Obama scores Romney for his "poorly thought out comment" about not letting the Democrats "surrender to terror."
Obama, of course, is the candidate who has said, "Once I'm elected, I want to organize a summit in the Muslim world, with all the heads of state, to have an honest discussion about ways to bridge the gap that grows every day between Muslims and the West." Given the Democrats' positions on the issues, what Obama has said in other contexts, and the zeitgeist around the world today, such a summit would only result in demands from the Muslim countries for more money, an abandonment of resistance to the global jihad, and the betrayal of Israel. But it's Romney who is making "poorly thought out comments." Got it.
You want poorly thought out comments? What would you think of a candidate who offers a Give-Away-The-Store Summit with Muslim leaders, such as Obama has, after previously declaring that he would bomb Pakistan?
What a choice we have in 2008.
"Obama On Romney: An 'Ineffective Candidate,'" from The Hotline:
OMAHA, NE -- Barack Obama called Mitt Romney's candidacy "ineffective" on the day that the former MA governor dropped his bid for the presidency.Romney, who dropped out of the race for president today in Washington, said in his exit speech that the GOP must unify and not allow Democrats to allow the country to "surrender to terror."
"Well my reaction to Mitt Romney's comment that's the kind of poorly thought out comment that lead him to drop out," Obama said during a press avail on his campaign plane. "It's a classic attempt to appeal to people's fears that will not work in this campaign. I think that's part of the reason he was such an ineffective candidate."
And I'm bettin' that Barack returns from said meeting with his head in a suitcase......for committing.........APOSTASY
The "Hate America Crowd" has decided who their Candidate is. 25$ and 50$ checks sounds like down payments on increased Social benefits as a result of the surrender dividend.
The only way to "bridge the gap that grows every day between Muslims and the West", that would be acceptable to Muslims would be for everyone in the U.S. to "embrace" Islam.
I can't remember a presidential election year where I've had less enthusiasm for any and all of my options.
People should be more intelligently fearful of Jihad, not less, though with less emphasis placed by those who claim to "take a leadership role" on "terror" and with more attention given to the other, less noted and more effective, instruments of Jihad -- to wit, the Money Weapon (which comes from the more than ten trillion dollars received, because of an accident of geology, by Arab and Muslim oil states since 1973 alone), well-financed and carefully-targetted (see, for example, prisons all over the Western world) campaigns of Da'wa, directed at the economically and psychically marginal, and demographic conquest (Exhibit #1: The Netherlands, which in 1970 had 15,000 Muslims and today has more than one million, but any country in Western Europe could serve as a suitable exhibit).
Barack Obama should explain, carefully, what he knows about Islam. What has he read? What does the word "dhimmi" mean to him? The word "jihad"? What does he think about the treatment of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Confucians and all others in countries ruled by Islam? Why does he have among his advisers that obvious defender of the Lesser Jihad against Israel, the sinister Robert Malley (is he in, or is he out? No one seems to know), when Malley, after all, was a Clinton adviser, and still lists himself both ways, and there would be no disloyalty in casting such a character out? And why Zbigniew Brzezinski as an adviser, for Brzezinski, along with Carter, behaved so viciously toward the Israelis at Camp David, and both have continued to do so ever since, even though it was they, along with Gary Sick, who decided to abandon the Shah and to welcome Ayatollah Khomeini, as Carter did in that famous letter, as "a fellow man of faith"? And then there are other things that need to further elucidated. Words such as "change" are no substitute for details. It is true that Bill Clinton did not understand, and likely still does not understand, Islam. After all, his most frequent foreign guest at the White House was Yassir Arafat. He was a fool. Whether or not he is still a fool about Islam is unclear, but some of the statements he has made -- sometimes to audiences in Qatar and elsewhere that pay him, the endlessly grasping Bill Clinton (we are all still waiting to have tax forms released so that we may see for ourselves how much the author of "Giving" himself "gives" to charities other than those with the name "Bill Clinton" affixed to them) -- suggest that he has learned little. What his wife has learned is still unclear, and the more she distances herself from that Arafat-hosting the better.
But Barack Obama's list of advisers, and the selection, of all the things he might have said about Romney, of Romney's comments about the threat of Jihad (expressed in other terms, but clearer than the rhetoric of other candidates, and Romney's distaste for the Iraq War shows that he understands more about the threat of Islam, and ways to deal with that threat, than do the enthusiasts for that war, who in their foreign policy promise -- fantastic to think it -- only more of the disastrous folly of Bush) worry. More than worry. Alarm.
Robert Spencer is essentially correct. Study what happened to Europe after they initiated the French led Euro Arab Dialog. Read 'Eurabia' by Bat Ye'or for the details. If Obama is elected and initiates his summit with the Arab world then the mistakes of the last eighteen years will be seen as minor by comparison.
My thoughts exactly, Marisol.
U.S. spies, now under the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), are looking increasingly online for intelligence; they have become major consumers of social media.
"We're looking at YouTube, which carries some unique and honest-to-goodness intelligence," said Doug Naquin, director of the remarks to the Central Intelligence Retirees'Association last October. "We're looking at chat rooms and things that didn't exist five years ago, and trying to stay ahead. We have groups looking at what they call 'Citizens Media': people taking pictures with their cell phones and posting them on the Internet."
DemocracyBroadcastingNews.com
Mitt Romney was/is the only candidate who really gets it. His speech at CPAC today nailed with regard to the Islamic threat...
"...And finally, let's consider the greatest challenge facing America – and facing the entire civilized world: the threat of violent, radical Jihad. In one wing of the world of Islam, there is a conviction that all governments should be destroyed and replaced by a religious caliphate. These Jihadists will battle any form of democracy. To them, democracy is blasphemous for it says that citizens, not God shape the law. They find the idea of human equality to be offensive. They hate everything we believe about freedom just as we hate everything they believe about radical Jihad."
He knows the enemy, is not afraid to name them, and has a cogent plan to deal with it ...
"To battle this threat, we have sent the most courageous and brave soldiers in the world. But their numbers have been depleted by the Clinton years when troops were reduced by 500,000, when 80 ships were retired from the Navy, and when our human intelligence was slashed by 25%. We were told that we were getting a peace dividend. We got the dividend, but we didn't get the peace. In the face of evil in radical Jihad and given the inevitable military ambitions of China, we must act to rebuild our military might – raise military spending to 4% of our GDP, purchase the most modern armament, re-shape our fighting forces for the asymmetric demands we now face, and give the veterans the care they deserve..."
Today was sad day for America. Hopefully we can hold it together and not become another France (yes, he mentioned that too) in four years.
"What would you think of a candidate who offers a Give-Away-The-Store Summit with Muslim leaders, such as Obama has..."
Could I please have a link to where: in any way, shape, or form Obama stated that his intention in meeting with Muslim leaders was to give anything away? At the very least, I doubt it is his intention to walk hand and hand while begging for lower oil prices.
I am saddened that Romney has pulled out, as he is the most qualified for the job. However, I am grateful that his ego is not the size of Huckabee. ie, he realized this race is bigger than himself, and dropped out.
Obama is bad news period and I say this as a Independent who supports Democrats. Obama is not what he appears to be, he's done everything possible in the senate not to stand out, not take a position on any contentious issue, etc. He's a cipher in many respects and you don't play that game unless you have a ulterior motive.
Trojan horse anyone?
But McCain and Rove may cut him down yet. Much of his popularity is based on platitudes, pat answers, sloganeering("audacity of hope", "Change", "move forward", "the future", etc) and various nostrums. Once he's forced to get into details he won't look so good.
BTW his demographics seems to be limited to the twenty something college types and blacks. He doesn't do well with blue collars or older folks.
He can be stopped.
the last near conservative dropped out of the race today.....Romney.
McCain is just bearable less liberal than hillary and obamma............... but is still the best and only choice.
this life time republican will be voting the first time for a demo when i vote for hillary in the demo primary.............. hillary is a more of a looser than obamma..............and needs to led the looser party of the demos
will support and vote for McCain for President while holding my nose................
???
The Democrats may be silent on Jihad but anyone who criticizes Obama should remember some of Bush's actions. Just recently he received a sword as a gift during a trip to the Middle East. He is friends with the Saudis and he has been unwilling to confront them.
The Democrats may be silent on Jihad but anyone who criticizes Obama should remember some of Bush's actions. Just recently he received a sword as a gift during a trip to the Middle East. He is friends with the Saudis and he has been unwilling to confront them.
"It's a classic attempt to appeal to people's fears that will not work in this campaign. I think that's part of the reason he was such an ineffective candidate."
Yeah and your propaganda speaches aren't, remember your party is agonizing over the lesser of two evils also!!!!
I can't remember a presidential election year where I've had less enthusiasm for any and all of my options.
Posted by: MarisolJW at February 7, 2008 9:00 PM
I agree. It is the saddest state of affairs. With the "suspension" of Romney today, the US is in certain dire straits on so many levels.
The juxtaposition for me is simply, do I vote for McCain and hope, or do I vote for either Hillary or Obama, accepting four years of utter ruin, with a hope for a better 2012?
Hope is a dangerous thing sometimes.
This will be the first time I have voted for Bill The Cat.
Definitely a better choice than any of the likely candidates.
Barack is the blank sheet on which the uninformed and naive electorate can project their Candyland illusions of "peace" and "hope" and "change."
Or upon which the cunning jihadists of the world will write their demands.
He is a lightweight disaster who, if the melanin content of his character were half of what it now is, would never have been considered eligible for this race (sic).
He has no qualifications except a deadbeat (Muslim) dad who just happened to have the "correct" (white guilt soothing) genetic tone.
Obama needs to be voted away from any lever of power beyond what he has already glommed onto.
He makes Dan Quayle look Homeric.
Reuters story, 31 January 2008:
Obama wants summit with Muslim countries
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSL3127434420080131
"Once I'm elected, I want to organize a summit in the Muslim world, with all the heads of state, to have an honest discussion about ways to bridge the gap that grows every day between Muslims and the West," Thursday's edition of Paris Match quoted Obama as saying, "I want to ask them to join our fight against terrorism. We must also listen to their concerns," Obama said in the French-language transcript.
My questions:
1. How does Obama define "terrorism"? Does he believe that Israelis are terrorists? Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright seems to think so.
2. Why would he include all Muslim countries and exclude others from the meeting? Would Israel be at the table?
Romney's greatest moment as MA governor: when he denied State Police protection for former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami's visit to Harvard on September 12, 2006.
The Islamic term for Obama's tactics here is 'taqiyya'. The reasons Mr. Obama is doing this are clear enough: Mitt Romney is absolutely correct (Islam = terrorism) and the Muslims must be on their guard to prevent this from becoming common knowledge if America is to become Islamized as has been decreed by the mosques of the Middle East-- and who dictate Mr.Obama's actions.
Obama of course has something to hide: he's a Muslim involved in a stealth jihad assault against America. He can't permit Romney to inform the US public about Islam's inherent malignance--if he can help it.
Incidentally, Mr. Obama knows perfectly well that the gap separating Muslims and non-Muslims everywhere is unbridgeable courtesy of the teachings found in the Kuran (that is the point of Islam--to destroy the 'unbelievers' and Islamify them).
BREAKING NEWS:
REPORT: GUNMAN KILLS SIX AT SUBURBAN ST. LOUIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING, INCLUDING MAYOR AND TWO POLICE OFFICERS
I'm looking forward to 'CHANGE'- that means I want to see Obamma gone....
Obama's top foreign policy advisor is Samantha Power. She may not be anti-salafist, but she's really tough minded about responding to genocide. A moonbat, this gal ain't, guys. Just google, amazon or wiki her. I dare ya's.
Mackie-
PLEASE don't report every breaking news shoot em up. It makes Jihad Watch look ridiculous as their are all kinds of people out there who go 'postal'. It brings everyone else down about three notches and frankly makes YOU look bad.
I can't remember a presidential election year where I've had less enthusiasm for any and all of my options.
Posted by: MarisolJW at February 7, 2008 9:00 PM
Agree, and I am not even a US citizen.
Obama has a lot in common with our current leader Rudd. he is using similar tactics - slogans and feel-good fluff.
Be careful, be very careful!
Rudd has been in since Nov 24th and already I can see that he is making a mess of this country.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/obama_shouldnt_be_sung/
MarisolJW
You, Robert, Hugh, Dennis and whoever else provide a beacon of light to many, many such as myself in operating JihadWatch...many years ago when buried with work and seemingly no light in sight, my fr-in-law gave me a coffee cup with the words.."Iligitimus non carbarundum"...as in DON'T LET THE BASTARDS WEAR YOU DOWN..somesuch...I don't know if you have children ..I do..I've imparted some of the JW awareness to mine...your efforts are appreciated...keep your chin up Marisol..
Barack Obama's type is found throughout history-------intelligent, a good speaker, pretty much decent all around and yet full of atrocious ideas. He's devoid of comprehending the Jeffersonian concept that government is best which governs least and he seems determined to repeat the errors of Neville Chamberlain by thinking he can talk responsibly and productively with those who despise freedom and democracy. In short, he helps prove the maxim that the road to hell (and what greater hell could there be than a Muslim controlled world?) is paved with good intentions.
The man is trouble. One knows this or should know it. A nice guy like Obama needs to be put on the trash heap of history, along with all the other bad ideas and fools already there.
Nodak-- thanks!
Profitsbeard
ditto....Obama..sharp chin...chiseled nose..38 jacket..both nares intact with O2 and smoothies going in & out both ...yes, this guy's emoting fogs a mirror, just enough from the Dhiocrats IQ...as to Hillary...later on that...as to the Republicans..licans..icans...ans..ns (AKA disappearing)..who knows what Nov will bring...personally, if McCain is left standing,I will vote for him..Pax
"Obama's top foreign policy advisor is Samantha Power. She may not be anti-salafist, but she's really tough minded about responding to genocide. A moonbat, this gal ain't, guys. Just google, amazon or wiki her. I dare ya's."
-- from a posting above
Being against "genocide" is not exactly daring. How many lives in Darfur, what grand total, has been saved by the work of Samantha Power? Of Nicholas Kristof? Of the entire staff of the Kennedy School, Human Rights Watch, the U.N.? The answer is: none. None have been saved. But a few thousand American troops could save hundreds of thousands in Darfur, and in the southern Sudan, and hold that territory until such time as a referendum on independence, for the black Africans, Christian and animist in the south (where the oil now gushes), and Muslim in Darfur (where there may be oil to be found). The Sudanese government and all the Arab governments will rant. They will rant, because they will rightly see this as foiling their plans to move down, through the Sudan, into East Africa, islamizing unstoppably as they go.
Would, will, Samantha Power support such a move? And would, will, Samantha Power do more than recognize, identify, and repeatedly deplore genocide but seek to understand what ideas prompt it, and in the case of Darfur, it is not enough to do what she does, and note that it is Muslim on Muslim. No, she must go further, and recognize that in Islam, despite its universalist pretensions, Arabs are superior to non-Arabs, and everythig in Islam reinforces that view. And she must recognize, as Ibn Warraq, and Anwar Sheikh, and many other apostates have recognized, that Islam is a vehicle for Arab supremacism. And then she must, having read more widely and deeply about Islam than she has, discover how, in Islam, the division of the universe that counts is that between Muslim and Unbeliever, and all loyalty is owed to the former, all hostility inculcated by this Total Belief-System at the latter.
Here is an article, mostly around and about Samantha Power and others who have made their careers based on Darfur, that was posted a few days ago (Feb. 5) at www.newenglishreview.org:
The Powers and Limits Of Intelligence
One is particularly surprised at how those who have made so much the object of their interest, and in some cases have made their careers, out of the Darfur situation, have carefully avoided examining the role of Islam as justification, and even the prompting, for the organized rape, pillage, and mass murder of black Africans in Darfur by Arabs (that is, those who think of themselves as Arabs). And the same people -- I am thinking of the egregious Nicholas Kristof, who made his name over his reporting (not very good reporting) in Darfur, and his heart-on-sleeve anguish which has also done his career good, or at a higher level, at some of those at the Kennedy School, such as Samantha Power, now a Time columnist, and an adviser to Barack Obama who, much more intelligent than Kristof, recognizes that there is something more involved, yet is always careful to say that it is "Muslims" attacking "Muslims" without ever considering that it is Arabs attacking non-Arab Muslims, as has happened with the mass-murders of the Kurds in the Anfal campaign, or with the assaults and limits on Berber culture that the Arabs have practiced ever since the French left (see the work of Kateb Yacine, see any of the Berber websites). Ms. Power does not want to consider that, just possibly, Islam is a vehicle for Arab imperialism, cultural and linguistic, economic and political. Nor, it appears, does she wish to delve deeper -- possibly by reading and studying, and by meeting with Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali -- and having the man she advises do so. Instead, if one is to believe certain articles, she appears more exercised about "domestic pressures" that prevent a full-throated reconciliation, or at least a greater "understanding," to be reached between the American government and Muslims. For those "domestic pressures" think Mearsheimer, think Walt.
She's more intelligent than that. She should use her intelligence better, merely by letting it run free.
"I'm looking forward to 'CHANGE'- that means I want to see Obamma gone...."
Posted by: sheik yer'mami
HERE, HERE!!
Like it or not, Obama has two things going for him: his last name is not Clinton and Democrats will do almost anything to win back the White House. Hillary may have older voters and women but they'll vote for Obama if he gets the nod, unless something drastic happens to make them change their minds - like the press covering Obama honestly. Hillary was thought to be invincible but she made herself beatable, with an assist from her hubby.
"What would you think of a candidate who offers a Give-Away-The-Store Summit with Muslim leaders, such as Obama has?"
I'd think he's a typical Democrat.
A lot of Democrats will tell you "we need someone who will restore the reputation of the US around the world, we had the good will of the world after 9/11 and we squandered it."
Listen to C-SPAN and you'll hear that sentiment voiced over and over again. After that, it's America isn't ready for a woman or a black president. It's almost as if we have to vote for Obama to prove we're not racist. If Dems lose they'll say it's because America is racist and sexist.
As for Romney, the consensus is that a gracious exit means he is cementing his position as frontrunner for 2012. Why do so many politicians save their best for the farewell speech? He spoke openly once he decided he wouldn't run anymore. If he had done more of that sooner, a lot more people might have taken him seriously.
Top 10 Things You Need to Do to Be an Effective Candidate in 2008:
1. Give everybody free health care;
2. Give everybody free college;
3. Give everybody free retirement;
4. Give everybody checks for a thousand dollars;
5. Give babies $5000;
6. Give the Muslim world everything it wants;
7. Cure AIDS in Africa;
8. Send rockets into space so that they can inspect themselves before re-entry;
9. Make everyone’s mortgage payments; and now the only tough one…
10. Keep Moody’s from downgrading your credit rating.
Obama’s insult was a compliment to Romney’s character. I put the over/under on the number of democratically-elected Presidents at 45; 44 if Obama wins.
Obama of course has something to hide: he's a Muslim involved in a stealth jihad assault against America.
Posted by: pythagoras
This concerns me also. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but if one is born into a muslim family, is not that child considered a muslim. If Barak was born into Islam by virtue of a muslim father, at what point did he cease being a muslim? And if he is a member now, of a Christian Church, is that not apostasy, and is he not guilty of shirk as well?
His brother Albongo Roy Obama is, I read, an Islamic militant in Kenya. Militant being code for jihadi.
So why did not Baraks father, brother, or uncle pressure him to be in, stay in Islam? And if he refused, at least attempt to kill him?
But Barak is exempt or so it seems. The silence on this issue is deafening. That is why I don't discard the notion of a stealth operation, as Pythagoras suggests, may be in operation. Anyway, there is something about it that does not pass my smell test...
"Mitt Romney is absolutely correct (Islam = terrorism)..."
When did Romney say that? Have a link?
Obama is among the most liberal Democrats in the Senate.
I don't believe that his political ideology will provide solid leadership for the U.S. during the next 4 years.
Barack Obama supported partial birth abortion when even the most hardened pro-abortion activists turned their heads away in horror and rejected it.
What happened to his solid Christian values with the abortion issue?
Republicans will grill him on the abortion issue if he is nominated the Democrat candidate.
The majority of Americans reject partial birth abortion.
I don't place any trust in Obama regarding national security and the "war on terror."
I am also very skeptical of the summit that he wants to attempt with the Muslim world.
Of Samantha Powers and Nicholas Kristof -
I happened to catch an HBO special (George Clooney was executive producer) last month titled Sand and Sorrow. Here are two links to preview:
Promo 1
Promo 2
As described by Hugh above . . .it takes you just so far - clearly lacking any understanding of the doctrinal drive to the genocide.
Soon after watching this documentary, on the morning of 12/17, I notice that Fox News was interviewing this very same Harvard University professor, Samantha Power.
Campaigning for none other than B. Obama Hussein, Samantha Power was specifically championing Obama’s call to open dialogue/negotiate with terrorists. That's when it became abundantly clear that Obama Power was to be avoided at all costs.
Hillary Clinton, however, has not uttered a word to distance herself from her husband's insensate courtship of Yassir Arafat, and 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, 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 -- a movie that 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 Schussel -- do we pass by, without a word, such a Clinton delegate as the Turkish(-American?) movie-financer in question?
As for John McCain, he is not tough-minded but a sentimentalist. That sentimentalist can be seen in both 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 -- google "Hero of Baghdad" and "Hugh Fitzgerald" for a view of one adviser, Frederick Kagan -- 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?
A few days ago I read perhaps the most brainless imaginable piece on the great hope Obama presents vis-s-vis the Muslim world. This a guest editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle from a medical doctor, Bernard S. Alpert, who has spent time in the Middle East. Here's the piece:
What's in a name? Everything
Could Barack Hussein Obama quell Muslim anti-Americanism?
"An Obama victory would eliminate at least half the massive anti-Americanism felt around the world." So says Kishore Mahbubani, dean of Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, in Newsweek's January 14 "Point of View". Mahbubani asserts the driver of his claim, particularly for the Middle East, is the single fact that Senator Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein.
Is that possible? Is it really that simple? After five trips to the region since 2003 doing medical humanitarian work (four in Iraq, one in Kuwait) I am very comfortable having frank, even insensitive dialogues with my Iraqi physician collegues and a broad range of Iraqi civilians.
Most recently in Baghdad, I asked 15 consecutive Iraqis first if they knew who Sen. Barack Obama was, and, if so, what was his middle name. Their responces were unanimously yes and no. "He's the black chap" was typical. Also unanimous were the vicseral reactions when I told them it was Hussein. Brows raised, mouths open, and eyes widened. "Really,". . . "No,". . . "You're kidding". . .
"Why so surprised?" I would ask.
"I wouldn't think he would want Americans to know this ," (from a highly educated physician who had spent three months in the United States in 2003).
I laugh, "What do you mean?"
"I just don't think Americans would like it, the sense of any connection to Islam."
"But he's not Muslim."
"OK, but you just told me his middle name is Hussein."
"What would Muslims think if he became President of the United States?"
"It would be a great thing; people would think Americans may be more sensitive than we thought, if they would vote to have someone with a name like this to be their president; that they just didn't think everything about being Muslim is bad."
"Just because of a middle name?"
"Why yes, most people here feel America's foreign policy is dictated by Israel; this would make them think, 'Wow'."
I wasn't prepared for the immediacy or the nature of the responses; plain, clear, and unambiguous. Dean Mahbubani may be on to something.
........................
We're all in trouble if this is the level of discourse in some quarters on jihad. If "it was really that simple", then why is there terrorism in Muslim countries, where lots of people have names as Islamic as "Hussein"? Why isn' the Middle East a largely peaceful place, instead of the violent hell-hole it is today?
This writer has no sense here that the problem is philosophical--that the problem is Islamic jihad ideology. The above simple-mindedness is identity politics at its most banal.
Also, the author glibly having it both ways, where Obama is not a Muslim, but his Muslim name is a great ice-breaker in the region--as if that did not mean that he--or a recent ancestor--is an apostate from Islam.
Did you catch the bit about America's foreign policy being "dicated by Israel"? And the assumption that this would not be the case with a guy named "Hussein"?
If it's really that simple, I think we should go with Hillary "Kadija" Clinton, or, better yet, John "Muhammed" McCain. Idiocy.
Hugh: As for John McCain, he is not tough-minded but a sentimentalist.
Ain't that the truth. I listened to his speech today
and almost cried. I am not sure if I was crying out of sympathetic sentimentality, or because this guy actually has a chance to be fearless leader.
'Fifty years in Iraq', 'The Movie', by John McCain.
I don't think we, or at least not I, can afford the price of admission...
On the GOP side, there was Tancredo and Romney. I judge candidates just on their policies and principles, not on their presentability, their demeanor, their connectivity with voters, their appeal or any of the side issues that seem to be a necessary ingradient towards a candidate being acceptable. If I agree with most of the important issues that I care about, it's good enough for me, even if the candidate were Helen Thomas. Therefore, the fact that Fred's too old, McCain has a temper, Romney appears stiff, Tancredo doesn't have a good delivery et al all are non-factors for me.
However, on the issue of Jihad, Tancredo is the only one who had it right, while Mitt & Rudy had the record to back their claims about being tough on Jihad - Mitt on his decision to have Boston mosques surveilled for jihadi activity, and Rudy for his past evictions of Arafat and his repudiation of the Saudi sheikh Alaweed bin Talal (?) There were some troublesome signs with both of them, like Rudy praising Islam (even though his past acts proved that he wasn't afraid to stand against it) and Romney having a position paper calling for co-operation with 'moderate Islamic' countries. But allowing such shortcomings to ignore their record on this is uncalled for. OTOH, McCain uses the theme that he's fighting the Jihad. Aside from the analysis we here have had on whether the war in Iraq weakens the Jihad or strengthens it, the fact that McCain opposes Gitmo, torture, would allow enemy combatants to be tried in the US, and allows the borders to be leaky enough to allow not just Mexicans, but Muslims too, makes him a de facto Jihadi candidate, his tough rhetoric notwithstanding.
I do fault a lot of conservatives for letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. They did nothing to back the likes of Tancredo, Hunter or Thompson, and they were too fanatical about Mitt's imperfect record - ignoring the fact that there was no way he could have run MA as a true Conservative, although he came close. Some of them focused on his flip flops, ignoring the fact that he had never flipped Leftwards, and yet some held his LDS religion against him. By the time the others had been eliminated and they came around to supporting Mitt, it was too little and too late.
If it turns out to be Obama vs McCain, I endorse Obama. If it's Obama vs Clinton, I'd be neutral.
Frankly, this comes as no surprise from people who could not see a patriotic statesman in congressman Tom Tancredo. Tom addressed the two bigggest dangers America faces, straight. His record is impeccable:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/?id=685
Against Islam: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162795,00.html
Against illegal immigration: http://www.cfr.org/publication/11141/
But what can be expected from people who calls the only patriot in the presidential race, this: http://www.tomtancredo.org/
Americans want Obama Hillary and Jose McCain are who Americans want. So, Good Luck, America.
Frankly, this comes as no surprise from people who could not see a patriotic statesman in congressman Tom Tancredo. Tom addressed the two bigggest dangers America faces, straight. His record is impeccable:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/?id=685
Against Islam: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162795,00.html
Against illegal immigration: http://www.cfr.org/publication/11141/
But what can be expected from people who calls the only patriot in the presidential race, this: http://www.tomtancredo.org/
Americans want Obama Hillary and Jose McCain.
I know this thread is mainly about good old Barack but Madam Hillary put her foot into the other day.
I was watching some sound bites on TV just before the election and heard her say, something to the effect that we are fighting two wars, "TWO WARS!?!"
At first I did not get it. Then I realized she was talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. She is so lost, she thinks we are dealing with two different enemy. Sad, very sad.
When Barack or for that matter Hillary invite the enemy to the table for these talks. I am wondering who they will ask? Lets see, Iraq Al Qaeda and the Afgan Al Queda. Trouble is they will put our X number of chairs and only half will be used.
Matt 15:14
. . .ignore them. They are blind guides leading the blind, and if one blind person guides another, they will both fall into a ditch.
مات 15:14
. . . نتجاهلها. وهي ادلة أعمى يقود أعمى ، واذا كان احد المكفوفين وأدلة اخرى ، وانها لن نقع في كل حفرة.
Matt 15:14
Fascinating discussion about the relative merits of the Presidential candidates.
I know very little about US politics, etc. Who are the leading candidates for the running mates of McCain, Obama and Clinton? And who would be a good candidate?
Thanks
ewha1
VPs are overrated: the electoral value that's assigned to them is like the proverbial lipstick on a pig. Nobody really attaches much value to them, and the presumed value that they bring to a ticket, such as carrying a state, is exaggerated. Although both Gore and Cheney turned out to be very substantial VPs, compared to their predecessors.
Given that you have a mediocre field of Obama/Clinton and McCain, the VP that anybody chooses won't make such a difference. McCain, if he's true to form, could choose any of Lieberman, Powell, Lindsey Gramm, Mel Martinez, George Allen, Chuck Hagel or any of his favorite Senate colleagues (typically, the VP is a Senator, since the job involves presiding over the Senate). I doubt that even if he picks a Conservative like Allen, that it'd actually make any difference.
On the Dem side, no idea.
Romney gave perhaps his most effective speech today, demonstrating genuine concern for this country's future, something more important to him than his own ambition ... and Obama, on the other hand, made a fool of himself.
I didn't like Romney at all.
I like McCain.
I have always been a right leaning independent and I was hoping he would run from the beginning.
Sure I don't agree with every decision he's made but there are alot of very tough issues out there right now and the solutions to those problems aren't very easy to work out.
"Well my reaction to Mitt Romney's comment that's the kind of poorly thought out comment that lead him to drop out," Obama said during a press avail on his campaign plane. "It's a classic attempt to appeal to people's fears that will not work in this campaign. I think that's part of the reason he was such an ineffective candidate."
Obama is whining like a Muslim with this comment.
Romney was the most well thought out candidate of any of the presidential candidates. And by dropping out for the reasons he stated, he demonstrated a huge amount of statesmanship.
(You'd never see a hard core democrat dropping out for the good of the country.)
Obama, on the other hand, of all the candidates, has no clue what it means to be president of the US.
The tip-off here was when he took off his lapel flag pin, and made a point of explaining why. What he doesn't understand is that both the president and the flag are non-political symbols of the United States and what we stand for as a country. For one of these symbols to disconnect with another of these symbols shows that the disconnector has no clue of the role of the president.
VP candidates can sometimes be pretty important, for better, worse, or indifferent. Anyone remember Vice President Theodore Roosevelt? Vice President Harry Truman? Vice President Nixon? Vice President Gerald Ford? Vice President George Bush Sr.? (Just to name a few.) They often seem to have a way of becoming President sooner or later.
To end Islamic Jihad against the West, we need: Open and honest dialogue with genocidal megalomaniacs. Meaningful discussions with psychopathic supremicists. Mutual respect and understandings with savage barbarians. Dignified respect towards deranged deviants.
I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message...
Looking at our choices I'm reminded of the South Park episode where the kids have a choice to make. Vote for the Giant Douche or the Turd Sandwich.
I have no fears though that the world will once again be made painfully aware of the threat that Islamic nutcakes are to the free world. The PC crowd will see to that. We seem to be pretty good at retaliating when the wound is fresh. It's too bad we aren't better at "preventative maintenance" so to speak.
Why won't anyone point out the biggest elephant in the room - it was Jimmy "The Dhimmi" Carter who started all of this, by pushing the Shah of Iran out of office.
The Shah was our friend, and a friend to civilized people. The "reasonable" people who took over from the Shah want to incinerate the civilized world with nuclear bombs. And it is these "reasonable" people who are spreading terrorism all over the world.
And the current Democrats are following in the footsteps of Jimmy "The Dhimmi".
Thanks, Jimmy "The Dhimmi"!
Obama's a slimebag.
And the really bad news is that we'll probably end up with Hillary.
We are so boned.
Let’s put a little hope in our hearts.
In bible story about Gideon,, Jdg 7:4
His enemy is the Midianite army of 135,000 men.
Gideon puts together his army of 32,000 men to go into battle.
Being way out numbered he tells his men “, whoever is afraid and trembling, let him return and depart from Mount Gilead.”
So 22,000 turned and ran for the hills.
He is left with 10,000.
Then the Lord tells him.
"You shall separate everyone who laps the water with his tongue, as a dog laps, as well as everyone who kneels to drink.
Those who lapped, putting their hand to their mouth, were 300 men;
So he won the battle with 300 men.’
But before all this Gideon asked God for signs just to be really really sure in his own mind that God would indeed deliver Israel through him.
(smart man)
Now
I don’t recommend doing this unless you are quite sure God told you to go ahead. :P
"There is no greater mistake than to suppose that platitudes, smooth words, and timid policies offer a path to safety." - Winston Churchill... The man was absolutely brilliant.
When Obama was on CNN with Clinton, his opening statement surprised me as it was a statement that any Muslim could make. About the past that should be forgotten and about the new future.
With this statement here on Muslims I am convinved he is a Muslim himself.
Siraj Wahaj, the first imam to deliver a Muslim prayer for the U.S. House of Representatives, holds that if Muslims unite, they could elect their own leader as president; "take my word, if 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us."
That's what he said...eeekkk who is Obama Hussain?
Obama, unfit for office:
http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-dhimmi-democratic-candidate.html
http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2008/02/confronting-radical-jihad-mitt-romney.html
http://thejewinyellow.blogspot.com/2008/02/should-jew-who-cares-for-israel.html
http://thejewinyellow.blogspot.com/2008/02/barack-obamas-very-controversial-pastor.html
http://thejewinyellow.blogspot.com/2008/02/debbie-schlussel-exclusive-obamas.html
Reaching further (too far?) re Obama:
http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/12/childhood-education-in-madrassas-leads.html
http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/01/barack-obama-another-opening-for-islam.html
Again, re Obama, not to leave out:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/are-we-ready-for-a-madrassa-educated-president
An Obama summit would likely result in demands from the Muslim countries for more money, an abandonment of resistance to the global jihad, and the betrayal of Israel.
All this is true. There is an inherent problem though. Bush administration has already abandoned Israel. Bush pressure on Israel to to restrain herself, to release terrorists as good will gestures, to dismantle security check points, to cease resistance to the jihad, to relinquish strategic land to the jihadists have all resulted in tremendous damage to Israel's security, notwithstanding Israel's traitorous prime ministers who have capitulated to Bush and Rice pressure.
A President John McCain might be worse from Israel's standpoint. McCain has made it known, he will "micromanage" the Palestinian - Israeli conflict and that he will bring back one or both of these "realists" from the Mideast realist school that McCain subscribes to; James Baker and / or Brent Scowcroft. There realists believe solving the Palestinian - Israeli conflict is central to the stability of the Middle East, when quite the opposite is the case.
McCain, like Bush, would employ the full support and force of the Republican party machinery to accomplish our party's plan to dismember Israel; to establish a 23 jihadist-killer state in the Middle East, right at Israel's collective throat.
Unlike loony Democrats, Republicans have far more credibility in matters of national security and defence. Because of this, it seems to me, an anti-Israel / pro-Saudi Republican president like George W. Bush and now a Republican (anti-Israel) veteran like John McCain are able to leverage far more suicidal concessions from the Israelis than mistrusted Democrats.
This is the way I have come to see things. Sadly.
"And I'm bettin' that Barack returns from said meeting with his head in a suitcase......for committing.........APOSTASY"
Posted by: n.a. palm
I'll take that bet considering Muslims know all to well how to use the useful idiots such as Mr. Obama.
Some choices for US conservatives....pitty.
Could I please have a link to where: in any way, shape, or form Obama stated that his intention in meeting with Muslim leaders was to give anything away
poeted by nickinnyc
Better yet; You post something where Obama has said Anything of substance?
From what I read his speeches are much ado about nothing. People who hear him are asking, Wheres the beef?
Isn't one of Hillary Clintons top aids a daughter of a Pakistani man, who moved to Saudi Arabia and became an Islamic scholar? Islamic scholar in Saudi Arabia, doesn't that make one a Wahhabi? Is it only her key aid or is there something more there? Rumours of gay lovers has mentioned....no idea if it's true but if she is always at Clintons side, giving her opinion regarding Islam, terror, to me, there doesn't seem to be much difference between that and Mr. Hesham Islam infiltrator extraordinare.
I can't vote, but if I could, out of pride I would never put my vote to a liberal liar McCain and Huckleberry. They're a disgrace to conseravtives.
And wouldn't it be refreshing to see someone actually say what conservatives want instead of the constant endless teasing? End Islamic Immigration, end Islamic student visas, end the Jizya, end the Muslim Brotherhood spawns, end the UN, end the toleration of Qur'an, end the toleration of Islam.
Maybe after a democratic ticket someone might come out of the rubble and say something like that.
Also like to point out that alot of the McCain votes that forced Romni out were from liberals, or those that will vote democratic anyways, and alot of conservatives will probably not even vote, which ensures a democratic president in 09
It is idiotic to accuse Barack Obama of being a Muslim or a secret Muslim. He is not. It is not idiotic, however, to attack the miscomprehension of Islam that surely explains such a remark, one he might wish to reconsider, that he would "meet with Muslim leaders" in order to thrash out the things that divide us. What divides America, and India, and Thailand, and the black Africans in the southern Sudan and southern Nigeria, from the world of Islam is Islam itself. Islam is a real thing, not a figment of the Western imagination. If anything, the Western world has been running away from coming to grips with that real thing.
Barack Obama, as a child, attended school in Indonesia. At the time, Indonesia -- still much more easygoing in its acceptance of syncretism, had not yet been subject to the changes that came, as the years past, and those who had grown up under the Dutch dissappeared, and as Arab influence -- with the real, full-throated Islam --was brought to bear, and now one sees not only the hatred for the Hindus on Bali (a subject about which nothing is written, but visitors to Indonesia know all about it), but for Christians, who have been subject to endless atttacks, with thousands of churches destroyed, and only a handful of the physical attacks -- such as the decapitation of those little Christian schoolgirls -- ever making it to the Western press.
In this respect, Barack Obama may have his own childhood memory of Islam, in Indonesia, viewed through the prism of time, or through a watery medium of memory that refracts (Snell's Law!) misleadingly. There is no substitute for study of Islam, of its texts and tenets, and then of the long history, the 1350-year history, of Islamimc conquest of non-Muslim lands, and of the subsequent subjugation, or forced conversion, or murdre of those hundreds of millions of non-Muslims who fell under Muslim sway.
Even to have asked Zbigniew Brzezinski, or someone such as Robert Malley, to be considered as "advisers" is a bad sign. As for others, one does not know. Samantha Power may, or may not, come to recognize that her main subject, the one that made her career, genocide, and especially genocide in the Sudan, has to be transcended, so as to recognize the ideological roots of this or that genocide. In both the southern Sudan, and in Darfur (where she is careful to tell audiences that it was "Muslim-on-Muslim" violence, as if that meant it had nothing to do with Islam, when, had she studied the matter more, she would have come to realize that Islam is, and has always been, a vehicle for Arab supremacism), she has recognized a problem, deplored it, but not related it to the meaning, and permanent menace, of Islam. Perhaps she will.
But Barack Obama himself will have to be much more specific, and has a duty to be, on the subject of Islam. He tells us he was opposed to the war in Iraq. Fine. But that is not enough. Why was he opposed to the war in Iraq? Was it because he realized that Muslims cannot have "democracy" imposed on them, and that the principles of Islam are not compatible with democracy as that term is understood in the liberal advanced West? Is it because the goals of the Bush Administration were messianic, unattainable, result in a squandering of resources, and in any case, are exactly the wrong goals if one desires to achieve, in Iraq, the only thing that makes sense: an exploitation, by leaving the place, of the fissures, ethnic and sectarian, both present in Iraq, as elsewhere in the Muslim world, and both capable of dividing and demoralizing the Camp of Islam, and thus of buying time for the Western, or larger Infidel world, to educate itself and to come to its senses about the meaning, and menace, of Islam?
What is going on in Iraq makes no sense. Those officers and men who are involved in "doing the job" or "completing the mission" are focussing on a narrow task, without considering whether that task makes sense. They do not see beyond Iraq, they do not even see, correctly, the forces in Iraq that will cause the attainment of the American goal -- a stable, unified, possibly prosperous Iraq -- as forever retreating, an ignis fatuus of the desert, a will-o'-the-wisp always seemingly just around the corner, but never to be grasped, as more money, more men (and where have all the captains gone? Long time passing) and materiel are squandered, last year, this year, next year in Iraq, because no one can criticize the war from the only perspective, the one that shows an awareness of the danger of Jihad, instead of being based on such airy ideas as "sitting down with Muslim leaders" to "listen to their grievances" -- this smacks of Chamberlain, or Halifax. Barack Obama is, one would have thought, smarter than that, and if he grasps the nettle of the Iraq War, and what is truly wrong with it, he could win. And McCain too. And Clinton. Yes, so could he, and so could any man -- or woman. If they only had the wit to think about it.
Some of our politicians are starting to look and act like muslims,lying is truth if you say it enough and deceiving is ok if it gets you where you want to go , once again money buys the top office not common sense!!!
I'll be using my write-in option, this year. To do so is the one and only way I can "vote my conscience". I'll be voting for Tancredo, unless some of my fellow JW readers and posters would like to settle on another candidate to write in.
No, of course that candidate wouldn't win, but with enough support, the write-in would make a statement that might even be noticed and remarked upon in the media.
Okay, maybe I'm dreaming about the media. But I just can't vote for any of the remaining candidates. I can't. They're all dangerous.
First I supported Thompson. "Later y'all."
Then it was Rudy. "I'm out of here in a New York minute."
Then Romney. Well, can't think of any regional euphemism to use for Romney.
That leave McCain and the Huckster. And me without my waders.
Frankly I heard about Tancredo too late.
With McCain, Goldwater just ain't spinning in his grave, he's nailing perfect 10's at the Afterlife Olympics. McCain should have done us all a favor and jumped ship like he apparently considered around 2000.
With Huckabee, well maybe it's just shallow and rather stupid, but I just can't get myself to trust any politician from Arkansas right now. Heck, I am leery of any from Texas too. And I am a Texan. I guess I need to turn in my hat, boots, and belt buckle.
I was torn with the idea of allowing McCain to lose in the hopes that RINO's would be permanently damaged and real conservatives could once again shine. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that allowing Clinton's or Obama's socialist agendas to become a reality, since Congress is controlled by the Dems, was far more distasteful and disastrous than McCain in office. The fight against islamic supremacy may flounder with any of the above front runners in office, but allow this nation to slide uncontrollably into full fledged socialism, and the entire issue with islamic domination becomes moot. We can survive with McCain in office, can we survive with Clinton or Obama? So it is with that thought that come November I will be holding my nose and clenching my teeth and butt cheeks as I vote for McCain. Not to mention taking plenty of anti-nausea medication. And afterwards, me and Mr. Daniels will become well acquainted.
The latest polls show that Obama beats McCain by 48% to 41%. He would have beat Romney or any other Republican candidate by an even wider margin. This is terribly frightening and if he's elected, we are doomed. His face flashed across the screen and I had a vision of him with black fangs and horns coming out of his head. Muslims lie for their cause. How do we really know he genuinely converted to Christianity? His preacher hates whites. If he's elected, we can all thank the Kennedy's for promoting him, just because they want to put a black in office. They don't care who it is, as long as he's black and speaks well. It doesn't matter that this black has contributed NOTHING to our country nor has he achieved anything while a junior senator, spending most of that time campaigning for the Presidency. If he's elected, there will be complete anarchy in our country. He's probably get assassinated and miraculously come back to life.
Hugh wrote: "Was it because he realized that Muslims cannot have "democracy" imposed on them, and that the principles of Islam are not compatible with democracy as that term is understood in the liberal advanced West? Is it because the goals of the Bush Administration were messianic, unattainable, result in a squandering of resources, and in any case, are exactly the wrong goals if one desires to achieve, in Iraq, the only thing that makes sense: an exploitation, by leaving the place, of the fissures, ethnic and sectarian, both present in Iraq, as elsewhere in the Muslim world, and both capable of dividing and demoralizing the Camp of Islam, and thus of buying time for the Western, or larger Infidel world, to educate itself and to come to its senses about the meaning, and menace, of Islam?"
Obama's aids, if they were wise, would read and absorb this comment alone. The point is, what are we going to be left with? A Sunni dominated Iraq, as brutal as is was under Saddam, was a stabilizing power or influence to an expansionist Shi'ite Iran.
Mr. Bush possibly undermined this stability by opening Iraq to democratic elections whereby the dominant Shi'ite populace exerted their collective will. Now we have an Iranian-friendly Iraq governing this nation. What does this mean for the future of the region?
Did President Bush or his advisers contemplate that by pushing for elections in Shi'ite dominated Iraq might destabilize the region?
Did Bush and Rice contemplate the results of pushing for free elections within the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian Muslim areas of Israel -- by allowing Hamas to participate -- what would be the consequences?
Some wiser heads recommended that Bush install an America-friendly strong man in place of the sadistic Saddam; conceivably this might have been a Sunni leader to keep Iran at bay. Only Bush did not listen to this advice.
"Heck, I am leery of any from Texas too. And I am a Texan. I guess I need to turn in my hat, boots, and belt buckle.
Kevin,
You're a sketch! Thanks for a good chuckle. For my part, the only Texan I'd vote for would be the one wearing the hat, boots, and belt buckle (the bigger, the better).
Emetrol is a good, fast working anti-nausea medication, sold just about everywhere. It's very sweet an syrupy, but it works.
Bonniea, you wrote: "If he's elected, we can all thank the Kennedy's for promoting him, just because they want to put a black in office."
No. We can thank George W. Bush. In this I agree with Reagan's former speech writer, Peggy Noonan:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120120952618514493.html?mod=most_viewed_day >
Noonan: ...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.
Were there other causes? Yes, of course. But there was an immediate and essential cause.
And this needs saying, because if you don't know what broke the elephant you can't put it together again. The party cannot re-find itself if it can't trace back the moment at which it became lost. It cannot heal an illness whose origin is kept obscure.
from
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_War_+_Peace.htm
McCain co-sponsored a resolution (S.CON.RES.5) expressing congressional opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and urging the President to assert clearly United States opposition to such a unilateral declaration of statehood.
Source: Senate statement, “Palestine” Feb 4, 1999
BurgerBoy, you wrote: "McCain co-sponsored a resolution (S.CON.RES.5) expressing congressional opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state..."
This is meaningless. Isn't it? McCain, like Bush, supports the establishment of Palestinian jihadist state in Israel, in Judea, Samaria (the West Bank), Gaza and perhaps east Jerusalem. Bush had this codified in our national party platform, August 2004.
All McCain is saying here is that he does not want the jihadist to unilaterally declare itself a Muslim terror state.
President McCain wants to bring it about through U.S. diplomatic pressure, through suicidal Israeli concessions of land and by false negotiations between the Jews and America's and Israel's jihadist enemy; by means of the so-called "peace" process.
"End Islamic Immigration, end Islamic student visas, end the Jizya, end the Muslim Brotherhood spawns, end the UN, end the toleration of Qur'an, end the toleration of Islam."
Sneakyzionistcrusader,
If none of this was done after 9/11, why would you think a Democratic ticket (I assume you meant four years of a Democratic president) would bring it about? We had eight years of a Democrat who presided over growing Islamic terror and did nothing. He was followed by a Republican who saw 3,000 people murdered and he did nothing but visit a mosque and praise the religion of peace.
We've been attacked under Democratic presidents, Democratic Congresses, Republican presidents and Republican Congresses and every combination of the two. If it hasn't happened yet, it will never happen.
It is idiotic to accuse Barack Obama of being a Muslim or a secret Muslim. He is not.
Hugh,
That's not what people are doing. The question isn't if Obama is really a Muslim pretending to be otherwise. It's whether or not ISLAMIC LAW says he is a Muslim. If so, does that hold any significance if he is elected president? In the past it wouldn't have been an issue but when you have public officials talking of the need to allow sharia law to be applied, that changes things.
Obama, the self-anointed, with his intent to collaborate with Islam, if elected, bodes none too well for the future of Western-Democracy. As mentioned, the hate America, Americans, and they are more than a truckload… should dust off their Korans and vacuum their prayer mats without delay.
His vitriolic criticisms of Romney betrays more than naught a sinister machination for America’s future: If you prefer non-future.
Then, what does one expect from a man, whose sole talent, from what I can discern, is that of a motivational speaker… and only if one loathes one’s nation and its democratic underpinning?
Playing footsies with the Islamists shall open a Pandora’s Box, the like of which we have never experienced. Then again, the hate-filled Democrats are saturated in intolerance and loathing for all whose tenets differs from theirs. Not unlike the Islamists this “ninny” wants to court: hold on to your hats, folks; we ain’t seen nothin’ yet!
One word:
OPRAHBAMA!
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/12622.htm
Israeli reporter challenges McCain to polygraph after spat over interview
By David Bedein February 8, 2008
Bookmark to del.icio.usDigg This Story
Senator John McCain and his Mideast policy inclinations are being challenged over an interview that he granted two years ago to Amir Oren, a journalist from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, on May 1, 2006, in which McCain declared that his administration "would send "the smartest guy I know" to the Middle East: "Brent Scowcroft, or Jim Baker though I know that you in Israel don't like Baker."
McCain reportedly added: "I would expect concessions and sacrifices by both sides."
When Oren asked McCain if that meant a "movement toward the June 4, 1967 armistice lines, with minor modifications," the reporter wrote, "McCain nodded in the affirmative." .....
......Oren said that McCain stated clearly that Israel's policy should be one of "defending itself and withdrawing, defending itself and withdrawing." Far from an off the cuff conversation, Mr. Oren told the Bulletin that this was a formal interview that McCain provided him at the the Brussels Forum for American-European Relations, following an interview that McCain provided to the Washington Post. Oren mentioned to the Bulletin that the interview was conducted in the presence of McCain's aide, Richard Fontaine.
Oren was clearly upset to hear McCain was challenging the veracity of the interview from two years ago. In Oren's words, McCain should "show the same courage on the campaign trail that he showed in Vietnam."
David Bedein is a reporter for the the Philadelphia Bulletin (http://www.thebulletin.us), in which this article first appeared.
Monk, I agree with you. Bush/Cheney destroyed the Republican party with the Iraq war. And if a Democrat is elected in 2008, and most probably will, it will be because of them. However, the Kennedy's and the media could have rallied around a more experienced black person for their nominee, than no experience, unaccomplished Barak Obama. I wouldn't mind someone like Colin Powell who is far more experienced and wiser than Barak Obama could ever be. I can tell you, our military men will have a very difficult time taking orders from Obama, and I'm sure many of them will not re-enlist under his leadership. Mr. Obama, you are no Colin Powell. LOL!
Hugh,
There is something about Obama that does not sit right. He orates, much rhetoric, little substance. The smell of Islam whirls about him. Can childhood memories of "benign" madrassas affect one's outlook?
I clearly remember my early school years. They imprint themselves on a forming mind. they were not spent in madrassas.
Nation of Islam, Afrocentric antisemitic preacher, these are not rumors but facts, the smell of which waft from the candidate. Do suspicions of Islamic connections of the candidate make one idiotic?
One need not be a Moslem accoding to the strict definition of "who is a Moslem" to be a conduit for Islamic influence on one's policies.
In simpler words: Better not to trust Obama than to give him the benefit of doubt--and the presidency.
Re McCain,
Not the sharpest tool in the chest. Standing up under unbearable POW conditions is to be admired. There is, however, something weak and wishy-washy about the candidate today.
I once had a superior who had served as a fighter pilot in Vietnam during our war there. When I heard of his war record, I expected a valorous man, ready to take a stand when necessary.
Instead, I found a weak man, easily and eagerly acquiescing to his superior's dictums, never even attempting to stand up for the people working under him. A nice man, a good man probably, but no core of steel.
The low-energy McCain, who started his presidential campaign appearing tired and listless, reminded me of the Vietnam war fighter pilot for whom I had worked.
For a write-in campaign, bucking the two-party system--where the king-makers of the Republicans came up with McCain, to be successfuul, one must first agree on whom to write in.
Tancredo? Romney? Can we get the required millions of Americans (not to speak of the other millions of voting illegal immigrant non-citizens) to agree on the write-in candidate?
I voted for Romney, so this is a crashing disappointment for me. Not that I thought that Mitt was the 'best' man for the job, but better than most out there, in my humble opinion. As McCain's mother recently stated, "Just hold your nose and vote for my nose." Reckon that's what I'll do. Sorry IP....
As McCain's mother recently stated, "Just hold your nose and vote for my nose." Reckon that's what I'll do. Sorry IP....
Posted by: champ
I can see, you've learned a great deal from this web site and from its authors, both Robert and Hugh; they have taught you well champ.
As McCain's mother recently stated, "Just hold your nose and vote for my nose." Reckon that's what I'll do. Sorry IP....
Posted by: champ
I can see, you've learned a great deal from this web site.
Sneakyzionistcrusader,
Let us hope that it will not be left to us--the people not the politicians--to "come out of the rubble (actual, literally) and say"--rather demand an end to Islamic Immigration, to Islamic student visas, the Jizya, the Muslim Brotherhood spawns, the UN, the toleration of Qur'an, and the toleration of Islam." with the rising anger of a betrayed populace that knows from whence cometh the real power (a la Mao Tse-Tung).
Look at who's not honoring our (American) flag and the national anthem. Who here is against the "war" (the war against the jihad?), against those who are dying in that war, against the United States as it stands under The Constitution.
Take a close look:
What? No salute during the national anthem?
Hillary is in the pocket of the Arabs too.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0906/morris092206.php3
Where do these people think they are going to spend their precious money when we are ruled by the oil ticks?
monk - I meant to say vote for my "son"....long day :-)
He's better than voting for Obama bin Clinton.