What's even more frightenng than Islamnia is the politicians who seem to know absolutely nothing about what they are talking about. It's unbelievable that they would ever downplay the Terrorist threat to further their own political agenda.

Washington needs a serious education.

Posted by: MoBlows at May 23, 2007 2:14 PM

Edwards, plain and simple, is an out-and-out nutter. He, like most of his comrades, is residing within a bubble within a bubble. God help us if this venomous, reptilian wank ever gets the opportunity to lead this nation. Obviously, he, as do numerous of his comrades and fellow Islamists, believes Bush and a few confederates pulled off 9/11.
One, of this view, is either a nutter, a traitor or both; frankly, Edwards is all of the aforementioned and more.

Posted by: Misanthrope at May 23, 2007 2:15 PM

I guess I'm one of those who don't particularly like the term "War On Terror", even though the threat from terrorists is very real, and won't go away because we change our terminology.

Edwards called the war on terror a "bumper sticker" slogan Bush had used to justify everything from abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison to the invasion of Iraq.

Excuse me, Mr. Edwards, but when did Bush "justify" the abuses at Abu Ghraib? Didn't he instead apologize for them? Haven't the perpetrators been tried and punished?

And what does the phrase "everything from abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison to the invasion of Iraq" mean? I thought that holding prisoners at Abu Ghraib was part of the invasion.

Edwards seems to have forgotten that the justification for invading Iraq involved 3 main points - WMD, Saddam's support for terrorists, and Saddam's abuse of the Iraqi people (such abuse alone being considered a justification for war that was sufficient for most Democrats when Bill Clinton bombed Serbia). Well, I guess remembering one out three ain't bad.

Posted by: Bigfoot at May 23, 2007 2:15 PM

Edwards sez:

"We need . . . a military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats . . . ."

This means: "We need a military that looks and acts like a police force with firefighters attached."

While our police begin to look more and more like military, with the same equipment (only black instead of camo), our military is being trained to act more and more like police. Soldiers have to call their supervisors, hold their fire until they get permission to shoot back, consult with lawyers, treat prisoners like arrestees, and clear buildngs like New York City detectives.

Firefighters and other non-police "first responders" are the new heroes of the left, because they RESCUE people (i.e., victims) but don't have any guns.

The left cannot and will not understand that we are engaged in a real war with real killers. If we capture one of those killers, the left wants them treated like common criminals. One of the real problems with that approach is that liberals/leftists are never hard on crime or criminals (except price-gouging, waste dumping, and whale endangering).

Alas! We had better stock up.
http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=416922

Posted by: texan at May 23, 2007 2:23 PM

Sorry, but Edward is not that much off the track. 'War on terror' is as useless as 'war on blitzkrieg'. Is is a tactic, not a cause. To fight the no 1 source of terror, the US would have to go to Saudi Arabia. But there is no intelligence about SA whatsoever, because it is an 'ally'. Just today i read an articel about the US being the greatest seller of arms around the world. Now they want to sell another 100 airfighters to Turkey:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/05/24/pda/opinion_30035027.html
The US is constantly feeding the monster, it pretends to fight. The reason: money.

Posted by: Swissy at May 23, 2007 2:25 PM

Edwards is spot on with this point:

Edwards called the war on terror a "bumper sticker" slogan...

George Bush's war on terror is a joke.Bush has never identified the enemy. We don't know who or what we are fighting. 99% of Americans don't know the difference between Shiites and Sunnis. 99% of Americans don't know the difference between Iraq and Iraq. 99% of Americans could not tell you the name of the political party in Iraq that we are spilling blood and treasure to defend: The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution. Bush has called Islam a religion of peace. Bush has tied our hands from restraining Iran. Bush is bringing more Muhammadans into the U.S. than any President in history and it will get far, far worse.

Fighting a civil war in Iraq and pretending to be on the side of the good guys, the muslim good guys (that's a laugh and a half)...90 billion just to keep this joke going to September...

"We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes," Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery. "By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set—that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam."

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 23, 2007 2:30 PM

Edwards: Move Past 'War on Terror'

I hope the American voter has the good sense to move past Edwards.

Posted by: rational at May 23, 2007 2:31 PM

Baghdad Assyrian District Emptied; Churches, Monasteries Abandoned

Sharia law instituted in Iraq

Jewish rights, womens' rights abrogated

Hey Yankee,

Your tax dollars at work!

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 23, 2007 2:42 PM

All that hairspray has apparently gone to Edwards' brain.

Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at May 23, 2007 2:42 PM

Edwards: "We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes,"

How true, we need that, and as soon as Islam can be defeated, we can hav it!

Posted by: sounder at May 23, 2007 2:43 PM

It is hard to make the Bush Administration look good. Edwards is doing it. He's out, or should be.

Posted by: Hugh at May 23, 2007 2:45 PM

Either Edwards is mostly correct or Hugh Fitzgerald is mostly wrong.

I wouldn't bet against Hugh Fitzgerald.

All Edwards is saying is that Bush has as much clarity of vision as Mr. McGoo!

Bush walked into tarbaby iraq not even knowing the difference between Iraq and Iran. The high-and-dry, former alcoholic running our country was recorded as saying that there might "not be any casualties" from his invasion of Iraq.

You see God so loves George Bush (because he gave up his drinking)that he...

that he...

...forgot what I was going to say

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 23, 2007 2:49 PM

Hugh, he ain't saying anything you haven't (or I haven't) said before. Maybe Edwards isn't articulating islamophobia enough to satisfy us watchers, but is he not right in calling for: a "post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats..."

Since we know we can't completely kill off the beast of Islam, for God's sake,let us defend ourselves from it!

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 23, 2007 2:53 PM

ynkedoodle2:

You couldn't be more wrong.

Do you wish to see the United States destroyed? Do you truly wish to see the western democracies overrun by a primnitive, bloodthirsty ideology that enslaves and terrorizes millions of people and leaves them trapped in a standard of living from the sixth century? If you answered yes to any of the above, ignoring the threat posed by Islam, its jihad warfare, and its imperialistic and deception-based war strategies in the world today would be an excellent way to accomplish this!

Bush DID in fact identify the enemy: 'islamo-fascism' (perhaps ineffectually,as has often been the case with his presidency). The reason Bush wasn't more complete in his definition of the enemy in the war on terror (and come out into the open and label it 'Islam' which it clearly is), is because even the leader of the free does not possess sufficient leverage to openly attack Islam for what it is-- it is too strongly worldwide established at this point in history for that.

Encase you didn't know it, the US Democratic Party is receiving money from mosques and paralyzing our political system, to Islam's advantage.

The message I get from you (and Edwards and other liberals) is something like : "God help anyone who attempts to defend the world from Islamic terror."

I am tempted to list YOU and other DEMOCRATS pushing a 'see no evil' approach as the "enemy."

The jihad war against the western democracies is real. If you don't see it, that's your problem and not ours or Bush's.

As for Edwards, the man is an idiot-- blood will tell.

Posted by: pythagoras at May 23, 2007 3:00 PM

Edwards is most definitely more clueless than even Hillary and Obama.

Posted by: Cornelius at May 23, 2007 3:00 PM

Hate to say it but Edwards is mostly very correct for all the reasons Ynkedoodl2 listed above.

The "war" on "terror" is a complete crock of s***.

Why can I literally walk down the block 5 1/2 years after 9/11 and visit a half dozen muslim terror mosques. REAL terror mosques. Why are there hundreds of full-on jihadis here who are fearless of the government and will soon be granted amnesty by same? Why is the jihadi population exploding?

Why do so called "intelligence" agencies and federal "counter terrorism" agencies (projectile vomit) always take the time to insist that the terrorists are peace-loving and only a few bad apples are criminals, not terrorists?

"War" on "terror" ? I haven't seen or heard a bigger crock my entire life.

Were there a real war on the satanic cult of death, we would win it in two minutes.

Posted by: Arm A. Geddon at May 23, 2007 3:04 PM

In a defense policy speech he planned to deliver at the Council on Foreign Relations.

The same organization that contributed so terribly much to landing us into this mess in the first place.

The CFR audience sure to be pleased to find out from John Edwards-the-ambulance chaser that they, as Arabists, haven't done anything wrong, really, just a big misunderstanding is all, and mostly caused by others.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 23, 2007 3:08 PM

Lets face the facts. Democrats are not even able to use the verbage needed to describe the situation we are in. It is much easier for them to claim the situation does not even exist. The only potential canidate at this point that is able to put together the proper verbage is Tom Tankrado. Some others on the Republican side are able to put some interesting scentences together, but the entirety, context and historical understanding isn't there. In my oppinion the Democrats will not be able to win this upcomming election unless they can manage to change the verbage a bit. Unfortuantly I doubt we are ready for a Tankredo yet, but it is a sure win for the Republicans. Tankredo is the closest thing we have to a Sarkozy. The bright side to all of this is that people are starting to get it. I coach soccer and at the party for our last game this subject of Islam and all its ramifications was an intersting side bar to the event. People know what time it is right and left, at this point people seem to be just waiting for the next big one. Some in the media are comming down hard on Robert for being a modern day Paul Revere. Let me pose this question. When societies are at war, do they use a fine paint brush, or a large one to resolve crisis and define enemies? Go the next step think about it. Does it really matter what any of us advocates as a "solution". We will do what is needed to survive. Large paint brushes always make mistakes, but they get the job done. When we are finally fed up we'll see a new scene one without too much detail ... broad even easy to understand strokes which will lead to "solutions".

Posted by: Ameriki at May 23, 2007 3:09 PM

The "global war on terror," ... (is)... an ideological doctrine advanced by the Bush administration that has strained American military resources and emboldened terrorists..

Is that so?

"We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes," Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery.

Errrr, uhhhh, oooo-kay, sounds good so far.

"By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set—that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam."

But if the war on terror is just an "ideological doctrine advanced by the Bush administration" then how is it that there are "terrorist traps" set?

Mr. Edwards, I believe Mr. Bush is a traitor!

I have reason to believe from Mr. Bush's performance in office, that he is incompetent as Commander-In-Chief; (and I don't respect a man that has someone barge into someone else's hospital room to force them to sign papers as Bush had Gonzalles do to Ashcroft -- but that's another topic).

You however Mr. edwards, are A NUT!

SHUT YOUR YAP MR. eDWARDS, before some one actually hears your STUPIDITY AND MISTAKENLY BELIEVES THE REST OF US ARE AS STUPID AS YOU ARE!

As LOUSY as bush is -- and he is a dispicable human being in my book -- bush is better (gawd I can't believe I'm saying this) that YOU will EVER BE!

Choke! Cough! Cough! GAG!

See what you made me do imbecile!

Posted by: witness at May 23, 2007 3:12 PM

pythagoras

I ain't a democrat!
If I'm soft on Islam then you're married to Muhammad.

If you think that destroying the secular nation of Iraq with its Don Corleone inspired anti-Islamist leader Saddam Hussein (the greatest Arab enemy of Islamic theocracy) and replacing it with an Iranian puppet state ruled by Shia theocrats (Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution) is called progress in the war to defend ourselves against the Best of Islam, you've got your head straight up your ass. Bush is a fool and the father of fools like you who believe that because he's a Republican he can do no wrong.

Actually, Bush can do no right.
Terror, my friend, is a tactic. There's no such thing as a war against terror. Any good warrior will use terror whenever necessary.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 23, 2007 3:15 PM

"They are not actors of themselves. They can only react to our provocations."

Tim Blair calls this the "reactive life-form theory," and that Muslims are percived as "terrorist-forming insects."

This is the key to understanding the unholy alliance between left wing socialists and radical Islam.

Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at May 23, 2007 3:16 PM

Arm A. Geddon;

Do you mean to tell us that we should NOT be fighting against the global jihad in order to defeat it? Or are you telling there is no global jihad? If so, we could laugh you off this blog all the way to the Middle East.

Bush hasn't done enough to rid the world of Islamic terror. There is no question of that. There is also the problem of Bush never having reeived the support internationally to successfully launch a war on terror (which would not be his fault).

But that does NOT mean YankeeDoodle2 is correct in any way! Nor does that mean your jumping on this bandwagon has any merit--it doesn't.

What this means is America has to work harder on counter-terrorism. And garnering the worldwide support needed to defeat jihad.

There was an excellent article in "FOREIGN AFFAIRS" magazine recently that in fact cited Bush's policies in Southeast Asia as in fact having been quite successful. So it hasn't all been a crock of sh*t--your claims to the contrary.

Posted by: pythagoras at May 23, 2007 3:17 PM

Er well guys, I have a bit of sympathry with this statement, despite being the committed anti-Islamist I am.

Bush did fall into the trap. 9/11 was intended as a trap to embroil the USA into an anti-Jihad war - yes a western Crusade. And that's just what happened.

The world was fully behind the USA after 9/11, well certainly the whole of the west, and a proper intergovernmental counter terrorist organisation formed, but the Bush administration went wading into Afghanistan.

That would have been fine if Afghanistan had been finished before we went into Iraq, but it wasn't.

If the job on Afghanistan had been completed with both NATO and the UN backing it, a proper coalition would have been set up with full UN backing again, to tackle insurgents elsewhere in the world.

My assessment is that Bush (well Cheney and Rumsfeld really) allowed themselves to be led into a hasty war.

Posted by: Al.R.O'Ackbar at May 23, 2007 3:18 PM

yankeeDoodle:

You muight as well be soft on Islam my friend.

Because you won't do anything about it.

So go ahead and marry Muhammad for all I care.

Posted by: pythagoras at May 23, 2007 3:19 PM

I meant to write - and a proper intergovernmental counter terrorist organisation could have been formed

Posted by: Al.R.O'Ackbar at May 23, 2007 3:20 PM

Excuse my language and I usually do not post foul language but Edwards is one silly a*s SOB. Nothing more can be said.

Posted by: TheRegulator at May 23, 2007 3:22 PM

Robert,

Allahpundit at Hot Air found this little historical flashback.

Posted by: Bigfoot at May 23, 2007 3:22 PM

Hey Pythagoras

Answer the following question. I beg you.

What is name of the political party in Iraq that the United States is allied with and what is the name of their spiritual leader?

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 23, 2007 3:24 PM

I'm not soft on Islam my friend yankeedoodle. A real international anti Islamist-insurgent coalition could have been assembled.

Please explain how you are combating Islam?

Posted by: Al.R.O'Ackbar at May 23, 2007 3:24 PM

pythagoras:

Here's what I won't do to fight Islam:

I won't waste money, time or blood to educate Muslims to adopt our way of life, to be just like us.

I won't waste money, time or blood, trying to referee a conflict between the different sects of Islam that has been going on for 1400 years.

Let them fight each other for another 1000 years.
As Shakespeare's Richard III so pithily stated: "Shall I be plain? I wish the bastards dead"

You obviously think that Iraq is mostly composed of "ordinary moms and dads like us," good, decent, tolerant people who just need the U.S. armed forces to sweep away the bad element.

You are a complete ignoramus! You think you can change the zebra's stripes, spew sugar on the bottled spider.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 23, 2007 3:35 PM

Sorry Yankee - I shoud've been addressing pythagous - er who was addressing you not me.

I'll get my coat

Posted by: Al.R.O'Ackbar at May 23, 2007 3:37 PM

pythagoras,

When there is a Real War against the satanic cult of death, everyone will know it and there won't be any insane, mindless phrases like "war on terror" and "hijacked religion."

Posted by: Arm A. Geddon at May 23, 2007 3:37 PM

A real international anti Islamist-insurgent coalition could have been assembled.

Excuse me?
Which international countries would be joining? Canada? France? Brazil? Luxemborg?

and once assembled, they would do what?
=========
You asked what I'm doing to combat Islam?

The answer is I am educating myself and educating others. I also show up for every anti-Islam demonstration within 150 miles of my home. I have volunteered my time and services to UAC. I'm always looking for new ways to get the message out.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 23, 2007 3:41 PM

Objection to the misleading and idiotic phrase "war on terror" is fine. Wishing to avoid the runaway-train aspect of the continued campaign, for goals both unattainable and wrong (the very opposite of those that should be wished for in Iraq, if the goal is to weaken the Camp of Islam) is fine. Denouncing the Bush Administration for the squandering of men, money, materiel, and damaging military and civilian morale, is fine.

But what isn't fine, and isn't fine to such a degree as to outweigh all that so far can be described as fine, is that business at the very end:

"By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set—that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam."

That isn't fine. For there is a war. It is s a war that goes beyond mere terrorism, for the goals of many who do not actively participate in terrorism, but support or justify it, remain those of the classic Jihad, which is a doctrine that does not date, that fell into desuetude not as a reflection of doctrinal change (the Qur'an is immutable, the ascription of levels of authenticity to the Hadith by the most authoritatve muhaddithin cannot change, the details of Muhammad's life are not to be tampered with, just to come out with a less disturbing and dangerous result).

There is a war, waged by Islam on everything non-Muslim, and it is clear in the texts of Islam, and in the history of Islamic conquests, over the past 1350 years. If Edwards wishes to replace the ignorance and arrogance of Bush with his own ignorance and arrogance, possibly even more dangerous in the end, where would that leave us?

Perhaps the endorsement of Edwards by Carter was more telling than one wished, or allowed oneself, to believe.

Posted by: Hugh at May 23, 2007 3:41 PM

I marvel at the way people here beat up on the Bush Administration as bad as al Qaeda does and never equate what it means.

There have been ZERO al Qaeda deaths in the United States since 9 11. Somehow this has no meaning on this site and for certain people posting here. All they can do is take cheap shots at the United States government who has kept them safe. A grain of sand appreciation would be at least cordial instead of acting like the Iraqi mobs complaining they are now free to complain.

One would think someone would be thankful that we are not burying American civilians here, not being like in Tel Aviv worried a car parked near a doorway might be loaded with bombs and America's biggest concern right now is a Pew poll on Muslims.

Americans have had it too good obviously and 9 11 meant nothing to them as a whole in George Bush has made it look so easy that all they have time to do is nitpick about their ideas of perfection.

Some advice to the chronic attackers, "There are things called petitions you can sign with your name on them to run for office....if your ideas are so great people will sign them in millions and then you can go to Washington and teach all of us how great things will be under your leadership."

Oooopppppsss though, getting out of Iraq policy now has more US and Iraqi people getting killed daily, Iran pouring in money and bombs into Iraq, Russian now becoming more beligerant as it has learned Americans have no staying power and al Qaeda planning deaths now in attacks of several hundred thousand at once.
Not such a great policy and policies which even make the Breck Girl Edwards look intelligent.

For the record on CFR Edwards, the Clintonista regime tried arresting terrorists and it got Americans murdered, Bill Clinton signing off that 100 murdered Americans a year due to terrorism was acceptable and 9 11.......all from withdrawing from another Muslim nation called Somalia by Les Aspen.

Apparently not many here have figured out yet what pulling out of Iraq has already espoused and the devil child which is about to turn loose on the world a thousand times worse than 9 11.

The petition awaits complainers. Run for office as you have better answers which will start weapons of mass destruction to be used. Allow Americans to vote on your policy and if they want your answers in killing millions of innocent Americans.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at May 23, 2007 3:41 PM

"George Bush's war on terror is a joke.Bush has never identified the enemy." from a posting above.

He did and he did not.

'Islamofascism' is as far as he went. On another occasion he said that Muslim 'fanatics' want a global caliphate, but then he backed off. Because his minders told him that 'we can't fight five gazillion Muhammedans who are all law abiding citizens who all want the same thing and who are mom's and dad's..."

Unfortunately GWB is not the brightest buld in the chandelier. Neither was his father. But when you look at the other side, the far side,- then you realized that Bush is gold when compared with nutroots like Edwards and the boy who rides on the color ticket: Obama.

Tancredo or Giuliani, what's the word?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 23, 2007 3:43 PM

Assalamau Laikum all,

I don't know Mr. Edwards ...but already I am starting to like him. This is not because he doesn't want peace & security for the Amerike....clearly he loves his country.

But come on peoples, why blame him...look at the track record of the Amerike since 9/11. Has the common joe become more vigilant, has he trained and become more learned on the threats surrounding him...I mean hardly.

The Amerike will become wuslim not because of Mr. Edwards....it will be because of your own apthy twinned with a lack of faith...and that's a deadly combination.

Christianity is fast becomeing a flash in the pan in the Amerike...you need new beliefs ...a new lord of you will...Allah SWT.

He is most merciful to his believers ...when the right time comes the minority kaffur who resists will have guntanamo to look forward to.

Stop taking it out on edwards...you have to concentrate on your prayers....1st one at 5am...loudspeaker assisted....enjoy!

Posted by: Naseem at May 23, 2007 3:44 PM

Hugh says:

"There is a war, waged by Islam on everything non-Muslim, and it is clear in the texts of Islam, and in the history of Islamic conquests, over the past 1350 years."

RIGHT ON!!!!

But it's their war against us!!!!
It's Islam's war against the West!
It's Islam's war against Jews, Chrstians, and the Rest.

IT'S NOT OUR WAR.

Massive military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are not a war on Islam, they are a public-relations disaster and a huge waste of resources.

We need a tactical response, a defense. More than anything we need to educate our population about the evil of Islam and remove it from the body politic since it is impossible to diferentiate a Muslim (for identification purposes only) with a true-believer.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 23, 2007 3:51 PM

@naseem

We are kafurs.

GO AWAY. ALLAH IS NOT PLEASED WITH YOU FOR SPEAKING WITH US! AND VERILY ALLAH SEE ALL.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 23, 2007 3:56 PM

Since we are making cartoon comparisons and Bush is Magoo, a hapless blind guy who gets lucky a lot. Then I say Edwards is Elmer Fudd, a hapless moron who falls for (or panders to) any old rabbit trick he stumbles across. When given the choice, I will take Magoo over Fudd every time, but Magoo is not running, well at least not bushmagoo.

Posted by: tgusa at May 23, 2007 3:59 PM

Bush is more like Elmer Magoo.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 23, 2007 4:01 PM

Naseem when the "solution" to our problem is found it will be easy to understand and define. The implimentation will lack fine details ... consumable for a mass audience.

Posted by: Ameriki at May 23, 2007 4:01 PM

lame writes:

"There have been ZERO al Qaeda deaths in the United States since 9 11."

lame,
al-Queda is irrelavant. There have been all kinds of Jihadi attacks in the U.S.A. since 9-11. Bush's Follies have made things worse, not better. But that's not why I oppose Bush's Follies. They are irrelevant to the problem.

@phythagoras

I'm still waiting for your answer. You are showing your ignorance.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 23, 2007 4:05 PM

Here is the problem we have:

The left thinks it is poverty, misunderstanding of culture or support of Israel that have led us to where we are now. They have convinced themselves it is a law enforcement problem of a few "radicals" or "criminals". That if we give them the "Carter Treatment" everything will be ok.

This sums of the lefts view of this conflict when Edwards states:

"By (Bush) framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set—that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam."

I am no fan of Bush as you can tell by my various comments on his failure as a president but perhaps the one thing he did do right was stating that this is a war not something we need to handle with the world court. It is a military and culture conflict not a law enforcement issue. It is a clash of civilizations which some liberals fail to comprehend because they hate this civilization anyway.

The problem with Bush has been his failure to go beyond that. He can't tell you what it is a "clash of" or "who the enemy is" and thus he settled on this phrase "War on Terror". He really thinks Islam is a peaceful religion and thus by invading Iraq he was going to help save Islam from these people who are "using the faith".

Thus the American people are forced to choose between flawed concepts both of which are counter to the truth. Hopefull someday either the Republican party will come to its senses and push the truth about Islam or a 3rd party will have to be formed.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 23, 2007 4:10 PM

Greatcometof1577 Tom Tancredo certainly understands the scope of this issue. I have to laugh sometimes after hearing him speak I am sure he has been on this site. I wonder what his handle is? We have our Sarkozy, only we are not there yet see the French have beaten us to the punch hahaha. We will get our Sarkozy soon enough though.

Posted by: Ameriki at May 23, 2007 4:16 PM

oh yeah, John Edwards, otherwise known as the Breck Girl....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 23, 2007 4:19 PM

Edwards really doesn't get it!

Posted by: MZ at May 23, 2007 4:20 PM

John Edwards, the man who charges $55,000.00 to give a speech telling you about poverty....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 23, 2007 4:23 PM

Plus how fast they forget or think we forget! Sodom wasted 2-3 months remaining defiant and would not let us in! That itself was reason to go in. If he had not done that it would have been different!

Posted by: MZ at May 23, 2007 4:24 PM

Ameriki

Tom Tancredo gets it on this issue.

The question is does his fellow Republicans?

The Republican party needs to go "old school" and I don't mean Regean but Lincoln. They need to revive that old spirit....

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 23, 2007 4:28 PM

Plus how fast they forget or think we forget! Sodom wasted 2-3 months remaining defiant and would not let us in! That itself was reason to go in. If he had not done that it would have been different!
Posted by: MZ

HOW SOON WE FORGET
ABOUT IRAN!

Seems to me that Iran is being defiant.
2-3 months?
How about 9 years!
Seems to me that Iran is a grave and present threat!
Can you blame Saddam for wanting big bad weapons living next to those crazies?

How soon you forgot, MZ!

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 23, 2007 4:33 PM

Is anyone else finding this presidential nomination campaign comedic? Never before in the history of the Republic have so many knuckle heads vied for the office of President. Yes I know it sometimes is maddening watching and listening as many of them run around ignoring the 800 pound gorilla (islamofascism) in the room. But if you sit back and listen and have an insight as to what is really happening its like some bad sitcom from an era long past. I don’t know if I can take a year and a half of this. I’m hoping Thompson enters the race, Thompson/Romney, with Thompson grooming Romney as his successor, gotta think ahead, way ahead. Yes, Romney wants it all right away, but patience sir will win the day. Tancredo is a great American, I’m not sure on electability though and besides we need him right where he is to bring some sanity to the rest of his colleagues on the hill, if that’s still possible.

Posted by: tgusa at May 23, 2007 4:34 PM

While I agree with the notion that “War on Terror” is a bumper sticker slogan, this is the extent of Edward’s insight into this issue. He doesn’t mention any alternative plan for fighting the Jihad. Clearly he is not claiming that “War on Terror” should be replaced with “War on Jihad”, he is advocating washing our hands of the problem altogether and pretending 9/11 didn’t happen.

What I suspect is really going on is that Edwards is behind in the polls and is trying to garner a larger share of the Truther vote.

Posted by: FloatingRock at May 23, 2007 4:38 PM

Tg

I'm rooting for Romney/Tancredo. I'd like to hear from Thomson before supporting him. But I'd like to see McCain end up 4th or below in the race.

As it is, Romney is currently ahead in IA and NH. Hoping it stays that way.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 23, 2007 4:39 PM

"We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats"

What defines a threat as "post-9/11"? Did al Qaeda and all other militant Islamist groups become irrelevant while none of us were looking?

What 21st century threats is he talking about?

Could he mean WMD? How would the military help there without being able to destroy the WMD (which would probably require an invasion - can't risk hurting nearby civilians in an aerial attack) or without being ready to decimate the country responsible for such an attack?

Could he mean poverty, as some have suggested?
How does the military help in the fight (or is that "war") against poverty?

"Edwards outlined several steps he said he would pursue as president to strengthen the military, including using force only to pursue essential national security missions, improve civilian-military relations, and root out mismanagement at the Pentagon."

What does our would-be president consider an "essential national security mission"?

If he had said forget "war on terror", this is a war on ISLAMISM, he'd have a lot of supporters. But what does he want our military to do?

There's only one response to his speech: huh? or, if you want to be polite: excuse me?

Posted by: PMK at May 23, 2007 4:40 PM

If Tancredo can't get President, I want him as AG or CIA Director or DNI! He'd be perfect for the job...

Way to go, exsgtbrown...glad to see someone else remembered the "hair" deal!

Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at May 23, 2007 4:41 PM

"post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats..." is just a sound byte with no real meaning.

Posted by: FloatingRock at May 23, 2007 4:44 PM

Yeah Tancredo really lifts my spirits every time I hear him on this issue. We are lucky he is right where he is at. We are getting it and the word is out. The truth in all of this will become undeniable as time passes. Those like Edwards will increasingly look like fools. I am really looking foreward to the presidential debates if this is how the left is going to sound off.

Posted by: Ameriki at May 23, 2007 4:48 PM

won't see this on the nightly news.."Cannibalism in Gaza 2"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of7w0sZfcMU&mode=related&search=

"Cannibalism in Gaza 1"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zIH7CjAtwg&mode=related&search=

Posted by: Madduck at May 23, 2007 4:57 PM

Call it what you will, or what you want to--- IE. war on terror, battle against Islamic radicals,war against Islamists, conflict with fundamental Islam, Clash of civilizations, ETC. But what's in a word, or in sentence, or phrase that best describes what the free world is dealing with? Maybe all these descriptions and more.

What we have all learned is that JIHAD is real and no one on this site can deny that short of a John Edwards, Michael Moore, or our former dhimmiwit President Jimmy Carter, who didn't get it in 1979 and still doesn't get it today. How many times do we have to be reminded of the terrorist attacks that are being perpetrated all over the world in the name Islam from Beslan,Madrid,Britain,Western Mindanao,America,India,Jordan,Pakistan, Iraq,Darfur,Sudan, Pan Am Flt 103,USS Cole,Marine barracks,Israel,in Lebanon,North Africa,and on and on in a hundred other places. Over 8,000 attacks by Muslims documented throughout the world, but that's allright; you go ahead and call them whatever you want if it makes you happy .

BUMPER STICKER MY ASS!!! It is what it is and it is designed to terrorize people. Do you ask why no major newspaper in the entire country except for the Philadelphia Enquirier was afraid to publish the Mohammed cartoons? Because of threat of terror--- Whoops, there's that word again-- . A violent attack that strikes and knows no bounds in an effort to produce fear. But that's all right; call it something else if you want to sanitize it.

Posted by: Mackie at May 23, 2007 5:02 PM

Speaking of all this Bush bashing. I think of Bushes term in this context. I would have never in a million years ever picked up any of Roberts books if it were not for the debate surrounding Iraq. It was not 9/11 or Afghanistan that sparked this conversation in the west. It was Iraq. Bush may have saved all of western civilization due to one fact. Iraq started the debate, which lead to people needing to verify and educate themselves on this subject. The Islamization of Europe would have gone on unnoticed untill too late without the debate that was sparked by Iraq. It was this debate that got the French to elect Sarkozy. It is this debate in the west that will save our civilization. For all of Bushes faults in my opinion he may have saved the west. May he be remembered in this context.

Posted by: Ameriki at May 23, 2007 5:07 PM

I agree 100% with Hugh

Not a single Western leader has correctly identified that Islam is the problem. Sooner or later they will have to state this. talking about Islamo-fascism, Jihadists, Islamists (as the BBC misleadingly does) is confusing to non-Muslims as makes them mistakenly think there is a good side to Islam.

But Edwards has massively balls-up. That last statement of his means he has failed to realise that Islam is the problem.

Right now, we dont need Western non-Muslims being confused by their own ignorant politicians.

But not being American, I would rather non-stop back-to-back Republican governments in fighting Islam as I trust them more than I trust the Democrats. That is not to say Republicans get things right. The current adminstration has made some terrible mistakes and has confused its allies. But hopefully it will get there in the end. It is matter of public education on Islam, burying political correctness in its grave and adjustment of current policies towards Islam

Sooner or later, the USA has to come to terms with the fact that most Governments on the Arabian Peninsula are not their friends and mean them great harm. And that means the Oil dependency issue has to be looked at.

What a bloody mess of a world we live in:
Rising Islam on most continents, Illegal immigrants everywhere, Environmental damage, the rise of Russian & Chinese opportunism
- never has the West had more pressing problems

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at May 23, 2007 5:10 PM

Obnoxious Naseem states, "Christianity is fast becoming a flash in the pan in the Amerike...you need new beliefs ...a new lord if you will...Allah SWT."

This is utter nonsense, Naseem. You are either making this stuff up, or you're listening to false information from the lie factory (probably both).

And allah is the god of the underworld, so why would you suggest people follow him.

Posted by: champ at May 23, 2007 5:15 PM

IP,
Thompson has been blogging for awhile, I have read or watched his views on many things, from guns to immigration. He is right on target in my book, when you get the chance to see or read him you will be able to tell that he is comfortable with his own vision of the world as it is. He doesn’t pussyfoot around when asked a question, he answers it. Yeah I know at first it is shocking, imagine a pol answering a simple question w/o sticking their thumb in their mouth and holding it up to see which way the wind is blowing or telling you he will form a focus group on the issue. If a pol needs focus groups in order to achieve focus we don’t need them, not now and certainly not tomorrow. Someone mentioned Reagan, well Reagan is dead but he is still the leader of many of us across America, the man was/is truly powerful even to the point of reaching out from the grave, tapping us on the shoulder and telling us, there it is now get moving getting it.

Posted by: tgusa at May 23, 2007 5:24 PM

The breck boy & his ilk have no room to talk, especially considering their even-MORE ridiculous, and less-credible, "bumper-sticker" cliche`:
"...vast right-wing conspiracy."
LOL

Posted by: jcom972 at May 23, 2007 5:34 PM

Hey Yankee Doodle. Everybody here knows that the phrase "war on terror" sucks, but thats not what Edwards was even talking about. Edwards could care less what its called. Edwards was talking about the "war on terror" was something the Bush Administration invented and that WE are not at war with anybody.

I know Bush really screwed up this whole war, but I'm glad he took out Saddam. You sound like you would like Saddam to be still the president of Iraq (regardless of how many thousands of people he murdered). I don't agree with that at all. I'm glad he is gone.

Bush should have done his research on islam and muslims ,(like we all have here),before he even retailiated against Bin Laden, of course. But remember the situation America was in at that time. Everybody in America was pretty pissed off and we wanted to get back at who ever did 911, right? I know America went off half cocked...

And another thing. If this was any other group of people besides muslims, these people would have been very happy that we took out Saddam and tried to give them democracy. Of course they were muslims and this is why Bush shuold have done his damn research.

I'm tired of all the Bush bashing too. He tried to do what he thought was right. And, like I said, if this was any other group of people, it would have been admirable for Bush to do this. What the hell do you think would have happened if there was a democrat as president when 911 happened? Does clinton or carter ring a bell?

Posted by: mrockroll1969 at May 23, 2007 5:56 PM

Like most people I dislike trolls.

But the resident troll pops out from under the bridge and hisses "Christianity is fast becoming a flash in the pan in America".

Sorry, nope, the troll is bluffing, or ill-informed. Last time I looked, around 85% of Americans identified as 'Christian' in the census - and although that includes plenty of 'census Christians', Christians-for-identification-purposes-only, it also includes a LOT of people who are well-instructed passionate believers. The 'Independent' churches - the Charismatic, Pentecostal, Assemblies of God, Baptists, etc. - are growing FASTER THAN THE MUSLIMS. America - right now - sends out 66 000 Christian missionaries to 220 different countries (and all that is paid for by ordinary American Christian believers). They know that in many countries being identified as an American is dangerous - yet they go all the same. American Christian missionaries have died for their faith.

To see inside the heart of Christian America, read "The Cross and the Switchblade" and "Run, Nicky, Run". I don't see someone like Nicky Cruz, a violent Latino gang leader who became a peaceful Christian evangelist, getting suckered by Islam anytime soon. Some interesting films: "Tender Mercies", "Witness", "Places in the Heart", "Fearless".

PS - Dear Naseem - if you are, as you say, a Pakistani woman, I dare you to read two books, both written by Pakistani women - charming, intelligent, gracious ladies, both of them, and very, very brave. The first, by sister Gulshan Esther, is called "The Torn Veil". The second, by Bilquis Sheikh, is called "I Dared to Call Him Father". You can obtain them over the internet.

If you read those two ladies' books, you will understand Christianity. You will then be able to understand why millions upon millions of Americans are Christians, and why they will never, never, NEVER convert to Islam. Who, having drunk the Wine of Life, would ever willingly drink poison?

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at May 23, 2007 5:57 PM

I'm glad he took out Saddam.
--mrockroll1969

So is Iran
So is al-Queda
So is Hezbollah
So is The Supreme Coucil for Islamic Revolution

Not me. Now we gotta do his dirty work.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 23, 2007 6:17 PM

It's amazing what these idiot politicians will say or do or not do in order to get elected. Another fool is Biden, who talks about the war in Iraq like it's a civil war, instead of learning what the strife within Islam has been about for centuries.

Once again, it's all stuff we are supposed to have created -- the Muslims themselves couldn't possibly be to blame -- even as the body count of innocent civilians and our soldiers mounts day to day.

Pretentious lawyers make me sick.

Posted by: Foehammer at May 23, 2007 6:25 PM

From Pythagoras: There was an excellent article in "FOREIGN AFFAIRS" magazine recently that in fact cited Bush's policies in Southeast Asia as in fact having been quite successful. So it hasn't all been a crock of sh*t--your claims to the contrary.

And this is the man who would be president...
'Foreign Affairs', is the periodical of the Council on Foreign Relations. A very shady group according to some. Unless you are a member, Foriegn Affairs is hard to get. You a member Pythagoras?? There is at least one poster here who 'was' a member of the CFR. Emphasis on 'was'.
Edwards is going to give a talk to this globalist elite group. About a year ago or so he also made a speech to another globalist, elitist group, the Bilderbergers. Why do you think these global take over artists want to hear from him???
Any politician or would be politician, who kisses the ring of globalism wont get any support from me.
The problem is the US gov is now, and has been top heavy with these global kiss-azzes, Bush and his daddy included. I dont care how nuch they talk about it, these people dont work for me, or the rest of you either.
I dont know that Bush is the worse president in US history, but he is the weakest Commander in Chief ever. The only two candidates who might actually be good CIC's, are Tancredo and Fred Thompson, and he is not running yet. Every candidate on the demo side is a weak kneed coward, or cowardess.
Give John a new comb, a can of hairspray, and send him home.
If we are going to win against Islam, we need leaders with balls. If not, I guess the people will just have to get fed up enough to do it themselves.

Posted by: duh_swami at May 23, 2007 6:38 PM

Ynkedoodl2, you seem to be advocating that we withdraw back to the US and fight purely a defensive war, (sorry if I’ve paraphrased incorrectly). If I’m correct, then what you’ve described is called Isolationism.

Isolationism is frequently followed by periods of frenzied warfare. The warfare results from the many problems that were left to fester and spread while people blissfully ignored what was going on in the world around them.

We are still paying dividends for the Isolationism leading to WWII. The repercussions are often lasting. How exactly is Isolationism going to save Western civilization?

Posted by: FloatingRock at May 23, 2007 6:42 PM

Bush swings blindly, and sometimes hits a few useful targets.

Edwards, and the rest of the "denialists", would have us stand still and hope for the best.

Better to be thrashing wildly than sitting and waiting.

Even though neither is an ideal way to fight the Jihad, ay least choice one kills a few jihadis.

Edwards, et al, are pre-9/11 suckers.

You get either a one-eyed pitbull with two good teeth or a nearsighted poodle with just gums.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 23, 2007 6:43 PM

New al Qaeda Tapes Feature U.S. Capitol Under 'Attack'
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/new_al_qaeda_ta.html

I wonder what kind of “haircut” Al Kayda would give the breck guy? Gee, maybe he could tell them for us, look fellas I know its all our fault and I’m willing to negotiate so come on in, bring your knives, I know we can work it out. Freedom of religion, who needs it. Womens rights, I was for them before I was against them. Suicide bombers in America, so what, hey where’s your tolerance you islamophobe they are only doing jobs Americans won’t do. Pitiful.
Attention congressional dems/rinos, now is a good time to crawl back under your desks.

Posted by: tgusa at May 23, 2007 6:59 PM

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/22/20657/9795

John Edwards is packed for Chicago.
by elizabethedwards
Tue May 22, 2007 at 05:28:25 PM PDT

John is first to have his bags packed for Chicago and YearlyKos. The decision was easy: the opportunity to talk, to listen, to question and to learn from the people who make online the center of real political dialogue that YearlyKos offers is important. Unparalleled, really. And so John will be there, there with you.

I think that about says it all.

Posted by: SlimGuy at May 23, 2007 7:10 PM

Move past the war on terror? When the world is dealing with a collective mindset that brings THIS to the table:

Fatwa: Sorry, Mohammed, you'll need to get your milk in a bowl from now on
By israelinsider staff May 23, 2007


Bookmark to del.icio.usDigg This Story

Shavuot is a Jewish holiday associated with dairy products, but this breaking milky news pertains to our Muslim cousin.

AFP reports that a professor at Egypt's Islamic Al Azhar university Monday has retracted a religious edict which states that a woman can only be left alone with a strange man if she breastfeeds him.

Ezzat Attia, president of the university's Hadith department, which studies traditions based on the Prophet Mohammed's words and deeds, has withdrawn his fatwa and apologized for any inconvenience he caused.

He had stated that a woman is allow to be alone with a man to whom she is not related -- such as an office colleague -- if she nurses him "directly from her breast" at least five times.

The ruling had reportedly put a dent in milk sales throughout the Muslim world.

According to Mabruk Attia (apparently unrelated), a professor of theology at the university, the Prophet Mohammed had advised a woman to nurse her adult adopted son, to become his wet nurse, following an Islamic ban on adoption. The woman gave the man her breast milk from a bowl, and not directly from the teat, this other Professor Attia attested.

The ruling sparked a furor, especially among female professors. "If the country's top cleric himself had made the same statements, he would not be considered respectable," the aptly named Milka Yussef, a professor of theology at Al Azhar, told the weekly Al Karama paper. She said even debating the issue was "insane." She doubted that most Muslim women could produce more than four bowls full.

Ezzat Attia may have had liberal motives for his ruling, since Islam's strict prohibitions on male-female fraternization prevent men and women from working together. He argued that if a man nursed from a co-worker, it would establish a family bond between them and allow the two to work side-by-side without raising suspicion of an illicit sexual relation.

More conservative pundits in Egypt would have none of it. "When you walk into a government building, you should not be shocked to find a 50-year-old civil servant suckling his colleague," the independent daily Al Dustur said ironically after the fatwa was issued.

Apparently, colleagues will now need to be content drinking dairy delicacies from a bowl.

John Edwards should hop out of this race, he has nothing to offer this country and would dhimmi up at the first opportunity.

Posted by: DCWatson at May 23, 2007 7:17 PM

Festival of idiots I mean yearly orcs, I mean, well you know what I mean.
Are they set to give out cute little puppies to all attendees? Ones they will strangle at a later date, when they are back home, all alone, in mammas basement.

“a woman can only be left alone with a strange man if she breastfeeds him”
Wow, they are really pulling out all the stops to get converts these days aren’t they. Question, in the interest of building bridges, will the breck guy if elected partake in this milkmongering?

Posted by: tgusa at May 23, 2007 7:32 PM

John Edwards is a perfect example of why our Founding Fathers limited voter eligibility to lien-free landowning males. Nice hair John.

...Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

Federalist 10; Madison http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed10.htm

Posted by: pez at May 23, 2007 7:38 PM

memo to Ynkee Doodle2:

First of all you are evidently blissfully unaware that the US Democratic Party presently has at least 2 Muslims holding office in America. One is Senator Barack Obama and the other is Senator Keith Richards. (You may be aware that Obama is running for president). The Democratic Party recently at a national convention had a mosque IMAM say "prayers" before the opening of the meeting! And Gerry Ferraro DEFENDED THIS ACT ON HANNITY AND COLMES. The video was accesible from this website and many of us watched it in utter horror and with complete disbelief.

You are correct in asserting that the Republican Bush Administration is working with at least one mosque and imam in Iraq.

Which doesn't mean beans my friend.

WHY, you ask?

First of all, Iraq is over THERE and we have much better-financed (and armed) mosques HERE in America. The mosques can't hurt us from over there in Iraq. But Muslims on US soil can hurt us HERE (many of these US Muslims believe in suicide bombings, too, as evinced in recent polls of US Muslims-- the results of which can be seen here at JW). It is the Democrats who are in bed with the mosques HERE. And I will take aim at them for that and for allowing a Muslim not only the Democratic ticket but to run FOR PRESIDENT (AND THEN LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT HIS RELIGIOUS AFFILIATIONS, WHICH MR. OBAMA IS DOING WITH IMPUNITY).

Secondly, Iraq is now less a nation state than a battle field. Iraq is almost completely drained of capital and human resources with which to wage jihad against America in sharp contrast to the situation there under Saddam Hussein who routinely cut multi-billion euro deals with France, Germany, and Russia among others. Just what do you think Iraq could do to America now (propaganda value notwithstanding)?

Get off your bloody high horse chum and try studying the problem of global jihad thoroughly instead of whatever it is you think you are doing. Because whatever it is you think you're doing isn't going to get anybody anywhere except killed by jihadists.

We all know Bush and Co., aren't 'cutting it'. But that doesn't mean Bush can't be outdone in ineffectiveness against jihad warfare by a Democrat. It is very probable that he will be and we will all in that case regret that it had to come to that.

In short, you don't know enough. Hit the books.

Posted by: pythagoras at May 23, 2007 7:43 PM

memo to Arm A. Geddon:

try reading some of my posts. I never bought for a minute the line Islam is being 'hijacked' by the 'extremists'. I never hinted at such a thing either and if you didn't know it, you do now.

Islam has to be outlawed in the US and western democracies-- and soon. Almost everything I have posted is related to that in one way or another.

All you are doing is spinning your wheels with your claims here, that it is a waste of time to defend America from jihadist warfare. That viewpoint is absolutely ridiculous.

You need to forget about posting any 'ideas' because you don't seem to have any. And I was really calling attention to that.

Posted by: pythagoras at May 23, 2007 7:50 PM

Sad news about our service personnel.

I heard another report that one was found beheaded; not sure if either of these reports are accurate but here goes ...

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4227

Iraqi police find body of man in US military uniform floating on the Euphrates south of Baghdad

May 24, 2007, 12:11 AM (GMT+02:00)

He had been shot in the head and the chest. The Iraqi police said the body, which had a tattoo on its left hand, was that of an American soldier and had been turned over to US forces.

It is suspected that he may be one the three soldiers al Qaeda abducted on May 12 in an ambush near Mahmoudiya south of Baghdad.

Thousands of US troops have been scouring the area for the missing men, two of whom US commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus said earlier this week he believed were still alive.

Across Iraq, 7 US soldiers and 2 Marines were killed by roadside bombings and in gun battles, bringing to 85 the number of US servicemen killed in May.

You were saying Mr. edwards?

Posted by: witness at May 23, 2007 8:31 PM

If you think that destroying the secular nation of Iraq with its Don Corleone inspired anti-Islamist leader Saddam Hussein ... and replacing it with an Iranian puppet state ruled by Shia theocrats (Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution) is called progress in the war to defend ourselves...

1) We didn't destroy a secular nation. We didn't destroy anything. We liberated Iraq's population and offered them freedom, at our great expense.

The Iraqis, and other Moslem activists, destroyed Iraq.

2) Saddam's former intelligence chief ran the World Train Center bombing in '93. Saddam was behind the Oklahoma City bombing in '95, both financially and logistically. Saddam underwrote Sunni Jihad war terror bombing operations in and around Israel. It is beyond argument that Saddam actively sought and obtained, WMD.

True, Saddam was a much better option for us than the incoming Mesopotamian leadership, but for a trillion dollars we've proven they can't be civilized.

Can't.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 23, 2007 8:52 PM

Pythagoras says:

"Bush DID in fact identify the enemy: islamo-fascism' (perhaps ineffectually,as has often been the case with his presidency). The reason Bush wasn't more complete in his definition of the enemy in the war on terror (and come out into the open and label it 'Islam' which it clearly is), is because even the leader of the free does not possess sufficient leverage to openly attack Islam for what it is-- it is too strongly worldwide established at this point in history for that."

I can appreciate the hestitancy of the leader of the free world to come right out and say what we agree he should say, that being the problem is Islam. If the ummah took offense to the Pope's indirect remarks, we can imagine the reaction should Bush show the world that he "gets it".

But here's my problem. He shows absolutely no indication that he understands that the problem is with Islam. He need not hold a press conference or make a national TV address to the nation. Just a sign to show that he has taken the time to educate himself on what Islam is all about will do.

Two events reported here at JW over the past two weeks shows his continued ignorance ( and yes ignorance is a strong derogatory chraracterization, see below). 1) The building of a $500+ super sized US Embassy in Baghdad going full-bore, 2) the building of 2 super mardrassas in Afghanistan with hopes to offer a kinder and gentler education of Islam to Afghanis more inclined to get their Muslim education in "radical "Pakistan.

These are signs that support Hugh's discription of him being the engineer of a runaway train.

I would guess that there are many here at JW, like me, that have learned what they know about Islam after September 11, 2001. My "education" began months ago. It didn't take me more than a few books and visits to this site to have my entire world view change and it scares the sh*t out of me. But I figured it out. It ain't rocket science. I can explain this to my 10 year old.

Until 5 months ago I guess I had an excuse for not "getting it"( work, family, etc.). But I am not the freakin' leader of the free world. So what that he said we should treat Islam as a Religion of Peace after 9/11 out of cautious ignorance. He was commander in chief for only 9 months at that time. If many of us didn't know, how can we say he should have known more.

But still today? More than 5 years later not a single sign? It is embarrassing to read posts here at JW from around the globe telling us how ignorant our President is. I have to agree with them. He is guilty of first degree ignorance. There are no more freakin' excuses for it.

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at May 23, 2007 8:55 PM

What are the chances of 'Mister Ed'[horse was probably more intelligent] of becoming Prez?

Posted by: Morgane at May 23, 2007 9:30 PM

I vote with Hugh, Edwards is O-U-T! Then again we have crazies who eat this stuff up! I watched him say this! What!!???? I could not believe he was saying this and what is he saying and what do you call it then Edwards? Like not saying the N word! How then do we address it? What stupidity!
Maybe if we vote for him we can find out?!

Posted by: MZ at May 23, 2007 9:36 PM

That is compared to his hair cut right? Cheaper than a bumper sticker?!! Next we will hear 'you mis-quoted me!'. What a thing to say! How did he come to that?

Posted by: MZ at May 23, 2007 9:48 PM

Hugh: It is hard to make the Bush Administration look good. Edwards is doing it. He's out, or should be.

You just nicely worded what I was thinking. Thanks!

Posted by: SerbInfidel at May 23, 2007 9:48 PM

And there are "two Islams" vice Two Americas"? As opposed to the two Americas of rich and poor, the Two Islams are the peaceful (only 80% per the latest Pew Poll) and the 20% violent, jihad loving Muslims? Bush and his administration has not been straight with the American people about just who the real enemy is for various reasons that have been bantered about on this site, but Edwards and his Democrat ilk, they're even more head-in-the-sand types. When will this government and its "leaders" get some spine and face/tell the truth?

Posted by: HOV Dummy at May 23, 2007 9:55 PM

Ynkedoodl2; It was more than 9 years. and Yes I do blame sodom! He was a murderer! Mass murderer!
Are you saying we should of went right into Iran!
We could not at that time. It is getting close.
sodom had ties with Iran! Iran is a threat! Maybe we can get our "allies" in on this one this time instead of doing it alone......

Posted by: MZ at May 23, 2007 10:00 PM

I was going to lay off G.W. and Iraq for a couple of days and then I see this on CNN..

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/23/iraq.main/index.html

"The U.S. military is joining forces with the State Department to prepare a new Iraq strategy that includes negotiating cease-fire and power-sharing agreements with some enemy combatants, U.S. officials said Wednesday."

The words State Dept and Military joining forces is never a good thing...

When oh when can we end this farse!

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 23, 2007 10:09 PM

O.T., but..

Spin Alert!! Spin Alert!!

Tucker Carlson on the Pew Survey.

Watch Doogie do the Hooper Dance:

http://www.cair.com/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=44120&theType=NB

Posted by: Prickzilla at May 23, 2007 10:42 PM

Maybe we can call this the "Hooper Shuffle"

Posted by: Prickzilla at May 23, 2007 10:45 PM

89 posts? This may already be posted, but here is a good video of the "silky pony"
http://www.youtube.com/p.swf?video_id=2AE847UXu3Q&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//img.youtube.com/vi/2AE847UXu3Q/2.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskIwADlzJaDMAcdYJrhsa6sv

Posted by: interestinconundrum at May 23, 2007 11:33 PM

".....American military resources and emboldened terrorists."

Terrorists? What terrorists?

Wonder if Edwards would prefer that we call this war what it actually is?

Containment of barbarians? War on those who are trying to force their demonic religion down everyone's throats?

Posted by: The Goobs at May 23, 2007 11:44 PM

Prickzilla, thanks for the link! Hopefully this is just the first salvo in the debate that should have started long ago. We should see many other such hard-hitting programs on this topic in the days and weeks ahead… let’s hope.

Posted by: FloatingRock at May 23, 2007 11:51 PM

Naseem

There are plenty of Christians and Jews in America.

You should learn to worship the Creator GOD, instead you worship an arab pagan idol allah the moon-god. Mohammed tricked you.

1Cr 10:20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons.

So then these pagan arabs were worshiping demons when they were worshiping idols (one of which was allah).

We are told not to accept new doctrines but to hold fast to THE doctrine.

Who was this messenger that gave Mohammed another doctrine?????

2Cr 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

1Ti 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

So then it stands to reason that demons can fool people into believing a false doctrine - one directly against God almighty.

Posted by: The Goobs at May 24, 2007 12:07 AM

FloatingRock....Amen to that.

Posted by: Prickzilla at May 24, 2007 12:08 AM

"look at the track record of the Amerike since 9/11. "

Naseem, Please... We are not "the Amerike" We are the United States of America, a place where Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, the Sikh, the Baha'i and yes, even Muslims can practice their faith freely, without persecution. You live in Pakistan where crazies blow up music shops because Music is Un-Islamic. No thanks.

"First of all you are evidently blissfully unaware that the US Democratic Party presently has at least 2 Muslims holding office in America. One is Senator Barack Obama and the other is Senator Keith Richards. (You may be aware that Obama is running for president)."

Pythagoras, what on EARTH are you talking about???
First of all, Barack Obama is not a Muslim, and unless you have any information to the contrary to prove me wrong, I think you are wrong....Sp he attended the "madrassa" when he was a mere child, that does not make him a Muslim. Neither does his name, or his father or his step father.

and Senator Keith Richards...... Senator Keith Richards???? Keith Richards is NOT a senator, he is a guitarist for the Rolling Stones, and he is not even American. Do you perhaps mean Congressman Keith Ellison? If that is the case, he is a Muslim, but he is not a Senator, he is a Congressman from the House of Representatives. Please. Get you facts straight, Please. That is the least you can do.

Posted by: ThinkForYourself at May 24, 2007 12:23 AM

Hugh:

As bad as Bush is, virtually all of his potential successors will be worse. I have hope for the plain spoken Fred Thompson, the only "tier-1" type candidate who will be an improvement over Bush.

If PC thinking has impeded President Bush, a man significantly resistant to the whims of societal forces, imagine what PC thinking will have on his successor.

As many acknowledge, political reality does not allow a President to take on Islam directly. The best we can hope for is for a President to "get it" and take appropriate action without saying exactly what the challenge is.

This is the continuoum as I see it

(1) Islam is a religion of peace ("all things Islam are good"): this category is pretty much limited to Muslims of the Islamo-Communists who are just fruitcakes

(2) Islam is like any other religion ("there is lots of violence in the old testament" and "how dare you criticize someone's deeply held faith" etc): this is category includes every Democratic candidate for President

(3) Islam is basically a good religion that has been hijacked: this category includes President Bush and many Republican Presidential candidates

(4) There are clearly aspects of Islam that make Muslims prone to violence: I would place Fred Thompson in this category as well as Rush Limbaugh. This category is differentiated from
(5) in that these folks don't seem interested in getting people to really think about Islam, but they don't mouth off phrases like "religion of peace"

(5) Islam is the threat

I don't think we will ever get to (5) but (4) is better than (3). What gets me nervous is that so many of our media and political elites fall into (2).

President Bush has taken a lot of heat on this site, and while I have been one of his defenders here and elsewhere, my defense has always been from the perspective that a resounding political defeat of President Bush is likely to make his successor more PC (more like Carter/Edwards) than better.

My real fear is that 4 years from now, Hugh looks back fondly on the Bush years. A President Edwards or a President Clinton could have that impact.

On a more positive note, if Fred Thompson would become a President who talks about these issues, things would get better.

http://abcradio.com/article.asp?id=407528&SPID=15663

http://abcradio.com/article.asp?

http://abcradio.com/article.asp?id=401412&SPID=15663id=403017&SPID=15663

Posted by: JSobieski at May 24, 2007 12:41 AM

ThinkForYourSelf-

I'd prefer Keith Richards to Keith Ellison.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 24, 2007 12:44 AM

I would too, profitsbeard, but that is besides the point. ;)

Posted by: ThinkForYourself at May 24, 2007 12:46 AM

e need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes," Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery. "By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set—that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam."

I swear, politicians become more repugnant every day. I wonder what Edwards would consider a "21st century threat" if the worldwide islamic jihad doesn't qualify. How many times do the jihadists have to declare war against the West before our idiot politicians will believe that we are in a monumental struggle for our survival? I remain stupefied at the unbelievable ignorance of the elitist morons who think they are qualified to be president, not to mention the hundreds of sitting senators and representatives, 90% of whom are just as ignorant. How can this be?! How can such blatant benightedness afflict those who are supposed to be the best and the brightest?

What will become of us since there is no electable candidate who understands our perilous plight? Tancredo is the only one who has a clue and he doesn't stand a chance. We desperately need a third party in this country and we need it now. The Democrat and Republican parties are both totally corrupt and they represent special interest groups, not the people who elect them. Politics in America become more depressing every day and the thought of Hillary as president is so terrifying that I can hardly bear it. What will be left of America after four years of her Marxist manipulations? Yes, Bush has been horrible in most ways but I have no doubt that she will be far worse. We deserve to have a fresh face and a new name; I'm sick of the Bushes and the Clintons and I'm tired of being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.

Oh well, if the hideous immigration bill passes, the Republican party is history. if Bush's anti-conservative reign hasn't already killed it. The sad thing is that the Democrats are worse than Bush and to vote for them to spite the traitorous Republicans is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. So what do you do? A third party is the only solution. John McCain has conspired with the left-wing to do enormous damage to our political system and our country. I despise him as much as I despise Ted Kennedy and nothing would be better for America than their departure from elected office. I just don't understand why they keep getting elected.

Posted by: Susanp at May 24, 2007 12:54 AM

OT---is there an annual meeting for Jihadwatch?

Any live events/meetings/gatherings for folks to meet up with others, share adult beverages, plan, strategize, and otherwise draw strength from not being alone.

Some type of annual or periodic gathering would be both fun and productive in my view.

I really want to thank Robert and Hugh for opening my eyes to Islam. I also want to thank so many of the regular commentors on this site--many of you feel like old friends even though we have never met.

Posted by: JSobieski at May 24, 2007 1:04 AM

Naseem:

As I understand it, a 'flash in the pan' is something which is 'here today - gone tomorrow'.

As Christianity has been around for 2000 years, I hardly think this description fits.

Satan always tries to imitate that which God has accomplished - hence Islam.
He chose a mentally sick and very evil individual to achieve his purpose. Naseem, you have been deceived!

Posted by: Sencit at May 24, 2007 1:04 AM

Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery. "By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set—that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam."

Let's remember this is a shallow careerist blowdried lawyer who gets $400 haircuts.

He'll say anything.. pander to anyone.. just to become President.

He'd make a deal with the devil to get the Trophy that the Presidency has quite apparently become among the Gilded Set.

Even if he might well be the last - should he somehow defy both himself and the odds.

The fact that GWB attained the office should be ample warning.

We cannot afford another disaster.

Damage control would be a Giuliani or a Romney. Salvation would be Tom Tancredo, who unfortunately has less of a chance then even the vapid [pretty vacant] Edwards.

Sad but true...

And I can't think of a single dhimmicrat candidate who could even qualify as an interim placeholder while we search for a real leader.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at May 24, 2007 1:28 AM

Who, having drunk the Wine of Life, would ever willingly drink poison?
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy

I like that line, but it does not fit muslims. They prefer death and say so.
While some muslims have deliberatly blown themselves up, I dont see muslims throwing themselves under trucks, and off bridges. They claim this life is no good, and Allahs heaven is the place to be, so dying
being the only way to get there, is desirable. Dying from jihad , of course , is the quickest way to get there. So if death is so good, why do they try so hard to stay alive? I think they have already drank the poison, so thier reason and critical faculties, have been seriously impaired. But since they are still breathing, apostacy, can fix the problem.
They need to give Allah the boot and send him packing.

Posted by: duh_swami at May 24, 2007 1:31 AM

PassedOn.rg

MoveOnPast.org

OhJustPassAway.org

please

Posted by: chockfullonuts at May 24, 2007 1:36 AM

Sobieski,

I emailed Jihad Watch with your comments, and received the following response in an email from Robert Spencer:

I'd love to do this, but there is no money and no plans right now.

---------------------------------------
OT---is there an annual meeting for Jihadwatch?

Any live events/meetings/gatherings for folks to meet up with others, share adult beverages, plan, strategize, and otherwise draw strength from not being alone.

Some type of annual or periodic gathering would be both fun and productive in my view.
-----------------------------------------

Posted by: ThinkForYourself at May 24, 2007 8:46 AM

ThinkForYourself:

Thanks for forwarding it on.

In terms of money, such an event could easily be self-funded---heck it could even be a fundraiser.

Posted by: JSobieski at May 24, 2007 9:17 AM

@pythagoras

You've proved you know NOTHING!

You could not even answer my question.

You are a fool!

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 24, 2007 10:31 AM

@pythagoras

"We all know Bush and Co., aren't 'cutting it'. But that doesn't mean Bush can't be outdone in ineffectiveness against jihad warfare by a Democrat. It is very probable that he will be and we will all in that case regret that it had to come to that."

You're putting words in my mouth. And your logic is catywampus!

by the way, still waiting:
Who are our allies in Iraq? Please name the political party and the spiritual mentor of that party. Since you consider yourself so well-informed, can you please tell me the answer?

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 24, 2007 10:35 AM

"You've proved you know NOTHING!

You could not even answer my question.

You are a fool!"
---------------

Well, Ynkedoodl2, you have a guy who says America has two elected Muslims, and they are Senators' Barack Obama and Keith Richards (?)...

it does raise a red flag or two...

Posted by: ThinkForYourself at May 24, 2007 10:37 AM

pythagoras

The fact that you think Obama is a Muslim shows you know zilch, nada, zero. You can't even identify the name of the political party you so blissfully think we should go on supporting in Iraq. Clown!

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 24, 2007 10:40 AM

Mz, another brilliant genius:

"sodom had ties with Iran! Iran is a threat! Maybe we can get our "allies" in on this one this time instead of doing it alone......"

You might begin by spelling Saddam's name correctly. As for the rest, well, let it go.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 24, 2007 10:42 AM

@alarmed pig farmer

"1) We didn't destroy a secular nation. We didn't destroy anything. We liberated Iraq's population and offered them freedom, at our great expense.

Correction:

Liberated Iraq's population? Tell that to the fleeing Jews, Christians, secularists. Tell that to the Sunnis killed by SCARI's militias. Tell that to the terrified intelligentsia of Iraq, professors, educators, musicians, artists, too scared to leave their homes. Liberated? When the theocratic thugs of SCARI and their Iranian puppetmasters finish Islamizing Iraq, you will be on your knees wishing for Saddam's ghost!

Correction of point two:

The Iraqis were running things just fine prior to March 2003 when the one-eyed pitbull named George Bush decided to take down Saddam in a cynical scheme to lock up his re-election. Now we're in bed with these crazies.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 24, 2007 10:53 AM

and Senator Keith Richards...... Senator Keith Richards???? Keith Richards is NOT a senator, he is a guitarist for the Rolling Stones, and he is not even American. Do you perhaps mean Congressman Keith Ellison? If that is the case, he is a Muslim, but he is not a Senator, he is a Congressman from the House of Representatives. Please. Get