just the Republicans, or on one occasion just the Democrats) rose in stupid appreciation of a stupid speech by a stupid man.
Don't forget the stupid media. Or the stupid academics. Or the stupid bureaucrats in the permanent government.
Everybody is terrified of the Moslems and their imminent takeover. George is showing effective leadership on this. His cowardice and terror of Moslems shines the guiding light for the rest of the cowards in our population.
libbysmom said I think I missed something - which of those 57 are our loyal allies?
None of them are our "loyal allies", but there are degrees of cooperation. Qatar and Kuwait allow us to base support operations for Iraq on their territory. Even after the last US servicemen leave Iraq they will be exiting to Kuwait where it will take at least six months for equipment to be cleaned before it can be loaded on ships.
It makes a difference whether or not the 1 billion Muslims think: "The US is an Infidel nation. Allah is on our side and we will prevail eventually" or "The US President said Islam is the enemy! Death to America!".
In the real world it makes a difference if the number of Muslims who are actively trying to kill us is 1 million, 10 million, or 100 million. Encitement of hatred for non-essential reasons is counter-productive.
Even so that doesn't justify calling it a "noble religion".
Interesting, Brit Hume on Fox News said prior to the SOTU that the POTUS was more riled up and fired up then he'd ever seen him--but there was an internal debate within the white house about having this moderate conciliatory approach toward everything(not just Muslims) and also a more hot-headed approach--with his approval numbers down--they opted to go moderate. But as noted before, one of the tragedies about Bush--is he is wedded and implacable to the democracy care cure the ills of the world approach come hell or high water. This is almost utopian and might be wedded to his own religious convictions--not as a conservative or Christian exactly--but on a deeper level of salvation. I don't or can't explain it accuratly, but he is completely wedded to this vision--and is many many good and decent aspects are being overshadowed by Iraq. Why is his approval at 40 %? Iraq. Nothing else. He's a much better speaker when off-the cuff or when under deep emotion like after 9119(to congress no less)--one of the greatest speeches in history. I like Tracredo but I'd like to see more of him on the networks. I like Guliana a lot but he also seems to be linked to this democracy on the march philosophy--still, he is quite loyal to W and may not want to publicly dissent--McCain is obviously a believer(maybe to the depth of W) of the democracy movement as cure to terror. Sadly, in aggreement with many posters, Hugh and Robert . . . as bad as W is, the alternative is even more clueless. Perhaps somebody should work on cloning Sir Winston Churchil back to live--to be raised on a ranch somewhere--and elect him. Weird though and will take too long.
Infidel Pride:
Amen, I agree. While dialogue is educational and informative, 'cheap shot' critisms hardly help create a unified 'face' that we should present to a unified and implacable foe.
I believe that 'a house divided will fall'.
Anyone of us could 'claim' a brighter mind, a loftier position, or a keener insight of these issues, but then again, none of us are in the President's hot seat.
Find solutions and help. Fight, defend, or get out of the way.
Saw part of the speech last night. Couldn't take all of it. All I could think was "bread and circuses". Can't stand the SOTU speech, whether its Bush or Clinton. Its all show time, all BS. Watching Bush I thought I was watching Kim IlSung of North Korea. The Great Father...Our Father...
Bush is very bright, it just doesn't show.
Watching the audience response regarding Social Security...what a depressing feeling. There is NO TRUST FUND. There are NO INDIVDUAL ACCOUNTS. All SS taxes go into the general fund and are spent/given away. HOW CAN IT BE FIXED if the dumb bastards in Congress don't know what the hell they are talking about? They 'govern' this country?
Think I'll move to Iceland...
If there is such a separation between moderate Muslims and radical Muslims, where are the hordes of moderates to "take back" the "religion of peace"? What's that, you say? No hordes.
The silence speaks volumes.
Londongirl, in large American cities, people do use public transportation but it simply is not practical in the wide open spaces. Have you ever been to America? If I didn't have a car, I would be stranded; I live ten miles from the nearest grocery store, twenty miles from the nearest hospital, thirty miles from the nearest mall.
For the fool who claims that "that mountain in the Philippines" did more damage that mankind ever could, you need to lay off the Limbaugh/LaRouche environmentalist revisionism and check out what real scientists have to say on the matter. 90 percent of them agree that WE are destroying the earth, and 9% of those that disagree are working for oil companies or their lackeys ("think" tanks, etc.)
BTW... it was Mount Penatubo.
And there isn't enough oil in ANWAR to supply us for even six months. So let's save that STRATEGIC reserve for STRATEGIC emergencies. We'll have solar- or hydrogen-powered cars for twenty years before he make solar- or hydrogen-powered amphibious landers, tanks and Humvees.
Chavez is "acting up"? How? By not hating Castro? Or by winning elections? NOW is the time for America to buddy up to Chavez, and rid our leadership of its "addiction to oil" from Saudi Arabia.
The simple truth is this: we could get by without ONE DROP of Islamic oil. But it would cost 5, 7, 10 dollars a gallon, and people would have to carpool, and stop watching NASCAR, and ride trains and busses instead of zipping hither and yon in their humongous penismobiles. And as they say in my traditional vernacular, "that dog won't hunt".
To hell with Alaska... there's still PLENTY of oil in Texas and Oinklahoma. Its just so dirty and sandy and "crude" and cut with water that it'd be "prohibitively" expensive to mine, pump, refine, and sell.
The question that no one will ask is, "ARE Americans willing to pay 10 dollars for a gallon of gas, if it would mean cutting of the funding of Islamic extremism? Would it be "worth it" for Billy Bob and Mary Sixpack, and their young'uns, to bear the unspeakable privations of actually doing without NASCAR, carpooling, and trading in the F150 and Hummer for electic-powered mopeds, Le Car-sized sedans, and riding the monorail to work?
The short answer is "NO." We as a people are NOT prepared to bear any privation of any sort that interferes with the phony lifestyles that the Auto and Oil industries have beguiled us into living.
As Hugh so eloquently explained above, if we had only taxed gasoline high enough, less people would use gas, more people would conserve gas, the taxes could be used for a "Manhattan Project"-style effort to produce cheap, clean, renewable energy.
It's not going to be nuclear, unless people can be made to understand that AS OF NOW, it's the best thing we have. It ain't just "environmental whackos" (another phrase you borrowed from the Palm Beach Drug Addict) that were shocked by Chernobyl. We can't even agree on where to store the ultra-posionous, long-lasting nuclear waste products we have now. Remember the Yucca Mountain debates?
**********************************************
Excellent commentary as always Hugh. It was a stupid speech by a man who is not only stupid, but has never worked a day is his hoity-toity, Ivy League, old-money, yankee, carpetbagging life. And never will. He is not only stupid, but proudly so.
And just see how the GOPers here insult you.
There is nothing "supposed" about Hugh's superior intellect and skill as a "turner of phrases quite pleasin'." (Homage to DRH.)
*******************************************
Clinton refused to acknowledge OBL or act on the first attack on the WTC or the USS Cole.
That's a damn lie. The '93 WTC bombers were put in prison. For LIFE. (Remember Lynne Stewart?) The ones they caught in Saudi were beheaded. The ones they caught in Yemen were imprisoned and--whadday know?--escaped when Der Monkey invaded Iraq in order to be a sitting war president.
Bin Laden was targetted for murder by Clinton after the embassy bombings in Africa (where BTW only 12 Americans were killed) and the GOPers accused him of "wagging the dog"... especially when we hit the Al-qaeda camp in Afghanistan and the Al-qaeda-OWNED "pharmacuetical plant" in the Sudan. Half the GOPers were screaming "he's wasting all our Cruies missiles" and four years later the other half cried "He didn't do ENOUGH."
When the USS Cole was attacked, Clinton was slated to leave office in 100 days... what SHOULD have done, invaded Iraq? Or to put it another way, "What should Clinton have done against terror that Bush also didn't do prior to 9-11?"
(Commence urban myth about "Clinton being offered Bin Laden's head on a silver platter by Sudan" in 9...8...7...6...)
Monkey, please explain to me why anyone should believe that the Arab, Muslim, Jihadi dictators of Sudan would turn over an Arab, Muslim, Jihadi benefactor like Bin Laden to "The Great Satan." Make me believe that and I'll vote a GOP straight ticket in 2006.
And who was it that gave the Talibam 43 million of YOUR dollars in April, 2001?
And who was it that sent 700,000 servicemen to Iraq in '91 to protect the 12,000 royal citizens of Kuwait? (BTW... almost 12,000 have died of "Gulf War Syndrome" and over 135,000 are on disability.)
Carter was even worse, putting the US at the mercy of the Iranians.
He put us at their mercy? Who rid the Iranians of the ONLY man to ever really pose a threat to them (Hint: Saddam killed one-million Iraniacs in the '80s.)
Reagan and Bush NEGOTIATED with Iran to keep the US hostages longer so Reagan could look tough. Check the record. The repugs in the Senate FILIBUSTERED an investigation into the Reagan-Bush "October Surprise." Yes, filibustered it. As led by Bob Dole and Orin Hatch. You know, Orin Hatch, the guy that hates filibusters? Another partisan hypocrite.
Reagan-Bush owed Iran SO much, that they actually SOLD THEM STINGER MISSILES after the Beirut massacre that killed 241 US Marines. (Cap Weinberger is on record that he and the Joint Cheifs of Staff BEGGED The Gipper to let our boys sleep somewhere safer. But hey, nevermind that! Leftists are taking over Grenada!)
If Bush is stupid then his political opponents are flat-lining.
....or being fragged by Swiftboat Liars For Bush. Or being raped by the pro-oil, pro-GOP MSM.
It's a sad day in America when a documented combat veteran, who volunteered for combat duty, is made out by millions of partisan sycophants to be a coward and a traitor... while draft-dodging cowards and traitors occupy the White House.
I mean of course Bush, who was handed a slot in a non-deployable Gaurd unit, passing over thousands of more-qualified men; and Dick "Five Deferements" Cheney, who's first daughter was born 9 months after they Selective Service ruled that marriage alone wasn't enough to save the sorry coward draftdodgers; that they had to have kids to skip out on serving their nation. Being so unwanted, it seems she became what most GOPers like to call a "sodomite."
(Commence "Well Slick Willie Clinton dodged the draft too" line of BS in 9...8...7..)
Monkey, Slick Willie EARNED a scholarship to the most-prestigious colllege in the history of the world, Oxford. They only pick 100 Rhodes Scholars a year. Imagine how many millions of people must apply. Only the best of the best OF THE BEST merit this prize. The key word here is "Earn"; a word that means nothing to the snotty Boy King that hasn't done a damn thing his whole life except fall up the ladder of success built by his poppy and his poppys friends. When Clinton came home, he registered for the draft like all other non-draft-dodgers did. He didn't run and hide in the TANG and then "transfer" to Alabam', where he never even bothered to show up. Clinton drew a high lottery number and wasn't called upon to join up. It's that simple.
*******************************************
Oh how I have missed this. But this is only a one-shot deal. I still haven't finished my essay, "Why Liberals Should Hate Islam."
Cheers, Hugh, Spencer, everyone!
Guili-Liar, a.k.a. the man claims that as the WTC was falling he said "Thank God Bush is president" will never be president. He could win the election but, like Ah-nold, will never win the primary. The GOP electorate is not ready for a pro-choice, pro-homosexual rights candidate.
Why, that's almost as unfeasible as expecting them to nominate a black lesbian for president.
If Guiliani sells the remaining 5% of his soul to satan and rolls on women's rights and homoesexual rights, (like Bob Dole rolled on national health care and Bush Sr. rolled on women's rights) he might get in. But he and fellow professional Clinton basher Kerik are making millions and millions of dollars as "security consultants" (LOL) so why would he run for president?
In regard to Bush's apprehension to 'telling it like it is', and calling Islam a noble religion instead spouting Anti Muslim rhetoric, you have to understand that, first; when he speaks, he's not only addressing America. He's addressing the followers of Islam. It wouldn't do his cause a bit of good to tout this as a religious, or holy war. Though there is always the question, 'why aren't the moderate Muslims speaking out?', there are plenty who don't want to be involved. Plenty who are apathetic. And plenty who are scared. To get them involved by leading them to believe that they are in fact involved or targeted because of their religion would be disastrous. It's much wiser to tame the rhetoric and not influence them to join the Jihad.
Secondly, to defeat terrorism, or any enemy for that matter, it's not necessary to demonize them. To give them such stature as an indominable foe. They're nothing more than misguided humans and to speak to their faulty need of turning an enemy into a monster won't give America the upper hand. It may sound hackneyed, but it really will just bring us down to their level. We can defeat them without it.
The administration knows (if we know what the people who wants us dead have to say, trust me, so do the men charged with our security), it's best to give assurances in his speeches, to those closest to our enemy, who'd rather not be involved and leave the sabre rattling to the knuckle draggers.
-VTA
It bears repeating!
“Great applause. Applause lines, at which everyone (or sometimes just the Republicans, or on one occasion just the Democrats) rose in stupid appreciation of a stupid speech by a stupid man. “
IMBECILS! ALL OF THEM! The coterie of supports too! No wonder we are on the road to endless calamity with the offscourings of human decency in the lugubrious guise of islam!
The silent ones in German and Japan died in the war because they did not fight their own governments to keep there countries free from tyranny. Bombs and nukes eliminate all within their blast zone regardless of whom or what was there.
Islam does not want peace. Islam wants world domination. It is the main command in the Quran to convert all to Islam or murder them.
Muslim silence screams undying support of the Islamic terror and murder across the globe.
When the war with Islam starts, there will be no innocent Muslims, only enemies to the freedom of the world.
The Texican
It is better to fight and die free than to ever live under Islam.
Freedom or Death.
Tour de force, Dr. Fitzgerald.
It's seems that, despite your dour mood, there is a real silver lining for you: if the confederacy of dunces continue tromping through their ever-darkening forest of globalization and economic expansionism and end up, as we might expect, prey for the wild animals they find there, then perhaps our whole way of life--at least over here, on the American side of the ocean--will become much more conducive to pouring through the loeb editions by candlight.
After all, if the jackals don't get us, the global warming likely will. But there again, a bright spot: by the time the demography, the atrophy of the logic-starved mind, and the vestigal Vichy gene all conspire to end European democracy, climate will have rendered the continent uninhabitable anyway.
Of course, we may have regional problems here as well. But that's what the summer home in Alaska is for.
"despite your dour mood..."
-- from a posting above
Never in a dour mood. Even the word "dour" makes me feel good, especially when I successfully pronounce it like Alastair MacLeod, as "dure" -- second syllable of "perdure." Tonight -- Al Bowlly on the wind-up Victrola. What could be better?
On Sept 12th W claimed that "Islam is a religion of peace; in fact Islam means peace"
Islam means submission. Thus Bush lied!
(dare people to look it up)