Continuing a series I started here with a discussion of Hillary's Clinton's statements on terrorism. As I have said before, I will not endorse a candidate. However, I'll evaluate their statements on jihad terrorism in light of the reality of the situation.
I have praised Romney in the past for using the word "jihad," and called for other candidates to do so -- and some now have started speaking in similar terms, although I certainly do not mean to take credit for that. Anyway, Romney's website contains a statement, "Confronting Radical Jihad."
CHALLENGE: Jihadism – violent, radical, fundamental Islam – is this century's nightmare.
Some people have dismissed Romney for using so many qualifiers -- "violent," "radical," "fundamental." On the other hand, I think it is refreshing to see him speak of jihad and Islam at all, and after all, it is undeniable that most Muslims are not fighting today's jihad, or aiding it in any way. It is not illegitimate to make a distinction between them and the jihadists, as long as one understands that such a distinction is not readily or easily identifiable or quantifiable in the Islamic world.
I used to use "radical" to denote those who were fighting it, until it began to be misunderstood by some as suggesting that there was a traditional, mainstream, orthodox version of Islam that didn't teach violence against and the subjugation of unbelievers. In any case, whether or not Romney grasps just how deeply rooted the jihadist impulse is within Islam, he at least recognizes that it's there, and is determined to resist it. That's a vast improvement over the present occupant of the White House.
It follows the same dark path as last century’s nightmares: fascism and Soviet communism. Many still fail to comprehend the extent of the threat posed by radical Islam, specifically by those extremists who promote violent Jihad against the United States and the universal values Americans espouse. Yet the Jihad has been with us for some time.Radical Islam has one goal: to replace all modern Islamic states with a worldwide caliphate while destroying the United States and converting all nonbelievers, forcibly if necessary, to a fundamentalist form of Islam.
Or subjugating them under the rule of Islamic law.
Merely closing our eyes and hoping that Jihadism will go away is not an acceptable solution. U.S. military action alone cannot change the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions of Muslims. In the end, only Muslims themselves can defeat the violent radicals. But we must work with them. The consequences of ignoring this threat – such as a radicalized Islamic actor possessing nuclear weapons – are simply unacceptable.
Fine. But how are we going to work with them? What are we going to do to help them fight the jihadists? Here's "The Romney Plan":
To meet today's challenges, we must mobilize and integrate all elements of national power in unstable areas where traditional civilian agencies cannot operate effectively and traditional military power alone cannot succeed.Create A Special Partnership Force (SPF). The SPF will integrate all elements of national power under a new force with leadership drawn from a core group of our Army Special Forces trained to work with civilian governments and intelligence personnel to form a new capability that is:
* Focused on locally-targeted efforts to win support in the community while identifying, isolating and eliminating terrorist elements.
* Highly integrated and able to mobilize all elements of national power, including humanitarian and development assistance and rule of law capacity building.
* Closely coordinated in partnership with local governments.
* Intelligence driven.
* Agile and flexible in its operations.
* A sustainable effort in contested areas and sanctuaries of Jihadist groups.
All right. This point seems focused on what to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it's all fine, although the idea of focusing on "locally-targeted efforts to win support in the community while identifying, isolating and eliminating terrorist elements" carries a whiff of the common assumption that hearts-and-minds initiatives will win over a populace in which jihadists live and work. This actually seems quite unlikely, unless the jihad ideology itself is combatted -- for otherwise, the kindness of American soldiers will only in a small number of cases dislodge deeply ingrained assumptions about the uncleanness and dishonesty of the kuffar.
Launch A New Type Of Marshall Plan Unifying Nonmilitary Sources Of Power To Support Moderate Muslims. As President, Governor Romney will call together our Middle East allies and the major nations of the developed world to establish a "Partnership for Progress and Prosperity."This Partnership will assemble the resources of all developed nations to assure that threatened Islamic states have public schools, micro-credit and banking, the rule of law, human rights, basic health care, and competitive economic policies. Resources would be drawn from public and private institutions, and from volunteers and NGOs.
Which Islamic states? What kind of schools? What will be taught in them? Romney says, "this Partnership would assemble the resources of all the nations of the world to work to assure that Islamic states that are threatened with violent Jihad have public schools that are not Wahhabi madrasas." But Wahhabism is just one facet of the problem. A non-Wahhabi madrasa could still be jihadist.
And human rights according to which standard -- that of Sharia, or that of the West? Here again, while we are pouring out all this wealth on these Islamic states, what assurance will we have that the jihad ideology is not still being propagated? To stop that propagation, it has to be confronted as such. But it's not clear from this document that Romney will do that.
Strengthen Global Alliances. The failure of efforts such as the United Nations Human Rights Council has given multilateralism a bad name. America’s strength is amplified when it is combined with the strength of other nations.We need to expand alliances such as NATO and efforts among the world's leading nations to face the new threat of radical Jihad and increase our homeland security. We need to build global and regional capacities and networks of law enforcement and intelligence officials to confront Jihadists and other transnational threats.
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "This [Special Partnership] Force would work hand-in-glove with local host governments. Together, they would seek to target and separate terrorists from the local population, and to disrupt and defeat them. They would have the authority to call in all elements of civil assistance and humanitarian aid. Where they felt it was necessary, they could call in Delta and SEAL military resources. Their goal would be to build national institutions of stability and freedom, and to promote the rule of law and human rights." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At AEI World Forum, 6/21/07)
Here again: this will never be done effectively unless the Sharia's discrimination against women and non-Muslims is confronted and explicitly rejected.
Perhaps vagueness is to be expected in such a statement, but since George W. Bush has never shown any inclination to confront the jihad ideology at all, and that is the gravest and most multifaceted omission of anti-terror policy since 9/11, and since Romney appears at the outset to understand that this is an ideological struggle, it's strange that his prescriptions are all financial and conventional, and not ideological at all.
One small correction: change "century" to "millenium"
I hope he remembers their motto "Americans love life, we love death". I think that says it all.
I agree on the whole with what Robert has said is lacking. These denunciation's, though needed, are negative. A positive counter is needed as well. The positive should be at the spiritual level.
I know I will get disagreement from some but to effectively counter Islam, the Christian message is the best antidote to the poison of Islam. I know this is true for a number of reasons. Islam teaches hatred of Christians as much if not equal to Jews. Unfortunately we have become too PC and confused with freedom of choose to see how positive Christianity as influenced and made what we enjoy today. Isn't it ironic that it is under such attack, in the name of separation, today?
To offer a practical solution. We should have people working with special forces who are prepared to teach and show the Christ of the Bible in contrast to Allah of the Koran.
Isa 52:7
How lovely on the mountains Are the feet of him who brings good news, Who announces peace And brings good news of happiness, Who announces salvation...
Rom 10:15
How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!"
عيسى 52:7
كيف رائع على الجبال اقدام له الذي يجلب الاخبار الساره ، الذي يعلن السلام ، ويجلب السعاده للانباء طيبة ، وأعلنت منظمة الصحة العالمية الخلاص...
مدمج 10:15
كيف انهم سوف الوعظ ما لم يتم ارسالها؟ تماما كما هو مكتوب : "كيف هي جميلة اقدام اولئك الذين يجلبون الأخبار الطيبة من الاشياء الجيدة!
I have been supporting Romney until now, particularly since Tancredo never had a prayer. However, reading Debbie Sclussel's column about how he has key Hizbullah backed GOP members in MI behind his campaign, I am scratching my head and wondering whether I shouldn't go for Giuliani instead?
Unlike Debbie, a part of me is willing to gloss over some of the associations with people (who may not be Jihad supporters themselves but may be guilty of being Jihad supported), given that John 'No-Gitmo' McCain is worse; however, McCain's statements in the FNC debate last week where he stated that he wants to help the Islamic world modernize in order to ward of Jihad betrays the same misunderstanding of the issue that those who blame poverty for Jihad exhibit. OTOH, there is his record - he did order the surveylance of mosques in MA.
Having said all that, I don't wish to see Romney knocked out tomorrow, but right now, put me down as undecided between Romney & Giuliani.
Make that
Romney also refused to provide state police protection when the former tyrant of Iran, Katami, came to speak to the communists at Harvard. He saw Katami for what he was: an enemy and as governor, he told it like it was although it fell on the deaf ears of my fellow Minutemen and women.
I wish someone would speak out about the religious persecution and the hands of the Islamists in so called moderate countries like Egypt and Turkey. But our present leader seeks to divide Isreal and wants Turkey to join the EU.
Romney is a far cry than the political mannequin, Bush.
According to the article above, Romney supports-
"Focused on locally-targeted efforts to win support in the community while identifying, isolating and eliminating terrorist elements."
"Launch A New Type Of Marshall Plan Unifying Nonmilitary Sources Of Power To Support Moderate Muslims."
This sounds like something Jeffrey Carr and his Rand study could support 100%. Ergo, the kiss of death.
Infidel Pride wrote:
"reading Debbie Sclussel's column about how he has key Hizbullah backed GOP members in MI behind his campaign, I am scratching my head and wondering whether I shouldn't go for Giuliani instead?"
Remember what was posted here about Giuliani transcripts from the New Hampshire debate--
GIULIANI: It is important to make this point. Just the opposite, Ron. I have great respect for the Islamic religion. I have great respect for the Arab world, for the Middle East.
I think we should be closer to them. I think we should trade more with them. I think we should have cultural exchanges with them.
The overwhelming majority of the Islamic world...
PAUL: Why do we support their dictators, then? Why do we prop up all their dictators?
GIBSON: (inaudible)
[before Ron Paul cut off Giuliani in the middle of his sentence "The overwhelming majority of the Islamic world...", three guesses as to how he was going to complete that sentence: probably with the magic M word, "Moderates"]
GIULIANI: ... and on the evening of September 11, 2001, the day my city was attacked, I got on television, and I said to the people of my city, "We're not going to engage in group blame. This is a small group of people. This does not typify a great religion and a great people."
Of course Robert Spencer has said pretty much the same thing recently. Isn't there anyone out there with the balls to say that the vast majority of Muslims are wigged out fanatics?
So anyway, come election time, unless someone shows a pair of balls in the next year, I will go into the voting booth and simply try on a pair of Gap jeans, and otherwise abstain.
Infidel Pride-
Vote for Hillary. Let it 'hit the fan' on her watch and only then, purified of our illusions can a 'Republican or Independent' Churchill or mini-Churchill arise from the ashes. This line up is pathetic at best. NO ONE lays it on the line.
poetcomic1,
That is an abysmal strategy. Why should we wait for a Churchillian messiah, and then have him TRY to begin turning the tide just by cleaning up the wreackage of our defenses, even BEFORE he's able to mount an offensive? Why must we be weak, blitzed, and on the defensive to begin with?
It's all about showing love, respect and understanding to those whose "religion" compels them to want to destroy us. But like Voldemort, we dare not speak his name... So the candidates dance around the issue 'cause heaven forbid you offend any member of this "great" religion. If I were Romney, I would use this campaign as an opportunity to highlight just how demented it is for critics of his Mormonism and its past beliefs/practices about blacks, polygamy, etc and point out that unlike Islam, my religion has reformed itself. My religion recognized an error in its teachings and corrected itself/modernized itself, etc. I would say loud and clear to the MSM and their ilk, yeah, go ahead and attack my religion, but you do because you know that unlike Islam, I will either ignore your criticism or I will attempt to convinve you using reasoned thoughful argument that you are wrong. I will NOT physically assault you. I will NOT have some leader issue a fatwa condemning you to death. Let's really discuss how my "cult" really differs from that "great" religion called Islam.
"help the Islamic world modernize"?
The Islamic world has resources aplenty. What are they doing with them? The Middle East should be booming with something other than suicide bombs. Its people should have more than tribal battles on their minds.
It's time the West got over its guilt complex about "colonization". When have the Muslims shown any remorse for their takeover of most of the Balkans and the destruction of its history? The history of the West in Islamic lands is benevolent when compared to the damage done to Europe and Anatolia by the Muslim armies.
History of Jihad details the European experience under Islam and it also points out that the only non-Muslim victories were achieved when the tactics of the Ottomans were used against them. "Shock and awe", so much derided in the early days of the Iraq war, is what is needed.
The fact that non-Muslims exist and practice a religion that is other than Islam is looked upon as an injustice towards the Muslim concept of god and religion.
The very existence of non-Muslims is a provocation, a mischief (fitnah), for the Muslims. The existence of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Animism is itself enough cause for the Muslim to wage war on non-Muslims till "all the religion is of Allah's" as stated in the Quran.
The fact that most Muslims "are not fighting today's jihad or aiding it in any way" doesn't help us. If they're not aiding it they're not fighting it, either. They're not denouncing the violence of those who seek the renewal of the caliphate. They're not standing up for non-Muslims. They're sitting back, waiting to see which is the stronger horse. Evil can only prosper when good people do nothing. The billion good Muslims of this world are doing nothing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV-RzLCatWk
this contradicts everything yall people claim. iand dont delete this comment.
"tell me lies tell me sweet litle lies"
You mean this Giuliani?
I think Fred is the best on Jihad---the best we can get given the current PC-think that dominates our culture.
Fred has never said "religion of peace." To my knowledge, he has never said "one of the great religions" either ( I have looked for quotes).
As you can see from the quote at the bottom, Fred actually chastises "moderates" to get off their collective butts---everybody else panders and says "but of course we really like you guys."
Fred on the dangers of domestic multiculturalism
http://towncommons.blogspot.com/2007/04/fred-thompsons-most-important-piece.html
Fred Thompson on CAIR
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017038.php
http://abcradionetworks.com/article.asp?id=427045&SPID=15663
Fred Thompson on Ayaan Hirsi Ali
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/187200.php
Fred Thompson on moderates
"I think sometimes we have a little bit difficulty in choosing among our friends. There are some who give lip service and not only do not come through with moderation and preaching moderation. They go in the other direction sometimes. And we need to — we need to, again, be able to call a spade a spade. But for those who are standing up and really putting their lives in jeopardy, is what they’re doing, we need to support them in every way possible. We need to honor them. They need to know that they have our support. Now, having said that, I would think the average Muslim and the moderate Muslims, the ones around the country, around the world who live in moderate societies, which is most of them, would be the most outraged about what they see. They shouldn’t need constant bolstering to come out against the slaughter and wholesale slaughter of innocent people in trying to bring down western civilization which they are now part of and enjoying along with us. So I think they need to recognize the commitment that they need to make."
http://pajamasmedia.com/pages/2007/11/fred_thompson_war_on_terror_co.php
I think Fred is the best on Jihad---the best we can get given the current PC-think that dominates our culture.
Fred has never said "religion of peace." To my knowledge, he has never said "one of the great religions" either ( I have looked for quotes).
As you can see from the quote at the bottom, Fred actually chastises "moderates" to get off their collective butts---everybody else panders and says "but of course we really like you guys."
Fred on the dangers of domestic multiculturalism
http://towncommons.blogspot.com/2007/04/fred-thompsons-most-important-piece.html
Fred Thompson on CAIR
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017038.php
http://abcradionetworks.com/article.asp?id=427045&SPID=15663
Fred Thompson on Ayaan Hirsi Ali
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/187200.php
Fred Thompson on moderates
"I think sometimes we have a little bit difficulty in choosing among our friends. There are some who give lip service and not only do not come through with moderation and preaching moderation. They go in the other direction sometimes. And we need to — we need to, again, be able to call a spade a spade. But for those who are standing up and really putting their lives in jeopardy, is what they’re doing, we need to support them in every way possible. We need to honor them. They need to know that they have our support. Now, having said that, I would think the average Muslim and the moderate Muslims, the ones around the country, around the world who live in moderate societies, which is most of them, would be the most outraged about what they see. They shouldn’t need constant bolstering to come out against the slaughter and wholesale slaughter of innocent people in trying to bring down western civilization which they are now part of and enjoying along with us. So I think they need to recognize the commitment that they need to make."
http://pajamasmedia.com/pages/2007/11/fred_thompson_war_on_terror_co.php
Sorry about the double post---cat jumped on the keyboard
As far as I am concerned, Romney is the ONLY US presidential candidate who has been worth the wait. He impresses me as being someone who may actually be able to help our country in ways that matter. Although there are some basic deficiencies in his view of the Islamic world's aggression and tyranny against the western democracies, at the very least, he seems to be in need of much LESS teaching about the global jihad (while giving the impression of being far more genuinely concerned about it)than anyone else in the US political system at the present time.
Now, if only our man Mitt can only make 'your Muslim candidate' Obama disappear and then WIN this election so as to kick the jihad's (not to mention the Demoncrats') a**!!!!
jewwho69:
Ever take a class in logic?
Bush never said Iraq was directly linked to 9/11. TRUE
Iraq harbored terrorists (including Al Queda) before Saddam's removal. TRUE
The terrorists who specifically perpetrated the 9/11 attacks (Set A) were a subset of the global terrorists (Set B).
Set B includes Set A. All members of Set A are included Set B. Not all members in Set B are in Set A.
The terrorists supported by Saddam (Set C) are a subset of the global population of terrorists (Set B).
Set B includes Set C. All members of Set C are included in Set B. Not all members in Set B are in Set C.
The 9/11 terrorists were all members of AQ. A subset of AQ terrorists received support from AQ. Bush never said that the 9/11 terrorists received from Iraq. Got it?
Understand? If not, you might want to study the fundamental rules of logic.
The comments sometime get sticky. . .as a non-techie, it's hard to tell if it's my put put 'puter or something at the site.
BTW, did your cat also happen to eat the last thread?
There were several comments on it and when I hit 'refresh' it vanished.The cat seems satiated, but remote electronic consumption nonetheless seems improbable! LOL
"Understand? If not, you might want to study the fundamental rules of logic.
Posted by: JSobieski "
....quit trying to confuse the dhimmis and the moveon.org types....(including my landlord)
Those who don't support anybody would do well to vote for the Loyalist Party candidate, whoever he is - rather than abstain. Right now, they don't have a candidate, but hopefully, they'll have one. If only it were someone with pockets as deep as Bloomberg.
Cantor
Your frustration resonates with me.OTOH I just re/re/distributed my "kids" 26, 28 and 31 their St. Louis County Voting ID cards (re/re as in I've BTDT with them before..when they were younger..and now they're getting more serious)...don't give up Cantor...DON'T QUIT..when in the booth remember the words of the Shoshone Chief Waxachie on being thanked for sparing immigrants lives.."When the white man receives a compliment he hears it in his head and speaks with his tongue..when an Indian receives a compliment it is received in his heart and his heart doesn't have a tongue "I have spoken"..Cantor, speak with your vote
your JW fellow poster..NoDak
Like Robert, I will not criticize Romney for appending the adjective "radical" to "Islam" when referring to the jihad ideology. I do the same myself when discussing Islam with those who obviously aren't "in the know," which describes the masses Romney must court in his presidential bid. Beyond that, however, it is apparent that Romney won't be much an improvement over GWB, and Robert has artfully (as usual) showed some of the problems with Romney's way of thinking.
Frankly, although I'm scared to death Hillary will be the next president of the greatest country on God's green Earth, our problems go way beyond the mindset of our next president. As the Coughlin firing shows, even if we could put Robert in the White House, he will have a difficult time negotiating his ideas with the State and Justice departments, Homeland Security, and other agencies (not to mention Congress and the courts) that have been infiltrated by multiculturalist wing dings and outright Islamists.
That said, I'm with JSobieski in leaning toward Fred Thompson as the best that remains since Tom Tancredo dropped his hopeless bid.
But it's beginning to look like Thompson entered the race too late, and his name recognition as a TV and film personality hasn't afforded him sufficient compensation for the tardy start, as he'd apparently hoped.
you guys are in a state of denial i know the truth hurts. by the way i looooooove all humans i have hate for no one. i love my jewish values and i am not a hatemongoer like the rest of you guys.
Let's face up to it, it doesn't make much difference how Romney refers to terrorist. If he gets into office, Islam will be a "peaceful religion", and nothing serious is going to get done to address the Islamic threat within our own borders. We'll continue to import Muslims into our country, and we'll continue to pretend that Muslims are no different than Catholics, Lutherans and Baptist -- all brothers in the same Abrahamic faith, all loyal to the ideals and principles of the American revolution, none a threat to our way of like.
I don't see a single candidate I'd trust to tackle this problem seriously and honestly.
It's going to be business as usual, no matter who gets in.
But it's beginning to look like Thompson entered the race too late, and his name recognition as a TV and film personality hasn't afforded him sufficient compensation for the tardy start, as he'd apparently hoped. posted by Haid
It's more than not getting recognized. The drive-bys know exactly who and what he is.
He is being systematically cut from the coverage.
Watch carefully, this morning I saw a picture of him on ABC and they talked about Romney, they only mentioned it once when he tied for third.
But if Fred can tough it out, Americans aren't stupid.
They will slowly start to notice 800lb. elephant that no one is talking about.
Then there are the group of Americans who are going to get tired of the re-fighting of the Civil Rights movement.
There may be a few out there who have thought-crimes about race, but for the most part blacks today can do anything they put their minds to now days and having had TWO recent Sec. States who were black proves it.
Don't forget, some of us white folk fought the CR battle the first time.
I have no objection to a black president or a woman president. Just not Hilly or Barry.
My reasons for objecting to both of them go way beyond party affiliations and race or sex.
you guys are in a state of denial i know the truth hurts. by the way i looooooove all humans i have hate for no one. i love my jewish values and i am not a hatemongoer like the rest of you guys.
Posted by: jewwho69 at January 14, 2008 2:55 PM
Who is this lamebrain imbecile?
Can't be Jewish. Too stupid.
Newsflash, lamebrain imbecile: The Muslims are the "hatemongers." Allah in the Koran calls you "an ape and a pig." Gotta love that, eh?
Don't feed the trolls. If someone shows that aren't capable of actually interacting in a meaningful way, don't encourage subsequent posts.
I don't see a single candidate I'd trust to tackle this problem seriously and honestly. --posted by rational.
I agree. There's no Republican I want to vote for. Sad, isn't it? Concerning Islam, they are either uninformed, or cowards.
Don't feed the trolls. If someone shows that aren't capable of actually interacting in a meaningful way, don't encourage subsequent posts.
Posted by: JSobieski at January 14, 2008 3:52 PM
Sorry, Jan, but I wanted to respond to the troll. Deserves it. BTW, thank you for 1683!
Darcy:
I would at least suggest looking at some of the posts above re: Thompson. He does have a sense of history. He has tied 21st Century Jihad to a struggle that has been going on for over a 1000 years. He even did a bit about the Barbury Pirates when he was on the radio last year.
There is some seriousness there if you look for it.
Jan Sobieski - I know Fred has spoken openly against Islam. And that's GREAT! But, I don't think he's going to get the nomination. If Rudy gets it of course I will be voting for him.
darcy:
I of course defer to your free speech rights.
Sobieski (and Poland) got their "thanks" when other European powers began a series of wars against Poland and partitioned the country in the aftermath of the battle of Vienna.
Once the external threat was stopped, the internal threats resumed. Then, just as now, the West does some very dumb and counterproductive things. History repeats itself over and over again.
rational:
Your statements on Romney appear to me to be defeatist, baseless, and strikingly IRRATIONAL.
Bush's biggest problem was that his presidency was bought and paid for by his campaign donors; they had both Bush and his presidency by the soles of the guy's feet. Subsequently, his decisions were largely restricted to making moves that pleased his billionaire sponsors. I see none of that with Romney, so I would imagine you are worng about this presidential candidate. DEAD wrong.
If you feel that strongly that no one can be trusted to lead America in the jihad war, perhaps you should consider your other options.
My crystal ball is still in the repair shop. I believe in giving people a chance to prove themselves.
ps-Romney already stood up to Mullah Khatami ONCE already while Governor of Mass. So I see evidence already that you are wrong.
Sobieski (and Poland) got their "thanks" when other European powers began a series of wars against Poland and partitioned the country in the aftermath of the battle of Vienna --posted by jSobieski
No good deed goes unpunished, right?
I think Romney, Thompson, or Rudy would each be better than Bush (who is hampered by his personal connections to the Saudis and a religious life experience that prevents him from looking under teh covers).
McCain is roughly equivalent to Bush.
Everyone else (Ron Paul, Huckabee, and democrats) is worse.
Frankly, I don't see how Huckabee - bad as he is - is worse than McCain. Ron Paul I agree. Same w/ Giuliani & Romney. I don't see Thompson being any more successful than Tancredo.
You are right--McCain is worse than Bush. I still think Huckabee is worse than McCain.
It would pay dividends if Thompson only made VP.
By 'Same w/ Giuliani & Romney' - I meant I agree w/ you on them that they are worth supporting, not that they are as bad as Ron Paul.
If you feel that strongly that no one can be trusted to lead America in the jihad war, perhaps you should consider your other options.
My crystal ball is still in the repair shop. I believe in giving people a chance to prove themselves.
pythagoras,
Believe me, I am considering other options, but there's really not that many to choose from.
I wouldn't rely too heavely on a crystal ball, they rarely tell you what politicians will do once in office anyway.
We don't have much choice about giving them a chance. One of them is going to make it into the White House no matter what we think.
Problem is, once they're there, there's nothing you can do about it. They'll do what they want, and, if that means doing the opposite of what they're saying on the campaign trail, that's what they'll do.
Listen closely to Romney's position on Islamic terrorism now, and then, if he gets in, compare it to what he really does and says.
Sorry for the OT but thought this would be of interest.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA15Ak03.html
I predict a riot!
I would support a candidate whose position on jihad was as follows:
"Jihad is inflicted upon us by the followers of islam. I propose to end the jihad through exaction of a prohibitive levy upon its practitioners and enablers. The levy will have both economic and military dimensions. In the collection of this levy, both muslim culture and muslim casualties are matters of complete indifference.
Rather, I will focus upon ending the jihad quickly while minimizing American expenses. If the muslim world requires one thousand years to recover from this encounter with the West, so be it."
Coincidentally, that's my position, too!
Thanks Meccano
Interesting article. They could have left out that little bit of propaganda about who taught who to hate Jews. It actually came from a different source.
However, I had to copy one line to keep. Because it illustrates so well the situation in the institutes of higher(sic) learning int eh US today and that it is not a secret.
from the article;
"In the United States, where Arab and Islamic Studies rely on funding from the Gulf States, an interest in Koranic criticism is a failsafe way to commit career suicide."
rational - your point of view is an important one to consider, and not "irrational" at all - as another poster snidely pointed out.
Thanks rational!
This quote from Huckabee needs no explanation, at least not from me. Free press indeed.
"We must first destroy existing terrorist groups and then attack the underlying conditions that breed them: the lack of basic sanitation, health care, education, jobs, a free press, fair courts -- which all translates into a lack of opportunity and hope."
Aunt Bea's quote from Huckabee shows he's just as brainless about Islam as McCain, Romney and Giuliani.
PS: Note to Huckabee: I'm not paying you as my employee to spend my money saving Muslims from poor sanitation, lack of health care, poor education, unemployment and despotism; I'm paying you to protect us from Muslims who want to kill us.
champ and rational:
A public pronouncement of all is lost is not going to motivate any type of productive action.
There are many different variants of "business as usual." We should pick the best person available. To say "we can't trust any of them" or "it doesn't matter who we pick" is an invitation for laziness on our part.
We need to pick the best available person. There are reasons to conclude that Fred, Rudy, and Mitt would each be better than Bush. There are excellent reasons to conclude that everyone else would be significantly WORSE than Bush.
We've got to make the best of what is a bad situation.
Not sure if you ever read Lord of the Rings, but Theoden did more good than Dunethor, despite inferior resources and "intelligence."
Tancredo is no fool and he endorsed Romney. J.S., you make some good points for Thompson but he's sinking faster than lead balloon. Giuliani is a mixed bag. McCain is a mixed bag. Huckabee is a lightweight. Paul is an Ostrich.
And the Democrates? Even worse.
It's looking more and more like it will take another large-scale attack on American soil before our political elites begin identifying the "real" root cause of terrorism in the world today; Islam itself!
Of course no one in office can say that (the msm would destroy them) so we continue to nibble around the edges of the problem, hoping it will go away. It won't. But then, Islam isn't going away either so there's no easy fix. There's a long, long road ahead. Train for a marathon!
The problem with Bush has been intellectual laziness. Romney is the sort of person who is likely to study into the problems he faces and learn as much as he can before making a decision. I do not like his current emphasis on the "Marshall Plan" approach, it sounds too much like paying the jizya tax. But, you cannot sound to militant and expect to get elected. We are living in an age of pacifism, like before both world wars. I think Romney either already knows a lot about the problems with Islam. He has commented on at least one of the books he read, a book written by the Muslim Brotherhood and not meant for an infidel audience. If he read that, he is not totally stupid or intellectually lazy.
I think Romney would do well. Not as well as if Robert Spencer were in the running, but you work with what you have. I think Romney probably knows why Mormon, Christian or other missionaries cannot go door to door in Saudi Arabia.
I would love to see a Romney/Thompson ticket. During the last debate on Fox in NH, I thought maybe they were colaborating just a bit in defeating Huckabee and McCain.
ps-Romney already stood up to Mullah Khatami ONCE already while Governor of Mass. So I see evidence already that you are wrong.
Posted by: pythagoras
__________________
Too bad Romney couldn't stand up to Ted Kennedy INRE the windfarm Romney helped kill. He's "for alternative energy" my arse. I guess only if it's not in sight of his wealthy MA cronies.
I have to agree with most here that few stand out for CIC wannabee. Unfortunately, all have demonstrated not only a distinct lack of knowledge of the global Islamic jihad movement, but even less about dealing with Islamic countries. All DNC types have "out cowboy'ed" Bush with "invade Pakistan" statements. Huck's proven himself to be totally clueless as well with his statements.
Romney's "plans" laid out here? Won't fly. Control of jihadis in the Muslim countries that have some form of democracy must be done by Islamic boots on the ground, plus their own tenuous agreements between militant factions to hold jihadists at bay. You will never wipe out the Deobandi or Wahhabi mentality. You can only attempt to keep it reined in by those who live with them in their midst (and sometimes in their govt) daily.
No matter who, I'm afraid we'll be electing a President doing "on the job training"t.
alexon:
Report's of Fred's demise are premature. South Carolina is a conservative state. It has a history of "fixing" the mistakes of Iowa and NH when it comes to electing conservatives. They put Reagan in the pole position in 80 after a getting crushed in Iowa.
Just as the MSM is clueless on Islam, they act like ATD children on election coverage---Hillary has it wrapped up, Hillary is done with, Huckabee has no chance, Huckabee has it wrapped up, Hillary is comeback kid, so and so is dead, so and so has it wrapped up, etc.
Take a deep breath, make a careful examination of the candidates, and realize that not everyone in this country is as dumb as Chris Matthews.
Many of us are asleep, but not all. I still hear intelligent things said from my barber, priest, mechanic, and landscaper.
" I still hear intelligent things said from my barber, priest,mechanic,and landscaper."
Poor Matthews, rubbed so, by the Salt of the Earth.
Make Jerky with him.
"Romney also refused to provide state police protection when the former tyrant of Iran, Katami, came to speak to the communists at Harvard. He saw Katami for what he was: an enemy and as governor, he told it like it was although it fell on the deaf ears .."
This event, and Romney's attention on monitoring the followers of islam here makes him stand out over others. I heard him loud and clear in his actions, it was well done.
His website statement could be a proposal as to a direction, and looks to be along those lines.
I would suggest writing him with your issues on his statement, Roberts points are on the mark and should be forwarded to him for a responce. A challenge on the faults may aid his understanding as to the real picture.
http://www.mittromney.com/
Who knows, you may be suprised.
Again,
Mitt is it, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter are also solid overall. The rest have agendas that are not in the countrys best interests.
JS, I hope you're right. We'll see. Huckabee definitely takes votes from Thompson in SC. McCain is said to be strong there but that remains to be seen.
Chris Matthews was really pissed that the voters in NH made a total fool out of him and his media fellows for annointing Obama the Big Winner before the vote was even held. So whom did he blame? "White people". In reference to exit polling, he said "We all know that white people lie" (about who they're going to vote for). The accusation is that they (white people) don't want to admit that they're racist so they lie to exit pollsters to hide their racism. That's Chris Matthews' analysis on why Obama wasn't crowned in NH the way he should've been.
What an insufferable, pompous ass he's become!
"Take a deep breath, make a careful examination of the candidates, and realize that not everyone in this country is as dumb as Chris Matthews."
I'm a big believer in the American people but I still don't think Thompson is going to make it. He did do well in the debate a few nights ago though. We'll see.
If Mitt thinks throwing money and manpower at jihad is going to stop it, then he doesn't understand Islam at all.
Romney's prescription to defeat jihad? Jizya.
"Romney's prescription to defeat jihad? Jizya."
No, I think he's too smart for that. Karl2's post is closer to the mark imo.
Sorry for the OT but thought this would be of interest.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA15Ak03.html
I predict a riot!
Meccano,
Interesting article! Frankly, I think that many Muslims, especially those of a scholarly bent, have always felt uneasy about Mohammad and his religion. That's why they react so violently when someone points out inconsistencies in Islam and it's historical roots and scripture. It's easier to kill someone than to face the truth squarely about a faith you've invested your whole life in.
If ever the light of real dialogue is allowed to shine into the Islamic world, I think you'll see many people exit that religion.
I think the Imams and Mullahs know that, and so it behooves them to keep the door tightly shut on any real scholarship on the subject.
If Rudy gets it of course I will be voting for him.
Posted by: darcy at January 14, 2008 3:58 PM
Remember, you'll be voting for illegal-immigration. Rudy went to court not for Americans, but for illegal, TWICE! Take away his performance on 9/11 and Rudy is Hillary in suit.
rational:
Romney, while Governor, of Mass., already stood up to Iranian Mullah Khatami and denied him special security treatment as had been requested. What Romney's decision did was communicate to Khatami that his governorship was not interested in playing dhimmi.
So we already have something positive on which to base Mitt's future actions if elected to another office.
I don't know of any other candidate who has done anything comparable.
So am I therefore fairly comfortable supporting Mitt for this reason. I don't see him as being a flim-flam artist or a turncoat, or 'wobbly' (like Bush).
alexon,
Hugh Hewitt is a conservative talk show host and author with a national audience. He likes to think he knows the intricacies of any particular issue relating to national politics.
Not too long ago, before the general public knew of CAIR's perfidy, Hugh invited one of their propagandists to appear on his show to spread their deception. Hugh was bombarded with phone calls and e-mails informing him of what his guest was.
If the cluelessness of those who are supposed to be our leaders weren't so tragic, what followed would be funny: Hugh scrambled desperately for an "expert" to counter his guest.
The best he could do was Frank Gaffney who, though he is knowledgeable in many areas regarding national security, knows only "radical extremist jihadism," not jihad and not Islam.
And Hugh was revulsed at the number of Neanderthals in his audience claiming that Islamic terrorism has something to do with Islam.
Since that time, Hugh has read several books on terrorism and interviewed on his program many "experts" on the subject, but (to my knowledge) he runs from Robert and his work like the plague. Whenever I've suggested him to Hugh as a guest, I've received no reply.
The same Hugh Hewitt who invited CAIR to speak on his national radio show is the same Hugh Hewitt who insists that it is the mujahideen who pervert Islam, not those who reject jihad.
He now throws around authoritatively terms like "radical jihadism" (sound familiar?), "Salafist," and "Qutb" (this too should sound familiar!), but he still denies the core fact that Allah and his false prophet command the enslavement or death of all who refuse to convert to Islam.
Despite numerous e-mails and phone calls, Hugh Hewitt continues to define Islam in terms of its heretics, apostates, and apologists. He believes that it is a "tiny minority of radically-extreme Islamo-fascist fundamentalist jihadism-ists" who've "hijacked a great world religion."
So, what does Hugh Hewitt have to do with Mitt Romney's position on jihad?
Hugh Hewitt wrote a book to help Romney get elected. Mitt is Hugh's guy. They use the same vocabulary on "jihadism." Mitt wants to throw unlimited Infidel money and manpower at jihad in hoping to "win [Muslim] hearts and minds."
If Romney really understands the Source and Sustenance of the global jihad, how can he propose such suicidal nonsense?
And how can Hugh cheerlead so vigorously for him?
Romney's "strategy" is both jizya and proof of a complete ignorance of what motivates Allah's War Against Humanity.
To assume otherwise is wishful thinking. All those suffering under the tyranny of Allah have had enough make-believe.
Unless a candidate makes and adheres to a public statement identifying the cause of the global jihad as the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed, it would be foolish to assume knowledge or judgment any better than we've had the last six years.
Okay, Romney won MI. Didn't think that losing it would knock him out of the race, but by winning MI, and probably NV, he'll definitely not be out before Super Tuesday. By which time, the GOP nominee would definitely be determined.
Amillennialist,
I don't know who Hugh Hewitt is but you make some solid points in your post (which I also see is an entry in your excellent blog).
One thing that, for me, lessens the impact of the association with H.H. to Mitt Romney is that I'm quite sure that every presidential candidate, both republican and democrat, have misguided or downright foolish people who are supporters or even on the payroll. The fewer the better but I think they all have this problem.
Romney may not fully appreciate how jihad springs directly from Islamic texts and traditions, but how many candidates do? I just think he's more aware than the others, Fred Thompson and Tom Tancredo excepted.
I like Fred Thompson but I don't think he has a chance. I say this not because I'm parroting some media talking head dismiss him. I say this because of what I've seen of him myself.
I think most of us would agree that Tom Tancredo has the most bona fides of the field. But he didn't get any traction and dropped out. And then endorsed Romney! That endorsement does carry some weight with me.
Maybe Fred Thompson will do well in S.C. I hope he wins there! If not then we need to look at the next best choice. Imo, Romney is the next best choice. Some others may think Giuliani or McCain is the next best choice.
I saw a bit of McCain's Michigan concession talk and he seems to be seeking the national security mantle. It was sounding pretty good until he got to his tag line: "We are fighting a war against Radical Islamic Extremists." Wow! As if one qualifier wasn't enough. And he says that a lot.
Plus he's got problems with illegal immigration and other issues too which i won't go into but directly affect national security.
As a humorous aside, in this same post-Michigan primary address McCain started out "The Mexican, uh, Michigan voters have decided and...." It was pretty funny.
And a media muff came when Wolf Blitzer announced that "George Romney has won the Michigan Primary."
Finally, I don't think ANY of the present field of Republican candidates (except Ron Paul) could be worse than G.W. Bush.
small correction: McCain's Mexican for Michigan voters gaffe was a little ways into his talk and not exactly as I quoted it. But it was still funny.
alexon,
Thank you.
I like Thompson and Tancredo.
If Romney is the nominee, I may still vote for him.
My main concern about Mitt (besides his understanding of Islam) is that he seems to be willing to say whatever he needs to say to get elected (one reason I like Thompson and Tancredo).
I realize that his major position changes since his time as governor are explained away as "maturity," but if you couple that with what he's been saying recently, he appears to pander to his audiences no less than Hillary Clinton does.
After her meltdown during the fairly recent ABC News/Facebook Democratic debate and her losses to Obama and Edwards, Hillary replied with tearing up, speaking softly, and plagiarizing her rivals' "It's personal!" and, "I'm an agent for change!"
Today I heard Mitt saying the same thing.
For those who want a President who will govern our Republic according to the Constitution and tell the truth about jihad, the list of candidates grows thin.