In evaluating the threat of Islam and Jihad, for the colin-powells of this world what counts is the flimsiest of anecdotal evidence. He takes the sentimentalism of our depraved politics at face value: "and then there is Mary, who lives in Sioux City, Iowa and makes $13.42 an hour." In this he recalls Bush at one of his State-of-the-Union farces, pointing to an Iraqi woman, who had been deliberately seated next to the parents of a Marine killed in Iraq. He asks her to stand up and acknowledge the applause of the crowd, applause presumably due her because she is "an Iraqi woman" who has not tried to kill Americans, and may even support what they are doing, or think they are doing, in Iraq -- which makes her, of course, a hero.
In an interview yesterday, Powell reached new heights or depths (they are the same in this case) of anecdotal absurdity. He offered up this:
"I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say, and it is permitted to be said. Such things as 'Well you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.' Well the correct answer is 'He is not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian.' But the really right answer is 'What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?' The answer is 'No. That's not America.' Is there something wrong with some 7-year old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she can be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion he's a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America."I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo-essay about troops who were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in you can see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards, Purple Heart, Bronze Star, showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have a Star of David. It had a crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Karim Rashad Sultan Khan. And he was an American, he was born in New Jersey, he was 14 at the time of 9/11 and he waited until he can go serve his counrty and he gave his life."
So, on the basis of having seen a picture of a Muslim mother of a Muslim son who had been killed in Iraq, Colin Powell uses his (apparent) prestige to tell the interviewer and all of America, that there is nothing wrong with Islam, nothing wrong with the ideology of Islam, nothing to be concerned about in Sharia supremacism, nothing wrong with the idea of a Muslim president. His irresponsibility astounds.
He once held high office. And though he never demonstrated any particular gifts, he acquired -- possibly because there had to be something good about him to focus on -- the reputation for "integrity." Apparently the gift to his wife of a Jaguar from Prince Bandar, his tennis partner, who was recently revealed in Great Britain to have been the recipient of up to $2 billion in kickbacks from a British aerospace company, and who was famous for distributing his largesse to powerful people in Washington, did nothing to modify this reputation for "integrity." It would be useful to know, by the way, whether Colin Powell has been on the Arab lecture-circuit, the way so many others among our high and mighty have been, picking up, for a single lecture, a hundred thousand, two hundred thousand, even a million dollars (if you are Bill Clinton, or the first George Bush). But palling around with an obvious fixer and influence-peddler who worked on behalf of a sinister ruling family of a most sinister country, Saudi Arabia, befriending him, becoming his tennis-partner, says a lot about Colin Powell's judgment -- none of it good.
But in his offhand remarks In Defense Of Islam -- remarks based on his having seen a photograph of a mother mourning her son -- demonstrate what is so wrong with so many of our high and mighty, who presume to instruct and protect us. What does that photograph tell us? It tells us nothing at all about what Islam inculcates. Unless Colin Powell has studied the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, unless he has read the Qur'anic commentators, and such influential people at present as Qaradawi and Tantawi, he knows nothing about Islam, and has a duty not to make pronouncements as if he does. The dead soldier was, it appears, one of a very few Muslims who joined up. Indeed, there have been widespread reports of how the handful of Muslim (not Black Muslim) soldiers in the American and British armies have been subject to harassment and threats and even, in Great Britain, plots, by fellow Muslims who are outraged that they would behave in so un-Islamic a fashion, and dare to join an Infidel army to "fight against Muslims."
Is Colin Powell aware of how few Muslims are in the army, the Reserves, the National Guard? Is he aware of how few are like the soldier whose grieving mother at his gravestone apparently struck him so much that he felt it gave him the right to pontificate to the public at large about Islam? He only has that right when he learns enough about Islam. And there are no signs, none, that he has been any more diligent or responsible in fulfilling that task than Bush, or a hundred others, at the top of the Washington heap, who have squandered so many men, so much money, so much material, so much attention, so much time, in their insensate inability, or willful refusal, to learn about the ideology -- the politics, the geopolitics -- of the Total Belief-System of Islam.
What Powell did was a clear dereliction of duty. He baselessly, on the slimmest and most misleading of anecdotal evidence, jumped to sweeping conclusions about Islam and Jihad. A glimpse of a grave and a griever tugged at his heartstrings, but did not tell him anything about what the texts and tenets of Islam are all about, and why that particular grieving mother was, if she had no regrets about her son joining the American army, as little representative of Muslims as her son was. That photograph had no larger significance. It said nothing about the texts, tenets, attitudes, and atmospherics of Islam. An intelligent observer would have understood this. A responsible observer, aware of his own ignorance of Islam, would never have dared to draw a conclusion, and impose that conclusion, on a presumably naive, and in some cases far too respectful, audience.
Of course Powell is behaving just like those who sentimentalize everything, reducing issues to this or that "real life" individual who may, or may not, be a useful representative or guide. But the error in this case was particularly egregious, and the irresponsibility flabbergasting, given the dangers the Infidels everywhere face. Does Powell know what is going on in southern Thailand? Does he think about the Biafra War, or southern Sudan? What does he know about the treatment of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh? What does he know about the spending of a hundred billion dollars by the Saudis alone to spread Islam all over the globe? What does he know about the present and certain future troubles, presented by no other group of immigrants, the result of the Muslim presence in Western Europe? He knows, I suspect, nothing of this. He's a big shot. He delivers lectures. He speaks slowly, and portentously. He has an air, some think (I don't) of "rectitude." We are expected to admire him, and to forgive this kind of negligence -- a failure to perform due diligence in investigating the matter of Islam -- that does damage to the ignorant and the simple-minded, who may not recognize anecdotal evidence, or be able to see how misleading it is.
Why should we forgive Colin Powell? What's so wonderful, what has ever been so wonderful, about him? And when will he give back that Jaguar to Prince Bandar?
'Well you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.' Well the correct answer is 'He is not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian.' But the really right answer is 'What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?'
-Hugh
Not at all, but then if Mr. Obama is a Muslim then why is he misrepresenting himself to the American people?
Why isn't his life an open book?
Why can no one see his birth certificate?
In the internal debates inside the Bush I Administration leading up to the first Gulf War, Colin Powell, in his capacity as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, a man whose supposed stewardship of the war made him a national hero (and a household name), was actually on record for opposing the war, repeatedly advocating for allowing economic sanctions to work.
We all know the futility of economic sanctions in altering the behavior of tyrants; from Saddam to Ahmadinejad to Castro, they simply don't work, even over time. Advocating for sanctions is just a form of punting. Had Colin Powell had his way, Saddam's annexation of Kuwait and its oil wealth would have become a permanent feature of international life.
Every time I see or hear of Colin Powell I think of that character from "Mars Attacks". I know it was supposed to be a characterization of Powell and hence not to be taken serious, but boy, it sure seems to have had him pegged. No backbone, boot licker, and completely clueless.
I'm with Cornelius.
New Sitcom: The Powells (no not George and Weezy)
Colin: Hey Honey, I just figured out what I am going to do for retirement. Given my recent endorsement of Barrack, I dont think it is a good idea that I hang around the tennis club so much. It will be bad for my image. It might hurt my chances for a job with the new administration.
I have decided to pursue my first love, and go back to school and get my Masters in Geology.
Alma: That's nice dear, are you sure that's a good idea. Remember you only had a C average, you used to say how it made your head hurt and your ears buzz.
Colin: Honey Where's my rock hammer?
Alma: I think its out in the garage, in those boxes we never unpacked the first time we moved after ROTC. (Alma freezes!!and goes pale) No, No... I definitely remember that you threw it in the Potomac River along with the that night you were drinking with Kerry.
(Too late..sound of garage door opening)
Colin: Honey, how did you know.
Alma: Ulp!
Colin: I always wanted an XKE, what a wonderful present.
Alma: No Colin that is my car.
Colin: (Shocked) You know we cant afford a car like this, on my Army pension and after you wanted to move up to the Eastside. Just the club dues alone are eating us up.
Alma: Dont worry, it was free!
Colin: Free???
Alma: Yes a gentleman friend from the tennis club gave it to me. So see, the club dues are paying off.
Colin" (eyes narrow steaming) Gentleman friend? F...Frr..oo..mm the Club!!!Gave you a Jaguar!!??
So help me Alma, One of these days...bang...zoom... (makes a punching gesture) ..straight to the moon!!!
Alma: Honey...it wasn't that way. Dont worry baby, I didnt have to do anything. It was the Prince that gave it to me.
Colin: (tension leaves face, and a sigh of relief) Yes, those Saudi's are so generous, since he became my tennis partner at the club, and I did the speaking tour, he is always buying me something or picking up the tab.
Colin: Honey, I just changed my mind, I think we should keep the Club membership. Lets go for a ride..
Theme music plays as Colin and Alma drive the Jag into the sunset... Beans dont burn the kitchen, fish dont fry on the grill, took a whole lot of trying just to get up that hill, now we're up in the big time....(you know the rest)
Thank you, Hugh. I long ago learned the lesson of closing my eyes when listening to politicians, so as not to be distracted by whatever gravitas they may project, or by other body language, and listening just to the words. Try to distill which words are their own, and which are from a speech writer. Read the words they write - not the words of ghost writers, but the words they themselves write, and try to discern their breadth and depth. A writer's words provide a glimpse into the mind. Powell's speeches are, like those of many politicians, filled with platitudes and practically devoid of any real substance or depth, much like those of Obama. I have always believed that, well meaning, earnest and patriotic as Powell seems to be, he rose to his position in the military partly, perhaps primarily, for symbolic and politically motivated reasons. Cornelius' assessment of him is correct. Unfortunately, many people will focus on the platitudes of this symbolic figure, spoken in support of another symbolic figure, and not notice the lack of substance nor realize that symbols lending support to other symbols does not create substance where there was previously none.
When the issue of Bill Ayers was first brought up almost a year ago, (I am almost sure that) Colin Powell was quoted on NPR(?) as defending the work that Ayers is doing today with juveniles. This might be why is was offended by the McCain campaign bringing up the Ayers issue.
Does anyone remember this?
I have been searching the internet in vain for this quote, but the web is so flooded with more recent news about Powell's endorsement of Obama I cannot find it. If it is true, it only provides more evidence of his cluelessness.
Like Kissinger, whose mitteleuropa accent, has (deliberately?) deepened with time, as if to give him a strausz-huppe, fred-ikle, metternich-und-bismarck-und-so-weiter profundity as geostrategist that Kissinger never really possessed -- but as Barbara Walters used to say, she and so many others waited to find out "what Henry says about something" at someone's dinner party before they knew what to think about this or that matter. Powell has a reputation, but a reputation for what? For dullness, for steadiness, but not for brilliance.
Obama calls him, out of gratitude for his endorsement, "a great solder, a great statesman, and a great American." Where was Powell a "great soldier"? Where did he demonstrate fantastic strategic acumen, or unusual heroism, or qualities of leadership that were so unusual? Nowhere. Where did he show he was a "great statesman"? In the Gulf War? In participating in the charges darkly (and incorrectly) made against Saddam Hussein? It is true that again and again we are told, by the bullying press that attempts, with success, to tell people what to think, that he is "held in great regard" or "great respect" but no evidence for this, or no justification for it were it true, is ever offered. He's a perfectly run-of-the-mill Washington apparatchik and success story; like the Tammany Hall boys of yore, but at a different level, and in a different way, he "seen his opportunities and he took 'em."
What the article above asks of Powell is what should be asked of anyone presuming to speak or to discuss Islam, or Muslims and their fitness for holding power in an Infidel nation-state. And that is: before you utter a phrase, and affect or even mold the opinions of others, find out aboutr Islam. Study up. When you get $100,000 and up for an hour's speech, which is always a variant on the same damn thing, the usual inspiriational, pseudo-thoughtful tour d'horizon of The World And Its Problems And Why We Must Solve Them (the kind of thing that any intelligent person who keeps up with current events could compose and deliver, though such a person would never receive such a check) -- you have plenty of time on your hands. You don't really have to make a living. And so you have no excuse not to study up on the most important matters at hand. And along with the colossal matter of anthropogenic climate disruption, and the malfeasance of malefactors of great wealth, and one or two other Big Ticket Items (did I mention the confusion of education with mere vocational training?), there is Islam, the ideology of this Total Belief-System that is now disrupting Infidel lives in East Asia and the Indian subcontinent, and in sub-Saharan Africa, and Western Europe, and where the Jihad is mainly conducted not through terror, but through deployment of the Money Weapon, carefully-targetted campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest. I doubt if Colin Powell has even heard the words "dhimmi" and "Da'wa." I doubt if he's ever opened the Qur'an or read the hundreds of legitimate Western-- not the espositos and armstrongs -- scholars of Islam, such as Schacht, Jeffrey, Snouck Hurgronje, St. Clair Tisdall, Zwemer, Lammens. He, and others like him, among our Great and Good, who have been allowed to complacently believe they do not have to meet certain standards, of knowledge, of evidence, of logic, because they are those Great Men who can say whatever they wish and wave away the critics with a flourish of the Ipse-Dixit.
No, they are quite wrong. They can't.
I'm sadly disappointed in the many revelations that have been surfacing over the years about a man who has held the most powerful positions in America; save the Presidency which was once his for the taking in the Republican Party.
General Colin Powell was are top General serving as Chairman of the Joint Chief of staff for four years, he was Secretary of State under George W. Bush, He was President Reagan's National Security Advisor.
He had commands in Vietnam,Panama, and the Gulf War, and assisted on Grenada as well though he has always remained a moderate Republican. He has ventured to say that Bush has surrounded himself with neo-conservative crazies, this comment was made to British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. Powell.
There is evidence that Powell was instrumental in getting no nonsense John Bolton scrubbed from being our UN Ammbassador.
In July 2007 Powell revealed that he spent two and a half hours trying to persuade George W. Bush not to invade Iraq but that he did not succeed. Powell also stated, "I tried to avoid this war. I took him [Bush] through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers.
"Powell went on to say that he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war. "The civil war will ultimately be resolved by a test of arms. It's not going to be pretty to watch, but I don't know any way to avoid it. It is happening now." He further noted, "It is not a civil war that can be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States," and suggested that all the U.S. military could do was put "a heavier lid on this pot of boiling sectarian stew .
But being the good officer he was, he strongly made the case for the war against Iraq on behalf of the President in the United Nations. Certainly at the time, the British had made their own case for it by then and the United nations Security Council was fully on board as well, given the 17 ignored resolutions that had been ignored by Saddam Hussein.
There had been speculation for several months now that Powell would support Barack Obama for President.
One still is aghast at such an expose after all his held positions that he could possibly reflect such naivete in regards to the the teachings in the Qu'ran, ahadith,and syrah.
Could it truly be that our top General at the time of war with these Islamic regimes had not taken to making a study of this ideology of jihadist desires which is constantly reflected among all of the umma?
"Know your enemy and know him well, to defeat him you must be able to define him."
General of the Armies
WWII
Douglas MacArthur
Thank you, Hugh, for writing this pointed and concise commentary on Powell's interview. My husband and I were both stunned as we sat and listened to him give his endorsement for Obama - and right before he did my husband blurted out, "Oh my God, he is voting for Obama!", indicating that he could not believe what Colin was about to do; and then Colin spoke and stated the unthinkable, so lets give this man Dangerous-Dhimmi of the Year, shall we.
My piece was not about Powell's endorsement of this candidate, or of that. It was about his presumption in impliedly speaking about something of great importance that he knows nothing about -- the ideology of Islam -- when he does know something else, that a great many people appear to hold him -- for no better reason than that they are constantly told to hold him -- in great respect. I merely pointed out that his basing his apparent indifference to, or still worse, even pleasure in, the possibility of a Muslim becoming President, and thinking he can bully or shame others into sharing that indifference or pleasure -- represented a dereliction of duty, because he clearly has not studied, does not know about, either the texts, or the tenets, or the attitudes, or the atmospherics, of Islam. What he does know, however, is that Prince Bandar is a swell guy, a great fellow to play tennis with and, by the way, really thoughtful -- no sooner does Alma Powell express nostalgia for a Jaguar she once owned, than the very same model appears on her doorstep, possibly be-ribboned, a gift from Prince Bandar and the splendid house of Al-Saud.
I also asked a question: on what basis, exactly, are we constantly told what a wonderful person, a "great soldier" and "great statesman," this man is. I have no evidence of it. Am I the only one who has missed it? Can someone help out, and supply information that might help corroborate or convince?
Hugh:
You omitted the money quote, which came immediately after the passage you cited above. Powell then declared:
Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself [sic] in this way.
Who's this we, General, that must stop all this polarization? It is not your country, which (foolishly) is moving heaven and earth to give Islam and its adherents a place at the American table. It is that odious creed and its malign adherents who are doing the polarization, as frankly admitted by Organization of the Islamic Conference Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu at a speech at Columbia University in New York on Sept. 18:
The Muslim Ummah, means the 'community of the faithful'. It is a unique bond that has no similar example under any other political or religious system in the world. It is a belonging to ideals which bring Muslims together in an eternal brotherhood lock which transcends all other consideration of allegiance or loyalties or barriers of nationhood, ethnicity, geography or language.
This is itself in line with sundry Qur'anic mandates, to wit: 48:29, 3:28, 5:51, etc.
Dereliction of duty, indeed. But watch for this willful ignoramus to get access aplenty should we fail to forestall an Obama administration.
"My piece was not about Powell's endorsement of this candidate"
I realize that - I was simply connecting the dots given the context of the interview and the rumors swirling around about Obama and his Muslim past; and I also realize that Obama does not claim to be a Muslim, but I DO think that Obama is very sympathetic to the Muslim cause. Combine that with Colin's lack of knowledge about the ideologies of Islam, and his endorsement of Obama, and now we have a recipe for a future disaster - which certainly is very plausable.
"My piece was not about Powell's endorsement of this candidate, or of that. It was about his presumption in impliedly speaking about something of great importance that he knows nothing about -- the ideology of Islam"
I'd say the two are closely related. In fact Hugh quotes Powell as saying specifically that he was turned off by McCain because of McCain seeming to be anti-Muslim, and therefore that was one of the major things causing him to support Obama. So we have Powell telling all of us that Obama will be better for the Muslims than McCain and the only conclusion we can draw from this is that Powell's ignorance of Islam as Hugh explains has to do with this. So why turn around and separate these two things when they were so well explained to be joined at the hip?
Hugh at his very best!
"... But the really right answer is 'What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?' The answer is 'No. That's not America.' Is there something wrong with some 7-year old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she can be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion he's a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America."
Powell is as hollow as a rusty bucket. He is as clueless as his token colleague Condolleeeeezzzza Rice who must be the laughing stock of all Arabs and Muslims wherever she went (and was snubbed)
Yes, there is something wrong with being Muslim and lying about it. Besides, there's this:
Can a Muslim be a good American?
Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon God of Arabia.
Religiously - no.. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)
Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).
Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).
Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of r eligion and _expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no. Because when we declare “one nation underGod,” the Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran’s 99 excellent
names.
Therefore after much study and deliberation….perhaps we should
be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be
both “good” Muslims and good Americans.
Call it what you wish….it’s still the truth.
Hugh
I agree with you that Powell is seriously wanting when it comes to his comprehension of Islam, as was demonstrated when he was Secretary of State. However, a part of me can't but chuckle at his being stabbed in the back by Powell. After all, McCain is the one who has often triangulated himself making Republicans look like troglodytes, be it the gang of 14, the 'torture' of Gitmo detainees, et al. His current misfortunes are a direct result of his moves on Campaign Finance Reform (CFR) - something that Bush and other mainstream Republicans are on record as opposing. Somehow, that aspect of the cause of his problems is one of the 'hoisted by own petard' cases.
No, all this betrayals couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. I'm now happier at McCain being the nominee, since I'd have hated seeing such a stab in the back of Romney, Giuliani or Thompson.
As for Powell's real achievements, they are purely race related - had he been a White born of White parents from Jamaica, there is no way he would have received the recognition that he always did.
So why turn around and separate these two things when they were so well explained to be joined at the hip?
Posted by: DenverRodeo
This is all I was trying to convey, too. I think most people understood that as well.
Earlier this year at lookingfromthebalcony.blogspot.com , I translated some interviews with Dr. Yusuf Qaradawi. Here was his response to one question:
Uthman: Some say that a non-Muslim could be head of state of a Muslim country, on the basis that the ruler represents the law or the constitution and not the individual.
Qaradawi: This also begs the question of whether the head of state has a religious function or not. We have civilian governments, but their authority is Islamic Shariah. Does a non-Muslim take recourse to Islamic Shariah or not? Ibn Khaldun and other early scholars said that the Khalifate combined the spiritual and the civilian sides of rule in one person. He was both the religious leader who led them in prayers in the mosque, and the temporal leader who guided the affairs of government. This is a sensitive matter in our day, because the leader stands as a symbol. You could have the head of state be a Muslim, and his chief deputy a non-Muslim.
...so, Dr. Qaradawi states that a non-Muslim could never be the head of state of a Muslim country, but our leaders glibly state they would have no problem with a Muslim leading America.
The US Department of State virus is obviously contagious and it is obviously a black thing. I can totally understand the black vote for black thing (right or wrong though it may be). Catching the US-DoS, aka foggy bottom, virus I cannot. Though given his political and diplomatic know how it might be by choice. I am still upset with the "diplomatic corps" for wussing out on duty in the Middle East. Of course all of us should be upset with US-DoS for having agendas alternate to any administration ever elected. DAMN unelected bureaucratic swine! (um sorry lost it there).
Lan astalem,
GoingThere
Not to bum everyone out but Powell is very good at working with event inertia (war and diplomacy nes pa?). Cry in your beer and munch on pork rinds while you can, chuckles...
Lan astalem,
GoingThere
The article and the comments go to show that there are people that have not discarded their rationality and their ability to think. I am comforted to see that there are such people still in existence. I will hold this thought close to my chest as a shield as we travel through this dark passage of time.
Therefore after much study and deliberation….perhaps we should
be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be
both “good” Muslims and good Americans.
Call it what you wish….it’s still the truth.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami
A very good summation. If I may, a suggested modifier to the last sentence:
Call it what you wish….it’s still the truth, and truth sometimes hurts.
You said Colin Powell indicated that "there is nothing wrong with Islam, nothing wrong with the ideology of Islam, nothing to be concerned about in Sharia supremacism, nothing wrong with the idea of a Muslim president. "
You are jumping to conclusions and lumping everything together that does not belong together. It is like saying the Ku Klux Klan represents Christianity and therefore all christians are bigoted and racist.
Well maybe you are, sounds like it, but the rest of us aren't.
There is nothing wrong as having a muslim as president any more than having a christian or jew as president. All three are Abrahamic faiths.
Me, I would prefer and feel much better having an atheist president, but that is just me.
"All three are Abrahamic faiths."
Posted by: veggiedude
You've made several assertions that I do not agree with, and may I suggest that you take advantage of the many informative links provided on JW to assist you in rethinking your position on a Muslim US President; but to this one comment in particular I would like to direct your attention to a link designed to prove why Allah is Not the God of the Bible.
"There are a number of major differences between the God of the Bible and Allah. This chapter will focus upon five reasons why they are not the same. According to the Holy Scriptures, the God of the Bible is the one true God while Allah is a false god."
Above excerpt taken from this link:
http://www.kingmessiahproject.com/is_allah_not_God.html
I would like to add a little bit to the mix.
First, Colin Powell was well known prior to his acquiescence in the Iraq war as formulating the Powell doctrine, which was that whenever US forces are committed they must go in with overwhelming force, and there must be a clearly defined mission, and a clearly defined strategy for withdrawal. At least two of the three conditions were absent from the Iraqi war, most I have talked to have mentioned Mr. Powells training as a soldier as being the reason that there was no open split, or resignation when the decision to go to war was made.
In any case Mr. Powells political star was dimmed greatly by his tenure as secretary of state, some have said that his role in the run up to Iraq 2 was made to actually sabotage any future political plans.
I am not privy to any personal thoughts that Powell may have about Islam or Mahometans, but I think most politicians are more apt to keep personal thoughts to themselves and when they speak to speak politically in such a way to conform to the days political correctness.
In regards to the old thing about three abrahamic religions, it should be known that God made a covenant with abraham but the practice of sacrifices predates the time of Abraham, therefore there is some confusion among many people about the distinction between the abrahamic covenant and the abrahamic religion.
The abrahamic covenant has to do with circumcision, and with Gods blessings for that, but Christianity does not hold with physical circumcision as much as Islam and Judaism do, Christianity has spiritualized the idea of circumcision more so than holding to circumcision as part of a religious ritual.
Oh please, Bush himself runs to a mosque or a sheik every two days to proclaim "Islam is Peace". Why should Powell be any different?
"Bush himself runs to a mosque or a sheik every two days to proclaim "Islam is Peace". Why should Powell be any different?"
-- from a posting above
Is that the standard we are now supposed to apply -- Bush at his wilfully ignorant nonsensical worst -- to others, such as Colin Powell, who presumes to instruct or rather scold us, with a tone of moral superiority, though the very things he is so quick to make pronouncements about require study of matters he not only has not studied, but does not even appear to grasp why such study might be necessary.
Why?
Cause Powell is retired. Why hasn't even Palin spoke out against Islamic jihad? Why doesn't Gen. Tommy Franks or Rummy speak out?
Don't be absurd.
Neocon Latina points out additional problems in a post entitled "Colin Powell's Bizarre Rant About Islam":
http://neoconlatina.blogspot.com/2008/10/colin-powells-bizarre-rant-about-obama.html
Actually, I haven't heard President Bush lately proclaim that Islam is a religion of peace and all that rubbish. Now, maybe someone knows of a statement of his here or there in the last two years or so which exonerates Islam, but he's not doing it nearly as much as he was, say, five years ago. He certainly doesn't run "to a mosque or a sheik every two days to proclaim 'Islam is peace.'" And nothing Bush has said recently compares to the idiotic statement by Powell that no one should care if an American President were a Muslim. I like to think Bush is beginning to get it about Islam. Hey, I can want proper understanding from our leaders, can't I? And for all those out there who think Bush is a rube, OK, who out there in the political arena and viable on the national stage is shrewder?
Hyperlink to Neocon Latina did not work last time. Trying it again:
http://neoconlatina.blogspot.com/2008/10/colin-powells-bizarre-rant-about-obama.html
Presidential Candidate’s background check:
Source:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org
Powell is indicative of the administration he served, albeit temporarily, under. He is ignorant of Islam, whether willfully or not is all that remains to be seen. His public comments belie just that.
Slightly OT:
Speaking of Powell's endorsement of Obama, it is clear that he is aligning with him based on racial identity first and foremost.
When you look for other examples of career Republicans who are coming out for Obama less than three weeks before the election and find none, there is no other logical conclusion in my estimation.
Picture as an alternative, a career white Republican coming out for a white Democratic presidential candidate in lieu of the African American Republican nominee and the results would be far from similar from the denizens of the corrupt MSM.
If I am compelled to vomit any more about the current state of affairs that the horribly biased MSM perpetuates through PC, I'd be diagnosed as bulimic.
Hugh, I don’t really your post. Powell makes the point that in this country we judge you as an individual, not as part of a group. Every American boy or girl could grow up to be president. You succeed or fail in the U.S. due to your own talents or lack thereof. We don’t say that because you belong to this ethnic group you cant be successful here, we don’t say that because of your religion you are banned from running for office. My understanding as a regular Jihad watch reader is that while only a true fool would try to generalize about Muslims (after all it is pretty hard to generalize about one billion people) that it is very different to say things about Islam. The general idea (which I subscribe to) is that there is numerous troubling things intrinsic to Islam, and that in many ways Islam is incompatible with our western democracy.
But I don’t see how you can interpret Powell’s remarks as some kind of blanket endorsement or whitewashing of Islam. He may very well be guilty of that, but it doesn’t flow from that comment. America welcomes immigrants of all religions and ethnic backgrounds (provided that they play by our rules, and as a regular reader I understand fully the argument that some [most?] Muslims don’t want to play by our rules and we should vigilantly make sure that they don’t get “special treatment”). But the heart of Powell’s comment is the essence of America: a future Muslim presidential candidate cannot be disqualified on that basis alone, we may hate or love him due to his/her policies, but not merely by his religion. For example, Catholics need no reminder how they suffered from Protestant fear of Catholic politicians being nothing more than robots for the Pope.
As a regular reader and supporter of the most of what I read here, and a liberal pro-Obama person, I read with amusement some of the comments, you guys really don’t taking losing very well do you? Well maybe you wont loose this election (highly unlikely), but in the event you do, allow this unsolicited advice: the other side, i.e. the democrats are not evil, not stupid, Obama is not the anti-Christ, etc. get used to be in powerless opposition, us democrats have been in the doghouse for 8 years, your turn!
"Hugh, I don’t really your post."
Posted by: esquared at October 20, 2008 10:08 PM
I know this is an obvious typo, because no one but an absolute moron would attempt to compose this as and pass it off as a sentence, but you are guilty of a most ignorant post nonetheless.
The criticism is by Hugh about Powell on his lack of comprehension of Islam and its main objective...world domination. It says nothing of left versus right or Democrat versus Republican.
The subsequent tone of the body of your comment only belies your general ignorance even further.
That you proclaim that you have suffered as a liberal democrat silently in the wings waiting, only reinforces my belief that voting rights in the US should be "refined", and your comment:
"Well maybe you wont loose {sic} this election (highly unlikely), but in the event you do, allow this unsolicited advice: the other side, i.e. the democrats are not evil, not stupid"...
That comment has done nothing to dissuade me otherwise. The {sic} was mine. I loathe people who can't spell "lose" correctly.
Regards.
1. Powell was not asked "would you have any worries about a Muslim becoming President of the United States." It is he who volunteered to state that he was offended by the very idea that there might, just might, be something worrisome, to non-Muslims, in the notion of a Muslim becoming President of the United States.
2. Powell is a public figure of some renown. There are those who find him impressive, or at least, there are those who keep passing on the notion, that the press helps keep alive, that Colin Powell is someone whom everyone "greatly respects" and this is repeated so often that it has become accepted, an idee recue. I don't see the evidence to support this, and I don't care to pass on what is in common currency if I suspect that common currency is counterfeit.
3. If Powell must pontificate about Muslims, then by god he'd better know something -- know a lot --about Islam. His assumption that the little he does know -- including what he thinks he knows because he has been so friendly with Prince Bandar -- offends. His belief -- akin to that of Bush -- that a) Islam is a "religion" and b) "religions" are Good Things and c) Islam is a Good Thing -- is the silliest of syllogisms because it goes astray at the very beginning, at a). Islam is not merely or even mainly a "religion" but is also, and dangerously, a politics and a geopolitics.
4. You talk about "religion" and "ethnic background" not mattering and "judging the individual." I reply: Islam is not merely a religion. It is an ideology that offers a Total Regulation of Everyday Life and a Complete Explanation of the Universe. It encourages the habit of mental submission. It stuns mental growth. It does harm to, preaches harm against, all non-Muslims. What else are we to make of an ideology that inculcates followers with the belief that they are superior to all non-Muslims, and that ultimately, they have a duty to make sure that Islam dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere?
if someone asks me if I have any objection to a Nazi, or a Communist, becoming President of the United States, I can reply without hesitation: yes. Islam carries with it a clear political progam: it divides the world between Believer and Infidel. It incuclates the notion of a permanent state of war (but not necessarily open warfare) existing between Believers and Infidels. It tells Muslims that the world is essentially divided between the lands where Islam dominates, and Muslims rule, and the lands where Infidels still dominate, and Muslims do not yet rule. It demands of Muslims that they take seriously a duty, central and not tangential, to engage in the "struggle" or Jihad to remove, everywhere, any conceivable obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam. The American Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, constitute such an obstacle.
Most non-Muslims who have educated themselves about Islam would have no trouble agreeing that were a Muslim to be in a position of powoer, to be President of this country, for example, as someone who continues to take Islam seriously and thus who believes in the beneficence and rightness of the Sharia, the Holy Law of Islam which flatly contradicts every important principle of the American Constitution, this wouuld be dangerous, this would be intolerable, this would be unacceptable.
In fact, let's expand on this: it would be just as unacceptable as would be a President who was the adherent of another Total Belief-System, one of those collectivist and hysterical faiths that, in the last unappetizing century, caused so much damage and destruction and death. Look across space and through time, at the history of Islamic conquest of vast lands once possessed by non-Muslims. Look what happened to those lands, and what happened to those non-Muslims. Like what you see? Impressed with what Islam has meant for art, for science, for intellectual activity and free and skeptical inquiry? Impressed?
I doubt it. But Muslims are taught that Islam will triumph. Like Nazis and Communists, they are taught, and many do believe, that world victory is eventually to be achived. Now most Infidels have no interest in achieving "world victory" over Muslims. We just want them to leave us alone, we want them to stay, and ideally stew, in their own lands, or the lands that they have made theirs so far -- but no farther.
I
We are trying only to save ourselves, not "remake the Middle East" for god's sake, or "remake Islam." Saving ourselves will mean we must work to divide and demoralize and weaken the Camp of Islam, but that can be achieved mostly by not doing things, not by doing them -- as long as enough of us learn about the contents of Islam, and about the behavior of Muslims over the past 1350 years , from Spain to the East Indies. It is possible to reduce Muslim financial power (obtained through the sale of oil and gas) by diiminishing the use of oil; that has to be done in any case, for quite other reasons.
The most important thing is education: Infidels have to educate themselves, or allow themselves to be educated by others, about the nature of Islam, so that they can no longer be fooled. And if large numbers of Infidels firmly grasp the connection between Islam and the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Muslim states and societies, and do not hide this understanding, this will force at least some Muslims to begin to recognzie, however unwillingly, the same truth. And that will start them thinking. And when people start thinking, all kinds of good things can happen.
You describe this website is partisan. Really? Did you not notice, even at this very threat, the contempt dripping for the ignorance about Islam of the current, Republican President? Have you not seen article after article at this site -- hundreds of articles -- deploring his "war on terror" as it is currently being waged, and deploring not only what he and his Administration have done, so ineffectively, but what things they have failed to recognize as far more dangerous weapons than terrorism (Dawa, demographic conqueset, and the Money Weapon).
You must, in your haste, have confused this site with other sites, the ones full of Administratoin loyalists. You are not the only one, merely the most recent, to have made this widespread error.
A future Muslim presidential candidate cannot be disqualified on that basis alone? Why not? Would this be said about a Communist presidential candidate? About a neo-Nazi presidential candidate? Islam, as Bertrand Russell (a real Leftist by the way) knew only too well, is the sole major faith which is totalitarian in structure and ideology. No follower of any totalitarian belief system, be it fascism, Marxism or Islam, I would hope, would ever be a viable presidential candidate. And not to question such an individual FOR THIS VERY REASON ALONE would be an abnegation on its face of common sense and patriotism.
unfortunately, the whole muslim thing mr powell is referring to initated from clinton's campaign. I've never heard anyone in the McCain camp raise that suggestion or bring it up. therefore Ican't accept this as a viable reason from powell. he is free to believe and endorse whomever he wishes, I just don't find the reasons he gave entirely credible
Posted by: Wellington at October 20, 2008 10:52 PM
Agreed, 100%.
ESQUARED: "Powell makes the point that in this country we judge you as an individual, not as part of a group."
Not according to the multicultural ethos.
Excellent essay, Hugh. A related post by Debbie Schlussel, reprised from April 2001 and appearing Monday, October 20, can be found at debbieschlussel.com. Highly recommended.
"Like Kissinger, whose mitteleuropa accent, has (deliberately?) deepened with time, as if to give him a strausz-huppe, fred-ikle, metternich-und-bismarck-und-so-weiter profundity as geostrategist that Kissinger never really possessed…"
Hugh, you belong in Shakespeare's league!
While I agree with you on Powell's continued ignorance of Islam and the poor example he sets, I cannot hold him responsible for the false information in his UN testimony about Iraqi WMDs; he had the same Intel as Bush and Cheney and the US Congress, all of whom accepted and acted upon the CIA intelligence of "slam dunk" George Tenet and his underlings on the existence of WMDs.
As for a Muslim president, that would be impossible to ever accept, inasmuch as he would be required by Islam to toss out the Constitution and impose the prison of Sharia law on America. We are taking extreme risks with our freedom in not bringing the interior jihad threatunder permanent political control. A Muslim presidency would throw the US back to the 7th Century culture of Mohammed, complete with Muslim dress, beards, stoning, hand and head chopping and enslavement of women.
The Founders really never anticipated that descendants of the Mediterranean Islamo-pirates that harassed our trading ships would grow within our very borders to become an internal threat to our freedoms, no less by invoking the First Amendment of the Constitution to protect their subversive aims by masquerading as a religion. Clearly, the case of Islam begs for a law by Congress barring members of that sect from any government positions and any further immigration. However Congress cannot do that under the present Constitution. This is a stranglehold threat on our freedom that must be overcome.
It is clear we must re-amend the Constitution to prevent further subversive advances by this group which has unequivocally announced its intention to overthrow our government and impose Sharia Law.
From post above: But the heart of Powell’s comment is the essence of America: a future Muslim presidential candidate cannot be disqualified on that basis alone, we may hate or love him due to his/her policies, but not merely by his religion.
That's true. But it is a problem that needs fixing. Here's the tough fixes. (Some anyway).
Tough: Stop and reverse Mohammadan immigration.
Tough: Weed out deport 'undesirables'.
Tough: Revoke Islams tax exempt religious status.
Tough: Change Islams status from religion,
to 'hostile political entity'.
Tough: Ban Islam.
Tough: Deny Mohammadans government jobs or
any power position.
Tough: Deny Mohammadans the right to vote in
any election.
Tough: Make no concessions to Mohammadans at all..
But tough is no longer the American way. Or at least the weak kneed have turned it into something unrecognizable. It's better to wring your hands and whine a lot, and put your faith in a new Messiah.
'Abandon tough, oh yea who enter here'.
That's the new sign going up over the door to the Oval Office.
If McCain is elected, he will paint over that sign with tough sounding graffiti...Vote McCain, tough is not quite dead yet...
Aye, Jimmy Bones and duh_swami, good DREAMS all!
But ‘afore the dreams can come true – ya gotta define the enemy!
NO PROGRESS WILL BE CREATED ‘TILL MUHAMMAD IS REVEALED!
DEUS VULT!
Dershowitz and Powell - A Study in Betrayal
by
Mladen Andrijasevic
What do Alan Dershowitz and Colin Powell have in common? Apparently, neither of them know much about the Mahdi , the hidden Twelfth Imam whose return will be triggered, the mullahs are convinced, by the destruction of the Jews through a nuclear war. This is the very reason why Ahmadinejad is not like Stalin, Khruschev, Brezhnev or Mao; he harbors a cataclysmic fantasy. The same reason why Iran will very likely become a nuclear suicide bomber once it gets the bomb. And let's be clear, it is not only Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Rafsanjani said on December 14, 2001: "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world."
Amil Imani in a recent article wrote that Ahmadinejad "believes that this earthly life is passing and worthless in comparison to the afterlife awaiting a devoted and faithful believer. Hence, he holds to the old belief that if a faithful kills an infidel, he goes to Allah's paradise; and, if the faithful gets killed in the process of serving the faith, again he goes to Allah's paradise. Hence, it is a win-win proposition for the faithful."
Alan Dershowitz says that Obama is a strong supporter of Israel – despite the fact that Mr Dershowitz strongly denounces Carter on his Israel policies while Zbigniew Brzezinski who is Obama's advisor defends Carter and his policies on Israel. Since Dershowitz himself has been a strong supporter of Israel how can he say the same of someone who takes an advisor whose policies on Israel Dershowitz completely disagrees with?
Does this mean by implication that Dershowitz's revulsion over the Republicans takes precedence over his concern for the safety and security of Israel – and America?
Colin Powell says that Obama is a "transformational" figure who would "electrify our country . . . [and] the world." Does he mean by that permitting Ahmadinejad to start a nuclear war with Israel? For that is bound to happen if Obama comes to power and Israel does not destroy the Iranian nuclear sites in time.
McCain understands that talking to Iran now is pointless, just like talking to Hitler at Munich was. Obama does not get it. So why did Colin Powell throw his support behind a person he knows has much less experience to handle Iran than McCain? Race first.
Personally I am disappointed with both men. To be ignorant of the real fundamentalist Iranian threat is not an option in the world theater. Yet these men of extraordinary insight and experience, choose ignorance of the Iranian threat to obfuscate their own better judgment, and a judgment that has life or death consequences. Ignoring the religious rhetoric and absolute belief of Islam betrays their true priorities – that ideology and race trump the well-being of their country and countrymen.
The "elites" of the West are clueless, and nonetheless more smug and glib than anyone should have to put up with. In many ways, Joe Biden personifies this on a daily basis, but Powell gets the award for Sunday.
How did the West become so leaderless?
When the Soviets infected us with all of that internal anti-American meme's they really did a number on us.
Powell's presentation was a totally incoherent statement from one of the architects of Bush's "bring democracy to Muslims" quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan. How does he know the extent of the Obama-Ayers relationship when no one else really seems to know it? Obama is a Christian; but what kind of church does he belong to? A Black liberation theology, America-hating, anti-Semitic church allied with Farrakhan's Islamic cult. McCain, a man who has connived with Kennedy and Feingold, the best friend of John Kerry, who has in the past received high praise from Obama's running mate is the candidate of "right wing extremists" who have taken over the party? Give me a break. Powell is, and always has been a liberal, he gives himself away with his remarks about how it would be OK for a real Muslim to be president. Now Powell is a bright and capable soldier and competent diplomat. But make no mistake about it; his advancement to such heights was due to affrimative action practiced by Republicans from Reagan onward. Now he turns against them and against his fellow veteran McCain. I think we can all guess the real reason for that.
BTW why does Powell's endorsement receive such attention in the mainstream media while McCain's endorsement by Al Gore's own running mate has received no emphasis? Could it be the old media double standard at work?
Posted by: Wellington at October 20, 2008 10:52 PM
There's a difference between being "disqualified" and being "viable". Arnold Schwarzenegger may be viable but he is also disqualified because he wasn't born in the US. The word "disqualified" in this context connotes a legal definition, which doesn't exist even for a Muslim candidate. Al Smith's defeat didn't render Catholics ineligible for the office of president.
When articles of impeachment were drawn up against Richard Nixon, one congressman, when asked, said impeachable offenses are "whatever we say they are". Voters have a similar prerogative of deciding what renders someone "qualified" to be president.
It may be splitting hairs but that is what happens in our political discourse. As I see it, the "qualifications" for becoming president are laid out in Article 2 of the Constitution. Most of us are qualified. Voters choose between two or more qualified candidates.
Why couldn't a Communist or a Muslim serve as president, so long as he or she was able to uphold the oath of office? To say they're not politically viable is something else. They may be incapable of serving but that is by their own choice. They are still qualified to serve.
PMK: I would argue that no Communist or Muslim could uphold the Presidential oath of office without betraying their Marxist or Islamic principles respectively since in each case such principles are replete with totalitarian elements. Thus it could be asked what's the point of their being Communist or Muslim? If not prepared to betray Marxist or Islamic principles, then deceit would be concomitant with the taking of the oath, a horrible prospect to consider. As for "viable" versus "qualified," I concede your point but meant the latter term in a looser, non-legal way.
"For example, Catholics need no reminder how they suffered from Protestant fear of Catholic politicians being nothing more than robots for the Pope."
esquared at October 20, 2008 10:08 PM
You must be referring to the election of 1960, when there were questions about John Kennedy's possible loyalty to the Pope rather than to the U.S. Constitution. This is a valid point. But Kennedy recognized the problem, and to allay concerns among some voters addressed the issue head on before the election.
Obama needs to do the same. He needs to come out with a very clear statement, in no uncertain terms that, despite fears to the contrary, unfounded as he thinks they might be, he is sworn to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and he is prepared to do that.
But Obama needs to go beyond this, because the issue about Islam is qualitatively different than the issue about Catholicism that Kennedy faced. Catholicism didn't threaten the core values of Western civilization, so Kennedy only needed to assure voters that his religion is a private matter and would not interfere with his primary responsibility to uphold the Constitution and defend the country.
The U.S. Constitution is the distillation of the best thinking about political organization to have emerged during the long history of the West. However, Islam has a 1300 year history of attacking and trying to conquer the West to impose its own view of how society should be organized. A central tenet of Islam is the primacy of shariah law, which would supplant the Constitution in the U.S.. Shariah law and Constitutional law are incompatible at a fundamental level. All readers of history and students of religion know this, although many of our politicians do not seem to understand it. It is this understanding of history, as well as the ongoing outrageous events we see played out daily in the Muslim world, that underlies our concerns about a president with Muslim sympathies.
So there is a BIG difference between the problem faced by Kennedy and the problem facing Obama. Obama therfore needs to go further than Kennedy in reassuring America about his presidency and not just issue some platitudes. He needs to directly address the real worry that underlies many people's concerns about him, that he harbors sympathies toward Islam that would allow sharia laws to slip into America, as they are doing in Europe, thereby undermining our constitutional separation of church (or mosque/synagogue/temple) and state, and which would otherwise allow importation of truly objectionable Muslim practices such as polygamy, child/women abuse, honor killings, and aggressive disrespect for other religions into America. These are not merely matters of theological differences among "Abrahamic faiths." They go way beyond that and strike at the heart of what it means to be civilized.
Americans aren't stupid. We can see with our own eyes the horrible things done in Islamic societies that are excused on the basis of the qur'an and shariah law. It is these practices that Americans don't want to see gain a foothold in this country. Obama needs to stop ducking the issue and address these concerns we have, candidly and forthrightly. And dismissing them as being those of "racists" or paranoid "Islmaphobes" won't cut it. If he wants our vote he needs to address the issue, not insult our intelligence.
JSobieski
so the communist still control our minds without our knowledge, from the grave no less?