One is tempted to say: It's a joke! Trouble is, it's far too serious, and sickening!, to say that.

Posted by: Mark at September 24, 2005 1:40 PM

I used to think that Bush was a great leader. Now, everything he does only makes me sad. Why would he stop being a leader when he had no chance for re-election?

Posted by: el greco at September 24, 2005 1:41 PM

Can you say America is their bitch? I think Bush is resigned to kissing their ass. We have let four years go by and we could have been embarking on a massive pursuit of energy alternatives and conservation. Makes me wish there was a presidential election in 06. I also think Bush is overwhelmed. This presidency has been full of world changing events.

John Sobieski, PI
The Pedestrian Infidel Blog

Posted by: John Sobieski at September 24, 2005 2:39 PM

Now didnt the dhimmis at state dept. bow down to CAIR pressure and revoke visa of Mr.Modi becoz "HE FAILED TO PROTECT MUSLIMS IN HIS STATE DURING RIOTS"(in words of CAIR) in March this year

Makes a good camparision.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at September 24, 2005 2:41 PM

Bush is rotten to the core. He started his professional life by begging the Saudis for an oil contract as a favor for his father. His father repaid the favors of the Saudis by calling them after 911 to assure them that they do not have to worry about his boy. Bush senior and Jim Baker are swimming in Saudi money and other stuff through the Carlyle group. Muslims with Jihadist views have infiltrated the federal government at the highest levels and control all the translation chairs of every Security and intelligence service. 400 Billion dollars squandered on Iraq when all is said and done, thousands of wasted and chattered American lives, all the while, Jihad is strengthened and our enemies are emboldened and inspired. Muslims loot our treasuries in the mad spending on Iraq and homeland security to no avail. Christians in Sudan, Egypt, Indonesia, and Malaysia suffer and die without so much as a peep out of him, worst yet; he turns around and rewards them for their barbarity. He wholeheartedly supports Turkey’s entry into the EU… He strong-armed Israel into making fruitless pathetic concession that emboldened Jihadists and raised their spirits. He turns a blind eye to Pakistan’s tacit and direct support of Jihadists killing coalition troops in Afghanistan and slaughtering innocent Hindus in Kashmir. Our borders are wide opened and undefended, and the Mexicans take full advantage of our gullibility. America is now a joke thanks to our liberal, idiotic, and down right unpatriotic immigration and trade policy. The middle class, the backbone of the US, is steadily eroding. The Democrats are communist scum in disguise, and the Republicans are a bunch of fat cats who sold America’s future for their monetary gains and that of their business friends.

Posted by: have_mercy at September 24, 2005 3:52 PM

Could it be that King Tolerance is in charge of policy in the White House?

"... who are we to judge...?"

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 24, 2005 4:33 PM

On the subject of slavery in Pigland, may i just highlight the plight of child camel jockeys?
boys as young as 4 are kidnapped or sold by their poor parents in the subcontinent and other places and forced to work as camel jockeys.

for their pains they are rewarded by a sheet for a bed and a basic shelter in the desert, deprived of food and water to keep them as light as possible, this in temperatures of 40 degrees plus - all for the pleasure of fat wobbly bellied glory-grabbing sheiks.

if a camel wins a race, the owner gets all the money, nothing for the boys, after all what a privilege for them just to be there what more could they want, but to serve allah in this vital way.

needless to say they are discarded if injured or once they are past their sell-by date. if they get killed, which happens, then who gives a monkeys. certainly not the george w bushes of this world

incidentally at least the uae has banned jockeys inder the age of 18, and have even introduced robot jockeys, which are remote-controlled by idiots following the camels in cars

as for george w bush, this man received $61.5m in bribes in his 2 elections. these bribes are known euphemistically as "corporate contributions" the donors will get their reward in iraq, rest assured. please please dont try to tell me that these people, who made the contributions, do not have a major say in what he says and does

btw he also got $500 000 from the notorious exclusive brethren sect, who also made waves in the v. recent new zealand election - and they dont even allow their adherents to vote, if you can get your head round that. these are the kind of people who will pay to have the likes of bush

george w bush is a dirty bastard. anyone who expects this abject clown to deal fairly, squarely and justly in the world is seriously misguided

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at September 24, 2005 4:42 PM

The latest on camel jockeys from the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4631163.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4268774.stm

My sheikh did not torture me," he says. "Of course, sometimes he would slap me or beat me if I stole something from him or made a mistake."

and not to be forgotten from BBC Have Your Say May 2005.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4514279.stm

As a Muslim, I have a different view of slavery. Slavery is part of Islam. It is not racially based. Instead it is a fundamental aspect of the Islamic society. Westerners think slavery is a bad thing because Westerners treated slaves so badly. In Islam the master must look after his slaves even better than he looks after himself. The idea that slavery is always wrong is just another example of Western cultural imperialism.
Saeed Aktar, Birmingham, England

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at September 24, 2005 5:09 PM

Have_Mercy:

Right on! What a WONDERFUL posting! Absolutely wonderful! Bravo!

Posted by: Mark at September 24, 2005 5:34 PM

Have Mercy...thats almost exactly what those liberal demonstrators that line our one highway overpass say about Bush. (I wrote about them on another thread). One went out of his way to blame Bush for the high price of cottage cheese.
I dont know if any of that is true or not, but it is a very liberal/leftist slant. Just keep in mind when considering Bush, 'anyone who likes old folks, dogs and kisses Saudi's', cant be all bad...

Posted by: duh_swami at September 24, 2005 5:55 PM

Have_Mercy:

Your piece is so WONDERFUL, and ACCURATE, I feel I have to tell you again: BRAVO! Nobody else could have written anything better, nobody could have written a more accurate piece in so few words! Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!

Posted by: Mark at September 24, 2005 6:15 PM

The idea that slavery is always wrong is just another example of Western cultural imperialism.

.. just like the idea that:

- All religions are equal.
- Human life is prescious.
- Freedom is essence to humanity.
- Women are equal to men.

Finally, the idea that slavery is sometimes right, is another example of ISLAM's deceptive hypocricy.

Posted by: Alert at September 24, 2005 6:25 PM

Elect a Democrat in 2008...anyone but Joe Lieberman, and you all will look back on the W years as years of defiance and anti-dhimmitude.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 24, 2005 6:58 PM

I need help locating a reference about the Saudi prince visiting Bush at his ranch in Texas -- I remember reading at the time that the Saudi prince requested that there be no female helicopter pilots present (presumable to transport the Saudis to and fro), and Bush obliged him.

Does anyone know where I can find a link documenting this? I spent almost an hour on Google, to no avail. Thanks.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at September 24, 2005 7:50 PM

No link Pepper, but the request was that no female airtraffic controllers communicate with the then-Crown Prince's private jet.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 24, 2005 7:52 PM

Cornelius, I hope you did not think I implied I would vote Democratic. I see no Democrat at the current time I would consider a preference. On the other hand, you have Tancredo, Romney, and Guiliani who interest me. Bush was the best choice in 2000 and 2004. I cannot agree with his terror policy because it reflects ignorance of Islam, and that is pretty damning to me.

Posted by: John Sobieski at September 24, 2005 9:29 PM

Dr. Pepper:

I second Cornelius' comment about the female air traffic controllers.

Posted by: johnb at September 24, 2005 10:45 PM

duh_swami wrote: “Have Mercy...thats almost exactly what those liberal demonstrators that line our one highway overpass say about Bush…”
Also, thank you Mark for your compliments.

Well, just because they are a bunch of liberal wachos does not mean that all of what they are saying is false. Moreover, just because Bush angers the left to no end, it does not mean that he is classic conservative, and by extension that his policies are sound. Also, if you think Bush and the Republican Party are conservatives, it is time for a reality check. The facts that I stated about the Dhimmitude of this administration and federal agencies are supported by articles posted right on this site and from firsthand experiences. As to the Bushs’ involvement with the Saudis, this is a well documented fact in spite of Michael Moore’s lies and half truth. This involvement may run the gamut from cronyism and self-serving politics to official corruption and treason… At best it is quite distasteful and at the worst it is down right treasonable conduct. What would you think if FDR’s father called the Japanese after Pearl Harbor to assure them that there would be no retaliation or repercussions? What would you think if the Roosevelts’ fortune were tied to Japanese money and if Business ties continued after the beginning of the War? What would you think if the FDR administration instead on interning enemy aliens and perusing saboteurs, it opened its door to both Nazis and fanatic Japanese and placed them in key positions in the war effort? What if the FDR administration instead of using the media to inform the public about the evil and atrocities of the Nazis and the Japanese, and to motivate them to fight, it exonerates their murderous ideologies, promotes them as peaceful, and puts the public to sleep. I know that psychologically we all need a leader to rally behind in time of crisis and as humans we are likely to overlook the “inspired leader” faults, however grave, in order to feel secure. Nonetheless, we can not and should not use the standard “but, what would the Democrats have done had they been in power?” Choosing between the lesser of two evils is no standard to apply, especially when the stakes were never higher and the threat never graver.

Posted by: have_mercy at September 25, 2005 12:19 AM

John,

All 3 of the potential Republican contenders you mentioned appeal to me also. I think Guiliani is the only one with any real potential for winning the nomination.

Bush's anti-terror policy is indeed fraught with mistakes, particularly his stubborn refusal to protect our borders. I also agree that the President does not seem to comprehend the malevolant essence of Islam. But I maintain that the jury is still out on Iraq, Afghanistan and his attempts at nation-building. No one could possibly claim that America (or the world) would be better off if the Taliban were still in power and the Al Qaeda camps hosted by them were still in operation.

I've repeatedly expressed my disagreement with Mr Fitzgerald over his calls for a precipitous withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. I believe the result would either be a failed state where terrorists can flourish and train (much as is the case today, but exponentially more active and effective in terms of global operations since their energies today are usurped by the struggle inside IraQ), or the advent of an Iranian-backed regime that becomes a new Lebanon for the Iranians, i.e., an auxillery state from which they can wage war against their enemies (Israel and America) by proxy while maintaining a degree of plausible deniability.

This doesn't mean that I believe the US commitment to Iraq should be open-ended. But I feel we have not only a moral obligation to leave that country with a functioning gov't after removing the previous one, but as a strategic necessity, I think it is imperative we insure Iraq doesn't become a base of operations for future strikes against the West. Regardless of whether or not the decision to invade Iraq was appropriate, the nature of the enemy we are fighting there has evolved from Saddam's Baathists to Zarqawi's jihadis. The latter is an extension of the movement that attacked us on 9-11.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 25, 2005 12:46 AM

WW2 destroyed Europe both spiritually and ideologically, leaving its bones to be picked by Muslims… The Vietnam War irreparably harmed America by damaging patriotic and conservative values and promoting the rise of a generation and a counter-culture that promotes immorality, anti-Christian attitudes, moral relativism, multiculturalism and radical socialism while despising patriotism, personal responsibility, self-reliance, and economic dynamism. Iraq could be the most destructive war yet by promoting a culture and a generation entirely devoid of patriotism, immoral, decedent, and self-loathing without the desire to fight and the well to die for freedom. All the while, the Muslim horde gathers momentum and grows unopposed and unchallenged in America, sapping the strength of a decedent and non-confrontational public weaned on the multicultural dogma, and horded to the slaughter by misguided and corrupt politicians, media gurus, and academics.

Posted by: have_mercy at September 25, 2005 1:26 AM

The whole worlds economy depends on oil.
Japan imports 100% of its oil.

Gas is only 30% of oil used. The rest for home heating and more importantly, the manufacturing
industry.

Oil is the problem, everyone knows that. It is not an easy fix nor will it occur overnight.

While those who bash Bush, remember, Clinton and
Gore did nothing to solve it either.

Posted by: learjet0450 at September 25, 2005 12:10 PM

HAVE MERCY
you are making a subtle and impotant point- one that has not yet been analysed or even realised by many.
Will the psychological effects of the Iraq war mimic the disasters of the Vietnam war era?
If so the US may become a nation of appeasers in the vein of the EU, wallowing in guilt over their imperialist excesses and allowing Islamic outrages to go on unpunished and blaming themselves every time its citizens are brutally murdered. Allowing the building of countless mosques under the guise of multiculturism knowing full well that so many are preaching grounds for the destruction of western democracy.
Accepting the "generous arab donations" for the setting up of university chairs of "Islamic or ME studies" and turning the other cheek to what these studies actually teach.
America is perhaps the last man standing in the fight against Islamic domination of the world, God willing, it will stay that way.

Posted by: fRIDA at September 25, 2005 12:56 PM

As far as I am concerned, this is not about Bush-bashing. I, for one, started out being a big fan of Bush's: I thought he showed much promise, despite what the naysayers were saying.

Unfortunately, Bush, as far as I can see now, has not delivered. His invasion of Iraq was misguided and ill-advised at best, and for one simple reason: Islam and democracy are totally incompatible. In the one system, all power rests with Allah; in the other, power rests with the people - the electorate. Anyone who understands politics, Islam, and the democratic process would have been able to foretell the dreadful outcome of the Iraqi adventure.

With this war, all that has been achieved is the strengthening of Islam in the world. Now, yet another country has turned to Shariah. That was not very smart of Bush and Blair, was it? And, by the way, inasmuch as this has happened, Iran has been strengthened by the very fact that Iraq, Iran's arch-enemy, has been so weakened.

This so-called Bush-bashing has nothing to do with left versus right politics. It has everything to do with the way that our Western countries are being run, and how we are selling out to the enemy. That goes for the US and Europe alike, whether the politicians are from the left or the right. They're all one as bad as the other!

15 out of the 19 hijackers that flew those planes into the Twin Towers on 9/11 were Saudis. If a war was thought to be the answer, wouldn't it have made more sense to have gone after the Saudis? The link between Iraq and 9/11 was tenuous, and tenuous at best. But for some reason - a reason we are all familiar with - the Saudis are allowed to act with impunity - always! With our politicians, the Saudis always come out smelling of roses! Can it be that this is so because there is so much money changing hands at the top? Isn't it so that contracts, big contracts, money-spinning contracts, are at the heart of this hypocrisy? For it is surely so that where there is big money to be made, a blind eye will be turned!

Frankly, I am sick to death of being made to observe the importance of Islam growing in the West - for it is surely growing in importance by the week, nay by the day - yet nobody is willing and prepared to do anything about it. It seems that our leaders have all been emasculated, all been castrated, all been weakened to the point of being totally impotent.

Through such inaction, our civilization will surely become effete. This is the worrying thing. There will be plenty of rich fat cats still about - the people who have made their money from Middle Eastern contracts; and those people, I guess, will be able to buy their freedom elsewhere (if there will be anywhere left on earth where the tentacles of Islam have not reached). But for the rest of the poor bastards, they will have to live everywhere in chains: manacled by the mind-numbing constraints of Islam and its plethora of restrictions and prohibitions.

It all begs a simple question: Who is REALLY winning this war?

Posted by: Mark at September 25, 2005 12:57 PM

Ver, very sad, the current political stablishment so dhirmi, is very disturbing, Bush, we want less oil, more nuclear plants, less Saudi Arabia y more Western.

Posted by: Franze at September 25, 2005 3:26 PM

Have mercy...I wasn't insinuating that you were a (shudder) liberal. And you are right that sometimes, once in a great while, every now and then, a liberal has a legitimate complaint. I notice that Geo is losing support among conservatives and some of them have already jumped ship. Liberals have been shaking the 'I told you so' finger for sometime now. In order to get to liberals real and genuine complaints about Bush, you have to get through layers of 'stuck on stupid' stuff like, blaming him for the high price of cottage cheese.
The same local liberals I mentioned previously, held a 'Peace March' through town yesterday. About one hundred people were marching. Many were carrying signs with worn out mantras on them like, 'Bush lied people died'. A catchy tune but old and tattered. They need something new. No conservatives participate in these peace marches because the two of us know thats not what they are. They are anti-Bush political rallys where Bushrage prevails. Hardly peaceful.
To call this a 'peace march' is a deception. I dont give much credibility to people who start out with a deception (muslims). After the march they had a candle light vigil (another one) on the highway overpass. These people all look depressed. There is no joy in them.
Bush practices deception also. After all, he is a politician and deception is in their bag of tricks. How much of his deception is normal political deception, and how much is beyond that, I dont know. But I know he works in strange and mysterious ways. So strange and mysterious, that it drives liberals insane and strikes others with awe and wonder. They wonder what they have to be in awe about. Thats what happened to many conservatives, an anti-climax. It was good for the first fifteen minutes, then it was over. As far as I am concerned it was over when Geo kissed the Saudi. Yuk...if he's capable of that, he's capable of anything...

Posted by: duh_swami at September 25, 2005 4:56 PM

RE; It all begs a simple question: Who is REALLY winning this war?

I recommend "The Shadow War" by RIchard Miniter
and "America's Secret War" by Dr George Freidman.
"The Secret History of The Iraq War" by Yossef Bodansky

Find out what is REALLY going on behind the scenes that the media doesn't know and wouldn't print anyway as it doesn't fit their agenda.

Posted by: learjet0450 at September 25, 2005 5:18 PM

RE: we want less oil, more nuclear plants

France is 70% nuclear, why not us? Quite simple as the Democrats and enviromentalists made it
prohibitively expensive with their lawsuits, environmental studies and regulations.

The first reactors this country built could withstand a direct hit from a 747 airplane > but that wasn't good enough........

Posted by: learjet0450 at September 25, 2005 5:21 PM

Bush's anti-terror policy is indeed fraught with mistakes, particularly his stubborn refusal to protect our borders. I also agree that the President does not seem to comprehend the malevolant essence of Islam. But I maintain that the jury is still out on Iraq, Afghanistan and his attempts at nation-building. No one could possibly claim that America (or the world) would be better off if the Taliban were still in power and the Al Qaeda camps hosted by them were still in operation.

Cornelius, frankly, I wish I did not feel this way but think Bush's integrity is severely compromised. How can Bush make a 'mistake' with anti-terror policy? After all, he is the one who should be the most informed and sharp than any of us. Yet, he escorts Bin-Ladins to safety, blocks 9/11 Commission, blanks pages from 9/11 COmmission report, pats buddy Bandar and makes the Saudi Arabia(the fox), ally (guardian) against terror (of hen-house). Does any of this make sense? I would say, YES, it does! How? Bush uses 'war on terror' (remember, it is not a war on 'terrorists', to start with), to win elections and votes. Then, he defeats his own war by appointing Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as 'allies' against the same 'war on terror'. Thus, pleasing his Saudi masters. Finally, to please those who lined his pockets during elections, Bush leaves the southern border wide open to illeal immigration. Now it makes sense, doesn't it, Amigo??

Posted by: Alert at September 25, 2005 6:49 PM

learjet - nuclear is all very well and good provided it can be kept safe, but if all the existing fossil fuel power stations in the world were replaced by nuclear, the worlds uranium would run out after 3-4 years - (nuclear monitor, feb 2005)

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at September 25, 2005 7:10 PM

RE: the worlds uranium would run out after 3-4 years - (nuclear monitor, feb 2005)

If we had a nuclear progam in place for 30 years, by now nuclear fission would be obsolete and
technology would have evolved to nuclear fussion and the uranium supply becomes a irrelevant.

Posted by: learjet0450 at September 25, 2005 8:56 PM

learjet - point taken, but nuclear fusion is still a pipe dream. theyve been trying to develop it for the past 50 yrs, and the new thing in france will take another 50 years to be onstream, if they can get it going that is, given the enormous challenges

meanwhile in the uk at least we are sitting on 1000 years worth of coal and i have heard we are much closer to clean carbon energy than nuclear fusion. trouble is thatcher had most of the deep mines filled in or flooded

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at September 26, 2005 9:30 AM

To freddiefreeloader and learjet0450:
First, we are not talking about global warming, so what do we care about converting the rest of the world's fossil fuel stations to nuclear? Let's just worry about converting ours for now.

Secondly, the usability for nuclear fuel is much greater through the use of reprocessing. Reprocessing was outlawed in the US thanks to Jimmy Carter and reinstated by Reagan (but the enviros have halted anything nuclear for the last 30 years).
http://www.chemcases.com/2003version/nuclear/nc-13.htm

Nuclear by far is the best option in the forseeable future to aleviating our dependance on foreign oil (don't forget about Venezuela!).

Posted by: funkmotor at September 28, 2005 7:37 PM