Gee, that would be nice, now nearly six years after 9/11. But it isn't nearly enough. Muslim leaders of all kinds have already denounced "terror." The problem here is that no one is defining these terms; rather, everyone is assuming that we all mean the same things by them whenever we use them. By "terror" does one mean "an unprovoked attack against innocent civilians with the intention of causing undifferentiated mayhem"? Muslim leaders will have no problem denouncing that. But if one means "actions carried out in order to further the program of Islamic supremacism that advances through both nonviolent and violent jihad," that is quite another matter. No one is being specific enough. No one is speaking about "the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism" and asking Muslims to denounce that. No one dares.
"Bush wants Muslims to denounce terror," by Jon Ward for the Washington Times (thanks to Alan):
THE WASHINGTON TIMES - President Bush will challenge Muslim leaders to denounce acts of terrorism committed in the name of Islam during a speech today at the same Washington mosque he visited days after the September 11 attacks.Mr. Bush will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Islamic Center of Washington, a half-century after President Eisenhower spoke at its dedication on June 28, 1957.
The president's speech will focus on "the importance of religious freedom in the Middle East, and how securing that freedom requires Muslims to stand up to extremists," according to a White House briefing document released yesterday evening.
Mr. Bush also will thank Muslim leaders who have spoken out against terrorism.
Although the president will emphasize that "the face of terrorism is not the true face of Islam," he brings a different message with him to the mosque than he did six years ago.
On Sept. 17, 2001, Mr. Bush, seeking to prevent acts of retaliation against American Muslims after the September 11 attacks, said, "Islam is peace."
But since then, the president's rhetoric about Islam and terrorism has shifted. In 2005, he spoke about "Islamic radicalism," specifying that the enemy in the war on terrorism is a certain brand of Islam.
James Phillips, a Middle East analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said Mr. Bush was distinguishing between "an ideology and a religion."
Great. But this is an artificial distinction, imposed from without, and having no basis in traditional Islam.
"Muslims need to recognize that we distinguish between traditional Islam and the radical Islamists who want to use it as a means of seizing power and imposing a totalitarian vision on other Muslims," Mr. Phillips said.Then, last August, Mr. Bush referred to "Islamic fascists" after British authorities foiled a plot by Muslim terrorists to blow up several airplanes bound for the United States.
"This nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation," he said on Aug. 10, 2006.
Peter Singer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that term was overly provocative, and was interpreted by many Muslims as a criticism of Islam itself.
"Why do you think we haven't heard it again since then?" Mr. Singer said.
White House spokesman Tony Snow yesterday reaffirmed that the president views Islam as "a religion of peace."
"He also believes that it has been hijacked, in some cases, by people who use Islam as a shield for murdering people, who use it as a way of spreading terrorism, rather than tolerance," Mr. Snow said.
A senior White House official said the president shifted away from using the term "Islamic fascists" because he did not think it helped him contrast radical Muslims with moderate Muslims.
A recent study found that there is substantial sympathy for Islamic terrorism among Western Muslims, including those in the United States.
The Pew Research Center found that 26 percent of 18- to 29-year-old Muslims in the United States think suicide bombings are sometimes justified to defend Islam.
Radwan Masmoudi, founder and president of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, said that he was disturbed by those findings, but added that such views are "not reflective of who we are or what our religion teaches."
Maybe it isn't, but the jihadists are saying that it is, and making recruits on that basis. More than a simple denial is needed from Radwan Masmoudi and others like him, if this is ever going to stop.
I find the juxtaposition of "Washington" and "mosque" rather disturbing.
A bit like "peace" and "Islam".
The old "islam has been hijacked by extremists" BS is getting very stale.
How about, "the world has been hijacked by islam" ?
Makes more sense to me.
The problem here is that no one is defining these terms; rather, everyone is assuming that we all mean the same things by them whenever we use them. By "terror" does one mean "an unprovoked attack against innocent civilians with the intention of causing undifferentiated mayhem"?
Never fear! Condi Rice has a solution! Simply change the wording and call it something else.
(Blair is used the same tactic in his last stab-in-the-back of England by calling references to the EU constitution other names)
Rice calls Hamas 'resistance movement'
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56384
Heck, with Condi as your guide, you can look at the whole discussion through the Alice's looking glass and redefine everything "up" is "down"; "left" is "right"; does "is" mean "is";does "amnesty" mean "amnesty";
does "terror" mean "terror" as in "terror" or do you really mean "terror"?
By the time the average person gets through this tangle, they won't know (or care) what hit them!
Problem solved, the smart Condi way!
Years back, we had the Communists being all for "peace". But they were operating off of Marx's definition:
Similarly, in the Islamic viewpoint, peace can only come when all accept Islam. Refusal to accept Islam is, in itself, a crime against Allah.
So no one who rejects Islam can be considered an "innocent". Therefore it was legitimate to kill 3000 people on 9/11, because they were non-innocent rejectors of Allah, and therefore legitimate targets.
Therefore, terrorism does not include Jihad. The label "terrorism" only applies to those acts which oppose jihad, such as arresting Jihadis and putting them in Gitmo.
"Although the president will emphasize that "the face of terrorism is not the true face of Islam," he brings a different message with him to the mosque than he did six years ago."
I suggest the President bring a very long, detailed list of the crimes committed in the name of Islam over the last fifty years since the establishment of that wonderful mosque.
If those who commit murder, rape and violence in the name of Islam are not true followers of Mo...and...Moslems understand that religious freedom and tolerance should be extended to all people around the globe...then, why are Moslems marching under the banner of Islam to carry out violence on every continent?
It is a terrible mistake to go to the mosque at all. Bush may think that if he calls for a denunciation of (ill-defined) "terrorism" that justifies his appearance; it does not. When it comes to dealing with Islam -- whether it is the $880 billion squandered in Tarbaby Iraq, or the failure to deal adequately with Iran while precious time is lost, or the continued inability to read Saudi Arabia the riot act and demand that it stop its sending of billions, even tens of billions, to support the Jihad through campaigns of Da'wa in the West, and extensive mosque-and-madrasa building, and the continued employment -- and deployment -- of armies of Western hirelings, quite happy to be on the Saudi take, directly or, for deniability purposes, indirectly, or the farce of pretending that because the Fast Jihadists of Hamas are even worse, the Slow Jihadists of Fatah are splendid fellows.
He is stupid, and the cause of stupidity in others -- others who have continued to be his loyalists, for no reason other than that they cannot face the size of his colossal error or series of errors in Iraq, and because they so hate the worst among his opponents, of the MoveOn.org or Kos variey, that they cannot think straight about Islam, and the most effective, which happen to be also the least costly -- in men, materiel, and money -- weaopns to weaken the Camp of Islam, which is to play upon that Camp's pre-existing fissures: sectarian, between Sunni and Shi'a; ethnic, between Arab and non-Arab Muslim), and at the same time, to articulate, and to emphasize, and never to let up on, the connection between the failures of Islamic states and societies -- political, economic, social, moral, and intellectual failures -- and the nature, the teachings, the attitudes, the atmospherics, of Islam itself.
He is lost in a world he never made, and despite every advantage, this dyslexic child of privilege, who "got religion" but never got that grasp of history, that understanding of men and events, that would have required a completely different, less money-centered background, would have required not only study of history (not necessarily of Islamic history, but of some history) but also the habit of study.
This habit of study is not only absent from Bush, but from many of those around him, including that dutiful but unimpressive Secretary of State who has no idea what she is dealing with, but flounders, self-assuredly.
All this confusion. It is simple. Islamic islam is at war with us!
...my voice may be insignificant, but I dare to say terror constitutes"actions carried out in order to advance the program of Islamic supremacism that advances through both nonviolent and violent jihad,"
....I further add...Muslims are the primary motivator in the constant daily barrage of violence we see worldwide...
....send me my certificate of "fatwah issued to exsgtbrown for recognizing the definition of terror and for identifying the instigators". I will proudly display it on my desk...
....and when the religious police arrive to thank me... I will be ready....locked and loaded...
Bush is clueless about Islam, just like Tony Blair and his unelected successor Brown. In fact, the vast majority of politicians in the world, are clueless about Islam.
Perhaps these are the people you should be directing your attention at, Robert.
"He also believes that it has been hijacked, in some cases, by people who use Islam... as a way of spreading terrorism, rather than tolerance," Mr. Snow said.
Can these people really be that clueless?
Will the 'The Leader of The Free World', or any member of his staff, please explain:
1. Which passages from Qur'an and Sunnah have been hijacked and actually name those who've done the 'hijacking'?
This passage, and these folks?
Qur'an 5:38 As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power.
http://www.rawa.org/handcut3.htm
2. Which passages from Qur'an and Sunnah promote the tolerance to which he refers?
Surely not this one:
Qur'an 5:51 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
He still doesn't get it! Who is advising him on Islam? Suits who have never bothered to open a Koran?
Bush needs Mr. Spencer as his "Islam Czar!" Now, that would be something! What think you, JW'ers?
Bush needs Mr. Spencer as his "Islam Czar!" Now, that would be something! What think you, JW'ers?
Sounds good to me. Bush desparately needs an advisor who really understands Islam, as will his successors.
For starters, Dubya needs to learn that "Islam" does not mean "peace", but "surrender".
Then Dubya needs to read Spencer's Politically Incorrect Guide To Islam, especially the part about non-belief being a sin worse than murder.
It will never happen, Miss Darcy. Our leaders have a vested interest in not finding out about Islam. But what is their real agenda?
"The Pew Research Center found that 26 percent of 18- to 29-year-old Muslims in the United States think suicide bombings are sometimes justified to defend Islam."
Just what does Islam think it needs to be defended from? Who or what is attacking or trying to destroy Islam? Who or what is on the march against it? Me thinks it dost protest too much. In politically correct Europe and America today these people totally understand the concept of the best offense is a whining defense.
"the face of terrorism is not the true face of Islam"
Orwell: "An idea so stupid, only an intellectual could believe it."
"So no one who rejects Islam can be considered an "innocent". Therefore it was legitimate to kill 3000 people on 9/11, because they were non-innocent rejectors of Allah, and therefore legitimate targets."
by PapaBear
It's pretty much what Osama said when challenged after 9/11 about Islam's injunctions against killing the innocent. The people in the towers were not innocent because "they were supporting the American system".
Translation: oppose Islam and jihad and it becomes our sacred duty as Muslims to kill you!
But WHY must Muslims denounce terror? It goes against their religion anyway and we all know it. Don't we realize that they are only defending themselves? (barf)
The Indonesian religious leader said it himself:
"Those who did bombings, they are just doing counter-terrorism. They are holy warriors to defend Muslims terrorised in other countries."
"The president's speech will focus on "the importance of religious freedom in the Middle East"
--from the article--
Indeed. It is a prime concern of his, as is evident in his continued support of "staunch ally" Saudi Arabia, a country well-known for its allowance of religious freedom and religious diversity. His obvious concern and support for Iraqi Christians is also well-documented.
The state of affairs in the US is bordering on the surreal. Whenever Bush speaks, all I hear anymore is the teacher from Schultz's "Peanuts" cartoons.
I find the juxtaposition of "Washington" and "mosque" rather disturbing.
A bit like "peace" and "Islam".
Posted by: watling
How can you equate Washington with peace when we have a bunch of greedy, corporate paid, globalist traitors ignoring the wishes of the average joe, letting in illegals because corporations want cheap labor, driving down the wages and sending jobs to Mexico, etc.?
In my humble opinion, they are a bunch of useless tossers.
Mancow nailed them this morning. At least SOME conservatives get it.
Bush and other world leaders will say ANYTHING to suck up to the oil sheiks. They know Islam is violent but they SAY what they think will keep things quiet.
I believe that world leaders would even deny Christ if it would prove profitable. Maybe they won't mind converting to Islam if it lines their pockets. I cannot believe they are Christians because they haven't a clue what the scriptures say.
White House spokesman Tony Snow yesterday reaffirmed that the president views Islam as "a religion of peace."
"He also believes that it has been hijacked, in some cases, by people who use Islam as a shield for murdering people, who use it as a way of spreading terrorism, rather than tolerance," Mr. Snow said.
...
And what are the President's views on the Easter Bunny, Mr. Tony Snow. And what about the Great Pumkin?
And what are the President's views on the Easter Bunny, Mr. Tony Snow. And what about the Great Pumkin?
Posted by: LoneRanger
He probably believes in them.
Bush and the Bushmen/woman(Rice) should all be relieved of duty. Every one of them has shown incompetance, and 'agenda's', that they dont share with the people they represent(?). The 'agenda's' that they do share are scary. Bush is a globalist. He is only an American by birth, and political position, otherwise, he is a stranger in a strange land. A strange land that get's stranger the longer he stay's in power. I dont personally hate Bush as mentally defected liberal's do, but I detest his selling out of America. I detest his 'soft on Islam'(terrorism). I detest his /Amnesty Bill, that create's and legalises an insidious slave trade racket. I detest the idea of a North American union without border's, that we will not be entitled to vote on. I detest the way he has handled the war with 'tarbaby' Iraq. I detest the way he is so smug and egoistic that he can presume to tell us that 'we' dont know what's good for America. But of course he doe's. All this would be fine if he had the support of the people who elected him, but his rating's are so low that only the most mentally stunted still support him.
I detest the way he is setting himself up as a King. Ignoring the people and issuing directive's, that give him more and more power.
America is under attack from several different direction's. Some of this attack come's from our own gov, Bush and other elected representative's.
I would call for impeachment if not for the unintended consequence's of even more disfuncional people (Pelosi), gaining high office.
The whole bunch of them need to be 'thrown out', of office. The sooner the better. But dont look for that to happen soon. These people have been there so long (Kennedy) that they have grown root's to their office chair's. They have insulated and protected their position's so much that only a political 'roto rooter', can wrench them out...
Bush and the Bushmen/woman(Rice) should all be relieved of duty. Every one of them has shown incompetance, and 'agenda's', that they dont share with the people they represent(?). The 'agenda's' that they do share are scary. Bush is a globalist. He is only an American by birth, and political position, otherwise, he is a stranger in a strange land. A strange land that get's stranger the longer he stay's in power. I dont personally hate Bush as mentally defected liberal's do, but I detest his selling out of America. I detest his 'soft on Islam'(terrorism). I detest his /Amnesty Bill, that create's and legalises an insidious slave trade racket. I detest the idea of a North American union without border's, that we will not be entitled to vote on. I detest the way he has handled the war with 'tarbaby' Iraq. I detest the way he is so smug and egoistic that he can presume to tell us that 'we' dont know what's good for America. But of course he doe's. All this would be fine if he had the support of the people who elected him, but his rating's are so low that only the most mentally stunted still support him.
I detest the way he is setting himself up as a King. Ignoring the people and issuing directive's, that give him more and more power.
America is under attack from several different direction's. Some of this attack come's from our own gov, Bush and other elected representative's.
I would call for impeachment if not for the unintended consequence's of even more disfuncional people (Pelosi), gaining high office.
The whole bunch of them need to be 'thrown out', of office. The sooner the better. But dont look for that to happen soon. These people have been there so long (Kennedy) that they have grown root's to their office chair's. They have insulated and protected their position's so much that only a political 'roto rooter', can wrench them out...
Sorry for the double post, I only hit the button once...
I never stop being amazed at the incredible ignorance of our leaders who apparently still have'nt opened a Qu'ran and appear to be surrounded by naieve and ignorant apologists.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Myths-of-Islam.htm
There is no excuse for this idiocy. After 9/11, I started reading about Islam, as distasteful as it is. Almost immediately I came across the phrase "Islam doesn't condone the killing of innocents." This was said a lot, so I looked up the phrase and found an Islamic scholarly website in Hawaii (since gone) which extensively discussed this topic. Up to then I had assumed that Islam shared with Judaism and Christianity (and Buddhism) an abhorance of killing. Imagine my surprise! The scholarly consensus was that such killing was ok.
This was easy to uncover in 2001. It's even easier now. Hence, no excuses for thinking we are all on the same page. We definitely are not.
The Goobs:
How can you equate Washington with peace ...
I did no such thing. I was merely drawing attention to the incongruity of the capital of the USA having a building which symbolises the biggest threat to world peace since Adolf Hitler.
Did you never study logic? If I state that "kitten is to cat, as calf is to cow" am I equating a kitten to a calf?
I want Bsuh to denounce imperialism. I want Bush to withraw support for the Judeo-Nazi state. I want Bush to compensate Iraqis, Afgans, Lebanese, somali, and palestinian citizens for the suffering he brought on their lives.
Bush Is a liberal and belongs to the Cult of Tolerance.
Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
There is no question but that by offering amnesty to illegals and waging a pointless war in Iraq, bush is acting contrary to the public will and like a tyrant. How bad must things get before we citizens cross that Rubicon? I don't know. But I do know that bush's actions are forcing us in that direction.
These people have been there so long (Kennedy) that they have grown root's to their office chair's. They have insulated and protected their position's so much that only a political 'roto rooter', can wrench them out...
Posted by: duh_swami
That's not true. The voters could get rid of them. For the first time in over a century a sitting Speaker of the House was thrown out in 1994, hardly ancient history. It can be done. The voters need the will, that's all. The problem is they have been bought off.
Hugh sayeth: "It is a terrible mistake to go to the mosque at all."
Why is this a "terrible mistake" for bush al-saud who...
- Has a decades long close family relationship with the saudi demons?
- Holds hands with and kisses the saudi demons when they come to the US?
- Refers to the saudi demons as "close personal friends" and "strong allies?"
- Is creating the 22nd ME filthy arab muslim nazi terror state carved from the land of Israel as a reward for years of genocidal Jew killing?
- Refuses to name the satanic cult of death as the enemy?
- Refuses to seal the border against muslim terrorists?
- Prosecutes Marines who actually try to fight a war?
- Prosecutes Border Patrol officers who try to protect us against muslim terrorists?
- Spent $880 billion on a never-ending non-war that has only made ahmadinejad happy - and 0$ on an energy independence plan as a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY?
- Has standing orders for the "justice" department and "homeland security" agencies to issue boilerplate "It's not [muslim] terrorism [again]" after every muslim terror attack and to immediately sanitize the terror attack scene?
- Works tirelessly to import MORE jihadis AFTER 9/11 like saudis & iraqis?
and is completely destroying America's sovereignty and identity through his NWO NAU global socialist leadership?
His mosque visit is EXACTLY appropriate for him.
It is only a "terrible mistake" if one (huge sigh) still believes 1) he works for and to protect the American people 2) is clueless and 3) is not following a clear direction of which the evidence is overwhelming.
Not stupidity, error, omission, stubbornness, cluelessness, bad advice, or anything else but a clear and consistent pattern and direction.
I am constantly remembering the 25 year old movie "The Day After" where the housewife refuses to acknowledge all the signs of the coming nuclear war. She maintains a perfect Midwest housewife composure until the fireballs and mushroom clouds appear; at which point her husband says "It's time to go" and drags her down the staircase as she screams hysterically.
PMK...Kennedy has been a senator for 97 year's. Yes the voter's can remove him, but 'will' they? One person kicked out in half a century, is hardly a sterling record.
If the voter's 'wont' do it for whatever reason, I am right. Root's will prevail. Kennedy is just an example, I am not singling him out, they all should go...of course maybe you are happy with the status quo, but I am not...have a nice day...
Islam was not "hijacked" but put back on its original course ...after drifting for several centuries due to its military and technological backwardness.
Now that its infidel targets have been fatally naive enough to provide Mohammedans with the comparable weaponry and advanced technologies that Islam could never have produced on its own (thanks to its regressive anti-intellectuallism and retrograde superstitiousness), Islam is back on the march to the global theocratic tyranny that its founder dreamed of.
Osama and his henchmen have merely turned off the autopilot and are steering Islam back toward the glorious 7th century again.
Bush is stunningly clueless.
If he said nothing, we would be better off.
Because his promoted delusions are more dangerous than silence.
I want Bsuh to denounce imperialism. I want Bush to withraw support for the Judeo-Nazi state. I want Bush to compensate Iraqis, Afgans, Lebanese, somali, and palestinian citizens for the suffering he brought on their lives.
Posted by: progressive
I want all the Muslim-Nazi states to disappear under a nuclear cloud!!
How about you denounce Islam, Mr. Bush?
And this is for the poster ironically named "progressive":
Don’t Let Ron Paul Negate Your Common Sense
Please go soak your head.
He better have a talk withRosie O'Donnell! She did open pandora's box, a new door-to alot of things! Not good, none of them! Not for children in America, not for freedom of speech, not for the adoption of children by gays, not from stop spreading the message! This child now needs to be educated and all children what suicide bombers are now, so they can fight back! The first copy cat won't take long! oh, a baby....******!.
If realized or not this was a perfect example of what people say, freedom of speech, what about dump speech, dangerous speech. This child will have some name! Coming from a home like that then used as this, showing her stupidity! This is awful. The first time it happens think of her!
Even if a tricker treater kid came up to my house in halloween like that, I would really wonder about the parents! I would worry for that child! Children have to learn so much evil b.s.!
Each is entitled to two terms. . . .one in office, one in prison.
Each is entitled to two terms. . . .one in office, one in prison.
Posted by: walterc
Haha walter, now that's something I can relate
The Muslims can denounce terrorism to our (and Bush's) hearts'content, but Islam will nevertheless remain the most brutal force in human history anyway.
The Muslims will continue to finance and support Islamic "terrorism" regardless of what they tell our government.
'War is deception'-- Muhammad.
Egad, Bush is naive....
I am all with Arm A. Geddon. So much stupidity is impossible, when every sane person can figure out the truth within a couple of hours. Bush is working for the Ummah. Why that? Maybe he know already, that the American way of life is doomed (too wasteful) and want to side with the loaded guys.
Bush is a Mujahideen @ worst ,a human shield at best.
"Bush wants Muslims to denounce terror"
And people in Hell want ice water.
I want Bush to denounce Islam. I want Bush to stop aiding all ungrateful Muslim countries. I want Bush to stop the continuing idiotic Muslim immigration to the U.S.
I don't know - I may be starting to agree with Jimmy Carter, and I DON'T want to do that. But my agreement doesn't have to do with Carter's complaints, it has to do with Bush, 6 years after 9/11, still not getting it about Islam. How stupid can you get? Is he just trying to appease the Arabs because we need oil??
Arm A Geddon - Is that movie "The Day After" or one called "Testament," with Jane Alexander as the housewife?
Foehammer,
I visited your link on Ron Paul, and have a number of comments:
(1) Just War doctrine is not to be confused with Pacifism. Ron Paul is not to be confused with Gandhi.
And Gandhi was not gentle in any but the most superficial way. Gandhi said the Brits, Americans, and Jews should surrender to the Nazis. He said the Jews should accept their fate of murder at the hands of Nazis, or kill themselves in protest.
Ron Paul voted FOR war with Afghanistan. He offered legislation to use letters of marque and reprisal to seriously hunt down bin Laden. He proposed that we extend piracy laws, which currently cover seafaring vessels, to air vessels.
(2) Just War doctrine is held by some on principle or on religious grounds, but it also has the fantasticly pragmatic effect of helping you conserve resourses for when you really need them, and then justifying their use when you really need them. This means you don't spread yourself too thin, it means you don't go billions into debt to China to save Muslims from their own culture-stemming mess. It means the West focuses on saving its own skin, so that there is a bastion of freedom left in the world, rather than burning out freedom's only real stronghold in an attempt to wipe out all evil.
(3) Immigration is extremely important, for security reasons, and also for economic. Paul has been clear where he stands on this, and it is where I stand.
(4) The UN. The UN is a place for third world dictatorships to use bureaucratic procedures and supposed normative legitimacy exercise power they wouldn't otherwise have, as they are backward. As most of our enemies are backward third world dictatorships, reducing the power of the UN is greatly in our interests. Paul, as I understand it, would do this.
(5) I care about POLICY, not POSTURING. So far I can tell, Paul is lacking an understanding of what we are up against with Islam. However, he is crystal clear about what his principles of actions are and will be, and his record suggests he will stick to them. This means that, for better or worse, I can predict how he will ACT.
I compare this against people like Giuliani and Thompson, who profess so close to what we would like to hear about Islam that they appear very nearly to understand it... but then go and support things like funding Fatah, and who haven't (that I've seen) said a precious word about our funding Egypt and supporting the Saudis.
This suggests that (except for Tancredo), my choices are a guy who doesn't understand Islamofascist threat, but who will act in accordance with Just War doctrine, and guys who also don't understand, but posture as if they do, and who will act in accordance with a policy that will and is spreading us too thin, funding our enemies, and which will eventually bankrupt us.
That said, here are my reservations about Paul:
The Minor reservation: Support for Israel. I support Israel, while he would cut funding and support for Israel, but in the context of also cutting funding for places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. And, in the context of treating energy policy as a National Security issue (I interpret this as reducing economic power of the Saudis). I think that Isreal could come out better for that, but am not sure. And, as I said, I support Israel.
The Major reservation: Iran. He seems to think Iran is a minor threat, and that if it actually got close to being a serious threat, it would be to Israel and not us, and then Israel could (and would presumably be justified under Just War doctrine) wipe it off the map. I think Iran is run by a madman theocrat, and that if they get their hands on nukes they'd use them in the hopes of starting Armageddon. There might not be time after the fact.
That's my major reservation. I weigh that against things like the Jizyah, and like spreading the military too thin, and like our political support for the Saudis and like the possibility of tying our oil trade to national security. And I think it is a hard decision. Still, Iran is having massive internal problems, and so long as we DO go with Just War (which is NOT) pacifism, we'd still be able to act in time to avert major tragedy.
Also important: I have been following Paul for years, and I agree with his criticism of our monetary system. I don't want our fiat currency to cause major economic collapse in the comming decades while we are fighting a long war with Islamofascism. I understand that many disagree with me on the importance of this issue. For full disclosure, understand that this issue is also impacting my outlook, and take that for what you will.
Darcy: Very good idea. I'm all for it.
But JW getting Bush's ear may prove the tricky part. (And, will he and his campaign contributers listen?).
Darcy: Very good idea. I'm all for it.
But JW getting Bush's ear may prove the tricky part. (And, will he and his campaign contributers listen?).
Islam = terrorism.
There's NO getting violence out of Islam, Mr. Bush. Not NOW or EVER!