Bush: "I know there is an international jihadist movement that desires to do us harm and they have territorial ambitions"

Am I dreaming? Or has the administration really just taken a huge step forward in identifying the enemy as something other than "terrorism?"

If only Bush had discussed the "international jihadist movement" in his speech to the nation on September 18, 2001 (the week after 9-11), we would be in a lot better shape. If Bush wanted to concentrate on al-Qaeda then, but had still talked about the "international jihadist movement" in his State of the Union address in January 2002, instead of his "Axis of Evil" nonsense, we would still be in better shape.

But right now, Bush is in such arrears politically that nobody cares what he says anymore. Why it took him 4 1/2 years after 9-11 to utter the word "jihadist" is beyond me. Why it took his entire Administration that long--Powell, Rumsfeld, Condi Rice never used those words till now--is utterly beyond me.

If he is serious, then this is a historical turning point.

Know Your Enemy asks: "Am I dreaming? Or has the administration really just taken a huge step forward in identifying the enemy as something other than 'terrorism?'"

Be patient. More likely the phrase got into the speech accidentally, because the foo-foos in the State Department overlooked it somehow when they proofread the speech. I figure in a day or two, American Muslims and various "experts" in Middle Eastern Studies will "remind" Bush that "jihad doesn't really mean violence but moral struggle."

And then, Bush will backtrack: "When I was referring to 'jihadist', I only meant the attitude of a Tiny Minority of Extremist Terrorists who claim that what they are doing is 'jihad.'"

Watch and see.

He may be listening ... but exactly what is it he is hearing?

Assalamau Laikum all,

Amekerie-ingermany says "Oh dear God! Bushy is just NOW coming to that realization!? Where has he been? Sleeping? Busy with trying to grant amnesty to his beloved illegal Mexicans?"

I don't what is going on here now...really confusing! I think that Bush has had a bit of a bust up with the Saudi for this ground shattering statement.

But you know ...."normal" service will be resumed as your own peoples will soon throw out your "lame duck!" presidente. So illuminations off , lights off...go back to bed ...move on now ....nothing to quizz please.

Naseem says:

"But you know ...."normal" service will be resumed as your own peoples will soon throw out your "lame duck!" presidente"

Naseem, I hate to admit it, but this is the first time I agree with you. Already talks of impeachment are going on with the coming democratic victory. I think after this election, the inmates will be running the asylum.

And it seems like to me that the Commander-in-Chief ought to listen to what the enemy says.....Sir...I voted for you...Please listen to what the enemy says........They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets." OR......We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them." ....AND......"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury." ..........Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm." .........PLEASE LISTEN...AND HEAR...

Bush's comments may have simply been taking account of certain rhetorical realities. Political correctness has been DECADES in the making. And a President as verbally challenged as George Walker Bush wasn't the kind of man to challenge that reality.

It's going to take more than September 11th for that power structure, for that's what political correctness is, a power structure, it's going to take more than September 11th to reduce to ruins and ash the power structure of political correctness.

If we can defeat the guerilla mystique in Iraq, that will go a long way in our war against jihadist islam. The mystique of invincibility that attends the guerilla must be destroyed. And there aren't any optimum spots for that destruction, so Iraq is as a good a spot as any, and in some respects, BETTER than most.

It would have been far better had we gutted out a victory in 'Nam. But we let Democrats and the elite to drag us down to ignominious defeat.

And now they're trying the same in Iraq.

As it didn't serve our longterm interests to be accept defeat in 'Nam, so it won't serve our longterm interests to accept defeat in Iraq.

EVERY SINGLE TIME we kowtow to the guerilla, EVERY SINGLE TIME we allow ourselves to withdraw instead of gutting it out, we only hearten our present enemies, and invite future conflict.

America has got to stop running from fights.

No more Mogadishus, no more Beiruts, no more helicopters flying off rooftops in capitals that we're abandoning.

It's time to fight.

It's time once and for all to obliterate the mystique of guerilla invincibility.

I thought I clicked on Jihad Watch, but somehow I got routed to moveon.org. Carry on all you Kerry weenies.

Bush is an awful president, deal with it.

Im glad to see recognition of Jihad by Washington (DC). Its important to keep in mind that we need to begin choosing leaders who fight a war on Global Jihad and not on abstract ideas like "terror"

You can't beat terror. You can squash Jihadists.

One question I have had post-Afghanistan is why not let them have a place, a country to gather. Wouldn't that be the same as rounding them all up for the final 1 bomb solution?

Thumper if you read my post...I voted for Bush.

We should be mindful that Bush is dealing with the most difficult and complicated foreign policy problem in American history. He's trying to find the answer to a problem that has beset the West for 1,300 years.

And it isn't easy.

And he's trying to find an answer that doesn't call for us emptying our silos out West.

He's trying to walk a fine line.

He's hoping that fundamental human needs and desires will ultimately trump totalitarian islam.

And he doesn't feel it wise to come right out and say "totalitarian islam," he doesn't want to give our enemies the talking point that the battle is an apocalyptic one, involving every crusader/zionist against every muslim.

He's walking a fine line.

I think that's he TOO conscious of his statements, and I think that he needs to exude more of a Wyatt Earp disposition. We should try to intimidate, not placate. But that's me.

We should be mindful that the entirety of the CIA and State is against him, in fact, AT WAR against him and his administration. The media HIGHLIGHTS every single problem, and barely covers many successes. Look at how they tried to wrap the death of Zarqawi in the statements of an unhinged Michael Berg.

The Europeans are scared to death, they have thousands of jihadists in their midst, and hundreds of cells. Death is at their door. They're frightened.

The international elite is against him, and seizes every opportunity to brand him an idiot. The media hostile, the people fickle, he himself, is a verbal cripple, without the ability to rouse a nation by his words.

The one thing he has is almost a brutish stubborness.

He's hanging on, hoping the professionalism of the men in the field will pull the thing out, DESPITE it all.

And they very well may.

And I'm on their side.

Dan

You've summed it all up for this verbally challenged man.

"What is the big difference between Kerry and Bush?"

Honorable vs Less than honorable discharge. Big difference for the future CINC. Google "Winter Soldier". I was one of his "baby killers".

Dan: "We should be mindful that the entirety of the CIA and State is against him, in fact, AT WAR against him and his administration."

Who, Dan, is ultimately in charge of both the CIA and Dept. of State? The judiciary? The Congress? Truth is, Curious Jorge could have fired every single bureaucratic parasite infecting those agencies on Sept. 12, 2001 with the public's full support. He chose not to. Not only was nobody fired for being asleep at the switch or "suffering from a lack of imagination" (in the immortally moronic phrasing of the 9/11 Commission), many were given promotions!

Bush is part of the international elite. He has zero loyalty to the United States, its people, or to the civilization they spring from. He is a globalist utopian. He is a corrupt, despicable traitor who flim-flammed a bunch of clueless religious folks with a West Texas accent and a few remarks about Jesus. His actual worldview is no different from that of any other western ruler or the elites who occupy politics, large corporations, academia, media, and numerous other institutions.

"And I know there is an international jihadist movement that desires to do us harm and they have territorial ambitions. The reason I know that is that's what they've told us. And part of their territorial ambition is to have safe haven in Iraq. That's what they've said. That's what the enemy has clearly said. And it seems like to me that the Commander-in-Chief ought to listen to what the enemy says. And they believe capitalists and democratic societies are soft and it's a matter of time before we pull out."
-- from the press conference by Bush posted above

Bush in this brief comment is no doubt trying to show that he is not unaware of something called the "Jihad" and that this "Jihad" has world-wide territorial ambitions. But he still misstates, still misunderstands, still disappoints, still fails.

There is not an "international jihadist movement." There is Islam. This is a belief-system. It has many adherents, perhaps more than a billion -- hard to say. The belief-system of Islam is unlike any other of those beliefs we call "religions." It offers a Complete Regulation of Life, and a Total Explanation of the Universe. Not all Muslims accept all of this. But many do -- a great many. And even among those few who do not, and whom we like to call "moderate" Muslims -- i.e., unobservant, lax, "bad" Muslims -- we Infidels cannot tell who is, and is not feigning, in his "moderation," nor precisely the outward and visible signs to trust in searching for those elusive "moderate' Mulsims. Nor do we know how long those "moderate" Muslims will remain "moderate," or what kind of things can trigger the sudden switch from "moderate" to "immoderate" Muslim. Nor have we considered the dangerous effect that "moderate" Muslims, in misrepresenting Islam, perhaps at times out of nothing more sinister than filial piety or embarrassment (for the question arises: if a "moderate" owns up truthfully to what Islam teaches, what Islam naturally has given rise to, what Muslims have over 1350 years done in their Jihad-conquests and subjugation of non-Muslims, why then are you, plausible, friendly, smiling, affable "moderate" Muslim, continuing to call yourself a "Muslim" at all? Why not be like Ibn Warraq and Irfan Khawaja and Anwar Shaikh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and make the complete break? In the Western world, protected by the laws of an advanced society, and not subject to the Sharia or some legal system based on the Shari'a, why not declare your break with Islam?)

Bush refers quite incorrectly to an "international jihadist movement." No. There is Islam, and then there is the duty, a central and not tangential duty, for all Muslims to support or even personally participate in Jihad to spread Islam. Bush contines to imply that there is, on the one hand, this "movement" that somehow has very little to do with the real Islam, and then there is "Islam." But Islam means Jihad. The difference is simply this: some Muslims actively have devoted their lives to violent Jihad, while others devote their lives to non-violent Jihad, which has precisely the same goal, and often, those practitioners and supporters of non-violent Jihad, a struggle to spread Islam until it everywhere dominates and Muslims rule, also protect, defend, explain away, give refuge and financial aid and every kind of moral support and deployment of resources to protect those engaged in that violent Jihad.

Bush will not say this. Perhaps it is not a case of ignorance or stupidity. Perhaps he has been told that he must do nothing to offend Muslims, whose "cooperation" is needed. But that is false. Muslim regimes already collaborate with Infidels when, and only when, it suits their interests. Some Shi'a wnat the American soldiers to stay, because for now those soldiers help fight the Sunni Arabs (in a month or six months, it could be Sunni Arabs inside and outside Iraq pleading with the Americans to remain to protect them against the by-now-too-powerful Shi'a). Qatar and Kuwait offer temporary bases not becuase they are friendly to the United States, but because the Al-Sabah and Al-Thani have concluded that the threat to them comes from local bullies -- Iran and Saudi Arabia for now, and possibly yet again Iraq -- and that the American presence protects them. It is the same with Egypt. And in failing to articulate the matter correctly, Bush and others with him fail to inform the American population truthfully, and fail themselves to formulate policy correctly, with the world-wide scope of Jihad (now must threatening in Western Europe, not in Iraq) and the varied instruments of Jihad (the money weapon, and Da'wa, and demographic conquest, of far more significance than anti-Shi'a terrorism in Iraq).

Then there is this business of Iraq as a "safe haven." Does Bush not realize how small a part is played by the foreign Arabs, and other Muslims, and how the main point of what is happening in Iraq is this, and only this: the Sunnis will not accept their loss of political, and economic power, and will continue to cling to their crazed conviction that they constitute not 19% but at least 42% of the population, and furthermore, most of them are quite certain that Sunni Arabs are more legitimate than the doubtful, possibly -- so they allow themselves to think -- Shi'a Arabs who must, some mutter, be in the end "agents of Iran." And the Shi'a will never again surrender the power they now possess. And the Kurds, in the north, will never again settle for one whit less than the autonomy they have enjoyed during the past 15 years. That is what explains Iraq now, and tomorrow, and the next day.

A "safe haven" that must be denied them? What "safe haven" was necessary for those who bombed the subway in Madrid? The Underground in London? Those who, born and bred in Canada, just rounded up? What "safe haven" has been necessary even for those 19 hijackers -they may have been directed by Bin Laden, but how many of them ever trained, ever stepped even on the soil, of Al-Qaeda training camps? Bush is caught in a time warp, and in the idiotic personalizing of the Jihad doctrine that is hardly limited to Bin Laden or Al Qaeda, but can be found, sometimes protected or nurtured or funded by a regime, but also simply the natural fruit of devotion to Islam. The man who aimed his car into some students at Chapel Hill remained unaffected by the "denial" of Iraq as a "safe haven." The Intel engineer, Mike Hawash, who had gone off to fight the Americans, did not need to arrive at his views, or to do what he did, because there had been a "safe haven" in Afghanistan. Bush simply cannot admit to himself, and therefore cannot admit to the American public, that the significance of Iraq has been, by him and others whose reputation, whose amour-propre, is so embarrassedly tied up with a fiasco, the fiasco of Tarbaby Iraq, and few of them possess the supreme self-assurance that would allow them either to say so openly, or to cleverly withdraw from Iraq under cover of a mountebank's patter of "we wish the 'Iraqi' people well, but now it's time to leave so that they may engage in the genuine compromises so necessary for democracy to work in a multi-ethnic multi-sectarian state" -- and then, nonsense repeated, getting soldiers home, bringing back all that equipment (don't leave the Arabs a thing -- possibly leave something for the Kurds, deep in Kurdish territory). Besides, how would an Iraq riven with conflict be a "safe haven" for anyone? How would Sunni members of Al-Qaeda, if the Shi'a are unconstrained by the American presence, be able to quietly train without any interference? This "safe haven" idea is nonsense.

What with the various raids in London and Toronto and elsewhere, Bush can no longer parrot, or have others parrot, that line about how we "have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." It's nonsense. They -- the Muslims who participate in violent Jihad -- must be fought, or investigated and tracked and seized before they can attack, everywhere. And in the Muslim states, wherever and whenever an occasion presents itself to exploit the pre-existing fissures within the Muslim population, intelligent Infidels will seize the occasion, will work to let those fissures, ethnic and sectarian or in some cases economic (as the resentment of many Saudis against their thieving ruling family, a resentment that could also be encouraged in the Arab statelets against their local kleptocracies), widen, and cause the kind of unsettled state that, far from being deplored by Infidels, should be encouraged.

Bush is messianic, obstinate beyond the reach of reason, ignorant of Islam (how could he not be? How much did he know on 9/9/2001? And how much time has he spent studying the matter, reading books on the subject, since? Why should he know anything except what a series of maladroit and deceptive advisers, including that law professor from Ohio, have told him?). He's an "idealist" that Bush, and he's a rich kid who has always been bailed out of everything. He squanders resources; he does not husband them, for a long war. He does not seem to be aware that political capital, political support, for the long war to come must be husbanded, not squandered, just as that money, those men's lives, that war materiel, must not be squandered.

Bush knows that "everyone wants the same thing." He knows that Iraq, if the Americans leave, will somehow magically turn into a "safe haven" for Al Qaeda -- though it might be quite an unpleasant safe haven what with constant low or high-level hostilities in every corner of the land. He's out to save the world. That's why he cannot possibly do what's necessary -- or cease to do what is entirely unnecessary. We must only hope that there is some way to bring Congress to its senses, so that it might stop funding the fiasco of Tarbaby Iraq, and instead exploit that situation, and go on to deal with the most important matters, including that of cutting Saudi and other Muslim revenues, ending the Jizyah paid to Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and the "Palestinians," those shock troops of the Lesser Jihad (in its Slow Version, favored by Abbas and his PLO, or in its Fast Version, favored by Hamas), and above all, helping the people of Western Europe to throw off the effects of thirty years of Muslim propaganda, of appeals to anti-Americanism and antisemitism, and to give them the support they need to halt, and then reverse, the unpleasant, expensive and dangerous large-scale presence of Muslims in their midst.

patriot4

In a way it did piss me off,even though I wasn't drafted, but he was a fighter pilot in the Guard. Remember, this was at the time of the cold war when schools were having duck-and-cover drills. We checked under our beds for communists every night.(LOL) If you watch movies like Red Dawn, where Soviet paratroopers were landing in a schoolyard, you can get some feel for what the National mood was. The Guard was our homeland defense.

Kerry's winter soldier testimony was inexcusable to me, and I wouldn't have voted for him if he would have walked across the water and said "Reporting for duty"

/sorry, rant off

I voted for Bush and even though he hasn't been as good as I would like, he's better than any dhimmi Democrat. The "worst President ever" and "failed President" tripe is nothing more than hysterical lies. The economy is nowhere near as bad as his critics claim it is. And the mainstream media has done it's best to play down his acomplishments while playing up his failures.

And Bush has actually confronted and tried to do something about this difficult problem facing the West, unlike his self centered, sexual predator of a predecesor who was too busy watching a certain intern play with his cigar as the Jihadists hit us time after time during his watch. Rest assured the Jihadists hate GW Bush because he's taking the fight to them and long for the good ol' days when a do-nothing, appeasing Dhimmicrat was in power. I'm sure that among their prayers to Allah is one about the Democrats winning back the Congress and The White House.

patriot4

Yeah, neither one were any good really. I wish G.Gordon Liddy or Michael Savage would have run.

/Where's Reagn when you need him?

from Proud Infidel

"I'm sure that among their prayers to Allah is one about the Democrats winning back the Congress and The White House."

-- A classic

Hey Naseem:

At least "Amerikan" presidents all have sunset dates and all politicians have to face the voters, which is considerably more than can be said for Pakistan's various military dictators and quasi-religious leaders who are accountable to nobody other than hit squads mounted by opposition groups.

Right on Hugh, even though you said nothing more than the plain truth. Well put.

Sauid Arabia, our so called "staunch ally." BINGO! Our continued hand-holding with S.A. is one big reason I lost respect for this administration. Not even a Nixonesque threat of taking the oil fields to protect global market stability or freezing all Saudi held U.S. assets during a time of war.

The free world is going to have to come up with laws to protect indivduals against Islam and to curb the practice Islam, bending it within the limits of what is humane. Quite the opposite of the B.S. on those muslim placards in the U.K. about British values being replaced.

Maybe these things will happen within a generation or more, but they will not happen with this administration at the helm.

They wouldn't have found safe haven in Iraq if Saddam Hussein was still in power.

Bush simply cannot admit to himself, and therefore cannot admit to the American public, that the significance of Iraq has been, by him and others whose reputation, whose amour-propre, is so embarrassedly tied up with a fiasco, the fiasco of Tarbaby Iraq, and few of them possess the supreme self-assurance that would allow them either to say so openly, or to cleverly withdraw from Iraq under cover of a mountebank's patter of "we wish the 'Iraqi' people well but now it's time to leave so that they may engage in the genuine compromises so necessary for democracy to work in a multi-ethnic multi-sectarian state" -- and then, nonsense repeated, getting soldiers home, bringing back all that equipment (don't leave the Arabs a thing -- possibly leave something for the Kurds, deep in Kurdish territory).

Hugh, "the significance of Iraq has been..." I read the remainder of that sentence and I can not find the conclusion of that sentence. I think sometimes your sentences are so long, that you forgot how they started.

My apologies in advance if it is there and I can not see it.

.....overstated?

This "international elite" stuff about Bush is as depressing as those supporting him because they claim he is better than any "dhimmi Democrat." Could it be simply that the times require someone more intelligent, more able to take in a large amount of material, more able to concentrate -- it has been nearly five years since the 9/11/2001 attacks -- on learning what one must learn, now, about Islam, and about the history of Jihad-conquest, and the treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule. Does anyone think Bush spends his time, at night, or at the ranch, studying, studying, studying?

Think of all the meetings. Think of all the photo opportunities. Think of all the silly things a President has to do. Think of all the many things he must somehow keep track of -- Social Security, Katrina, the ice in the Arctic, the level of army re-upping, the Leave No Child behind business, and hundreds of other things.

Then look at Bush. Look at how he lead his heedless life before he became President. Do you have the feeling he had studied history? Do you have the feeling that he is now well-versed in what he should be well-versed in? Do you think he can think -- beyond, that is, a certain primitive level? What do you think of his aides -- the ones that so impress him? Do they impress you? Do they strike you as able to have mastered the matter of Islam, and the instruments of Jihad. How much of Bat Ye'or do you think Condoleeza Rice has read? What do you think she thinks of when she hears the word "Hadith" or the phrase "uswa hasana"? Do you think the idea of Jihad through Da'wa and demographic conquest of Western Europe is a subject of constant attention at the White House -- or a subject that never comes up? Do you think the Pentagon has an office devoted entirely to propaganda intended to raise the level of awareness among non-Arab Muslims about Islam as a vehicle for Arab supremacism?

You don't? Of course not. And that is why all this conspiratorial talk about Bush being part of some "international elite" (oh god, here we go again with the Trilateral Commission or some other version of the same damn thing) is silly and misses the dismal point. He's ignorant. He's stupid. He's timid. He lacks imagination. He lacks broad cultivation. He thinks what counts is the level of economic development, the end to poverty, the GDP, the GNP. He's an economic determinist. And so are those who applaud the wra in Iraq (not to mention his sentimentalism and heedlessness about immigration) -- David Brooks, My Weekly Standard, the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal. They can't quite grasp Islam. It doesn't fit what they know about the world. But no conspiracy theory is necessary.

As for the complete dismissal of every single Democrat, that too is foolish. It may be that those who want to get off oil want to do so for only one reason (and that reason is a perfectly sensible one)-- to save the environment. So what? The effect in diminishing Arab and Muslim revenues will be the same. And it may be that some Democrats wish to leave Iraq for the wrong reasons, but so what? If we leave, the right result -- those sectarian and ethnic divisions --will start to work their magic, magic as far as we, the Infidels, are concerned, even if the result does not please even those very nice, very plausible, Shi'a Muslims whose interests diverge from ours, for they do not want to be forced to see Islam for what it is, they do not want to divide and demoralize the world of Islam, they do not want the Infidels to begin to halt and reverse Muslim migration, they do not want to have their views discounted because they are Muslims. Such people as Chalabi and Allawi in Iraq, or Fouad Ajami here, may be very nice. Ajami, after all, has two sons at West Point. And he is wonderful on Edward Said, and a truthteller on Israel. But that is no longer enough. Now the interests of the Infidels, and of even the nicest Muslims, diverge, and we must work to save ourselves, not to redo the Middle East for that handful of entertaining, soft-spoken, funny, altogether delightful Muslims. A different world now. This chase has a beast in view.

Hugh - I thoroughly understand the logic of your position and all the more so when you additionally add the logic of the need for Muslims to come to appreciate that Islam itself is the cause of their problems, but there is one very big caveat to your whole position which at least a few other posters have pointed out and for which there is currently no solution in sight - and that problem is the flow of refugees to the west from the failed, violence torn Muslim states. A poster brought it up in relation to what is happening in Somalia. My initial reaction was - they want Islam? Fine give them Islam - but then the poster noted that as the radicals take over there, the likely consequence is a whole lot of Muslim refugees seeking asylum in the west. They come here fleeing the consequences of islam but after a mere generation or two, they imagine Islam to be the solution to the universal human weaknesses that are found in every society and then they start agitating for islam. Point being that what you propose can only be a workable solution for dealing with Islam when carried out in conjunction with a moratorium on Muslim immigration to the west. Then yes - I do think it can work. But without that moratorium it could well hasten the demographic conquest of the west. Do you agree? Or do you see a different scenario than that which could make your proposal workable as a long term solution to the problem of Islam?

Caroline--

For this relief-pitching, much thanks.

You're welcome Hugh. Just can't resist straightening that tie.:-)

"I know there is an international jihadist movement that desires to do us harm and they have territorial ambitions"

This just in:

The morning temperature in Hell was 33 deg. F. Not quite frozen over, but almost.

Caroline, a moratorium on Muslim immigration to the west is not a workable solution for dealing with Islam. Many will claim to be persecuted minorities fleeing muslims. We could try no immigration from muslim lands but then many will immigrate to another country and re immigrate from there. The only solution is to discredit the death cult itself and hopefully turn back its ability to spread. It (islam) is a cancer and cutting it out is the quickest solution.

Ronin, what about no immigration from muslim lands, no exceptions for refugees and such? As Nancy Reagan might put it, Just Say No To Immigration.

OF course, that means getting rid of the PC elite. But then again, cutting out islam like a cancerous tumor, would also require getting rid of the PC elite.

No immigration of muslims has to be a policy because simply through birth rate discrepancy can they subjugate us for sure.

What is scary is that the entire anglo-saxon world has a negative birth rate. That means more die than are replaced. Islam, along with Mexicans, are replacing the anglos in America. Some say that is not a bad thing. Bad or not, mathemetically extrapolated into the future, America, like Europe, as we know it, will cease to exist. It will become something unrecognizable. And I doubt that something it becomes will be as good.

Nothing can be done to make anglo westerners breed more prolifically. Westerners have decided that kids are problematic and usually one will do. My own brother had only one kid. Too busy with his life to make time for two. That is a fair choice. But the downside is that the western world goes extinct. No other race or culture does this. They all have positive birth rates. So the only thing we can do is to stop the flow of immigrants. That won't solve the problem. It will just delay it, unfortunately. The ones already here continue to have positive birth rates. So no matter how you slice it, the west is doomed to be out populated from within. It is only a matter of time.

Hugh's inability to control his anti-Bush rage makes him sound like one of the Krazy KOS Kidz when he gets on his soapbox to bash Bush. Now he's actually pushing Democrats? Didn't Robert say this site was apolitical? What gives?

I think after this election, the inmates will be running the asylum. Posted by: ShortBoard Surfer

The inmates ARE running the Asylum and that is the problem.

This nation is more divided than it has been in decades, and who is to blame? The dividers the RNC, aka Karl Rove, GWB, Pat Robertson, 700 Club, Coulter, Falwell and who are the beneficiaries of this division? The Muslims.

So go militate and cast your ballot against gays and for tax breaks for the wealthy.. be my guest, and guess who will win? The Muslims.And while at it demand that Georgy Boy give Kenny Boy (Lay) amnesty like Clinton did for Marc Rich, oh but he will on his way out.. The two boys and a Dick robbed America, and the Coulter Limpballs Arab potentate crowd just loves them still.

Ronin: "Many will claim to be persecuted minorities fleeing muslims"

But it shouldn't be all that difficult to put immigration agents to work verifying their claims to be non-Muslims. Just follow them around for awhile and deport anyone who shows up at a mosque, proving that they lied on their asylum application.

Ronin: "We could try no immigration from muslim lands"

No. Why would we do that? We should DEFINITELY take in any non-Muslims fleeing REAL persecution from Muslim countries. It's not that difficult to follow up on them either. Generally they would be found on any Sunday attending church.

But obviously the VERY first step here is to take back control of our immigration agencies, which (as has been pointed out before here) - have been totally infiltrated by Muslims - busy denying applications to infidels fleeing real persecution from Muslim lands, while handing out applications to Muslims.

This is an outrage. This is disgusting beyond belief. Start there. Demand a congressional investigation or something. The Congress certainly appears to have their collective heads screwed on straighter than the Senate (for now at least) - that's for sure.

somethingaboutislam: "As Nancy Reagan might put it, Just Say No To Immigration.

OF course, that means getting rid of the PC elite."

Americans just need to be reminded that Muslims were only admitted to the west after the 1965 Immigration Act. Prior to that, there was a virtual 45 year moratorium on ANY immigration. And prior to that, the US didn't admit Muslims at all.

Unless Americans would generally view their "greatest generation" who fought WWII as a bunch of "nazi fascists" - then they could be made to see that there is nothing fascistic in denying immigration to those of an incompatible culture and world view. We're only talking about overturning a mere 40 so years of assumptions as compared to almost 200 years of prior wisdom and understanding.

Really, it's not a hopeless endeavor. Far more hopeless is to think that we can admit thousands upon thousands of Muslims to the west and imagine that we can find a way out of the inevitable consequences that won't involve massive bloodshed.

Some, such as Carolus for instance, have the notion that employment at State and CIA is "at will." And that the Executive can fire any and all within the various departments of the Executive branch.

THAT'S WRONG.

The employees at State, CIA, and throughout much of the Federal government are UNIONIZED.

That means that just can't be fired.

There is a process that has to be gone through to get someone out.

And it's time consuming.

It's possible for employees to rise high within a department, and then become political appointees, which serves as a threshold, allowing those that crossed over to be removed at will, with or without cause. But the vast majority of all federal employees have their job regardless of the administration.

Recall the battle that ensued when GW tried to prevent the Department of Homeland Security employees from being unionized. That was all about who ultimately would control that agency. Would they emulate the rest of the establishment, or would they be something of a hybrid, where employees could be moved at will, and fired, without cause.

The establishment CONTROLS Washington. And rest assured, they took action LONG AGO to insulate themselves from any threat of a loss of employment.

Sad but true.

Another thing, it's incredibly difficult, usually well nigh impossible even TO SIMPLY MOVE federal employees WITHIN an agency.

Say you wanted to move some employees away from the Superfund project at EPA over a new team assessing the problems with cleanup after Katrina. You wouldn't be able to do that.

Say you wanted an employee to move from his locale in Washington to St. Louis for instance, that too would probably be barred.

Our government is controlled by the elites and the establishment. And that means it isn't flexible, it isn't agile, and when a response actually does occur, IT USUALLY HAPPENS BECAUSE people went OUTSIDE of and beyond normal parameters.

It's really bad down there.

Sorry Patriot. I just wasn't sure about the "she" in your post and wasn't sure just who you meant.
Posted by: americaningermany
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It appears that americaningermany is female.

I voted for pres bush twice. Wouldn't vote for bush for dog catcher.

His lack of defense of our borders, amensty to illegals, lack of fighting the war in Iraq to end the strife - round up all of the sunnis and it will decrease immensely.

This false feeling of safety and well being because of no attacks inside America since 9/11 ........ will be the bitter end of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Our federal government has not been testing for nukes at islamic sites across America for grins. If you think that the feds would tell the American public if they found a nuke at an islamic site, go look in the mirror in your bathroom and see the fool looking back.

The mos are waiting until released to reek havoic across America.

Our PC governed feds will not declare and wage the necessary war as was done against Germany and Japan, until tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Americans are murdered by the mos.

Prepare, be armed, be ready.

The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost and the cost will be immense.

Texican - it's really quite interesting that as much as the MSM loves to show the sinking poll numbers for Bush - they never bother to break down those poll numbers in order to elucidate the number of Americans who are fed up with him because they have moved to his RIGHT.

I should have added that proponents of energy "conservation" are "conservative" by definition. I don't understand how the meaning of "conservation" got switched around, as it apparently has, to represent something other than "conservative".

Dan writes: "As it didn't serve our longterm interests to be accept defeat in 'Nam, so it won't serve our longterm interests to accept defeat in Iraq."

Dan,
Can you define for us what you consider "victory" in Iraq to consist of? We can't capture or kill every jihadist in Iraq; heck, we've got some jihadists running around North America, apparently. What is "victory" in a guerrilla war like this one, in which the Shi'a and Sunni are fighting each other as well as us? Serious question: How will we know when we have won? Is there someone left in authority among the enemy whom you are hoping will be willing to negotiate a formal armistice or surrender with us?

And if the enemy doesn't surrender, and a never ending stream of jihadists keeps pouring across the border from Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran, then how does this war ever end?

Nariz! Good to see you. Shall be fascinated to see how quickly your favorite politicians hand the US over to Sharia law.

Dan writes: "[Bush is] hoping that fundamental human needs and desires will ultimately trump totalitarian islam."

Do you really want to bet the future of America on Bush's theory? Do you think Bush has actually analyzed his theory in detail to understand whether it's practical?

Bush keeps advocating "democracy" for the Muslim world, hoping it's a counter to totalitarianism there. Yet he never explains what "democracy" really means. Maybe he doesn't understand what it means.

Democracy does not just mean free elections (the same mistake we made in Vietnam). A people can freely vote themselves into slavery, or into a thugocracy, as the Palestinians just did. Their "free and fair election" resulted in a landslide victory for Hamas, a notorious terrorist group. Rule by terrorists is NOT "democracy."

Democracy means: adherence to the rule of law; respect for minority rights; pluralism; and especially, freedom of conscience. Bush may be unaware of this, but Islam preaches the exact opposite. Democracy, therefore, will be impossible in the Muslim world without wholesale reform of Islam, a subject Bush absolutely refuses to touch.

Bush had a golden opportunity to lay the law down with the Afghan attempt to have Abdul Rahman executed for apostasy. All Bush had to say is: "In a democracy, freedom of conscience cannot be abrogated, and apostasy can never be made a crime." He scuttled away from it. And so did everybody else in Washington DC, unfortunately.

Steven L: "Serious question: How will we know when we have won?"

When westerners have stopped the flow of Muslim immigrants to the west.

That will be the signal that westerners have understood Islam in large enough numbers to effect such a change politically. It will signal that they understand the false canard that "we must fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them over here."

Personally, I think that Iraq has been a salutory lesson in that regard. I can only hope that enough westerners have absorbed this invaluable lesson. And yes, I do believe that the Iraq war was worth the lesson. I don't know how else that lesson could have otherwise been taught. The Iraq war was an invaluable "field trip" to dar-al-Islam so to speak. As to those who didn't pay attention to the lesson - or didn't grasp it's obvious conclusions - they flunked the course and should be dismissed from the global classroom herewith and without apology.

Bush is not the perfect president, but he is far the best of what you could of had and did have eight years before him. No one knows what books people have read, and within the PC environment Bush has to be very careful of what he says. after 9-11 he mentioned about a crusade for something, think it was democracy, and look at how the world with its monkeys the Democrats, media, muslims all jumped the
poor man.
This war is going to last after Bush leaves the presidency, and you need to make sure who ever is elected can finish off the job. Bush has gotten two very good judges on the supreme courts, that is very important, among many other things.

The long and short of it is that

They can't win
If we don't let them in...

"Another thing, it's incredibly difficult, usually well nigh impossible even TO SIMPLY MOVE federal employees WITHIN an agency. Say you wanted an employee to move from his locale in Washington to St. Louis for instance, that too would probably be barred".

Dan, that's incorrect. As someone who has been inside the process, it's possible, and it's also done on a regular basis. If your organization determines it has excess personnel in a given area, you have the choice to move or to leave government service. Granted, it doesn't happen to the top dogs very often if at all, but for the groundpounders, oh yes indeedy it do.

Posted by: Thumper
I thought I clicked on Jihad Watch, but somehow I got routed to moveon.org.

*********

Nice one Thumper, my thoughts exactly

Jihad Watch has been a must-read for some time now. I have learned so much here.

But this current thread has disappointed me. All the Bush-bashing caught me off guard. There's also been a lot of among one another as of late.

We do have an enemy, but it is not each other. Let's keep perspective.

I'm also wondering if the current atmosphere is because of the frustration that occurs when you feel passionately about an issue and long to do something about it, but just don't know how to go about it.

At least, that's my situation. I'm guessing I'm not alone in feeling this way.

Thank you.

That should be, 'fighting among one another'. Sheesh.

"for which there is currently no solution in sight - and that problem is the flow of refugees to the west from the failed, violence torn Muslim states."
--- from a posting above

Solution: don't let them in. Period.

Some people like to concede defeat. I prefer, in Iraq, to concede victory to us, to the Americans. The Americans won, as much as they can win, In Iraq. Inadvertently, without anything aforethought, attempting to do one thing, we ended up dooing another. The removal of Saddam Hussein was to be followed by all sorts of big plans. Those big plans are impossible of fulfillment, and if fulfilled, would accomplish the opposite of what we should wish to accomplish. But the Lord or a reasonable facsimile thereof works in mysterious ways. Americans won, Infidels won, in Iraq. Yes, it is true that the removal of Saddam Hussein was a great relief and boon to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and to Saudi Arabia -- our two most malevolent enemies among Muslim states. And yes, it is true that the Shi'a have at long last acquired the power, through their numbers, that for so long was denied them by the assorted Sunni rulers who managed to keep the Shi'a out of their deserved share of the country's power an wealth. But once the power of Saddam Hussein was gone, once he himself was captured (even his capture was not necessary to end his hold on power), a situation was created that inevitably would lead, sooner or later, to an Iraq riven by hostilities. For given the long-held contempt of Sunnis for Shi'a, simply reinforced by the suspicion of Arab Sunnis that Shi'a, even if Arabic-speaking, are linked to Iran not only religiously but even ethnically (even where the assumption is clearly false). The dislike of Sunnis for Shi'a, and the resentment felt by many Shi'a for Sunnis, which some assume originates in the policies of Saddam Hussein only, goes further back. It goes further back than the beginning of modern Iraq, further back that is than the yoking together, by British administrators attempting to fulfill the needs of both the Colonial Office and the Government of India (which wanted agricultural Basra as part of Iraq), of three former Ottoman vilayets -- Mosul, Baghdad, Basra. No, the hostilities between Sunnis and Shi'a go back all the way to the first century of recorded Islam. Similarly, the mistreatment by the Arabs of the non-Arab Kurds may have been exceptional under Saddam Hussein, but Arab supremacism is part of Islam, is as old as Islam itself. There may be some, Americans and non-Americans, who would prefer to to blame the United States. That is to be expected. But the Sunni-Shi'a split predates the very founding of the United States by more than a thousand years. That Bush and others never sufficiently understood this, or believed the Shi'a who assured him that all manner of things would be well if only, only, only the Americans would remove Saddam Hussein (of course, who can blame them? They wanted the Americans to do something to further their Shi'a intereests, and certainly wanted to minimize any worries about what would happen after -- and they got, the Chalabis and the Allawis and the Rend al-Rahim Franckes and the Kanan Makiyas, exactly the American intervention that they wanted, and Saddam Hussein was removed by the only people willing and able to remove him). No matter how hard, with what enthusiasm or despair, American officers train this "Iraqi" army or this "Iraqi" police, it is impossible for more than a handful of these "Iraqis" to ever trust their lives to those of a different ethnic or sectarian grouping, and in some cases, only members of the same tribe will do. The Americans failed to understand how Islam would reappear at once, again inevitably, and that the primitive tribal society that only someone like Saddam Hussein, using mass murder and fear of mass murder as his grisly glue, could hold together. Nowhere is it written that "Iraq" must survive as a nation-state, and nowhere is it written that Sunni Arab countries would ever accept, any more than do the Sunnis within Iraq, a transfer of power to the Iraqi Shi'a. It won't happen. It can't happen. And still more intolerable would be an independent Kurdistan, which would imply that non-Arab Muslims, too, had rights -- but the Kurds, having had their appetites whetted by the dozen years of autonomy, will never go back to the status quo ante, will never accept less, and may only be satisfied, in the end, with reappropriating once-Kurdish Kirkuk, and the oilfields of Kirkuk, the revenues from which for their entire existence have gone to the Arabs and never to the Kurds.

It is not a question of a failure of "execution" of policy. It is not a matter of that fourth division that was not allowed to invade from Turkey. It is not a matter of how many troops Rumsfeld should have sent -- had triple the number been sent, it would have made not the slightest difference in the end. The Sunnis will not believe or ever accept their true numbers in Iraq, and consequently their accept claims to power, political and economic. They believe that they deserve to rule, that rule will once again revert to them (after all, Egypt, and Jordan, and Syria, and Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf statelets, save for Bahrain, are all Sunni Arab states, all able to send men, money, materiel -- and did not the Sunnis of Iraq manage not only to force the Shi'a to provide cannon fodder for the eight-year-war on Shi'a Iran, and what's more to obtain money from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the U.A.E., as well as American intelligence aid? Why should they begin to believe that they will lose in Iraq? And at the same time, why should the Shi'a, well aware that they constitute 60-65% of the population, well aware that Saddam Hussein, his sons, his entire ruling class, has been killed or captured, well aware that the Americans have been pounding the Sunnis. And what fun to see the Americans do all the work, take all the casualties, as they take care of the Sunnis, and the Shi'a lie in wait, ready to get whatever further manna or money the Americans care to dispense in their free-spending desire to "win hearts and minds" that can never be won, for they are Muslims, and we are Infidels.

It was all inevitable -- the day the regime was deposed.

Now we have only to withdraw and watch how the removal of Saddam Hussein plays itself out. Some deplore the idea of civil war. Why? Wasn't the Iran-Iraq War a good thing from the viewpoint of Infidels? Wasn't the Egypt-Saudi Arabia proxy war in the Yemen? The hostilities over Polisario between Morocco and Algeria? The dislike of Khaddafy for Egypt, and the expulsion from Libya of all those Egyptians? The brief Syrian incursion into Jordan? The Saudi mischief-making, that worries the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council still, and that helps explain why Oman has British military advisors and some troops, and why Kuwait and Qatar allow American troops (Saudi Arabia being, along with Iran and formerly Iraq, one of the three big local bullies)?

Good God, we've won. We won a while ago.

Others may concede defeat.

I don't.

In Iraq, someone in Congress or the Executive Branch should concede victory. Bush, for god's sake, if only he could be made to see the larger picture, could see that Islam is the problem and the camp of Islam must be divided and demoralized, so that both Infidels, and Muslims themselves, will see that Islam is not an inevitable victor (an important part of the Muslim mental armory, all that "Islam is the world's fasting growing religion" stuff), and that the very things that will cause the breakup of Iraq -- the aggression, the natural tendency of Muslim peoples to veer betweeen despotism and chaos, the conspiracy theories that thrive where an entire people is encouraged in the habit of mental submission, the inshallah-fatalism that can be seen in the whining attitude of so many Iraqis who, with the Americans rebuilding so much, and handing out so much money with virtually no controls, demonstrated by their disgusting "wake-me-when-it's-over" atittude the same inshallah-fatalism that surely explains the failure of Arab and Muslim states, despite being the recipients of $10 trillion dollars since 1973 alone, to create modern economies, or to cease being so dependent so completely on foreign labor, both Western and Asian.

Bush doesn't know how to define "victory" in Iraq correctly. He seems to think that a "victory" should be defined as a happy, healthy, everyone's-more-or-less-getting-along nation-state. That is both impossible of attaintment, though a long time, and a lot of money and lives cna be expended trying, to attain a goal that, for Infidels, for Americans, makes absolutely no sense.

The war in Iraq has now been won. It has been won not because the Administration attained its stated goals (save for that of knocking off Saddam Hussein's regime) but because it didn't. It has been won because Bush, and all of his critics, have all been wrong -- wrong in their definitions of victories, wrong in their analyses, wrong in everything. Rumsfeld has been wrong, and the severest critics of Rumsfeld have been wrong. The various think-tankers, dime-a-dozen "terrorism experts," the consultants to television networks such as the emptily obvious Anthony Cordesman, the whole lot of them -- wrong, irrelevant, silly. Not one of them has had the wit to recognize, and pronounce a positive good, those sectarian and ethnic fissures that all of them assume are to be deplored, are to be avoided.

But there it is: the Iraq War, and the victory for which no one can claim credit, because it is simply the War of Unintended Consequences (at least, completely unforeseen, though completely foreseeable). A fantastic event in the history of the world. An unheard-of comedy of errors. Right before our very eyes. Rigbht in the full light of history.

A nominally Moslem co-worker of mine is reported to me that his Moslem friends and family members, most of whom grew up in the US, are growing far more "devout" and growing vocal about their faith. He is of the opinion that the prolonged war in Iraq (and the terrorist reactions to it) is fueling a belief in Moslems of an impending apocalypse. Since we heard the same from others in 1999, I think history shows us that the best way with all doomsdayers - and that's what they are - is to prove them wrong. In other words, show them no Mahdi or whomever else we are waiting to return, is coming. Those who awaited a second coming at the dawn of the second millennium, or more recently, the third, were sadly disappointed when they looked to the heavens. Although we so want them to come, the Mahdis of the world never come. Those of us with sanity remain to live in the rubble caused by those who wish to hasten such events.

"A nominally Moslem co-worker of mine is reported to me that his Moslem friends and family members, most of whom grew up in the US, are growing far more "devout" and growing vocal about their faith."
-- from a posting above

This should be reported to the police, to the FBI. They need to know about those exhibiting a certain renewed faith, a change from "moderate" to "immoderate" Muslim. You have a duty to report this -- a duty to your fellow Infidels.

Bush: "...The reason I know that is that's what they've told us..."
Well, that sounds like Bush alright.
Only Condi could better that...

And those posters above questioning Bush's understanding of 'democracy' should also ask why nobody screeched when Afghanistan's new constitution was based on the sharia, and then, later in Iraq, that same stupidity was repeated, so that in fact now after the vote, after the 'light onto the muslim nations' and the incarceration of Saddam Hussein Irak is, ( while still under US-occupation) turning into another Islamic hell-hole right before our very eyes....

Solution: don't let them in. Period.
this Hugh says all the time, its fantasy to think it could happen, like wishing upon a little star.
getting to reality, we can educate non muslims on islam, and perhaps legislate and keep our freedoms of speech, etc. we need to post more cartoon, let the people see how nutty the so called moderate muslim are. l do enjoy and have learned so much from the posts of Hugh, but it is unrealistic to think any Western government would stop totally immigration from muslim countries. we can try for limited quatas, etc.
with the war in Iraq, Afganistan, it creates much controvery within the muslim countries, and will hasten the great war that l feel is coming unfortunately. like the Chamberlains of the thirties, we have such biased leftist media along with soft liberal governments they cannot or will find it difficult to do the extreme thing of preventing muslim immigration. no we need to stir th e pot, and educate non muslim, and demand that liberals be sent to Iran to free women and minorities. that last senctence is a joke for comic relief.

At least our formerly blind leader (who'd been to the optimist and not the optometrist too many times) now can vaguely make out the blurry shapes of the Enemy.

What's grievously depressing is that I mean what I say above not in jest or sarcasm at all, but with dead seriousness.

"it is unrealistic to think any Western government would stop totally immigration from muslim countries..."
-- from a posting above

I should be reviving Desdemona at this very moment, but can't refrain from a last comment.

Why do you say this? Why do you think this, exhibiting such hopelessness? Where is it written that Infidels must continue to admit Muslims into their midst? Is there a divine right for anyone to move anywhere? On what theory do you base this suicidal notion?

There are all kinds of things to say about immigration to the Western world. But there should be no argument at all that no people and no polity is required to admit those who are, or claim to be, the adherents of a belief-system that clearly tells them, teaches them, inculcates in them the belief, that they must be hostile, even murderously so, to all who do not share their belief-system. This is not imaginary. This is not fantasy. This can easily be seen in the texts of Islam. It can be seen on every Muslim website. It can be seen in the testimony of every defector from Islam. It can be seen in the testimony of non-Muslims who have had to endure life in Muslim states. It can be seen by studying the history of Jihad-conquest and the subjugation of non-Muslims, from Spain to East Asia, over 1350 years. No right, no right at all, to continue to settle within the Lands of the Infidels. No right at all to continue to create an atmosphere far more unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous to Infidels, than it would be without a large-scale Muslim presence.

Don't accept things as you think they must be. We are not required, not obligated, to sacrifice our lands and happiness for some abstract principle, or out of fear of offending -- offending whom? People who divide the world uncompromisingly between Believer and Infidel? What if we offend them? Will they work to undo us, work for the day when Islam will everywhere dominate, even more relentlessly?

Solution: don't let them in. Period.
this Hugh says all the time, its fantasy to think it could happen, like wishing upon a little star.
Posted by: Lulu at June 14, 2006 11:32 PM
++++++++++++++++++++

Lulu, just what do you think will happen in America when the mos set off wmd's or nukes??

Not letting them in will not be the problem.

It is my belief that we are headed for civil war in the not too distant future if things don't change for the better. I used to think this war would be between muslims and infidels but now I think it will be between muslims and hispanics as the rest of us will be in the minority within a few decades and will not be a factor.

People, people - have you lost your minds calling for impeachment? If he is impeached then who we get is CHENEY!

I noticed this afternoon on the news that they have actually gotten off their collective behinds and are actually rounding up and deporting illegals - quite some few of them. Its so easy - all you have to do is try. And the funny thing is, the US Census HAS the data on illegals. They just aren't allowed to turn it over :(

Patriot
I understand and agree but I fear there won't be enough of us. Reading the news gets me down sometimes but I'll bounce back-I always do. Maybe I should cheer myself by postin my wish list:
Close the borders
Deport all illegals
Outlaw Islam
Close all mosques
Deport all muslims
Stop foreign aid
Get the U N out of the U S
That would be a start

geesh l cant believe how fast this posting has been taken off the main page. realisticly in this age of PC l do not see where a Western Country can outlaw immigation from Muslim lands. look about half the US and Democratic party still look at 9-ll as a glitch, a police , court matter, they do not see it as a war declared on the West by Muslim terrorist.
YES l would love all borders sealed off to immigration of Muslims, but you have to put yourself in Reality, the one thing that would start this ending of immigration of Muslims is another World War. so l guess we can wish on that star like Hugh.