How can the leader of the free world (or LOTFW wannabe) confront Islam when we’re practically on life support from numerous Islamic oil producing nations?

Because that’s not true, any sucking up to the Saudis to the contrary. We only get ~10% or so of our oil from the ME. Losing ME oil would be hard on the wallet, but it wouldn’t be catastrophic. Europe gets a lot more oil from thugs (Russia, Middle East) than we do, they’re in a much worse bind.

I heard the same moaning and groaning from Michael Medved the other day.

Medved is an interesting case. He calls himself a conservative Jew, but he’s just as beholden to the myth of the moderate Muslim, and as blind to the true nature and threat of Jihad, as any Democrat.

Mike D. on January 18, 2008 at 2:22 PM

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/01/notepads-of-sha.html

Unrelated incidents, or mounting evidence of that America’s newsrooms have become a breeding ground for murderous, drunk, gun-wielding child molesters? Answers are elusive, but the ever-increasing toll of violent crimes committed by journalists has led some experts to warn that without programs for intensive mental health care, the nation faces a potential bloodbath at the hands of psychopathic media vets.

Priceless.

BP/AP – ther’s no mechanism whereby HA acolytes can alert you to insanely awesome smackdowns, such as this one by Col. Ralph Peters in the NYPost on the occasion of the NYT’s latest slander of our returned-from-combat troops as murderous zombies, so I am dropping a hyperlink to the article in this comment, hoping that folks will follow it and be amazed.

Col. Peters guts the NYT like a fish.

Mike D. on January 18, 2008 at 2:22 PM

Great article. I loved the tag line at the end.

That NYT article is very relevant to the subject of Spencer’s video because it’s basically the same argument many use to defend Islam and Muslims. The NYT tried to lump all veterans together, and they tried to use the statistics of a few to sully the characters of all. That’s what Muslims and their defender claim is done to all Muslims when the fact of Islamic terrorism is focused on. “You can’t judge a billion people by the actions of a few”.

But it’s really not the same thing at all. Spencer and others use the term “Jihadi” as a way to get around using the term “Muslim”. They have to do this because nobody wants to believe that all Muslims are terrorists. While it is true that all Muslims are not terrorists, it’s also true that a terrorist isn’t a terrorist until he or she acts on their beliefs. All Muslims believe the same thing the terrorists do. They may not agree with the details, or the tactics, but they all believe in the goals. They can’t call themselves Muslims if they don’t.

What is really maddening is that the people who claim you can’t blame all Muslims for the actions of a few have no problem claiming all Americans are valid targets and that all our military veterans are lunatic ticking time bombs. They don’t understand the difference and they never will.

Tzetzes on January 19, 2008 at 12:34 AM

Good point and I can’t claim to have the answer. It’s just the way it looked to me. Love him or not for whatever other reasons, the guy in the race who speaks most often and most forcefully on the issue is Rudy. I’d give second to Fred, third to McCain, and I’d put Romney fourth.

And fourth because while it’s true he knows all the words, I just get no feeling he knows the music.

And my take is that Spencer downplayed everyone else and oversold Mitt.

If that’s so, I have no idea why. For that you’d have to ask Spencer.

No, I’m just saying that we’ve got to be careful not to go calling all Muslims potential terrorists,

Big S on January 18, 2008 at 7:36 PM

Why, thats exactly what they are. As Robert Spencer points out not only in this video, but in his Blogging the Qu’ran series. Jihad is a fundamental doctrine in Islam. In other words the concept of Jihad cannot be removed from Islam. Furthermore another of Islams fundamental doctrines is the worldwide establishment of a Islamic Caliphate. In other words, yes all Muslims are potential jihadist/terrorists the sooner the west wakes up to this the sooner it can defend itself effectively against it.

This sure looked to me like spin for Mittens, and it was weak.

Typhoon on January 18, 2008 at 9:07 AM

Jihadism is, I think it’s fair to say, a rather large issue with Spencer. If he thought Romney were weak on the matter, why would he spin for him? What’s the motive?

afraid to call them by name

Do they even know the name?

Since 911 we have been told to keep an eye open but don’t stare and please keep shopping.

the Presidency can’t go offending a billion people and their leaders before they are even elected just to sound “tough” on terrorism.

Big S on January 18, 2008 at 9:31 AM

Unfortunately it is precisely this type of politically correct thinking that has made the US look weak and has emboldened our enemies the Islamo-fascists.

We need a leader that will throw out the PC garbage where it belongs during a war and that’s in the trash bin! We need someone that cares more about protecting the citizens of the US and our republic and less about the polls, their image, or their re-election chances!

Absolutely none of the demo-craps would fit that bill because not only do the de-morons not don’t get it, they don’t even believe there is a WOT, that and they are more concerned with their own good then the good of our republic!

In my opinion the only candidates up to the task are Rudy, Fred!, or McCain as they will discard the PC crap and do what must be done!

I realize many here are concerned with the preservation of conservatism, so am I but I think what is getting lost in our fight against secular-progressives and the preservation of conservative values is the fact that if we do not begin to take this war seriously and stop Islamo-fascism conservative values will become a moot point.

Remember Maslow’s hierarchy of needs principal; survival needs always come first.

Please clarify.

awake on January 18, 2008 at 11:18 AM

No, I’m just saying that we’ve got to be careful not to go calling all Muslims potential terrorists, because there are those who we will have to work with and bring to our side in order to win the war on terror. I think RG takes a good position (here, here, here, and here).

Indeed, your cowardice is showing as is your affliction with the PC mindset.

Since when is speaking the truth subject to self-censoring?

awake on January 18, 2008 at 1:34 PM

Not all truth need be told. Particularly when it comes to matters affecting diplomacy…

Commenter Tim has a point, it’s been awhile since we enjoyed a “classic Vent”… I sure hope the Vent “writers” are not on strike!

From Hot Air….

I think globalism has created a huge hole in our national security and our freedom of expression. How can the leader of the free world (or LOTFW wannabe) confront Islam when we’re practically on life support from numerous Islamic oil producing nations? I don’t believe he can and that just might be the death of us as a nation.

“I think many of us still fail to comprehend the extent of the threat posed by radical Islam, by Jihad. Understandably, we focus on Afghanistan and Iraq. Our men and women are dying there.We think in terms of countries, because we faced countries in last century’s conflicts. But the Jihad is much broader than any one nation or nations. Jihad encompasses far more than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For radical Islam, there is an over-arching conflict and goal – replacing all modern Islamic states with a caliphate, destroying America, and conquering the world.” Governor Romney

“These terrorists folks. You see they want uh, well you see they want to hurt ….. to hurt people.” President George W. Bush

It’s going to be really nice to listen to a President who can use words like encompasses and caliphate without furrowing his brow and then smiling when he pronounces it correctly. I voted for W, but he is painful to watch sometimes. Your sitting there watching his press conference, and hoping that he can say something to inspire you and the nation and it just doesn’t happen. Romney’s speech on faith in America was the closest thing to an inspiring leader I’ve seen since Newt Gingrich’s Republican revolution of 1994!

Col. Peters guts the NYT like a fish.

On the other hand, Fred has definitely kicked it into a higher gear in SC, and I’m hoping he does well there, as I believe he would be hell on Islamic deathculters.

Just wait until Mitt gets the nomination. He will be all things to all people moving left, right, and middle of the road. He’s got no core and will govern by the polls.

This sounds like canned anti-Mitt spin to me. And it definitely has no bearing on the topic.

Sad thing is, he’s the only one besides Fred that I will show up for.

Raw cynicism, anyone?

He should be no worse than GW. He should be a better communicator though, if he’s got a really good speechwriter.

Slap slap slap. But you will show up fer sure, right?

edgehead on January 18, 2008 at 9:21 AM

Typhoon on January 18, 2008 at 9:44 AM

I heard the same moaning and groaning from Michael Medved the other day. It was a woo hoo speech to rally Mitt’s Michigan supporters. It wasn’t a policy position paper for x sakes.

What a ludicrous thing to base one’s support (or not) of a candidate on.

As for why Fred was not mentioned, you’ll have to ask Robert Spencer.