"Best friends 4 eva."

You've been reading my third-grade autograph book again. I told you I didn't want anyone to know.

Posted by: Hugh at March 2, 2008 8:49 AM

Isn't that nice? Mad Ahmad stretching out his paws...err. I mean, his hands over a nation he did absolutly nothing to help.

When will the civilized nations realize that we cannot trust Muslims? When they are in misery they will say all sort of things, but the moment they get the upper hand, they will back stab you.

Thanks a lot, Jalal!

Posted by: Crusader at March 2, 2008 8:50 AM

Is America also drinking the Kool Aid of having the putative Predident of America also join this group ?

The big zero, Barack Hussein Obama is also a brother to these guys, currently having the fools swoon over his 'hope', his 'change', and no doubt the fact that he is the new kid on the block who 'speaks so well'.

He has Farracon muslim written all over him.These are his associations and his policies. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then it is a duck.

Hussain will be the third guy patting each other on the back. And America, you will have sent him there.

Now tell us how foolish we are to address this issue. But do not say that the elephant is not in the room.

Posted by: dgene at March 2, 2008 9:00 AM

Why don't we just leave Iraq to the Iranians? They can move in to restore order, and get bogged down fighting a never-ending Sunni insurgency, who will be aided by other Sunnis from all over the Muslim world. And then, if they ever succeed in crushing the Sunnis, they can fight another insurgency of Arab Shi'ites, who don't particuarly like Persians.

Let the Iranians have some fun for a change.

Posted by: rational at March 2, 2008 9:01 AM

"Why don't we just leave Iraq to the Iranians? They can move in to restore order, and get bogged down fighting a never-ending Sunni insurgency, who will be aided by other Sunnis from all over the Muslim world."
-- from a posting above

Hmmm. That has a more-or-less familiar ring.

Posted by: Hugh at March 2, 2008 9:04 AM

The two kissed four times one for each cheek in the traditional fashion and a band played the two countries' national anthems.

Posted by: ericthekuffar at March 2, 2008 9:05 AM

At first glance, I thought it was an accused terrorist hand-cuffed to a federal marshal being escorted up the steps of a court-house.

Posted by: ebonystone at March 2, 2008 9:05 AM

(yes, I know that a proofeader is required)

But when you see a Jimmy Catta trying to sneak into the back door, shouldn't one ask these questions before one elects the fool rather than afterwards ?

Look at Barack Hussein Obama's associations and policies - they are islam friendly. This is where he gets a lot of support, these are the people who want to see him elected.

How long before he would try and reach an accomodation with America's enemies ? After all, no doubt accordintg to him they have until now only been 'misunderstood'.

Should we drink the Kool Aid and join the people now 'swooning ' over him ?

His wife doesn't swoon over him, and she's a piece of work.

Posted by: dgene at March 2, 2008 9:13 AM

dgene

How is the Iraqi democracy project working out? Tell me again how G.W. and General Mcclellan (sorry, I meant Petraeus) are the god's gift to American military planning.

It appears Iran is happy with it..

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 2, 2008 9:29 AM

Has all our blood and treasure gone to set up an Iranian client state?

When such questions need to be raised after 4 years at war, its because we know the answer.

Posted by: witness at March 2, 2008 9:34 AM

gtconet:

(there was a great military man in Caesar's rendition of the Civil War circa B.C.)

Freedom and the civil polity belong to those willing to fight for it.

We have it.

For as long as we can keep clear eyed and keep it.

Forget the rhetoric: a jihadi free Iraq is for us mainly, and a benefit to them, if they can keep it.

Beats quietism and surrender any day.

(and it helps to have a brave military)

Posted by: dgene at March 2, 2008 9:38 AM

Sorry, errata, the great military man in Caesar's "Civil War" was also named Petraeus).

Posted by: dgene at March 2, 2008 9:40 AM

And just think Bush and Ahmadinejad now have something in common....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/images/20071002_d-0039-1-515h.html

It looks like a love triangle to me!

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 2, 2008 9:41 AM

Jihadland - from the Mediterranean to the border of India. Way to go Bush!

Posted by: poetcomic1 at March 2, 2008 9:58 AM

"Forget the rhetoric: a jihadi free Iraq is for us mainly, and a benefit to them, if they can keep "

Wonder how you get a Jihadi free Iraq when it's an Islamic country...

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at March 2, 2008 10:03 AM

Is this Jalal Talabani a Shi'ite?

Posted by: silent_rage at March 2, 2008 10:16 AM

We had a Sunni dictator "oppressing" the Shia majority. Now that the Shia are in power they are showing their true colors. Isn't it better to know who our enemy is? Granted the price has been steep but we were going to have to pay it sooner or later.
Would it have been better to leave Saddam in power? I don't think so. He gave all sides a way out. All Iraqis could say: it wasn't us, it was the Baathists. Iranians could say: we really love America; it's Saddam who threatens you. We had been approached by the "moderates" in Iran while Khomeini was still alive and the revolution in full swing. We have been hearing for how long from how many sources just how "pro-American" Iranians really are, down deep.
What the West needs is a Pontius Pilate: someone who will publicly wash his hands of the Muslims and follow up that performance by forever denying them access to dar-al-harb.

Posted by: PMK at March 2, 2008 10:24 AM

"When such questions need to be raised after 4 years at war..."
-- from a posting above

Five years, not four. March 2003-March 2008. Approximate cost so far: between one and two trillion dollars. Joseph Stiglitz has just come out with a book calling it the "three-trillion-dollar war."

But who's counting time or money, just as long as that "surge" is..."working"?

Posted by: Hugh at March 2, 2008 10:35 AM

dgene,

there may be nothing substantive to Obama, but that doesn't mean he arose from nothing. His rise is directly attributable to bush's iraqi fiasco, without which people would be saying, "Barack who?" As tragic as 9/11 was, it also was a golden opportunity for bush to unify the country, & possibly the entire West, against islamism. Instead, bush's grotesque mishandling of iraq has created a backlash that could bring the likes of Obama to the White House.

I see you're defending bush on his iraq policy to the bitter end. Does your support for him also extend to his handling of Kosovo? How about N. Korea? Iran? Turkey? the festering crapistan known as Pakistan? Or the Philippines, which, if I remember correctly, several months ago agreed to cede some land to a muslim separatist group. with so many strikes against him, he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt, especially when there is so much evidence, such as this story on the iran/iraq love affair, on which to base grave doubts.

Posted by: sheik yer booty at March 2, 2008 11:20 AM

"I'm texting my bff* Ahmadinejad!"

* best... fiend forever

Posted by: MarisolJW at March 2, 2008 11:27 AM

Two postings about Barack Obama, which had nothing to do with Islam, have been deleted.

Now there is plenty to be said about Barack Obama, as about Hillary Clinton and John McCain, and their various misunderstandings of Islam, and consequently of the way to minimize the threat from those who take the duty of Jihad seriously, and who pursue it, with or without the instrument of violence.

And one may take issue with what one suspects are Obama's still carefully-unstated views on the subject, and his possible misunderstandings (that, like those of Paul Wolfowitz, may come from assuming one's personal experience in Indonesia is a substitute for learning about the texts and tenets of Islam, or about Islam as believed in not by the relatively "moderate" Muslims one might, as ambassador or schoolboy, have met in Indonesia), or the misunderstandings of his advisers (the names of such advisers mentioned so far do not inspire confidence on this score, but the advisors of the other candidates similarly inspire little confidence), and other matters, including the fact that many Muslims may believe that despite his assurances that he is a Christian he remains a "secret Muslim" (what is important here is not what Barack Obama declares, but what many Muslims may think, and consequently may act on the basis of this misunderstanding), and that in Western Europe, leaders meeting with someone whose precise relation to Islam they simply cannot quite gauge, may make them more rather than less hesitant to openly discuss the need for a united Infidel front against the menace of Islam.

These are all matters that need to be discussed. But mere rants against Obama do not constitute discussion, and will, therefore, like other rants against this or that candidate, be deleted.

By all means, discuss the problem of having as the American president someone who, because of his name and background, his attendance at a Muslim school (however briefly), may lead others -- to think of him as, despite his churchgoing, to be a Muslim.

He can, of course, do all kinds of things to reassure us, and make clear to Muslims, that he is not one of them. He might, for example, have met -- and he has had a year or two in which to have done it, as the other candidates might also have done it -- to meet with Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

She is most impressive. She was living in Washington, practically down the street. Why have Barack Obama, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, not met with her? What's keeping them?

Posted by: Hugh at March 2, 2008 11:38 AM

sheik yer booty

I can agree with much of what you say about Bush's poor leadership. But I can't believe it would have been any better under "the earth is warming, the sky is falling" Algore or "sometimes I'm a war-hero, sometimes I'm not" John Kerry. Certainly, Clinton's record in Bosnia, the Sudan, Somalia, and, yes, North Korea, was nothing to brag about. Nor do I see any of the current leading contenders for the Presidency -- i.e. Obama, Clinton, or McCain --offering much in the way of improvement. It's a sorry commentary on our country that these are the caliber of people we're offered for our highest office.

Posted by: ebonystone at March 2, 2008 11:42 AM

Amen, Hugh.

This issue came up a few days ago. It's always good to know I haven't gone crazy.

Your words tend to stick better than mine (I got the cheap fridge magnets-- fun, though). So I hope this takes care of it.

Posted by: MarisolJW at March 2, 2008 11:45 AM

Talibani is a Sunni Kurd.

Posted by: skevin at March 2, 2008 12:02 PM

At the end of this month, or beginning April 1st, the US fiscal year will be half complete. As of this point in time, our forces still lack the supplemental appropriation for Iraq & Afghanistan - fiscal year 08'. This says nothing of appropriations for 09’ - under whomever may be President.

Just because we, as US citizens, are too stupid to see and understand what is going-on, that doesn’t mean the politician’s in Iraq and the region are just as stupid.

So to answer the question, “Has all our blood and treasure gone to set up an Iranian client state?” The answer is and unambiguous, ‘Yes’, our Congress is preparing to set-up the client state of Iran and, in doing so, will quite likely be responsible for the establishment of the ‘Iranian Shia Crescent’ - an Iranian ruled and dominated region which extends from Iran to the Mediterranean, with Lebanon.

Posted by: Eg at March 2, 2008 12:16 PM

Really, what history book are you people getting your history from? Honestly please tell me the name of the book. During the eight year war, Saddam backed by the U.S. was responsible for the martyrdom of nearly 1,000,000 Iranians. Saddam even managed to use some of the spare gas he purchased from the U.S. on his own people, mainly the Kurds in the north. Now the Iranian government is sincerely reaching out to Iraq to build peaceful relations and commerce. In fact Iraq's success depends on it's ability to coexist with it's neighbors. The U.S. isn't going to stay and babysit forever, and I don't think you want that either. So I think it is quite logical to assume that this is a major positive step, if you're looking at the real actual history between the two countries.

Posted by: Talib at March 2, 2008 12:19 PM

George W. Bush administration has got to be the jihadists best friend ever. Reuters notes:

"Ahmadinejad's motorcade took Iraq's notoriously dangerous airport road to Talabani's palace at the start of his two-day visit, eschewing the helicopter trip usually taken by other visiting dignitaries as a security measure.

Bush's last visit in September 2007 was to a desert airbase in Anbar province in Iraq's west. He flew in unannounced to ward off insurgent attacks and the visit was over in a few hours."

Iran has been working with Al Qaeda and bin Laden for years. Is it any wonder the Iranian president feels so very secure in Iraq?

Only days after the Muslim terrorist atrocities, Mr. Bush unveiled his vision of a Palestinian (jihadist) state in the Holy Land in accord with Saudi Royal Family demands. (Fifteen of the nineteen September 11, 2001 hijackers were Saudi nationals.) Bush administration signed-on to a U.N. Security Council media statement today which essentially condemned Israel. U.N. Secretary-General Ban said he condemned "(Israel's) disproportionate and excessive use of force that has killed and injured so many civilians, including children." He called on Israel "to cease such attacks."

Bush administration urged Hamas participation in the January 2006 elections, against Israel's warnings, thus enabling Hamas to be the democratically elected representative of the Palestinian Muslim people.

The Bush administration has been calling for open and free elections throughout a savage part of the globe, thus enabling a pro-Iranian Shi'ite government to take power in Iraq; jihadists have won electoral gains in Egypt, Lebanaon, Turkey and elsewhere. Shi'ite victory in Iraq has only served to strengthen the Iranian jihadists as well as Al Qaeda.

Whoever has been advising Mr. Bush, he has been poorly served. On the other hand, perhaps this has been Mr. Bush's vision all along.

Posted by: monk at March 2, 2008 12:30 PM

If men kissing men is a sign of brotherhood in Islam, then we should look to Bush as being a muslim. As far as this brotherhood thing, it would seem that whoever has the most power is on top.
Beasty Boy Ahamadinijad, will take the superior position as Maliki bends over to please him. All that and kissing too. The US should realize just how disgusting this is, and quit supporting it. I can see the merit in abandoning Iraq as long as it is seen as a strategic move and not a defeat. Start moving out the non essential equipment now...

Posted by: duh_swami at March 2, 2008 12:35 PM

Setting up a democratic infrastructure in Iran has only served to empower the majority, who are the Shiites, so it's hardly surprising that they will tend to be friendly with Iran. The net effect, ever more apparent down the road, will probably be to extend the sway of the most dangerous and radical regime in the region. And our fighting the insurgents helps Iran, since most of them are Sunnis. It's no wonder that the Shiite militias (esp. Al Sadr) and Iran are quiet: We're doing their dirty work for them.
Re the presidential race: How about a candidate who not only wants to oppose the Global Jihad, but who has a sensible strategy on how to do it without making things worse? Maybe we can write in Robert.

Posted by: jewdog at March 2, 2008 12:42 PM

You wrote: "How about a candidate who not only wants to oppose the Global Jihad, but who has a sensible strategy on how to do it without making things worse? Maybe we can write in Robert."

I am convinced, had Bush not meddled in the Middle East, today, the region would be far more stable than it is. Israel does not need the U.S. to fight her wars. Israel, I believe, has sufficient capability to destroy Iran's nascent nuclear capability, albeit is will not be easy.

If only Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice would get out of the way.

So long as Israel's leaders believe America should fight her battles, we are going to see a nuclear Iran, which is unthinkable.

In my opinion, a President John McCain, will constitute a continuation of Bush's policies and will continue to further the vain hope in Israeli circles that the U.S. will defend Israel against a nuclear Iran; or will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

I believe this hope is far fetched and misplaced. Indeed it is suicidal on Israel's part. A nuclear Iran -- though a source of much instability in the Middle East -- does not in the near term threaten America's existence.

A nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel. As much as I hate to admit it, I am slowly coming to the conclusion that a perceived enemy of Israel as a well as a perceived friend of the jihadists in the White House, might be a good thing for Israel. It might awaken Israel's leaders to the prospect that Israel is basically on her own (with the help of the Almighty of course) in a very dangerous part of the world. A President Obama "could" be a good thing for Israel and the Middle East as hard as it is to entertain.

Posted by: monk at March 2, 2008 1:05 PM

If only Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice would get out of the way.

I agree. Condescending Rice is no more a diplomat than I am, and she's messed it up as much as I would have done too, just in a different way ;o)

Posted by: gymgal at March 2, 2008 1:17 PM

"We had very good talks that were friendly and brotherly. ... We have mutual understandings and views in all fields, and both sides plan to improve relations as much as possible,...."

Coming from the same UMMAH, what does one expect. Not that Bush and Condi wold know what UMMAH is: http://www.chander.com/2005/02/richard_clarke_.html

Not that, being in wahhabbi pockets, Bush / Condi care.

Posted by: Alert at March 2, 2008 1:27 PM

I am slowly coming to the conclusion that a perceived enemy of Israel as a well as a perceived friend of the jihadists in the White House, might be a good thing for Israel.

Posted by: monk at March 2, 2008 1:05 PM

It is clear as day-light that White House is only a 'fair-weather friend' to Israel. Push come to shove, Bush and Condi have twisted Israel's arm until the wahhabbis said 'Enough for now'. By depending on White House which takes its orders from Riyadh, Israel has pretty much resigned to slow suicide.
Sorry but the 'friend of the jihadists' has been in the White House last eight years.

Posted by: Alert at March 2, 2008 1:34 PM

Here's what I would do if I were President:
I would recruit the most liberal members of the Arab and Persian intellectual elite and form them into an advisory body, headed by someone like Ali Sina or Wafa Sultan. I would then announce that the only chance for real peace in the Mideast is for the people who form the majority in the region, that is, the Arabs and Persians, to assume a leadership role for positive change. The goal of that change would be greater social cohesion by establishng an atmosphere of acceptance, which would eventually lead to greater political cohesion. All the countries in the region could then be integrated, based on positive incentives.
Of course, the region is light years away from that now, and will never get there as long as reactionary Islam predominates. That reduces the US role to one of well-meaning, if vain, persuasion.
As positive change fails, we should keep our borders buttoned up and keep WMD out of the hands of the radicals. We also will need to take over the oil fields and keep them in trust for the people of the region and the rest of the world. Then we can say: "Well, we tried."

Posted by: jewdog at March 2, 2008 1:36 PM

You wrote: "Sorry but the 'friend of the jihadists' has been in the White House last eight years."

The friend of the jihadists has been in the White House. Of course. The problem is, this smooth-talking "friend" has all but convinced -- millions of conservative Christians and Jews here in the U.S. and -- most Israelis that he is Israel's best friend ever. You did not know this? Do you read the Jerusalem Post? How 'bout Frontpagemag?

"George W. Bush (so they say) is Israel's best friend ever!" You don't know how many times I have written David Horowitz complaining about this lack of good judgment. Bush is no friend of Israel's. Israel is on the front lines of this battle. Bush's friends are in Riyadh.

Posted by: monk at March 2, 2008 1:46 PM

On the other hand, perhaps this has been Mr. Bush's vision all along.

Posted by: monk at March 2, 2008 12:30 PM

Bush used 9/11 only to help the mujaedeen of the UMMAH. Bush's 'friends and allies in 'war on terror', Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, are terrorists themselves. That has been followed by untold 'aid' in forms of dollars and arms, to the very fore-front of international terror. Ofcourse, none of this chould come as a surprise to an alert oberver. Bush's financial and political campaigns have been supported and funded by wahhabbis. Going back a little further the first gulf war was faught to save the wahhabbis from Saddam. In short, Bush Sr. has used American resources to do favours of international proportions, to his wahhabbi friends in Riyadh and Kuwait. Dubya only took the same to a whole differtent level, starting a phony, self-defeating 'war-on-teror', cleverly helping the terrorists themselves, which proves Bush has only one vision, so obediently implemented by Condi.

Posted by: Alert at March 2, 2008 1:54 PM

Israel is on the front lines of this battle. Bush's friends are in Riyadh.

Posted by: monk at March 2, 2008 1:46 PM

Bush's record prove the above. Americans who believe otherwise are, to put it mildly, of "low-IQ". By electing Bush Americans signed their own suicide note. By re-electing Bush, Americans gave Dr. Bush the cyanide pill, making it a formal and a final prescription.

Posted by: Alert at March 2, 2008 2:06 PM

"I'm texting my bff* Ahmadinejad!"

* best... fiend forever
Posted by: MarisolJW

That's a good one! ...lol

Posted by: champ at March 2, 2008 2:34 PM

"...tend to stick better..."
-- from a posting by Marisol above

Try Crazy Glue. It works for me.

Posted by: Hugh at March 2, 2008 3:22 PM

We are friends to the end...so bend over my friend.

Posted by: pismopal at March 2, 2008 3:27 PM

How is that our punishment of Al Qaeda and So-damned Insane Hussein has gradually morphed into a big, dangerous welfare project, much to Iran's benefit? And then there's Condi and her Palestinian Rosa Parks theme. Pretty surreal.

Posted by: jewdog at March 2, 2008 4:04 PM

The Sunni attitude toward Shiites:
http://www.islamicweb.com/beliefs/cults/shia_taqayyah.htm

Excerpt:

". . . muslims should know about the Shi'ites, this fandamental thing will show us why the Shi'ites can't be trusted, and why the Shi'ites are such of an enemy . . ."

Go back in time about 55 years in the US, replace Shiite with the ugly name of a certain minority. It sounds as if it was written by the Grand Wizard himself. Is it a coinicdence that the KKK named their handbook the Kloran? http://digital.lib.msu.edu/collections/index.cfm?TitleID=135

Posted by: Pelayo at March 2, 2008 4:10 PM

Jewdog, In my opinion, it is a Shiite alliance.

Posted by: Pelayo at March 2, 2008 4:13 PM

I just found out from Wiki that Jalal Talabani is a Kurd; however, Ole Mahmoud still knows who makes up the majority of Muslims in Iraq. I will plead ingorance because I don't know which kind of Islam Kurds follow.

Posted by: Pelayo at March 2, 2008 4:19 PM

So much for all the war supporters on the right who act like the Iraqis are our valiant little brown brothers, ever grateful for the gift of freedom and democracy. This is why I thought the war was a crock of crap from Day 1.

Posted by: Dumbo at March 2, 2008 4:37 PM

ebonystone:

I certainly don't believe that things would have been any better under Gore or Kerry. They probably would be quite a bit worse. But that likelihood doesn't mean -- or shouldn't mean -- that I as a conservative support bush even when he abandons conservative principles b/c I know that the Democrats would be worse. Continuing to support bush despite his open borders policy, his nation-building, his acquiescence to wasteful Congressional pork, his push for the massive expansion of federal entitlements that is the prescription drug plan, his plan to put an unqualified crony on the Supreme Court, and his apparent willingness to throw Israel to the wolves, is sacrificing principle for expediency, entirely similar to what the Democrats did when Clinton occupied the White House. Lying to a grand jury about sex isn't a big deal; treating women as sex objects is inconsequential; credible allegations of rape against the then state attorney general are just politically motivated. So, no, I don't believe in cutting bush slack just because, as you say, the Democrats would be worse.

Posted by: sheik yer booty at March 2, 2008 4:38 PM

I love the handholding.. homos for life.. LOL

Can't wait to see the rumpled dinner jacket dangling from a crane..

Posted by: Allah Schmallah at March 2, 2008 5:04 PM

“I can see the merit in abandoning Iraq as long as it is seen as a strategic move and not a defeat.”
Posted by: duh_swami

It is not possible for the U.S. abandonment of Iraq to be seen, by everyone, as anything other than a huge defeat for America (and Infidels) and a momentous victory for Islam and Jihad.

The fact is that unless we confront the IDEOLOGY of Islam and expose its true nature to the world, the West will lose.

The strategy of containment and “just let them kill each other” as Hugh and others advocate will lose.

The strategy of eventual democracy, which I and dgene and others advocate, will lose, if Islam is not confronted head on.

These things are true because it is mainly an ideology that we fight and a very effective one at gaining new adherents. The only way to defeat an ideology is to make it plain that you have a superior one.

We have the military force to control any battlefield, for a while. We have the communications technology and infrastructure to overwhelm any culture with the message of our choosing. The coordinated use of these tools employed effectively could win this battle.

But first we must understand Islam and know Muhammad and have the courage and common sense to admit that Islam is the enemy. Until we name the enemy, we will lose.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at March 2, 2008 5:17 PM

A party running for President of the United Ststes is named after the grandson Hussein of the founder of islam , none other than Mohammed himself, and jihadwatch sees fit to delete my posts about him and his candidacy.

Et tu Hugh.

The questions about Obama, his policies and his candidacy will not go away.

To put one's head in the sand or cry "I dont hear you" over and over again will not stop the questions.

Posted by: dgene at March 2, 2008 5:35 PM

To say one can be pleased with the choice of candidates is curious.

McCain is really a liberal, not a conservative and his policies would be atrocious, wrongheaded,self defeating.

Hillary is a shrill dissembling socialist who would ruin the country in no time.

But Barrack, to use your word Hugh, has all the 'atmospherics' of islam in his everything for everybody patter, in his associations, and in his support.

If he is being singled out, he deserves to be singled out, and especially on this thread.

Posted by: dgene at March 2, 2008 5:46 PM

The Shiite Mahmoud's left hand is holding the right hand of the Sunni Kurd Jalal. Coincidence or islamic symbolism? I report, you decide.

Has Ayaan Hirsi Ali meet with Mr. Bush? I don't know. I think it safe to assume she does not tutor him in the ways of islam, but that is not to say they have not met. Ali is a rock star at the Heritage Foundation. That in itself is worth more than a few invitations to lunch or dinner at the Whitehouse. Do you think Prez Bush is not aware and has not been told of this great woman's presence on US soil? Think again.

Has Mr. Obama met Ms. Ali? I cannot say. The more interesting question: Would Mr. Obama (together with Mrs. Obama) be willing to have an intimate dinner with the likes of Ms. Ali? A woman who could personally give him great incite into his muslim heritage insofar as his father was muslim who procreated with a progressive hippy chick from the 1960's . A woman whose personal experience with islam could begin to open his eyes (assumng his eyes are not voluntarily shut to the nuances of islam).

Mind you, such a dinner might require that Ms. Ali endure the stump speech routinely given by Mrs. Obama. A stump speech where Ms. Ali's eyes' glaze over as Mrs. Obama waxed eloguently on the hardship of being a person of color "feeling" marginalized from white society while attending Princeton and Harvard. A woman who complains that it's hard keeping it real with the kids on her salary of $300k (plus) and her husband's salary of $160k (plus). (Excuse me for a moment while I get a tissue to wipe the tears my eyes.)

Then again, maybe it's Ms. Ali who doesn't want to meet with Obama? Mr. Obama belongs to a black separatist and supremacist "christian church". Perhaps Ms Ali has had her fill of separatist and supremacist teachings by way of islam. The church Obama belongs to makes no secret of it's gospel: A gospel having more to do with Africa than it does with God. Perhpas Ms. Ali wants nothing to do with Obama's confidant and mentor from his church, the Right Rev. Regi Williams who has managed to build a bridge directly to Rev. Louis Farrakan and his Nation of Islam?

Someone from the MSM should write an article examining the link between Rev. Williams and the ecumenical bridge he built to Rev. Farrakn and the Nation of Islam: call it "A Bridge too Close".

Posted by: omvi at March 2, 2008 6:22 PM

"Has Ayaan Hirsi Ali meet with Mr. Bush? I don't know. I think it safe to assume she does not tutor him in the ways of islam, but that is not to say they have not met. Ali is a rock star at the Heritage Foundation. That in itself is worth more than a few invitations to lunch or dinner at the Whitehouse. Do you think Prez Bush is not aware and has not been told of this great woman's presence on US soil? Think again."

---

I think we all know the answer to that one.. maybe Bush can have her over at the next "iftar" dinner at the Ramadan Inn..

Posted by: Allah Schmallah at March 2, 2008 6:42 PM

Sheik yer Booty

My comments on Bush's record were hardly meant as an endorsement. I was making a statement as to how pitifully we have been served by our political processes for the last 20 years or more, as seen in the presidential candidates we have been offered. Both Bush-1 and Bush-2 have been Left-Wing Democrat Lite. Still, better Lite than Full Strength. As in the old English rhyme about children setting out for a walk in the park with their nursemaid, being advised by their mother: "Remember, dears, always hold tight to Nurse, for fear of meeting something Worse."
P.S. And the only 3rd-party candidate in 40-some years to gain any traction at all was H. Ross Perot, a real nut-cake.

Posted by: ebonystone at March 2, 2008 7:12 PM

Israel is on the front lines of this battle. Bush's friends are in Riyadh.

Posted by: monk at March 2, 2008 1:46 PM

Amen!

Posted by: witness at March 2, 2008 8:58 PM

In the author's opinion it was a hilarious, pointed, satirical musical riff on Obama and his friends

(certainly the ones Obama and his handlers are trying to hide)

which cannot be posted again by the author

(you have been spared possibly the agony of reading it - so its deletion might not be all bad)

since the author does not have a copy.

It also brought in Malcolm X and Farrakon's Nation of Islam, and the preaching of peace through submission.

Hugh was jealous of its sheer artistry (or something else)and had it expunged.

(so goes free speech)(lol)

Posted by: dgene at March 2, 2008 10:28 PM

dgene;

I agree with much of what you wrote, there is a lot about that canidate that rings alarm bells. The questions are being brought to light daily now, without even asking.

However, the die is being cast, none of the three that has one of the feet in the door are the answer, and the dems will find this out very fast.

Let them pull our forces out, within one year the scope of that action will be clear.

The good, bad, and ugly.

And it will be his/her actions forever remembered.

Hugh;
As far as the costs of the "war" so far, they were small in all ways as compared to the aftermath, and the nation building. That has been what happens when a military becomes a police force, and contractors.

Just ask somebody who is serving, they know what they are doing, it's not what they are trained to do.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at March 3, 2008 12:14 AM

Talabani is a Kurd. So much for the theory that the Kurds are our allies

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 3, 2008 2:46 AM

Holding hands between brother's is nice - but kissing cousins is better.

(won't hold my breath though)

Posted by: champ at March 3, 2008 3:17 AM