Islamic law indeed does not have a concept of "civilians." The distinction is rather between those who are waging war against Islam and those who aren't. Thus it allows for the killing of what have traditionally been those quintessential civilians, women and children, if they are perceived as aiding the war effort against the Muslims ('Umdat al-Salik o9.10, cf. al-Mawardi, al-Akham as-Sultaniyyah, 4.2).
"American people responsible for 'blood of Muslims': Al-Qaida's No. 3 man says Islam sees U.S. residents, government the same," from WorldNetDaily, August 2:
A top commander for al-Qaida says American people are as responsible for the U.S. military's ability to "wage war and spill the blood of Muslims" as is the American government."Islam does not distinguish between the American people and the American government, since both are in a state of war with Islam," Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid said in a recent interview.
The comments came in a report from Pakistan's independent television network Geo News, which was monitored and translated the Middle East Media Research Institute.
The MEMRI report said al-Yazid is considered al-Qaida's No. 3 man and "top commander in Afghanistan." The interview was in Arabic and broadcast with a voiceover in Urdu, and later was posted on Islamic websites.
Islam does not distinguish the truth, either.
Could there be a better argument that a complete quarantine of Islam is our only humane option?
Thus the need to for every American citizen to be..Lock,stock and barrel, with a flash in the pan ready.
Not differentaing between people and state fits their purpose. And maybe they don't have the brains for it.
For the reasons stated above Islam is not a religion but a facist cult.
Not differentiating
Osama said just about the same thing right after 9/11. No one at the WTC was innocent, either. Everyone who worked there was "supporting the American system".
This makes sense doesn't it? Isn't this what America did during the second world war? German civilians were deliberately targeted. Whole cities were fire bombed. No distinction was made between the German people and their government. Should Iran or an Iranian proxy attack an America city with a nuclear device, wouldn't America retaliate in kind and then some on Iranian cities?
Maybe we should stop distinguishing between Moslems and jihadists.
Muslims consider an attack on a school bus a great victory.
All non Muslims are legitimate target for Jihad because they are Kafirs or as they Koran says one the lowest of all. Muslims as pointed out here at JW and other posters are considered to be pious if they kill infidels they have done a pious act. If they destroy infidel houses of worship it is a pious act. Following the example of MoHAMtheMUD as a robber, rapist, pedophile are all examples of piety.
Wild Jew,
My guess is NO.
Iran isn't likely to send a missile with its flag on it. They will try to maintain plausible deniability. Particularly if it is a proxy, there isn't likely to be anything that can be traced to Tehran. The US is bound to hear about the zillions of "innocent Iranians" who shouldn't be punished for the actions of the mullahs, especially without proof that they did it.
Just look at 9/11. Afghanistan would never have attacked the US on its own. Whom did we go after? Afghanistan. They were an easier target than were the originators, who were in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and elsewhere in the oil-rich Middle East. Even if we had liquidated al Qaeda at Tora Bora, we would still be under threat.
Maybe we should stop distinguishing between Moslems and jihadists.
Posted by: ebonystone at August 2, 2008 7:52 AM
We should in certain cases. Shouldn't we? If a country is run by jihadists, State Department calls it a state sponsor of terrorism. That means it is a jihadist state.
American citizens are responsible for the crimes of our leaders -- just as German citizens were responsible for the crimes committed by the Third Reich. That's just the way it is. If our leaders are criminals, it is the responsibility of the citizens to remove these criminals, otherwise we may suffer the consequences of their crimes.
Maybe we should stop distinguishing between Moslems and jihadists.
Posted by: ebonystone
It's hard to tell the difference. Isn't every Muslim a jihadist? Just because you're not setting bombs doesn't mean you're not engaged in jihad. Merely giving your money to those who do fight is good enough.
Islam does not distinguish between the American people and the American government, since both are in a state of war with Islam," Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid said in a recent interview.
I have to give the muslims credit here; at least they have leadership that doesn't mince words and can clearly define "the enemy."
If only we were as lucky -- but we're not. Hate to say this, but until this reality changes let's hope we don't get into a serious conflagration with them, because we WILL lose.
So sorry, but all the bravdo in the field can be destroyed by treacherous political types.
Look at Olmert and Israel; look at the UK; look at the US.
Too bad that we don't have leaders like Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid on our side because if we did, islam would have be destroy a decade ago.
As it stands, ramadan may well replace Christmas by ... Christmas.
PMK, my guess is, nuclear experts can trace a device back to the state sponsor of terrorism, plausible denial notwithstanding. There would be a price to pay. Americans would demand it of their leaders.
But you are right, this administration protecting Saudi Arabia post 911, is a shameful episode in American history. The fact that American citizens have given this president a pass is also shameful. Few Americans are ignorant of the fact, fifteen of the nineteen September hijackers were Saudi nationals. I suspect more are ignorant of the significant role Saudi charities -- the Saudi government -- played in aiding Al Qaeda; in abetting the 911 atrocities. Ignorance however is never a justification.
Wild Jew,
Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor. It was an open declaration by one nation-state on another. The Muslims don't operate the same way.
German cities were valid targets because the people were indeed supporting the military - the cities were centers of industry that made it possible for the war to continue.
If we wanted to fight Iran as if it were 1942 then we would have to bomb the oil fields, a scenario depicted in the novel, "The Crash of 1979". How long would their government last without oil to finance it?
Such a move would have broad repercussions, not only in America but around the world, and so we would never do it. Trade is global, now. It was once said that if the US sneezes the world gets a cold. (or something like that) The same can be said for many countries now. Even a war between two of the stans could affect world trade and the economies of the industrialized nations in a way that was not possible thirty years ago.
PMK, my guess is, nuclear experts can trace a device back to the state sponsor of terrorism, plausible denial notwithstanding. There would be a price to pay. Americans would demand it of their leaders.
Posted by: Wild Jew
True enough, EXPERTS could probably trace a nuclear device to its origins. But too many of our PC-left "leaders" -- not just in government, but also in the media, the universities, the foundations and think-tanks, and the churches -- would say the experts were wrong. Just look at the number of idiotic "leaders" who say that the Twin Towers attack was the work of Bush and the neo-cons, or the Mossad; or that anti-U.S. terrorism is the result of our support of Israel; or that fundamentalist Christianity is a greater threat to the country than Islam; or that the war is all for the benefit of "Big Oil"; or the granddaddy of them all, that Islam is the ROP.
Wild Jew,
Even if we could trace a device back to Iran, would it be enough to satisfy world opinion?
There is no reason the Iranians couldn't claim it was stolen or misappropriated and that the government and people of Iran should not be held accountable. They would have their supporters here in the US.
We're a long way from the 1980s, when a single piece of a bomb that killed an American was traced back to Libya and Reagan bombed Libya. Would any component of a nuclear weapon survive the blast?
The Soviets had huge stockpiles of nuclear material at the end of the cold war. If any of it ended up in the hands of Hezbollah or al Qaeda and was used to attack the US, would we go after Russia without evidence that it was deliberately handed over? I doubt it.
Would the Russians make any such admission? Equally unlikely.
Why would Iran be any different?
PMK, You say 'Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor. It was an open declaration by one nation-state on another. The Muslims don't operate the same way'.
You are right. Yet it does not matter. 911 was a open declaration of war on America. Actually there was a declaration of war previous to 911; only Americans refused to recognize it.
Nevertheless, the jihadists are correct when they say America is at war with Islam. We are at war with Islam. This does not mean we are at war with every Muslim just as we were not at war with every German during WWII. Some Germans defied Hitler, often at the risk of their own lives.
President Bush declared it properly in his address to a joint session of Congress and the American people, September 20, 2001. "Every nation , in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us or you are with the (jihadists)."
He declared it properly, only he has not been consistent. He has been utterly and shamefully inconsistent.
I am not a great fan of Benjamin Netanyahu. He proved to be a weak leader as prime minister of Israel. What he said in the United States Congress, September 20, 2001, every American citizen and American leader should study and internalize. I will quote it for you in part PMK:
"The first and most crucial thing to understand it this: There is 'no' international terrorism without the support of sovereign states. International terrorism simply cannot be sustained for long without the regimes that aid and abet it. Terrorists are not suspended in midair. They train, arm and indoctrinate their killers from within safe havens on territory provided by terrorist states. Often these regimes provide the terrorists with intelligence, money, and operational assistance, dispatching them to serve as deadly proxies to wage a hidden war against more powerful enemies...." (Fighting Terrorism page XIII)
I submit to you PMK, it does not matter that unlike Germany, these state sponsors of terrorism have not "formally" declared war on the United States. They HAVE declared war on the United States.
Iran isn't likely to send a missile with its flag on it. They will try to maintain plausible deniability. Particularly if it is a proxy, there isn't likely to be anything that can be traced to Tehran. The US is bound to hear about the zillions of "innocent Iranians" who shouldn't be punished for the actions of the mullahs, especially without proof that they did it.
Just look at 9/11. Afghanistan would never have attacked the US on its own. Whom did we go after? Afghanistan. They were an easier target than were the originators, who were in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and elsewhere in the oil-rich Middle East. Even if we had liquidated al Qaeda at Tora Bora, we would still be under threat.
PMK
Absolutely, positively, correct. We need to somehow change this reality.
PMK, all I am saying is this. Let's leave America aside for now.
In the event Iran detonates a nuclear weapon, chances are its first target will not be the U.S. It will be Israel. Is there any question in your mind Israel is not prepared to retaliate? Will Israel's leaders engage in hand wringing, that perhaps the device was stolen or maybe the Iranian people are not responsible for the crimes of their leaders? No.
As I write, Israel is preparing for a first strike from Iran. If Israel's leaders are wise, they will preemptively attack Iran's nuclear sites as many times as it takes to neutralize them. A nuclear Iran is unthinkable!
Any threat to annihilate another state, is an act of war. No? Yes, it is an act of war. Iranian president's statement that Israel will be wiped off the map is a declaration of war.
The fact of the matter is, Iran has had sufficiently and repeatedly warning. Should Israel be attacked, this is the price Iran must pay for disobeying these clear warnings. Yes or no?
Wild Jew,
The problem is:
IRAN has not declared war.
SAUDI ARABIA has not declared war.
EGYPT has not declared war......
Only AL QAEDA has declared war. The plausible deniability comes in the idea that almost all Muslims can separate themselves from al Qaeda. Even the Saudis can, since they say they face the same threat we do.
We are a nation-state, obligated to act in certain ways in our dealings with other states.
It's not necessary to convince me of the dangers these groups pose. Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq (even Iraq!), all of them threaten our existence. The problem is the rules we must operate under are different from theirs. It's the price we pay for our position in the world.
He blames Bush, but fails to explain why other muslims have smooched with him, and even allowed him to pray at a mosque.
Well at least he acknowledged that 'Islam' is at war with America and the American people.
I hope 'someone' is listening to that.
Where is CAIR on that one? It either must agree, or
or call Mustafa a liar. 'Islam is not at war with anyone. It's that tiny, minute minority of trouble makers who are causing the problem'.
I bet the taqiyya artistry will flow over this one, as muslims try to soft peddle it, while not insulting their brother at the same time...
PMK, you wrote:
IRAN has not declared war.
SAUDI ARABIA has not declared war.
EGYPT has not declared war......
The problem is the rules we must operate under are different from theirs. It's the price we pay for our position in the world.
Posted by: PMK at August 2, 2008 9:19 AM
Are you saying there are rules that require a nation to formally declare war against another ("victim") nation, in order for the victim of aggression to defend itself? In the history of warfare, this has consistently been the case? If you are convinced we MUST operate under these rules we are doomed.
Wild Jew,
Israel has more freedom to operate than we do. Israel will indeed retaliate, if the Iranians are so stupid as to attack them. The US just doesn't have the same leeway. We're too big.
We're goliath beating up poor little david.
It remains my opinion that the Muslims who think it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons are the stupidest of them all. Just suppose Iran catches Israel napping and wipes them out without so much as a gunshot going off. Do the Palestinians, the Egyptians, the Syrians think they won't be affected by the fallout from such a weapon? The West Bank and Gaza will be as dead as Israel. Then there's Jordan and Egypt, right next door on either side.
The ramifications of an Iranian nuclear weapon are huge. But the world says it's okay.
Are you saying there are rules that require a nation to formally declare war against another ("victim") nation, in order for the victim of aggression to defend itself?
Wild Jew,
And what nation do we go after? There are 22 Islamic countries, each with its own role in support of terrorism. The world today is not the world of 1942. It's not the world of 1917.
You're right, we are doomed. Our own political correctness is going to kill us.
Even among jihadists themselves, marrying and molesting infant girls is permitted, sex with nine-year-old girls is permitted (actually 8 y.o. using the short Islamic "year") and raping slave women is permitted. And of course they don't leave unscathed the young madrassa boys either.
That said, its practically absurd to expect them to distinguish between enemy combatants and civilians. http://bravenewsworld.com
PMK, I am saying, first and foremost it is a matter of non-compromised leadership. This we do not have. I voted for this president. After 911, as he began saying and doing things whose clear intent was to placate and to appease our mortal enemies, I began to wonder. Whose side is this man on?
Unlike most Americans, I began studying the history and associations of this man his father and his family friends. I was morally shocked what I uncovered. It is therefore unsurprising that only now, this president is urging Congress to drill for oil within America's coastal waters.
Why didn't the president immediately declare -- post 911 -- it a national emergency to wean ourselves from dependency on the oil of America's enemies? What was he thinking? I'm not saying he needed to put in precisely these terms. What I am saying is this. The man in the White House, his family and friends are and have been in bed financially with these killers. They have been for decades.
This is not the best, but the worst of all men to lead this nation at this critical juncture. Had I known all of this in 2000, I would never have voted for him. You've been reading and posting here a long time. I'm sure you have done significant research I would be surprised to learn you are not aware of this.
Even if we could trace a device back to Iran, would it be enough to satisfy world opinion?
We will never be able to satisfy world opinion, except to cease to exist.
We have to do whatever it takes to save our nation, world opinion be damned.
I voted for this president. After 911, as he began saying and doing things whose clear intent was to placate and to appease our mortal enemies, I began to wonder. Whose side is this man on?
Unlike most Americans, I began studying the history and associations of this man his father and his family friends. I was morally shocked what I uncovered. It is therefore unsurprising that only now, this president is urging Congress to drill for oil within America's coastal waters.
Why didn't the president immediately declare -- post 911 -- it a national emergency to wean ourselves from dependency on the oil of America's enemies? What was he thinking?
Posted by: Wild Jew at August 2, 2008 9:51 AM
Wild Jew, you are not alone. All Bush family has done is to feed off of Ameercans they con and sel-off to anyone with a petro-dollar or a peso. Heck, as a president/commander-in-chief, he gets to open the borders, and play with American blood and lives : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45f1Riv_z1I
.. see how it works?
The man in the White House, his family and friends are and have been in bed financially with these killers. They have been for decades.
Wild Jew,
Bush is not the devil and neither is Big Oil. I voted for Bush in 2000 but not in 2004. My vote this November will not be for the winner of this election, unless the winner turns out to be neither McCain nor Obama.
The Bush family are not the only people with ties to big oil, which has ties to these countries. The two biggest oil shocks came before Bush 41 was even elected vice president.
Weaning America off oil is not, by itself, a solution. First, we buy most of our oil from friends. When did Canada become our enemy? Venezuela isn't such a friend anymore but it's not a mortal enemy, either. (at least not yet)
What we don't buy, others will. What if we cease importing oil from anywhere? What if we find a huge field in Montana or off California that can fill our needs for the next century? Not that it will, but just suppose?
The market for oil is growing, not shrinking. We will not impoverish our enemies just by finding new sources of energy. There are plenty of other buyers.
We will never find "non-compromised leadership". Either you will have people with ties to business or you will have people who have never worked outside of government. Those in the second group scare me more than the first. I also don't want to see people who have inherited their wealth and have never had to work for a living in charge of government.
The 2000 election was between two men who would never have reached that stage in life if not for their familial connections. If his father had won reelection in 1992, we never would have heard about the son. He might not even have run for governor. My vote for Bush was half-hearted, at best.
Globalism is changing the way we do business. Our president is not a dictator. We have ample opportunities to vote for people who will resist policies that seem harmful. Money can't be spent unless it's allocated by Congress.
It's been almost seven years since 9/11. Oil prices have only been rising for the last two or three. Bush isn't the reason for it and neither is terrorism. It's the growing economies of China and India. Democrats didn't like cheap oil. For years they have wanted to see the price rise, in order to encourage conservation. Are they "in bed financially with these killers"?
PMK, I think you are missing my point. It's not that George W. Bush and his father are oil men. I have no objection to oil men. That's not the point. The point is this. Much of Bush and his family's personal wealth originates from Saudi princes. If you study a couple or so of Bush's failed business ventures in Texas -- ones that were bailed out -- you will find names like Khalid bin Mahfouz, Saleh Kamel, Abdullah Taha Bakhsh, Al-Rajhi banking family, BCCI, amongst others that persoanlly enriched Mr. Bush.
Is it any wonder, as thousands of Bush's fellow citizens lie beneath the smoldering ruins of the Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, the White House was arranging flights -- for members of the bin Laden family and Saudi Royal family -- out of the country at a time when all domestic flights were prohibited by FAA? These potential witnesses were not interrogated by the FBI.
Did you know, as the Carlyle Group was getting into its annual investor conference at Washington's Ritz Carlton Hotel on September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon, only two and a half miles to the south? The Carlyle Group is a global private equity investment firm, based in Washington, D.C., with more than $81.1 billion of equity capital under management.
[George H. W. Bush was Senior Advisor to the Carlyle Asia Advisory Board from April 1998 to October 2003. George W. Bush was appointed in 1990 to the Board of Directors of one of Carlyle's first acquisitions.
"Connections between the Carlyle and the Bush family have created controversy, particularly in relation to the War on Terror. George H. W. Bush and his Secretary of State James A. Baker III have at times been advisers to the group. (There are claims) that Saudi Arabian interests have given $1.4 billion to firms connected to the Bush family."]
At the meeting (according to Robert Baer) were the group's senior counsel, James Baker, secretary of state in the Bush I administration; then Carlyle chairman Frank Carlucci, Ronald Reagan's last secretary of defense and national security advisor before that; and Shafiq bin Laden, representing the Bin Laden Group -- one of the world's largest construction companies -- but far more famous today as Osama bin Laden's brother. Baer wrote: "The gathering was the perfect metaphor for Washington's strange affair with Saudi Arabia."
'Those attending the Carlyle Groups were glued to TV monitors showing the attack in progress. According to one source, after the second plane hit, Shafiq bin Laden removed his name tag. He and James Baker (close personal friend to the Bush family), the source added, left shortly thereafter in separate cars'.
Oh yes, I forgot to mention, James Baker III is a close Bush family friend and confident.
James Baker's law firm, Baker Botts -- according to sources -- is the legal council defending the Saudi Arabian government in a lawsuit filed by families of those killed and injured in the 9/11 attacks.
PMK, you wrote: "What we don't buy, others will."
That is not America's problem. The fact of the matter is, America is responsible for America; just as you are mainly responsible for your actions and I am mainly responible for my actions.
I submit to you, our foreign policy is being held hostage to and compromised by oil purchased from our jihadist enemies. America's leaders should do everything in their power to change this equation. Especially post 911. Otherwise we will suffer for it.
Because America buys oil from our enemies, this in no way excuses an immoral foreign policy. It does not help matters to be so utterly dependent on our enemies for our welfare.
Islamic nations have long used terror organizations as foreign policy proxies. I do not think that our state department or others are ignorant of that fact, but they do tend to think we are ignorant of it so we have shameful things such as our president acting as an apologist for KSA. I do not see much hope in the coming election despite the huge amounts of Hopium being distributed by the pols and their shills.
We could do a lot to cripple OPEC merely by charging foreign manufacturers a fee for access to our markets, the fee should be calculated based on the cost of protecting the shipping of middle eastern oil, the loss of taxes federal state and local.
Nixon Carter Ford, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 have all acted more in the interests of globalists then they have acted in the interests of the USA.
Global trade is responsible for the high demand for oil, our military, supported by our taxes keeps the oil flowing. America getting off foreign oil will only make that energy source cheaper for the Chicoms.
Islam does not distinguish between the American people and the American government, since both are in a state of war with Islam.
… and the sooner we drop this distinction wherever jihadists gather, the better off we’ll be. Weirdzeristan would be a good place to start.
Wild Jew,
Our relationship with the Saudis started TWELVE PRESIDENTS AGO. It didn't start with Bush or with his daddy. The Democrats' icon, FDR, gave us this "special relationship".
Have YOU researched the Clintons and THEIR Saudi connections? The World Trade Center was bombed just two months into Clinton's first term. Al Qaeda began a spree of murder while he was president. What did CLINTON do?
The Khobar Towers were bombed on Clinton's watch. What did he do? You say I'm missing your point. I'm saying that it's beside the point. You are holding Bush to a higher standard than you are his predecessor or the ten presidents who came before them.
http://brain-terminal.com/posts/2004/11/22/bill-clintons-saudi-connection
At the same time Democrats were lambasting Bush for "close ties to the Saudis", Clinton was busy taking money from them.
http://www.nysun.com/national/saudis-arabs-funneled-millions-to-president/5137/
After the WTC was bombed, Clinton was selling arms to the Saudis. Was he too close to them?
WASHINGTON--Feb. 17--With the $6 billion Saudi plane deal Wednesday, President Bill Clinton landed a political twofer. He helped his political position on the home front, giving a jolt of good news to the aerospace industry in economically depressed California, a state Clinton won in 1992 and hopes to win again 2 1/2 years from now.
And the president bolstered an alliance in the Middle East by strengthening business relations with Saudi Arabia. In so doing, he expanded U.S. exports and collected pay-back for the U.S. defense of the oil-rich nation during the Persian Gulf War.
IS CLINTON IN BED FINANCIALLY WITH THESE KILLERS?
Then there's Jimmy Carter and the Carter Center, which is awash in Saudi money.
From FRONTPAGE magazine:
If money determines political and public views as Carter insists "Jewish money" does, Carter's views on the Middle East must be deemed to have been influenced by the vast sums of Arab money he has received. If he who pays the piper calls the tune, then Carter's off-key tunes have been called by his Saudi Arabian paymasters. It pains me to say this, but I now believe that there is no person in American public life today who has a lower ratio of real to apparent integrity than Jimmy Carter. The public perception of his integrity is extraordinarily high. His real integrity, it now turns out, is extraordinarily low. He is no better than so many former American politicians who, after leaving public life, sell themselves to the highest bidder and become lobbyists for despicable causes. That is now Jimmy Carter's sad legacy.
- Alan Dershowitz
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=14F14A6C-2BBE-439E-929A-425288DA09E
http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/articles/2008/ioi/080425-carter-visit.html
I have no love for our current president. I just object to your double standard. Point to the Bushes and the Bakers all you wish. I'm not saying what they do is right. They're no different from anyone else. If we want "uncompromised leadership" we'll have to go out and find it. It won't find us. As long as we the people tolerate corruption, we shouldn't be surprised by it.
Feminists who had called voluntary relations between an executive and an underling sexual harassment (because such a relationship automatically implied pressure from above) were all over themselves talking about consensual sex when Clinton was caught with his pants down.
It all depends on whose ox is being gored.
Yes, our involvement with the Saudis and imported oil goes back to WW2 and FDR, but it wasn't until ca. 1970 that imports became so important. In 1974, OPEC saw its chance and raised prices from $3 or 4/bbl to $12/bbl. Note that even at $3/bbl the cost of getting crude out of the ground and to the shipping port in Saudi Arabia was less than $0.50/bbl. Yes, fifty cents/bbl; the other $2.50 was pure profit to the Saudis, 83% profit! (n.b. Saudi oil is particularly easy and cheap to find and exploit; in most other countries, the cost of getting the crude out of the ground is higher, and the profits lower.)
At the time our Democrat congress was too busy hounding Nixon and his staff, so we did nothing.
In 1979 came the second oil shock, with the price more than tripled again, to ca. $40/bbl. All that Jimmy-the-peanut could think of was the "windfall-profit" tax on American oil companies, which only discouraged more American production, while ignoring the "typhoon-fall" profits of OPEC.
Reagan did help some, by de-regulation of oil and natural gas. But apart from that, the last thirty years has been the story of the environmentalists and the Democratic-left (and, yes, the Republicans went along with them most of the time) blocking any attempt to reduce our dependance on OPEC: no more off-shore drilling, no drilling in the ANWR or the Rockies; more and more areas locked up as wilderness or national monuments (and the enviros still want more wilderness); no new refineries nor nuclear plants; and only the slightest support for electric rapid transit, which might reduce our oil needs.
So Bush's record on energy has been pretty dismal, but he's only the latest in a long, sorry line.
For 35 years, we've done precious little. But better late than never. Let's get started.
PMK, you wrote: "Feminists who had called voluntary relations between an executive and an underling sexual harassment (because such a relationship automatically implied pressure from above) were all over themselves talking about consensual sex when Clinton was caught with his pants down."
You're right. The hypocrisy was palpable. Look what they are saying -- or more accurately, not saying -- about the brutal mistreatment of women in the Muslim-Arab and Muslim non-Arab world. It's disgraceful!
You say I am holding Bush to a higher standard than I am his predecessor or the ten presidents who came before them.
You BET I am!
You object to my double standard.
Mine is not a double standard. Holding someone to a higher standard is not a double standard. I've got a copy of Jimmy Carter's book, "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid." I listened to it a couple of times on audio, as I have listened to three of Robert Spencer's books on audio; as well as others' audio books.
Jimmy Carter is vicious anti-Semite, a base liar and a scoundrel. His book is full of lies. To add insult to injury, Carter attempts to appeal to his Christian reader that the Jews in Israel today are the very same Jews that murdered Jesus, only he substitutes the jihadists -- for whom he has nothing but sympathy -- for Jesus. It's a disgraceful book, as is its author.
I know Bush has only furthered policies that Carter and Clinton began. Actually these immoral administration and U.S. State Department policies began soon after Israel declared Independence in 1948.
What you fail to understand is, I am not a registered Democrat.
I am a registered (conservative) Republican who has sacrificed time and effort for his party. I have sacrificed many, many hours of my time at no cost to the GOP in terms of political activism, including precinct committeeman (eight years), peaceful protest and activism in our pro-life movement, volunteering for many years for our county's advisory committees at the request and the appointment of our local elected Republican party officials, etc.
Why shouldn't I hold this party and its leaders to a higher standard than the party of appeasement? Than the party of defeat? Than the party of cut and run? Than I do the left?
Bill Clinton sought to establish a Palestinian-killer state in historic and Biblical Israel -- though he did not enunciate it as clearly as Bush has post 911.
Bush made the establishment of a Muslim terrorist state in the Holy Land a formal goal of U.S. policy in order to appease the very enemy responsible for the 911 atrocities; his Saudi friends. It was at the request of his Saudi friend, then Crown Prince now King Abdullah, that Bush began this act of treachery and appeasement only days after the Saudi-sponsored atrocities on U.S. soil. For this alone, he should be impeached and tried. Bush rightly boasts that he is the first U.S. president to do this! He boasts that he is the first American president to make the establishment of Muslim terror state in Israel a formal goal of U.S. policy. He had the abomination codified for the very first time in the history of the Party of Lincoln in our 2004 national party platform, along with commending Israel for her willingness to forcibly expel Jews from their homes; to retreat from Gaza, in the midst of daily terrorism and violence." Bush did this. Not Clinton. Not Neville Chamberlain.
"Republicans agree....(the) plan to remove all settlements from Gaza and several settlements from the West Bank is a courageous step toward peace in the face of continuing terrorist violence. This initiative can stimulate progress toward peace as laid out in the Road Map launched by President Bush.
"Republicans commend the government of Israel for its desire to pursue peace, even in the face of continuing terrorist attacks.
http://www.gop.com/images/2004platform.pdf
"Winning the War on Terror"
This is criminal / appeasement PMK! Not only would it be criminal at a time America is at peace or in a state of cold war with the jihadists, but it is even more criminal now that we are actively war with the jihadists!
Why shouldn't I hold this man -- and his GOP acolytes -- to a higher standard?
I got this from a neighbor. Maybe it's a little over dramatized. Maybe it's not too far off the mark.
EMPLOYMENT opportunity for lap dog. Neutered poodle prime minister opening up in Israel.
Applicants must be willing to roll over on command, ethnically cleanse Jews from their homes and land, at the direction of the President of the U.S.
Juden Frei is the goal.
Must be a consummate liar and manipulator and have a beguiling smile.
Must speak Hebrew fluently; must be a yes man or woman.
No religious Jews need apply.
Pay will be determined by how many Jews are expelled from their homes within first three months in office.
Please contact press secretary Dana Perino at White House press office between 9am and 5 pm EDT for application.
PMK, like most Americans, your objetion, however true, comes out of the "party prism", which has torn America into two feuding bodies at all levels, from White Houe down. To bring any arguement into the Republican v/s Democrat ring, though intellectually corrext and satisfying, is also endless, self-defeting. It is precisely for this reason, Osama, though cornered in Sudan got away, thanks to Clinton and though cornered in Afghanistan, got away, thanks to Bush (by including terrorists of Pakistan as 'ally' against the phony "war-on-terror"). So, let's say for arguement that both Clinton and Bush are to be held to the same standards. Ofcourse, this sounds like an intellectually accurate and a compelling arguement, but also realize that such divide only helps terrorists. because Clinton got away at doing nothing for 'Black Hawk Down' and 'Khobar Towers', should USA turn a blind eye to:
- Escorting Bin Ladens to Safety.
- Resisting 9/11 investigation.
- Blackening pages on Saudi Arabia in 9/11 interim report.
- Including terrorists of 9/11, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, in a phony "war-on-terror".
- Increasing, yes increasing, student's visas for Saudis, after, yes, after 9/11.
- Increasing aid / weapons for Pakistan & Saudi Arabia.
- Not bringing Osama to justice.
Is that what US presidency has sunk to? Is the Republican / Democrat divie more important than the unity of USA? Square the R/D divide against the unity of Ummah, here after billions of American dollars and arms, American sare in increasingly more dangers, precisely what Bush has promised he would fight. Fought he has, against Americans themselves, which to a lay-man like me and given Bush failures and corrupt businesses before is presidency, was a foregone conclusion. Another arguement could be that John Kerry was a worse option. This is a lame arguement as it again sets no standards, a presidential candidate should meet but let us accept that John Kerry was a worse option, but does that give a free pass to Bush? Regardless of the R/D divide, White House, for the highest powers granted, should be held to the highest standards. This is what petro-dollar buys Americans, a corrupt and a timid president/commander-in-chief, spitting on the graves of 9/11 victims: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html
Americans should be as careful about intellectually self-defeating arguements, as about intellectually dishonest ones, as both grant White House and ALL public offices executive and revenue authority with little or no accountability.
Many interesting posts above. I wonder if we could all agree on two things: 1) Israel and America both have made mistakes many times over in dealing with the Muslim world, in large part, though not exclusively, because both these nations acted in the expectation that the Muslim world would itself act in good faith, as Israel and America have; 2) neither America nor Israel, specifically their many government administrations over the last half century or so, are willing to seriously entertain the possibility that the Islamic faith is rotten to the core and that this is the real reason why peace has alluded all.
If in accord with what is written above, then where do we go from here?
Another al Qaida #3 man?
I personally think that Bush II is stupid. He is being manipulated by his daddy and his daddy's friends. I didn't vote for his daddy. I never liked his elitist daddy. His daddy is a 100% certified globalist who really has globalism as a religion. Globalization breeds corruption because all parties must closely interact with corrupt European countries and dictators who are all corrupt. Corruption then spreads like a disease. This is where we are at in Washington today. That is why I say that Washington is for sale and that we have the best politicians that money can buy. This is the reason that our politicians do not operate in our best interests anymore. It is a sad state of affairs.
There are some exceptions in Washington, of course. We probably all know who they are. They are the ones who always vote with common sense. You can pick them out.
It's a charade Wellington. This "peace" process is a big charade. What sane man or woman does not see this?
War or peace... as if there's still doubt about that.
I thought flag-draped coffins were reason enough to conclude that there's a war on.
While reading something about "Bomber" Harris (of WW2 area bombing fame/infame) someone mentions that you don't pull punches like a gentleman in a war. The side that does so faces defeat.
That is why I say that Washington is for sale and that we have the best politicians that money can buy. This is the reason that our politicians do not operate in our best interests anymore. It is a sad state of affairs.
There are some exceptions in Washington, of course. We probably all know who they are. They are the ones who always vote with common sense. You can pick them out.
Posted by: Spot on at August 3, 2008 6:37 AM
Spot On! Couldn't have said it better myself. Personally, Tom Tancredo is the most patriotic congressman I have found. He cares for America, which is good enough for me. Sad that America rejected this patriot, in it's own peril, ofcourse.
It's a charade Wellington. This "peace" process is a big charade. What sane man or woman does not see this?
Posted by: Wild Jew at August 3, 2008 7:06 AM
Or worse, the "peace process" is a smoke-screen behind which, Palestinian terror has florished, thank you, traitors at the State Dept. and the White House!
The "peace process" is indeed a charade but human beings have a tendency often times to hope against hope and believe in a charade. Hope is a powerful motivator in face of all odds. As Samuel Johnson observed about second marriages, they represented the triumph of hope over experience. Ditto for the peace process in the Middle East, which will never work because Islam breeds resentment and hate, not acceptance and love.
Could there be a better argument that a complete quarantine of Islam is our only humane option?
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at August 2, 2008 5:40 AM
There have been hundreds of arguments for a "complete quarantine of islam" but that would be too simple and axiomatic, God forbid. In order to be inclusive, fair, unbiased, and POLITICALLY CORRECT, we must approach this dilemma the hard way: first, pretend it's not a problem; second, ignore the blatant warning signals; third, silence the Cassandras by calling them "racists" and "islamophobes"; fourth, remind Americans that religious freedom is sacrosanct without acknowledging that islam is a predatory death cult out to destroy every freedom we currently enjoy.
History will judge today's "leaders" harshly and they will be remembered for their cowardice, incompetence, and treason. We have been betrayed by the people we empowered in so many ways I can't count them all but at least I am aware of their perfidy. Many Americans are too busy to notice, much less do something about it. Eventually the American people will see what muslims are doing and understand why they are here, at which time they will react accordingly. I have a feeling political correctness will be irrelevant when that day arrives.