Bush and Romney have justified faith for its own sake–regardless of the content of the faith. That means all faiths are good no matter how heretical or evil the faith. We are left with Islam being good by definition. How can that make sense for a conservative Christian?

thuja on January 4, 2008 at 11:56 PM

Well and very insightfully written. You are 100% correct.

Actually, when one takes in the entire scope of GWB’s two terms in office, there is PRECIOUS little evidence that this man is any more “Christian” than necessary to get elected by a Christian-oriented base.

Consider:
-Bush’s (and Rice’s) sickening and studied silence in the face of rampant and spreading VIOLENT persecution of Christians in a wide array of countries, including (but not limited to) India, Pakistan, China, Egypt, and Turkey. (How hard is it to speak up and say: “This is wrong?” After all, as TR once noted, the White House is a “bully pulpit.”)

-Bush, with much fanfare has hosted an annual Eid el-Fitr Muslim religious feast at the White House, with prominent Muslim mullahs in attendance (and has proudly posted this event on the White House Web site). Just for the sake of comparison, the putatively “evangelical” Bush White House’s Christmas decorations, while ornate, were strictly secular (Christless), as were its annual White House Christmas cards. Question: If it okay to have a Muslim religious feast every Eid el-Fitr, why is it apparently impermissible to also be a little bit “Christan” every Christmas, especially for someone who claims to be such.

-GWB has famously said more than once that “Islam is a religion of peace.” (May he wear that claim to shame as part of his miserable legacy — if he does not wake up soon!)

-The list could go on, but I will stop here.

Summary: Bush would appear more likely to be “religious” in the “Masonic” sense that all religions are considered equal, than he would appear to be religious in the genuinely and biblically Christian sense that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. Of course, GWB has every right to believe in any fashion he so chooses, but the argument could be made that he “cultivated” an “evangelical” persona to get elected in the first place.

Pero lo peor no es eso: es que lo fue a instancia de oficiales pro-musulmanes que le habían pedido que “dulcificara sus ideas sobre el extremismo islámico”. De Hot Air:…

When politicized the military does not know who the enemy is
I am a career officer and this is a very true and disconcerting thought.

Thank you, as a 25 year career enlisted (retired E-9), I fought the good fight and retired not because I did not love the life, but because leaders became more concerned with the color (Chreech Brown) for facilities and directing large sums of the O&M budget to green the golf course vice clean the planes.

There are only two type of aircraft, “fighters and targets”.

The post on Jan 4, 9:03 indicates there is some place to voice our opinions where they might have influence.

On posts like this it would be appreciated if you gave out some addresses where we could apply some pressure. I sent my comment to Mr Bush at: comments@whitehouse.gov

I agree with 95%. The remaining 5% concerns the possible strategies for fighting this war. Environmental problems make a Mark Stein breeding war impossible unless….

thuja on January 5, 2008 at 6:28 PM

On this occasion, I’m not writing in support of particular means. In my comment at 4:46 PM, I meant to expose the moral timidity that often seems to underlie claims such as, “I will die before I ever submit.” (Please note well that I’m aware I can’t know whether or not Hawkins1701 himself is morally timid.) I wasn’t trying to persuade anyone to commit to strategies he thinks will not achieve the end.

I meant to say that one does not really desire the end (in this case, freedom to live as one thinks best) unless one is willing to use every prudent means in pursuit of the end. If one says, “I will die before I ever submit” to the imams and sharia, one has already largely submitted, unless one is also willing to fight dirty for one’s own and one’s companions’ freedom and supremacy.

How attached are you really to your freedom and your grandchildren’s freedom? Let’s have some serious fun with ridiculous, but telling, hypothetical cases:

* If you thought you could safely end the career of Hasham Islam by committing adultery with his wife, mailing him the video on DVD, and provoking him to commit an “honor killing,” would you do it?

* If you thought you could safely end the career of Hasham Islam by committing adultery with him and mailing the DVD to his wife, his imam, his boss, al-Jazeera, and Focus on the Family, would you do it?

* Your cousin Nikolai, a member of the Russian mafia, dies; you inherit his stash of polonium-210. Do you (a) invite Hasham Islam to have tea with you at a nice Washington restaurant or (b) save the polonium so you can “die before [you] ever submit”?

This is in a Pentagon run by a Republican president who has called himself a “war president” in the past. Emphasis on “past,” apparently.

Bush continues to suck. He’s an embarrassment. This year can’t get over fast enough for me.

In general, it seems that in whatever way one refuses to fight, one has already submitted and offered the submission of all one’s companions.

Kralizec on January 5, 2008 at 4:46 PM

I agree with 95%. The remaining 5% concerns the possible strategies for fighting this war. Environmental problems make a Mark Stein breeding war impossible unless we really, truly plan to kill many, many people. And if we are planning on a massive future war, let’s just have the war now so that there will be less suffering and less environmental damage.

Perhaps there are other strategies. I strongly recommend zero muslim immigration. A pigpen of savages living in deep poverty can only do so much damage. Perhaps if their push comes to our shove, we could kill them with robots in a few years.

I will die before I ever submit.

Hawkins1701 on January 4, 2008 at 6:24 PM

But is one willing to kill rather than submit? In any case in which killing were required, one’s mere willingness to die would be worthless. And is one willing to make a lying submission, so as to have fresh opportunities to fight? What will one say about coveting and stealing? Is one willing to take whatever one needs in order to avoid submission? Hawkins1701 says he is willing to die rather than submit. A strategist wonders if he would be willing to have six children instead, or perhaps twelve by two women.

In general, it seems that in whatever way one refuses to fight, one has already submitted and offered the submission of all one’s companions.

So tell all your friends :)

Be the voice you want people to hear! Spread the word! Find ways to amplify your effort! When we take a punch like this we swing back harder!

Charles Martel was badly outnumbered when his efforts literally saved western civilization! The weapons and the battlefield may be different today, but it’s the same fight, and we should do no less than our very best!

It can’t rain all the time :)
USA, all the way!

JellyToast on January 5, 2008 at 11:14 AM

Term limits would fix a lot of things, but it’ll never happen, because the incumbents would have to vote it in.
We’ve allowed way too much power to be invested in electoral offices and they won’t ever give it back.

This is bad news. Stephen Coughlin, a specialist on Islamic extremism and Shari’a, has been dismissed from the Pentagon following opposition to his work by Islamist officials:…

It’s scary, real scary.

The enemies of our country walk amongst us every day. The leftists are too blind with Bush hatred over a 2000 election to elevate terrorists and murderers over our own soldiers.

It DISGUSTS ME to no end. Day in and day out.

Bush, be a god damned President and do your f’n job. Who cares what the f’n media or the f’n CAIR say. We are the superior society. We are the superior nation. We are the RIGHT they are the WRONG. Start acting like it.

No wonder our enemy snickers at us as we tear each other apart. The enemy is like vultures ready to pick apart the pieces.

I can’t see Rudy standing for one moment for a Pentagon official being fired for telling the truth about jihadists and their sympathizers.

Fred might also be that tough and straightforward, but Rudy’s statements, ads, and personal history prove that he would be. I mean, the man returned $10 million to a terrorist supporter, and he kicked Arafat’s terrorist a$$ right out of NYC.

aero on January 5, 2008 at 12:50 AM

I also doubt either one of them would stand for having his foreign policy undermined by a leaked, half assed, contradictory NIE report.

God bless you Mr. Coughlin, and please continue the good fight.

When politicized the military does not know who the enemy is

I am a career officer and this is a very true and disconcerting thought.

What credentials does Mr. England carry?

heroyalwhyness on January 4, 2008 at 11:48 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_R._England

This has more information than his official biography on the DoD website. He was never in the military and had been a defense contractor his whole career.

It’s pretty obvious who benefits vs. suffers by this Bush pre-emptive defanging.

Sadly, this would align with the GW “stay the course” with Rumsfeld’s let them eat cake strategy vs. fortification of invasion.

Witness evangelical compassionate conservative = bleeding heart liberal with GW and then project Huck’s version to the power of 10 at least.

N.B. the timing of this dismissal with GW’s successful de-funding of the border fence. (Shame on Kay Bailey Hutchison.)

So what gives on national security? Will the conservative movement gain over compassionate RHINOs?

The leaders must take the high road and understand as Sun Tsu did. The best defense is a better offense because can not negotiate with the enemy. Once the enemy is identified the military’s function is to mitigate its influence or eliminate it.

Once the enemy is neutralized/eliminated, the military returns to its defensive posture to develop new offensive tactics learned from the recent encounter and weapons to win the next encounter.

When politicized the military does not know who the enemy is and disintegrates into establishing themselves as the protector of the people (remember a military is usually a cross section of the nation that created it) until a leader comes along that can gain the military trust so it can return to being the defensive tool it was designed to be.

I’ve had to remind some of you schmucks that I exist.

Bryan on January 4, 2008 at 8:25 PM

Not me. I prefer your posts. They are more relevant.