Hillary Clinton has not uttered a word to distance herself from her husband's insensate courtship of Yasir Arafat, or his unshakeable determination to misunderstand the Islamic basis of Arab opposition to Israel -- a misunderstanding that explains not only his failure at "peacemaking" but all the failures before his tenure, including that at Camp David, which resulted not so much a "peace treaty" as a gang-up on Israel, with Carter and Brzezinski outdoing even Sadat (that's Saint Sadat), in making demands on a hapless, hopeless, sentimental, uncomprehending Begin.
There is the matter of the huge Saudi contributions to Bill Clinton, of his offer to defend the Dubai deal, of his fantastic payments for lectures either in the Gulf (as in Qatar), or in Arab-funded lecture series (the Fares Lectures at the Fletcher School). There is the matter of that Saudi girl who has in the last month or two disappeared from view. There is the matter of the Turkish financier who paid for the movie "Valley of the Wolves" -- a movie depicting American soldiers in Iraq as Nazis, and with a piquant "Jewish doctor" who, Mengele-like, cuts out the organs of dead Iraqis to sell them in New York and Tel Aviv. That movie is equivalent to "Jud Suss." Would we support a candidate who had as one of his delegates to some convention in the 1930s someone akin to Joseph Goebbels? No? Then why -- if we are to believe Debbie Schlussel -- do we pass by, without a word, such a Clinton delegate as the Turkish(-American?) movie-financer in question?
Obama? He's missing a trick. If he were to announce that he was raised, or was considered by some to be, a Muslim, but never accepted the faith, and openly demonstrated his Christianity just as soon as he safely could, that could gain him support. If he could depict himself, perhaps correctly, as an apostate, that would be even better: it would put him in the company of Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, Ali Sina, Nonie Darwish, Walid Shoebat, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. (He should start seeing her, start learning from her, and make sure those photographs of him with her are widely distributed, if he knows what's morally and intellectually good for him.) When it comes to totalitarian belief-systems, always learn from, in depth, those who were born into societies ruled or suffused with that belief-system, and who mentally fought their way out. They should be the guides.
It's up to Barack Obama whether or not he shows himself to be able to recognize this, and to express his opposition to the war in Iraq not as an act of appeasement, but because he abhors the "squandering" of men, money, materiel, and morale, and wishes to husband our resources in order to better defeat what he can call, for now, the "forces of Jihad." He can also talk, for a start, about how the "more than one trillion dollars spent or committed in Iraq might better have been spent on energy projects that would deprive the worldwide Jihad of the money weapon."
Just say it. Just get those words out. And then all the other candidates will have to follow. And then the debate, and the comprehension of things by the public, will change. The dam will have burst.
As for John McCain, he is not tough-minded. Rather, he is a sentimentalist. That sentimentalism can be seen in his failure to comprehend why some might think cultural continuity for this country, as for other countries, is important, and is threatened by unchecked legal, and illegal immigration. He might be sympathetic. He might have a sense of what cultural continuity means. But he has given no signs of it.
And he is sentimental, in the Bush mold, about "ordinary moms and dads in the Middle East." The Iraq War is a fiasco, a disaster, a huge distraction from the war of self-defense against the Jihad. He, McCain, does not know that. If he doesn't learn that, and come to realize that the trillion or more spent in Iraq, and the 4,000 dead and 30,000 wounded, were expended largely for a goal that is not only unattainable, but that makes no sense, then he will lose the election to someone else, possibly less worthy in other respects, if that someone else is opposed to the hideously expensive (and the "war in Iraq" and "the economy" are not two issues but one issue) war in Iraq, and can appeal to those who see it, rightly, as a tremendous waste.
McCain will have to jettison, or get beyond, the kagans -- "Hero of Baghdad" -- and others whose careers are tied up with the crazed venture in Iraq.
Will he begin to understand Islam? Will he begin to talk, using such words as "Jihad" and "dhimmi"? Will he meet with Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq and Wafa Sultan, and listen to them carefully? Will he consider the other, more effective, instruments of Jihad -- the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, demographic conquest?
Will he? Or will his opponents? Or will any of them come to their senses, individually or collectively, and start studying the matter, as they should have started long ago?
None of the candidates have any reason to study Islam and what it represents. To them, the cure (curtailing or banning immigration, giving up on the "global" community and preserving America's heritage) is worse than the disease.
The American people aren't standing up and demanding action. A few have tried on illegal immigration and been castigated as bigots for their trouble. Tancredo was rejected "because he can't win", a self-fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one.
Granted, these people seek to be our leaders and it is their responsibility to know these things. But the old maxim is as true today as it was when it was first uttered: people in a democracy get the government they deserve.
We've been looking at these candidates for more than a year. Hillary and McCain have been under scrutiny since 2000. Both have long (and publicly) assumed this was their turn. A field of twenty-plus is down to three serious contenders, one of whom is likely to be the next president. We're getting what we asked for and what we deserve.
I have no great love for McCain. Yet I am going to offer him the best advice so that he can heal the wounds in his party and win in November. First publicly sign the NumbersUSA anti amnesty pledge and get his friends who were on the victory platform with him e.g. Giuliani and Lieberman to do likewise. Second, forget about his crony Huckabee and his stooge Lindsay Graham for Vice President. Instead select Jeff Sessions as his Southern-appeal running mate.
George W. Bush is first U.S. president to make the establishment of a Palestinian (no doubt, terrorist) state in the Holy Land, a formal goal of U.S. policy. Despite what some think, Bush has invested enormous political capital to see his "vision" through to completion before leaving office.
Mr. Bush had his vision for Israel's annihilation codified in our 2004 national Republican party platform, at the late August national party convention in New York city. Our party platform for the first time calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state in Israel -- something unthinkable only years prior to G. W. Bush's ascendancy -- for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from historic Israel, for the dismantlement of check points, etc.
In Mr. Bush's fantasy world, an arch terrorist and Holocaust denier is a man dedicated to peace. In Mr. Bush's world view, Palestinian jihadists want the same things for their children as Jewish parents in Israel want for their children.
John McCain appears to hold the same delusional view as Mr. Bush, that solving the Arab - Israelis conflict is key to peace and stability in the Middle East when nothing could be further from the truth. Unlike or perhaps now like Bush, McCain appears to hold to the James Baker "realist" school of thought, that solving the Arab - Israeli conflict should be a central and immediate focus of administration policy.
Barring some unforeseen miracle that Senator McCain rejects Bush's failed attempt to solve the Arab - Israeli conflict by pressuring Israel to make suicidal concessions to our enemies; barring a miracle that John McCain, as Republican nominee for U.S. president, instructs the national platform writing committee to alter this immoral language in our national party platform, instead requesting our national platform writing committee change US policy aims relative to Israel; that the right of Israelis to live and build communities anywhere in the land of Israel be recognized; and that the Arab-world goal of eliminating the Jewish state be made public and repudiated, I will not vote for John McCain November 4, 2008, nor will I vote for any Republican candidate at national level.
I am a conservative Republican -- thirty seven years -- but I am no fool. I was duped by George W. Bush. I will not be duped again by John McCain.
It is unfortunate that the prevailing sentiment here seems to be that Israel is some kind of innocent, hapless Jihad victim, when the facts seem to show a very different picture.
A real objective, fair-minded assessment would begin with the goal of determining how the conflict started.
Did it start with Palestinian Arabs destroying the Jewish Second Temple Commonwealth 2,000 years ago? No, it didn't, no such thing ever happened.
Did it start with Palestinian Arabs migrating to pre-WWII Europe to mistreat, uproot, and dispossess the Jews of Berlin, Warsaw, Krakow, and Minsk? No, it didn't, no such thing ever happened.
It started with Zionist European Jews coming to Arab Palestine. As a general rule with exceptions, they didn't come to live in peace. They didn't come to be behave as ethical, moral, upstanding individuals. They didn't to live as respectful, responsible inhabitants of Palestine.
Rather, they came to deliberately wipe Arab Palestine off the map with no meaningful regard for the differing sentiments held by the vast majority of the territory's inhabitants.
That is the cause of the conflict and the root of the matter. The rest, as Hillel would say, is largely commentary.
I am well familiar with the conventional arguments and apologetics on behalf of Zionism, from 2,000 year old historical ties, to the Holocaust, to Balfour, the League of Nations, and the United Nations. These arguments are quite flimsy and easily disposed of from the perspective of natural law-based moral, ethical absolutes that apply to all equally and indistinguishably and which nobody ever has a right to violate. I was raised on them, but when one learns the entirety of the relevant facts, it, alas, becomes a much different picture.
fairuzfan wrote: "It started with Zionist European Jews coming to Arab Palestine...to deliberately wipe Arab Palestine off the map with no meaningful regard for the differing sentiments held by the vast majority of the territory's inhabitants..."
Is 'fairuzfan' a pseudonym for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
Nice try. It started with the diaspora, when Arab Muslim conquerors drove Jews out of their ancient homeland. Some of them moved to other parts of the Middle East, where they lived for a millenium. Then they were driven out of those areas by the Arabs after the state of Israel was declared. Now the Arabs (who call themselves Palestinians) would drive them out of the Middle East altogether, all in the name of jihad.
Fairuzfan you are grossly incorrect and seem to be reading ONLY islamic, history books.
Israel was displaced from its homeland back in 66 AD with the 1st Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire.
After initial victories and chasing various Roman units around the outlying areas of Jerusalem, the Romans mobilized multiple legions and pushed back the rebel Israelis to the walls of Jerusalem where they besieged the Jews until 70 AD when a section of wall was set afire and allowed access to the Roman units.
After a massive slaughter that progressed for many days, the Romans sacked the city, looted the holy temple, and took tens of thousands of captives and resettled many others throughout the empire.
The Roman tactic was if you removed the Jews from Israel, you remove any and all potential rebellions from the area.
No people, no rebellion, no problems!
Simplistic, yet very effective.
Now centuries BEFORE the 1st rebellion against Rome, Israel was again attacked, besieged, and defeated by the Babylonian Empire and resettled back mostly in Babylon.
After, Babylon fell, the king of Persia resettled the exile Jews and sent them back to Jerusalem to rebuild the city and walls, temple, and start the nation anew.
Did you ever hear of Moses, King David, King Solomon, King Saul?
Israel has existed since time began with the Egyptian Empire in 1900 BC.
Tell me when, where, and what information or proof do you have this alleged Palestinian nation ever existed?
Tell me who was the first president, prime minister, defense minister, economics minister of Palestine?
THERE NEVER WAS SUCH A NATION!!!!
Later, the area came under Byzantine Empire rule, and later invaded and occupied by the muslims spreading their PEACEFUL message of allah.
The Ottoman Turks had control of Israel for centuries AND NEVER ESTABLISHED ANY ALLEGED Palestinian nation.
If the Turks wanted to set up such an entity than why did they never choose to do so??
Your declarations are ridiculous and pathetic and reek of islamic propaganda.
Israel was brought home in 1948 and this is the 3rd time in history it was re-established as a nation so the reality it is the muslims who were the occupiers of Israel and not what you claim today.
YOU muslims were the occupiers and Israel was just coming home to reclaim its ancient homeland from foreign occupiers.
Where was "Palestine" in 70 AD?
Where was "Palestine" in 1005 BC in the time of King David?
Where was "Palestine" in 970 BC in the time of King Solomon?
This whole nonsensical debate is just here now for the point of destroying Israel and nothing else in the name of a "lost" Palestine.
If you want to blame anyone, than blame the Turks for they had no desire to establish your alleged Palestine.
Please, go read and dump the progaganda you have been given by your imam and look for real historical records that tell the truth.
Obama bin Clinton in the White House makes me want to hurl violently - while McCain gives me enormous indigestion.
Pick your poison.
A vote for anyone other than McCain is like serving up the White House to Clinton on a silver platter - now that is insane!
Remember, Bush is not McCain, as some of you seem to think, but Clinton IS Clinton. You may be sick 'n tired of Bush, but remember how sick 'n tired we ALL were of the Clinton's? Hello! And now some of you want to sign up for more of the same, knowing what another Clinton will bring to the table. Excuse me for saying so, but I don't get it.
Again, pick your poison.
From Hugh:
There is the matter of the Turkish financier who paid for the movie "Valley of the Wolves"
This is a slanderous anti-American screed that is now a television series in Turkey. If this is true, Mrs. Clinton is disqualified (again).
For elaboration Click Here
Let me rephrase that:
Excuse me for saying so, but that DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!
Sorry if link didn't work, see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3AZTmDBt50
Champ, you wrote: "Remember, Bush is not McCain, as some of you seem to think, but Clinton IS Clinton."
You might read Peggy Noonan (Ronald Reagan's speech writer) in the Wall Street Journal this week:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241915915951669.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
"....I ruminate in this way because something is happening. Mrs. Clinton is losing this thing. It's not one big primary, it's a rolling loss, a daily one, an inch-by-inch deflation. The trends and indices are not in her favor. She is having trouble raising big money, she's funding her campaign with her own wealth, her moral standing within her own party and among her own followers has been dragged down, and the legacy of Clintonism tarnished by what Bill Clinton did in South Carolina. Unfavorable primaries lie ahead. She doesn't have the excitement, the great whoosh of feeling that accompanies a winning campaign. The guy from Chicago who was unknown a year ago continues to gain purchase, to move forward. For a soft little innocent, he's played a tough and knowing inside/outside game.....
"Political professionals are leery of saying, publicly, that she is losing, because they said it before New Hampshire and turned out to be wrong. Some of them signaled their personal weariness with Clintonism at that time, and fear now, as they report, to look as if they are carrying an agenda...."
In the dreamy Islam-based version of thnings that "fairuzfan" and all the fairuzfans of this world devoutly believe in, there is really no case for Jews, or for that matter Copts, or Maronites, or for that matter, no doubt, for non-Arab Muslims either, such as the Kurds or black African Muslims in Darfur, to enjoy autonomy or a state of their own. The fact that every Western observer to the ill-considered backwater that in the West was called "Palestine" -- and in the Muslim East was simply part of the Ottoman Empire, divided administratively into various vilayets and a separate sanjak for Jerusalem -- reported on its "ruin" and "desolation" and "emptiness" -- means nothing. Nor does the fact that the Jews who never left the Middle East, but lived, as chattel slaves in some cases, as in Yemen, or as cringing dhimmis in other cases, or a bit better in still other cases, but only briefly, only while either the French (as in Algeria, with the loi Cremieux in force from 1870, allowing the local Jews to be treated under French law, with French guarantees, or as in Iraq, where during the time of the British presence the Jews of Baghdad -- then the second city of Asia for the Jews -- continued to be protected from Muslim depradation, a protection that was removed when the British left -- see the Farhud of June 1-2, 1941, and see the pillaging of Jewish property from 1948 on, and see the public hanging of innocent Jews, as "Zionist spies," back in 1968, to the evident delight of a Baghdad crowd of half-a-million Arabs).
"Fairuz" does not know that more Arabs than Jews entered Mandatory Palestine -- but since Mandatory Palestine was set up, by the League of Nations, for the express purpose of establishing, on this small sliver, the Jewish National Home, it was outrageous for the British authorities not to stop this constant influx of Arabs, drawn in, paradoxically, by the very economic activity that the Jewish immmigrants were responsible for.
There is so much more one could say, but why bother? Why bother with those whose Total Belief-System makes them impervious to appeals to logic, to evidence, to semi-fairness, to semihemidemi-equity? It's a waste of time.
"Pick your poison."
Put your seatbelts on. It's going to be a bumpy ride for the next 4-8 years.
Seatbelts is right; if only McCain dropped out, then I wouldn't be singing the blues.
What to do..what to do...
Do I vote against Iraq, and save the GOP by voting for the liberal (who will do all sorts of other stupid things), or do I vote for a semi-strong conservative who might finish the GOP forever by keeping us in Iraq?
Maybe I won't vote in the presidental elections.
I live in a liberal state anyway...
On futhur reflection...The real questions are:
Can we survive another 4 years in Iraq using the same strategy of dumping billions of $ and getting nothing in return?
or..
Can we survive 4 years of a raving liberal having sit down meetings with every Islamic group on earth and "making peace"?
Some choice...
You know in some ways I would like to see the liberal win. Then the dems can take the blame for everything that goes wrong, in this world war, for the next four years. I am tired of watching the party of my great grandfather go down the tubes like it has. The GOP needs a house cleaning and I am afraid if McCain wins...no cleaning will be done at all. The GOP needs a serious "intervention" to find their roots. McCain for the GOP is like vodka is for the recovering alcoholic.
You know in some ways I would like to see the liberal win. Then the dems can take the blame for everything that goes wrong, in this world war, for the next four years. I am tired of watching the party of my great grandfather go down the tubes like it has. The GOP needs a house cleaning and I am afraid if McCain wins...no cleaning will be done at all. The GOP needs a serious "intervention" to find their roots. McCain for the GOP is like vodka is for the recovering alcoholic.
Posted by: greatcometof1577
Fits my feelings of things pretty closely G.C. Now, as a conservative “Rush Limbaugh” Republican I am absolutely astonished to find myself willing to vote for Obama. I will do this for the following reasons:
There is little difference between McCain and Obama on any issue except Iraq. Over half the country thinks we should get out anyway, so let the Democrat do it and take the blame for what happens next.
McCain will follow W’s policy of willfully not learning, looking at or speaking of the tenets of Islam. He will pretend it is benign and only “radicals” are to blame for terrorism. How is this fundamentally different from Obama’s view?
The Democrat party is doing everything they can to sabotage this nation, let them take the blame for the next terrorist hit.
Most blacks view this as Bush’s fight, or if not that, then the “white mans” fight – certainly nothing to do with them. Let these people reassess their feelings about this conflict and this nation when one of their own is in charge, when it is next attacked.
If Obama is elected no reasonable person can ever again call this nation “racist”. He will do much to end the victim mentality of many blacks and show that if they stay in school they too can achieve success. He will awaken a whole segment of America that is presently sleep walking and not doing nearly enough for themselves, let alone helping with the fight against Islam. This WILL make us stronger.
Of the three, Obama is the one that is least likely to generate the kind of personal hatred that clouds minds and obscures reason, as in “Bush derangement syndrome”. McCain would soon be painted as an evil warmonger, just as Bush has been. We will disagree with Obama, some may even consider him incompetent, but I don’t think we will hate him.
So, for the good of the Republican Party and the good of the Nation, I will vote for Obama.
Davegreybeard, Rush Limbaugh has been a HUGE disappointment to me. I used to be an avid listener. Over the last few years, I began listening less and less as he continued to carry water for this evil U.S. president who claims to be a Christian and who claims to be a Republican.
Limbaugh himself is responsible for much of this as are Sean Hannity, David Horowitz and others who have carried this phony's water.
The last few days I've been listening to Limbaugh once again. Still, I've not heard him admit his original sin for carrying this phony Christian's -- this phony Re publican's -- water.
Peggy Noonan was right about Limbaugh when she wrote in the Wall Street Journal:
'On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, "I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it!"
'This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues....'
It started with Zionist European Jews coming to Arab Palestine. As a general rule with exceptions, they didn't come to live in peace. They didn't come to be behave as ethical, moral, upstanding individuals. They didn't to live as respectful, responsible inhabitants of Palestine.
What bullcrap. This is projection by a Muslim. Above is precisely what Muslims streaming into Europe are doing with an eye to taking over down the road. Demographic Jihad imperialism
Islam is the number one imperialist irredentist lebensraum force that has ever existed
'This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues....'
Posted by: monk
I would agree with most of your last paragraph, particularly the spending and immigration part.
Bush’s greatest failure is the refusal to even BEGIN to identify our enemy. This leads to confusion about the war and the infiltration of our government by our enemy – Hirsham Islam etc. It also leads to such monumental foolishness as allowing sharia equal footing with democracy in the constitutions of the nations we have conquered.
Having said this, do you think any of these policies would change under McCain? Or Obama? I would bet not.
When you get to “Bush is evil” “Bush is not a real Christian” you are letting your rage and frustration obliterate your common sense. He is not “evil” and he is as much a Christian as he claims to be – he is just misguided and mistaken in some areas.
As far as Limbaugh or Hannity and others “carrying his water” they openly opposed him on spending, immigration and other issues as a lot of us did.
Pick your poison.
Posted by: champ
That's the whole point. On one of the most important issues today - border security and illegal immigration - they're all equally bad. They won't protect this country from Islamic terrorists if it means disrupting trade or making the Saudis uncomfortable. They won't guard our southern border if it means employers won't have cheap labor. If Obama, Clinton and McCain are all we have to choose from and they're all poison, why does it matter which of them wins?
Poison is poison.
Absolutely right PMK, NONE of them will protect the border, stop illegal immigration, make the Saudis uncomfortable, or even begin to define Islam as our real enemy.
Get used to it - NONE OF THEM WILL DO THIS!
THEY ARE ALL PRETTY MUCH THE SAME!
Obama does provide the benefit of a more reasonable and less divisive political discourse however. He also would serve as a fine example for a “victim obsessed” black population to follow – an example that this population desperately needs to become a functional part of America.
So, I would say, pick the poison that has at least some benefit to it.
The others who were running and are now gone, if some of these would wind up on a ticket, then I could consider support. As of now, without Thompson, Romney, Tancredo, Hunter, As a V.P., or other position, it really will not matter.
Taking one of these would give the country somthing to hold onto.
Without them there, let the ship sink as that is what will happen over the next four years from 08. It already is taking water on. The current group will most likely see a short, fast four years only.
.
Davegreybeard: "When you get to “Bush is evil” “Bush is not a real Christian” you are letting your rage and frustration obliterate your common sense."
No. What Bush has done to Israel, to her security, to the land of Israel is evil plain and simple. It is un-Christian. Apparently you are not a Christian.
monk
You don't have to be a Christian to realise what Bush is doing to Israel. It's shaping up as genocide.
Why is/was it the goal of Bush and Bill Clinton, and even Carter to go down in history as the PERSON who solved the Israel - Pally problem?
Do they think they will get another Nobel Prize which has now become a worthless POS?
Do they want brownie points?
That pathetic sliver of land known currently as Israel, with its some 6 million citizens is ruining the whole world - yes, sure it is!!
Pull the other one.
Anyone who can't see how ridiculous this is must either be a moron or being paid off by petro-dollars. And some Israelis fall into that category also.
Islam has always valued conquest,,but only if they are the conquerors. The fact that Israel defeated the muslim attackers in 1967 means nothing to them. Even if you leave aside the biblical claims, in todays's terms this conquest is sufficient - unless you see it through muslim eyes.
How many countries ever gave back conquered lands? Not many. And the Egyptians didn't even want Gaza back at the end of the 6 Day War - how amusing!
So, I would say, pick the poison that has at least some benefit to it.
Posted by: Davegreybeard
I can't do that. Rather than pick one of the poisons, I'll take a placebo. Until I see my sample ballot I won't know which of them to choose but, barring a miracle at one or both of the conventions, I'd rather vote for a third party candidate than for someone I don't trust. Despite his reception this weekend at CPAC, I don't trust McCain, and Obama and Hillary are far to the left of me. Since I see no reason to care which of the three wins, there's no point in "strategic voting". It's like picking hemlock over arsenic. What's the difference?
fairuzfan: Why do muslim societies make free practice of religion a crime? I am trying to understand if islam is the one true religion why it would have anything to fear from free and public practice of other religions. Why does islam still find it necessary to convert by the sword instead of free choice by individuals? Just trying to figure out all these complex issues, and would be pleased to hear from other co-religionists of fairuzfan on this one, too.