The most acute criticism of Bush and Rice and Company comes not from the silly who oppose them for being too tough, but from those who have taken their true measure: self-satisfied, obstinate, ignorant of Islam and hence of the full scope of the menace of Islam, naively belieiving that "a prosperous Iraq is a peaceful Iraq" (is a "prosperous Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar" a "peaceful" Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, in the only way that matters to us -- i.e., not promoting Jihad elsewhere inthe world?), or that Iraq could conceivably serve as a model for other Arab states. For god's sake, how could a Shi'a-dominated regime, as any future Iraq (if Iraq continues to exist as a single country) would necesary be, conceivably be found appealing to Sunni Arabs, who will never forgive this blow to their pride, that the despised Shi'a, the nearly-Infidel Shi'a, the "Rafidite dogs" which is what the Wahhabi Muslims consider the Shi'a, and not only Wahhabis -- how could they possibly regard Iraq as a Model?

And if they cannot regard Iraq as a model, and if a "prosperous Iraq" is not necessarily a "peaceful Iraq," then why are we still there, when an Iraq that decomposes into its constituent ethnic and sectarian components, at each others' throats, is far more likely to occupy Arab and Muslim attention, serve as a fault line for Sunni-Shi'a hostility and even open warfare (and be the cause of unsettlement wherever there is a substantial Shi'a population that dares to assert or defend itself againt the Sunnis, as in Bahrain, Yemen, Pakistan, or the Hasa province of Saudi Arabia), and use up resources -- men, materiel, money -- on both sides, as Sunni and Shi'a states try to help co-religionists within Iraq.

The war in Iraq right now is madness. And the madness comes from people like Rice and Bush, who are incapable of making sense, for example, of what is happening in Europe, or in Indonesia, or in Bangladesh or Pakistan or Kashmir. They only know one thing, or rather they only know that they have to stick, because they do not have the mental flexibility not to stick, to the original phrases and goals, even if those goals, and those phrases, make no sense if the menace is not poverty, not unhappiness, but the ideology of Islam.

And it is the ideology of Islam, it is not merely a "war on terror."

Is there not a single member of either party who will correctly analyze the situation, and call not for "cutting and running," but for a husbanding, rather than a squandering of resources, and an intelligent withdrawal from Iraq -- oh, phrase it as "now that the second set of elections has been held and the Iraqis have been trained, and will be expected, and are ready, to defend themselves" (of course it will break down into Kurd against Arab, Shi'a against Sunni militia. Let it. Pretend you had no idea that would happen, that you are "deeply disappointed that the Iraqis were not able to settle their differences. We removed that terrible regime, and did this and did that -- list of people captured or killed, schools and hospitals and electricity grids built or repaired, and so on. Now it is up to the Iraqis themselves."

Sighs of relief from the intelligent. Sighs of slight panic from the left, as its call for "getting out of Iraq" is being met, but not for the reasons it hoped, not in the spirit it hoped. Sighs of -- well, enough sighs. Now let's figure out how to check the various instruments of Jihad, beginning with Da'wa and demographic conquest, and leave the Sunnis and Shi'a to slug it out -- or not -- in Iraq.

And without those American troops held hostage in Iraq, stronger measures against Iran can, when necessary (necessary is just about now), be taken. If the venture in Iraq prevents such action in Iran, it will have been the most hideous mistake, following upon the years of inattention to A. Q. Khan and the permanent meretriciousness, the necessary meretriciousness, of Pakistan's government, that can be imagined -- and nothing anyone says about "democracy" in Iraq will make up for the Islamic Republic of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

But with Bush and Rice not only mouthing nonsense, but what is worse actually possibly believing their own nonsense about Islam, there is no hope. It will be the mixture as before.

Posted by: Hugh at November 4, 2005 9:02 AM

A lovely mention of Jihad Watch in the article, too.

OT:

Has anybody noticed that The Australian is a great newspaper? In the latest edition there's an article--front page, above the e-fold, even--on Le Douce Intifada. The leadoff sentence:

"This is a war." It is late in the evening marking the end of Ramadan when 13-year-old Souhail, a French Muslim of Moroccan origin, makes his bellicose declaration.

Talk above top-shelf ink-stained wretchery.

Somebody should sue!

Posted by: Mad_Jack at November 4, 2005 9:30 AM

Another excellent piece by Mrs. West. No doubt the cocktail hour was held at the Saudi embassy headquarters before the dinner, for appearances sake of course, and in order not to burst Dr. Rice's smiley face balloon about Islam. The dinner menu was probably carefully and thoughtfully planned by Dr. Rice's new sidekick, Karen Hughes, as she did her part in the campaign to reach out in a loving embrace to those observing the "holy" month of Ramadan. She might have even done the dirty work, like standing outside the State Dept. backdoor making sure that that the dinner fare animals were slaughtered halal style before they were brought in and cooked and served on gold platters to all those pious Muslims.

Posted by: maryrose at November 4, 2005 9:47 AM

Why is it that a newspaper owned by the Moonies can publish op/eds like this but not papers owned by "Americans"? Well ... I bought a generator, dug a well, laid in a years supply of canned goods, bought a woodstove and am training with the local urban defence militia. Shotguns I have been told are the best weapon for close range self-defence. Our civilization is going down; we are going to have to fall a long way and a lot of people are going to die before we wake up. Oh well, at least I'll be able to hide in my compound for a while.

Toodles ... off to the hardware to get my shotgun shell filler.

Posted by: Mentat at November 4, 2005 9:50 AM

Diana West. Anne Coulter. Michelle Malkin.

Is it just my imagination, or are the only MSM intellectuals with sufficient balls to call a spade a spade on the subject of Islam women?

Posted by: Chaz MarteL 732 at November 4, 2005 10:30 AM

I think I can anticipate the sequence of events in the coming years.

First, Western governments will break bread with these representatives of a foreign power, hoping to gain credibility and influence in the Islamic world.

Next, Western governments will find themselves reduced to waiting table for these representatives of a foreign power, hoping to regain relevance in their own countries by gaining the approval and permission of their foreign masters

Finally, Western governments will be reduced to simply feeding off the scraps left on the table, provided their foreign masters have given them permission to do so. Otherwise it will be their duty to starve.

I'll take this all back if they ever put up a Christmas tree or a Hannukah menorah in Mecca.

Posted by: Chatillon at November 4, 2005 12:08 PM

Mad_Jack:

I like this quote from the article:

"I have a friend, he has a baccalaureate (high school diploma) and he works at that McDonald's. Is that fair, is that what France should be about?"

Posted by: johnb at November 4, 2005 2:08 PM

Hugh: Per Iranian News (Al Alam) Chalabi, the neo cons ally and a conduit for false information and documentation from the Iranians that justified the invasion (to wit the claim of Blair that Saddam could hit Britain in 45 minutes was based on photos and documentation of Iran's own missle, funneled through Chalibi and the INC), is no allied with Mogtadr al Sadr, the son, grandson and nephew of three heroic (in Iraq) Ayatollahs who have been involved in politics since at least the 1920's.
His father and uncle were both assassinated under orders by Saddam, he has no religious credentials, and his only claim to fame is his family and his status as a Sayyid (the black turbaned descendant of Muhammad through Ali and Fatima).

An interesting election is brewing in Iraq, as the participants are arranged by parties, and the folk will be electing slates, and because their is so much illiteracy there was a raffle drawing (ping balls and all in a wire cage) of numbers that designate which slate of candidates. Chalabi's slate is numbered 555.

Posted by: Nariz at November 4, 2005 4:21 PM

Why is it that a newspaper owned by the Moonies can publish op/eds like this but not papers owned by "Americans"? posted by Mentat

What vexes me more is that the New York Times is owned by a Jew, Sulzberger, and so is the Washington Post (Katherine Meyer Graham, daughter of Agnes and Eugene Meyer) as well as Fox and Sky News (Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the London Times).

Why do these people, who most certainly should understand the antisemitism of Islam, not speak up or have their editor and staffs speak up, after all it is they that sign the paychecks?

Posted by: Nariz at November 4, 2005 4:27 PM

an excellent article. shows up the moral and spiritual bankruptcy of neoconism

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at November 4, 2005 4:32 PM

George W. Bush is a conservative? You've been reading the New York Times for too long, Freddie. If you read the entries on this forum properly you will see what real conservatives make of his policies towards Islam.

Posted by: disillusioned_german at November 4, 2005 4:50 PM

An informative place to start would be to challenge these same Ramadan diplomats to denounce, not newspapers that publish funny faces of Mohammed, but anyone who chops a schoolgirl's head off.
Funny isn't it how the beheaded kids don't get the attention that cartoon pictures get? How many of our diplomats and officials are closet muslims? I've read Infiltration and I can't help but wonder about the upper levels of our government...why do we celebrate Bombadan? (and not Yom Kippur?)....just thinking out loud....hmmm

Posted by: Carolyn2 at November 4, 2005 5:04 PM

That was the most ignorant speech Condi Rice ever concocted. No wonder this nation is going to hell in a handbasket. She needs to stop living in the land of blind,deaf and dumb. I would have thought that someone with a Ph.D would have at the very least read the Quran, Hadiths and Sira to learn the truth about Islam. If she had, there would have never been a Ramadan dinner at the State Department on that night nor in the future.

Hell, Nihad Awad wouldn't have been able to get pinky toe through the door!

Posted by: delia7 at November 4, 2005 10:35 PM

I can't imagine that a woman as intelligent as Ms. Rice would say such things if she didn't actually believe them to be true.

It's obvious that she hasn't read the Qur'an, but I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt in that she probably has a lot on her plate, and the Qur'an is not one of those books that just can't be put down.

And, how many Christians have actually read the Bible?

That said, she does have a research staff.

Where are THEY in this?

Posted by: PRCS at November 5, 2005 1:42 AM

islam is the problem, Condi, George; hello, wake up.

Nariz, Katherine Graham, owner, though i thought she had recently died, of The Washington Post, is/was not Jewish. Her father was, it is true; she was not.
I have never heard that Murdoch was a Jew, and think it highly unlikely; in fact, i would wager serious money that you were wrong.

The attempt to appease the worlds islamic community, this time by Condi, on behalf of Bush and the U.S. administration,
sends the wrong message to muslims,
but may reflect the truly weak position that the U.S. govt, and all western governments, think themselves in re the world wide islamic insurgency.

At what stage of the conflict will our leaders publicly acknowledge that islam is the problem?

Posted by: dby at November 5, 2005 2:21 AM

"Islamikazes"! Why is Diana West signing her death warrant with such articles? Hasn't the woman heard of what happened to the Van Gogh descendant? Freedom of speech, yes. But we have to use it smartly. Never say anything about Islam in public that can be traced back to you and yours, because it's simply "mortally incorrect" when it comes to Islam. I hope she stays safe.

Posted by: kufr at November 5, 2005 4:49 AM

Nariz:

Very subtle. Use my comment to push the idea that the major media are all owned by Jews.

"The current publisher [of the NY Times], Arthur Sulzberger Jr., has a non-Jewish mother and was raised as an Episcopalian."

http://www.jbooks.com/interviews/index/IP_Groner_Leff.htm

"IslamOnline dropped “Jewish” from in front of “billionaire Rupert Murdoch” when informed that Murdoch is not, in fact, Jewish, ...."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004699.php

Katharine Graham is Jewish.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375701044/ref=sib_rdr_dp/002-6434606-0773624?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books

Posted by: Mentat at November 5, 2005 7:51 AM

"We in America know the benevolence that is at the heart of Islam,"

Now that is not only erronious, as we know, thats got to be one kiss butt statement.

"WE" in America know no such thing. Who is she talking about? Has she been taking lessons from her mentor Geo the Great, on how to look dumb, act stupid, and say rediculous things? Whats with these people, they are all starting to look and act like "Charlie McCarthy". Their lips are moving but there is no sound comming out. That is comming from the ventriliquist behind the curtain. Who the h-ll is that, The Wizard of OZ?
We know that Allah talks to muslims, but who is talking to the Geo Administration puppets?
Inquiring minds want to know...Well Allah already knows, dont tell anyone, but so do the Saudi's...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 5, 2005 12:36 PM

I disagree with Robert's interpretation on this one.

I maintain that the Israel-Paestinian conflict can be traced all the way back to the seventh century to the Muslim invasions of the Holy Land. Palestine, as a geographical division of Israel, which may have have hosted a sectarian forerunner of Islam as a cult that worshiped baal (which is probably allah), is now a political entity being used by Muslims as a ploy aimed at continuing the ongoing jihadist war against the Jews and designed to Islamicize Israel.

What we, in my view, are seeing with Palestine is in fact simply another phase of the ongoing 13 century-long jihad.

Posted by: pythagoras at November 5, 2005 2:05 PM

Why has it become the post-September 11 function of the U.S. government to celebrate Ramadan?

Presidential Message: Ramadan, Oct 4, 2005

Laura and I send warm greetings to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world as they begin the observance of Ramadan.

The month of Ramadan, which commemorates the revelation of the Qur'an to the prophet Muhammed, is the holiest month of the Muslim year. It is a special time of reflection, fasting, and charity. It is also a time of spiritual growth and prayer and an occasion to remember the less fortunate by sharing God's gifts with those in need.

Throughout our history, America has been blessed by the contributions of people of many different faiths. Our Muslim citizens have helped make our Nation a stronger and more hopeful place through their faith, generosity, and compassion.

May this be a blessed Ramadan for Muslims in the United States and around the world. Ramadan mubarak.

GEORGE W. BUSH

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/print/20051004.html

I don’t have a problem with the White House holding a Ramadan dinner, I do have a problem with these dinners never taking place before 9/11/01.

Posted by: Bar at November 5, 2005 6:23 PM