Quotes of the day
posted at 9:35 pm on June 5, 2009 by Allahpundit
“Who is a real reformer? Obama’s message is that all of this [violence] has nothing to do with Islam. He says that progress and human rights are perfectly reconcilable with Islam. ‘Islam is peace.’ He sticks to the line that there is nothing to reform in there. According to the President, we are only fighting a very small number of extremists, but it’s not Islam, so if that’s the case then there really isn’t much to reform. The true reformers — the moderate Muslims — take away from the speech that they can’t depend on the Obama administration to criticize Islam. Between the lines it’s as if he is saying that he will prevent Islam from negative stereotyping or something like that, which is ridiculous because he can’t do that. But most Muslims as we know, believe that negative stereotyping is equal to criticizing Islam.
Obama said ‘let’s speak plainly to one another’; I would have liked him to have added, ‘and that means let us face some of your religious principles and how they are radically different from American principles.’ That’s what we need to talk about. His plain speaking went as far as saying we have a right to be in Afghanistan because Al-Qaeda attacked and keeps trying to attack us… but what inspires Al-Qaeda? Why are people we call moderates not facing up to Al-Qaeda? What is it about Islamic values that causes this? His plain speaking ended exactly where George Bush’s and all the Presidents that came before him… and Tony Blair… ended: with the selective quoting from the Koran. It’s like Hillary Clinton putting on the headscarf as a ‘sign of respect.’”
***
“Sen. Jim Inhofe said today that President Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo was ‘un-American’ because he referred to the war in Iraq as ‘a war of choice’ and didn’t criticize Iran for developing a nuclear program.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Qutb isn’t exactly a model source for a typical muslim’s views on the nature of freedom. Political islam stems from his writings, but its paradigms dont necessarily come into play in the thoughts of your average muslim.
ernesto on June 5, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Man, some Europeans piss me off.
Yea — come into the store, speak English for a while, then start speaking French when you start looking at the prices.
Jerk offs.
blatantblue on June 5, 2009 at 11:04 PM
I’d say he’s incredibly influential for many Muslims today
He’s credited with fathering Salafism
But regardless — we can throw his postulations away and be left with the fact Islam is not only a religious ideal, but political too!
blatantblue on June 5, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Yes, they are.
When are we going to leave NATO? (What’s the point anyway? Don’t they want to be dominated by Muslims and Putin simultaneously?)
BTW, Europeans are some of the most closed minded people I’ve ever met. They only like to mingle with their own kind and OCCASIONALLY allow other whites to enter in … but on best not have slanted eyes…
Upstater85 on June 5, 2009 at 11:07 PM
I’m sure you’ve heard of Bob Grant, living in NY.
I’m with him on his concept of Europeans
All the brave and good ones, well, almost all — got killed off during the thirty years of war from WWI, the civil wars after, and WWII.
The few left will take a long time to rebreed back into society.
blatantblue on June 5, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Sounds like you’re on the same page.
People claiming to be “moderates” are just opportunists, wolves in sheep’s clothing pulling the wool over our eyes.
In the midst of such, rational people are not tolerated by those radicals who would never consider any variance as “moderate” because independent thought contrary to the militant position is a threat requiring punishment.
maverick muse on June 5, 2009 at 11:09 PM
Hell yea they are
The question of purity comes into play.
I remember reading some story from about ’05 or ’06 in Iraq. Some mujahid was being interviewed and he explained how Muslims they were killing were not pure.
blatantblue on June 5, 2009 at 11:10 PM
Heh +1
Upstater85 on June 5, 2009 at 11:10 PM
Your daily state-run media Kool-Aid absorption has been duly noted.
Del Dolemonte on June 5, 2009 at 11:10 PM
Nothing will change until the west grasps that Muslims themselves only respect strength and despise weakness. Of course that goes against our Christian upbringing and that’s why we continue to think that we can win hearts and minds among Muslims with compassion.
The opposite is the case. Their hearts and minds are with the victorious – that’s what Allah tells them. Their ethics in terms of which they order their hearts and minds – are nothing like what westerners, raised in the Christian faith, understand by the term “hearts and minds”.
Islam does not teach the same sort of compassion for the other that virtually every other religion including today’s “secular humanism” teaches. Muslims murder and torture each other without compunction and their own ummah, “brotherhood” has no condemnation to offer. That’s because they don’t value INDIVIDUAL human life the way we Christian westerners do. It’s not a concept in Islam – which means it’s not a concept in Muslims “hearts and minds”. Their hearts and minds instead understand what Allah teaches them in the Koran – namely, the Collective Will to Power.
When will our leaders understand this? And moreover understand that it is necessary in the end to be “cruel to be kind”, to treat Muslims in the way they themselves understand moral principles? Which ultimately means that they must be beaten back and vanquished and humiliated by a greater strength?
That is clearly what they understand. Every move to win their hearts and minds that strengthens them, merely emboldens them to advance their own peculiar ethics of the world, which couldn’t give a damn about “hearts and minds”, as we understand the term. They will accept the shehada from anyone they can swindle and connive to recite it while at the same time are willing to kill anyone who leaves Islam. Whatever it takes to build the army of Islamic soldiers is what their ethics is about.
But how is it being kind to people to pander to their immaturity and self-deception and base impulses towards power?
Certainly no mature human being would suggest that one should pander to the primitive intellectual, emotional and moral sensibilities of a two-year old? A 2-year old understands the will to power through aggression only. But by the same token a 2-year old also thoroughly understands limitations that he simply has no power to transgress. That’s ultimately what a 2-year old understands.
And that’s basically what we’re dealing with here – 2-year olds – from an intellectual perspective, from a moral perspective, and mostly from a behavioral perspective -except it happens to be 2 year olds armed with AK-47′s (weapons they could never have invented for themselves, being 2-year olds, but the fact is that now they’ve got their hands on them!).
There is no way of avoiding the reality that the adults in this world are going to have to act like adults and step up and slap – in a big big way – Muslims who have made of their own societies the equivalent of “Lord of the Flies” and who now threaten to overrun every more advanced society with their mayhem.
“It’s cruel to be kind” is going to have to be the anthem of the future relations between the West and Islam. We’re going to have to come to terms with that fact. Either that – or it’s simply going to be cruel for all of us, with no kindness in sight, and possibly no one left to come and rescue us off an Island from hell that in our passivity and cowardice we allowed to be taken over by moral and intellectual pygmies with very, very big guns.
- Caroline (JW)
MB4 on June 5, 2009 at 11:11 PM
From the comments on New Majority:
They can’t. And you like it that way.
spmat on June 5, 2009 at 11:13 PM
Your TA was your brother. He reminds me of some of the Muslims with whom I once worked. Wonderful, generous, warm people. It is this type of person who is the only hope for Islam surviving as a religion. And it is this type of Muslim that we need to support, and President Obama ignored to the point of betrayal. How many are like this, I have no idea.
However, there are perhaps over 100 million Muslims who believe the Koran and Haddiths literally and impose them on others under threat of death. These people are a threat to your TA, and a threat to modernity, science, art, music, literature, liberty, and all human beings who do not submit to their will.
Not all conservatives are the same. Most are great, even though you might disagree on one or a few issues. But a few really are the liberal stereotypes of conservatives as a whole. A few really are ignorant, bigoted bullies.
Why do you feel pain? Do you feel you should dislike or distrust your TA because he is a Muslim? Or, do you feel pain because others hate him simply because he is a Muslim? or, do you feel pain because his way of being might endanger him in Iraq? Or, is it something else?
Loxodonta on June 5, 2009 at 11:14 PM
InTheBellyoftheBeast on June 5, 2009 at 11:17 PM
I trust him for the most part. It’s painful because there are many good Muslim people. I’ve met many of them. It’s just very difficult and painful to square my experiences with good Muslims with bad Muslims and the doctrines and jurisprudence of Islam that advocates violence.
blatantblue on June 5, 2009 at 11:18 PM
Then I’ve met the “experimental Muslims” as I like to call them.
Like the Jerrahi Sufi
Come on. Stop making things up
or don’t practice what ten people on the Upper West Side practice in a Masjid that is actually some dude’s walk in closet.
blatantblue on June 5, 2009 at 11:20 PM
First, I left something out of my last post. In the section on conservatives, I meant to include that Muslims are also not all the same. It’s just that they have far more ignorant bigoted bullies who are far more dangerous.
As to your post:
How do you do square the good and bad with any other group of people?
Loxodonta on June 5, 2009 at 11:22 PM
Would this be Madonna’s future version of Islam?
Upstater85 on June 5, 2009 at 11:23 PM
Hey Blatant I have an experiment for you.
Ask your TA about the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and watch as your sober, kind, professional, sophisticated intelligent TA melts down into a raging bomb belt strapped AK-47 sporting jihadi ready to fire up the ovens in the space of 6 seconds. heh.
elduende on June 5, 2009 at 11:23 PM
LOL. The typical muslim has never been concerned with freedom.
All islam is political. It always has been because islam is a political ideology.
If you have any doubts, look at how Turkey had to guard its political structures against islam – and that was from people who loved islam.
progressoverpeace on June 5, 2009 at 11:24 PM
I guess I just
I want to believe Islam has a chance at being something better. That it has a chance at improving. Muslims I know give me hope, but then I go read Sahih Bukhari, the Sira of Muhammad, or the Qur’an, and all my hopes are squashed.
blatantblue on June 5, 2009 at 11:24 PM
I’m looking for a two-pronged approach. Tough as nails with the militants, hitting them hard and repeatedly.
But, compassionate with every individual Muslim who seems open to living a peaceful, tolerant, pluralistic, democratic life under the banner of Islam, regardless of whether they are considered apostates by anyone else.
Loxodonta on June 5, 2009 at 11:25 PM
Obama stepped into it.
To presume to lecture the population in Islam what their religion “really” is and is not does not fly, no matter how black Obama is or is not, no matter his relatives or years practicing the rituals once upon a time. In Islam, Obama is unclean. Ask Khomeini. Telling Islam how to clean house is preposterous unless you are Islam. Obama is not, no matter what he thinks or wishes.
Obama thinks he can deliver a homework assignment to the youth of Islam. OK, he just did. It isn’t that the kids will necessarily be opposed to Obama’s ideas, but their parents are, and that generation still holds the keys of power over their children.
Islam hates America most for corrupting innocence. They don’t take well to seduction no matter how much honey is dripping from the spoon. Obama made his speech to the public, yet the public do not make the decisions in Islam. So whatever else Obama’s butter and honey speech will accomplish, there will be unrest. With all of his good intentions, no matter his motives, he blithely stirs the spirit of dissension everywhere he goes.
maverick muse on June 5, 2009 at 11:25 PM
Eh we’ve had that discussion in class
Of course you know where he stands
But!!!
He knows where his bread is buttered. He might not readily admit it but he f*cking loves the US. He’s doing well here, and isn’t being forced to excavate and find things upon threat of death like his dad was under Saddam. So yea I know what you’re saying, but like I said he knows where his bread is buttered
blatantblue on June 5, 2009 at 11:26 PM
pretty much
minus the raptors with lasers
blatantblue on June 5, 2009 at 11:26 PM
Don’t confuse cultural kabuki for true feelings. You overstay your welcome by a tenth of a second, or do something that is taken as a slight (no matter how ridiculous it might seem to you), and you will realize the vast difference.
progressoverpeace on June 5, 2009 at 11:27 PM
All but a few of the Muslims I knew in the 1960′s were not hostile to Israel or Jews. Of course, that was then and this is now.
Loxodonta on June 5, 2009 at 11:28 PM
I do…….
…….. and it’s not for the Constitution, Contract Law, Private Business, Self Determination, Free Speech, or the Judeo/Christian founding of the United States of America.
Prove me wrong trolls…….
Seven Percent Solution on June 5, 2009 at 11:29 PM
In the 60′s it was arab nationalism that was the reigning threat. Interestingly, you hear nothing about arab nationalism, anymore. The arabs have mostly been happy to supplant that with Sunni islam, as they have more power that way.
This is why I alsways describe our enemies as the arab/persian/muslim world. Same set of people, but different, independent subgroups pop up and become threats to all around at different times, even to each other – all from the same foundation, though.
progressoverpeace on June 5, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Hussein thinks he’s slicker then snot on a doorknob!
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/026467.php
Ya know,..from the holy Koran
Was that a shout out?
christene on June 5, 2009 at 11:33 PM
One wonders if Arafat could have kept up ;)
Upstater85 on June 5, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Yeah I’ve met many “nice” muslims but they are a clannish, suspicious bunch at the best of times.
I had a professor who is an expert in Sharia who believes that there are cycles to Islam. That Islam has these global “revivalist” movements that run towards the fundamentals every 100 years or so and that eventually they burn themselves out. This time though thanks to the prevalence of wealth, technology, global media, and other exacerbating circumstances (oil, Israel) the problem has morphed.
elduende on June 5, 2009 at 11:34 PM
That is a very interesting proposition
blatantblue on June 5, 2009 at 11:36 PM
night dudes
ma’salaam! :p
blatantblue on June 5, 2009 at 11:38 PM
I don’t think Islam can be changed by non-Muslims. If the moderate-apostate Muslims do not stand up and speak out and reform the many in which Islam is practiced, then humanity’s future will be serving as Allah’s slaves, or there will be no more Islam. We are in the midst of a life or death struggle with the Islamisists.
I simply cannot consider 20% of the human race to be a hopeless cause. My sense is that you don’t want to give up on at least some of them either. It’s very difficult, given what the militants in their midst are foisting upon the world. I appreciate your struggle. I wish there was more hope. I see very little myself.
Loxodonta on June 5, 2009 at 11:38 PM
g’nite
Upstater85 on June 5, 2009 at 11:40 PM
Same here — get some rest and get to bed before 3 am
payce!
blatantblue on June 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Even Arafat saw the writing on the wall. The Al Aksa martyr’s brigade was his veering off of arab nationalism, and the West let him get away with it, too.
I always found it interesting that you used to see ARAB groups on TV before 9/11, like the Arab Anti-Defamation League (again, arabs ripping off a Jewish idea – without any shame at all). But after 9/11, you never saw any more arab groups, only muslim groups – and I mean that all arab issues became converted into muslim issues.
It’s a dancing scam that the West follows, like a mark trying to win at a crooked game of 3-card monty. He just refuses to admit that the game is fixed and keeps playing along.
progressoverpeace on June 5, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Yeah of course at first I disputed the notion with him but the history is there. You see how these “internal” movements used to spring up to challenge the existing institutions. For example when they actually had caliphates they were either put down ruthlessly or they caused “Islam” to spread by instigating the supremacist impulses in the religion and the caliphate or it caused the caliphate to collapse.
Interesting side note Assad in Syria put one of these down in 1982 in a place called Hama. He exterminated them. Nary a peep from them to this day. Interesting also to note how these secular dictatorships are the ones that flourish in these countries because otherwise you have chaos. These dictators restrain the “more adventurous implulses of their subjects” heh.
elduende on June 5, 2009 at 11:44 PM
Loxodonta on June 5, 2009 at 11:25 PM
I respect the honor that Muslims give to God. They were born with their religion. If they were satisfied to not press their dogmas on others, there’d be much more common ground and a sense of peace. But their leaders don’t want common ground. Like Obama, they want it all. Still, as you recognize, there are as many good people living in Islam as anywhere else. And that they understand humility before God differentiates Islam from the West in their favor. Such a crying shame that authorities come between a person and God to dictate what God is and what God accepts based upon human exploits.
Good night, friend.
maverick muse on June 5, 2009 at 11:44 PM
Gnight all.
elduende on June 5, 2009 at 11:44 PM
Yes it can, but only by fire.
progressoverpeace on June 5, 2009 at 11:45 PM
good points
Upstater85 on June 5, 2009 at 11:46 PM
I didn’t get that impression of most of them. It was more like they had odd personal habits which they did in groups. Sort of like any devout religious group.
This does make sense to me. And imagine the threat they will pose once the militants have nuclear weapons. (Thanks Obama.) It also demonstrates the problem of not engaging with and supporting the moderate-apostate Muslims during their non-expansionist periods. Islam must be reformed from within or eradicated completely, even when it is not posing an immanent threat.
Loxodonta on June 5, 2009 at 11:46 PM
What was the cost of each effort? What were the benefits? If the U.S. benefits as a result I’m for it.
dedalus on June 5, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Goodnight Hot/Air crew,
remember,its almost D-Day,June 6,1944:)
canopfor on June 5, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Good night. Thank you for a very interesting conversation.
My are in my prayers.
Loxodonta on June 5, 2009 at 11:48 PM
Goodnight…
Ah… another opportunity for Obama to take a sh*t on history.
Upstater85 on June 5, 2009 at 11:48 PM
blatantblue on June 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM
My are in my prayers. = You are in my prayers.
Loxodonta on June 5, 2009 at 11:48 PM
The last time the world experienced a fanatic Moslem resurgence was during the time of Gordon Pasha and the Mahdi at Khartoum.
The Mahdi was initially successful, and gained hundreds of thousands of followers in the region, and was subsequently severely thrashed, and his followers disappeared…content that the Mahdi they once rallied to was a false prophet because he had been destroyed.
So, here we are, over a hundred years since Gordon met derfeat at Khartoum, 30 years since the fall of the Shah and the rise of militant Islam as a major force in the world thanks to the Ayatollah and the timidity of the West in dealing with a “religious” revival.
Thanks to technology, the jihad can be spread by the simple typing on a keyboard and a click of a mouse. So long as even this decadent Western innovation can be used to spread the word, the movement will remain alive. Only a severe thrashing will put a stop to it.
Weak horse; strong horse.
Obama’s apologia in Cairo emphasized our still being the weak horse…after all, why in the world would an American President travel all the way to Cairo to talk about Islam? A weak horse supplicates. A strong horse acts.
Only when that severe thrashing is delivered in no uncertain terms will Islam once again become compliant and willing to be subservient in order to survive.
Yes, it is a cycle, and has been such since Islam came out of the mind of Mohammed…
It is so basic it is disregarded by the “experts” who try to nuance every parsed syllable…and in doing so prolong the problem.
If Moslems believe this…that being successful against the infidels, no matter if it is a roadside IED or a plane full of Americans slamming into the Pentagon, being successful means Allah approves…and being unsuccessful means Allah does not approve…why can’t we in the West understand this?
coldwarrior on June 5, 2009 at 11:49 PM
Me too… gotta get up early for a thing with the kids. Grand Rapids Festival of the arts (also… taking the ex and my 17yo to see Drag Me to Hell… surprisingly, a PG-13 flick, and very highly rated. And funny, too, by all accounts)
Ugly on June 5, 2009 at 11:49 PM
I call it the “you people” Speech.
tomas on June 5, 2009 at 11:50 PM
Unfortunately indeed. Nukes are the game changer. They are setting the rules already. We are in the midst of one of these revivalist moments and my fear is that we’re either going to be swallowed or we’re going to have to subjugate them. Our political climate won’t support subjugation. However, ask India or Israel if they are going to accept subjugation at the hands of the Muslims or if they are going to strike first. My money is on the IAF.
elduende on June 5, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Outsiders can contain or kill the militants with fire. And that is absolutely essential for our survival, and presents an opportunity for true reform of the religion. But only those who can claim to be Muslims will able to actually reform it, doing so from within. And that is what is needed to stop the next eruption of militants. I don’t know if that will or even can happen, but it would sure save a lot of lives and ammo.
Loxodonta on June 5, 2009 at 11:54 PM
coldwarrior on June 5, 2009 at 11:49 PM
Well said Cold Warrior that was basically the thesis of my Prof. Which is why I blame Bush. Seriously. Obama is an unmitigated disaster we’ll be lucky to survive but Bush was the one who could have really stepped on their necks and didn’t now we’ll all reap what Bush and Obama have sown.
elduende on June 5, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Iraqis are living proof of action…not a frigging speech. What a frigging empty suit. Condescending and self-righteous…Obamafullery.
tomas on June 5, 2009 at 11:58 PM
Good analysis. You throw control of the gulf oil fields in there and you’ve got everything.
Serious threats from the arab/persian/muslim world start and end with control of the gulf oil fields. Letting them steal the fields in the forced nationalization waves of 50 years ago was one of the biggest mistake the West ever made. Eventually, we are going to have to take them. That is the only way, and it just so happens to be the most bloodless, too. But … we won’t retake the fileds until it’s much too late, and in the end, the blood that flows from this war will make WWII look like child’s play.
progressoverpeace on June 5, 2009 at 11:59 PM
To be fair…
It predates Bush. However, imagine, if you will, a unified nation and a unified West from 9-11 till last January…and how much of this problem would have been driven away, allowing for those necessary “reforms” from within by the removal of the fanatics and those who use militant Islam in pursuit of power?
If I were to blame any American President, I’d direct my rage at Carter. He, in such a familiar way as Obama, believe that appeasement is the first best option. Sometimes it is best for all concerned to put the rabid dog down, no matter how well loved Old Yeller was over the years.
coldwarrior on June 6, 2009 at 12:01 AM
I second that. Bush let an important window pass by and did the minimum possible. It was still much better than any dem would have done, but he didn’t understand how to really fight a war.
progressoverpeace on June 6, 2009 at 12:01 AM
One last post:
China explores buying $50bn in IMF bonds
I, for one, welcome our tiny yellow overlords.
Ugly on June 6, 2009 at 12:03 AM
I fear that the IAF alone will not be enough, even the IAF and India alone.
My greatest fear is that is liberal appeasers dominate foreign policy long enough, I will live to see a nuclear bomb go off in a major US city, or catastrophic casualties that dwarf 9/11 will be caused by some other means, or at the very least one of our great national symbols will be blown to smithereens.
I have faith in the American people that any of those events will put an end to our current appeasement, right fast.
Loxodonta on June 6, 2009 at 12:03 AM
Talk is cheap, the Islamists don’t give one wit about Obama’s soaring rhetoric. Their entire world view is shaped by their interpretation of the Quran. They are looking for weakness and strategic advantage. They hate the Jews and they will not relent on their desire to destroy Israel. Look at any country in the world where Muslims rule, they are among the most oppressive, violent, primitive places on earth. They are that way now and they would remain that way even if Israel were wiped off the map.
echosyst on June 6, 2009 at 12:04 AM
Time to hit the sack. I’ve an early morning commitment to have a cup of coffee with the last remaining D-Day veteran in our county in the morning. [Self-serving as it is...I left a post in the Green Room about him.]
coldwarrior on June 6, 2009 at 12:07 AM
OT, but this image should be the official HA Nancy Pelosi Pic.
http://blogplatoon.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/nancy-pelosi-scarf.jpg
Upstater85 on June 6, 2009 at 12:08 AM
No question about that. Without allowing and helping along the islamic revolution in Iran, none of this would be happening, now. Carter is the real father of the current islamic threat against the West.
I blame Bush for not taking the opportunity to put an end to things when he could have. He is a good man, a mensch, who cares deeply about the US and thinks he is doing right, as opposed to Carter and The Precedent who are bad men who are doing their utmost to harm the US and the West.
I am disappointed with Bush not going as far as he should have. I am appalled by the treasonous actions of Carter and the idiot messiah, who are both criminals of the highest order, in my book.
progressoverpeace on June 6, 2009 at 12:10 AM
Good night, folks.
progressoverpeace on June 6, 2009 at 12:10 AM
Again you are right Carter encouraged the Genie out of the bottle but Bush had an opportunity after 9/11 to stamp it out. Gnigt.
Agree with you progress.. He was already saddled by the left. Now we are going to pay for it.
Keep the faith. Whatever comes if we stay true to the nation we’ll pull it out.
elduende on June 6, 2009 at 12:13 AM
We want to live in peace and just get on with our lives. Vigilance is tiring and expensive.
So, we fail to remember the terrible lessons of appeasement that Chamberlain and Carter so clearly demonstrated. Or we rationalize them away. And today, we paper them over with pretty words from our charismatic president. We hope for change.
And this always, always, leads to tyranny and greater death than if we remain vigilant and keep the pressure on the enemies of liberty.
Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance, or the most abject submission.
We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer or die.
– George Washington,
Address to the Continental Army
before the Battle of Long Island (August 27, 1776)
Loxodonta on June 6, 2009 at 12:16 AM
Sadist.
Loxodonta on June 6, 2009 at 12:18 AM
Oh, come on now… at least she’s not teasing us with that sexy hair of hers ;)
Upstater85 on June 6, 2009 at 12:19 AM
Good night. Thank you for all you do.
Loxodonta on June 6, 2009 at 12:20 AM
Good night.
Loxodonta on June 6, 2009 at 12:21 AM
I think I’ve seen that image used at Hot Air already.
But you are still an imp.
Loxodonta on June 6, 2009 at 12:22 AM
What kind of comment is that? He gives a damn if the war was costly to the GOP! Sorry but you don’t give support or not support a war because how it might affect an election. Screw politics! If you think a war is moral and just then support it. If you don’t think a war is moral and just then don’t support it. Politics should not enter the equation.
terryannonline on June 6, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Empty Suit
Empty Speech
WisCon on June 6, 2009 at 12:25 AM
It was Bush’s stance on Iraq that won him 2004. It was Bush’s major turn left in his second term that killed the GOP.
progressoverpeace on June 6, 2009 at 12:25 AM
Islam is tolerant?
Please, SOMEONE, go to a majority muslim country and convince a muslim there to become a Christian. Watch what happens to both of you. EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY. Why? Because the Koran says to kill those who leave islam.
TTheoLogan on June 6, 2009 at 12:32 AM
What does anyone expect?
By Hessein’s thinking, Brian Deese is fully qualified to run the auto industry.
Kini on June 6, 2009 at 12:33 AM
Go ahead and tell me the benefit of the war against the Serbs. Would that be one of those “Wars of Choice” that Obama spoke about in Cairo?
You are admitting that you would have Saddam still in power in Iraq, correct?
Buddahpundit on June 6, 2009 at 12:39 AM
Islam will be with us till the return of Christ.
Mojave Mark on June 6, 2009 at 12:50 AM
I haven’t made a case for the Serb war, other than it should be put to the test of “how it benefits the U.S.”.
Saddam contained with a focus on bin Laden or Pakistan might be preferable. My point is that Saddam was the Tony Soprano of Baghdad, a nasty thug but not a geopolitical problem.
In another comment I proposed that Saddam’s weakness might have been the best rationale for his toppling. The current democratic framework is preferable to the decay that would have happened in Iraq, with the ensuing problems that failed states cause. Do their interests align with the US long-term, does factional infighting ensue once we leave? We’ll see soon.
dedalus on June 6, 2009 at 12:55 AM
I must strongly disagree with that. Iraq was always a geopolitical threat. That was driven home during the first Gulf War when Saddam intentionally dumped 40,000,000 barrels of oil into the gulf (without a peep from any of the enviro-wackos) and lit just about every oil well in Kuwait on fire. At that point, it was clear to any thinking person that such a regime could not be allowed to remain in control of one of the most strategically sensitive areas of the world.
There were many other reasons why he had to go, almost all of which were in US intersts, but what I pointed out above was the clearest and most direct reason.
progressoverpeace on June 6, 2009 at 1:00 AM
We’ll perhaps agree that McCain could have won had it not been for the massive financial collapse.
Bush’s problems, I think, were more a result of the perception of mismanagement than policy direction. He should have canned Rummy long before the 2006 elections. Rummy, Bremmer, Harriet Myers, and Heckuva Job created an impression that Bush wasn’t on top of things.
dedalus on June 6, 2009 at 1:00 AM
I hope their oil field are coming back on-line, but they’ve been negligible for two decades and the world economy has move ahead. Regardless, we should invest in an alternative to depending on the region.
I glad he’s dead–and his two sons. I hope the country can operate as a democracy for a few election cycles after we leave.
Saddam was a bad guy. I’m just not sure what the alternative will turn out to be.
dedalus on June 6, 2009 at 1:05 AM
I think it was also that he let the war drag on from the “Mission Accomplished” victory to the grinding “Islamic Nation Building”. That played a major rule in the dims big 2006 victory.
MB4 on June 6, 2009 at 1:07 AM
Water always seeks it’s own level.
MB4 on June 6, 2009 at 1:11 AM
There are four kinds of people in the world:
1. Muslim Jihadists who want to kill Jews.
2. Moderate Muslims who don’t mind if type #1 kills Jews.
3. A small number of other Muslims (not type #1 or #2)
4. Infidels.
Geochelone on June 6, 2009 at 1:13 AM
“I am proud and honored to stand before you here in the timeless city of Hot Air; ever old and ever new, a renowned seat of learning.
But let me be clear. And let there be no mistake. As I’ve always said, I know that it was unthinkable just a few short years ago that a guy named ddrintn would be addressing you here, but our ideals have allowed that to happen after months of closed registrations…”
ddrintn on June 6, 2009 at 1:15 AM
That’s about it.
MB4 on June 6, 2009 at 1:17 AM
I don’t know about McCain. He probably would have won without the credit crisis, but he never wanted to win. He had the opportunity to win on the credit crisis, since he had been on the right side of the issue for a while, but he refused to defend himself, or the conservative side. He could have ripped the idiot messiah to shreds on the credit crisis but he refused to engage, just as he refused with so many other issues.
As to Bush, a perception of mismanagement was not his problem. His move to the left was. And his refusal to defend himself on anything. Not that Bush had to get out, personally, but his administration never fought back at anything.
And Bush was far too soft. He couldn’t even bring treason charges against John Walker Lindh nor do anything to stop the treason and espionage that the New York Slimes and Washington Post were committing. He let Dan Rather get away with trying to throw a whole election, intentionally and with malice, and this hands-off attitude is what let the real lunatics in the press start with the awful lies and led to the neo-Pravda media we got in the last campaign and have to deal with, today.
And I like Rumsfeld. He was an excellent SecDef. Don’t blame him for the silly way our fight in Iraq was restricted. Rumsfeld didn’t set the ROEs. It wasn’t Rumsfeld’s fault that we didn’t react to the killing and hanging of contractors in Fallujah, that got the whole insurgency up and running. Whoever it was who stopped that city from being laid to waste that day is the one who screwed up.
the rest of them Harriet Miers, Brownie, and Bremmer were non-issues. I don’t know why you give them center stage. Bush’s mistake with Katrina was in not explaining the difference between the federal government and its obligations and those of the states and localities. The fact that New Orleans voted Nagin back in says all anyone needs to know about Katrina. But, it wa just another example of Bush refusing to stick up for himself. Nothing else.
progressoverpeace on June 6, 2009 at 1:18 AM
I agree. But that was also part of his turn left. He refused to unleash the dogs of war and chose, instead, to try and be too moral to win. I thank him for sticking with it, but it didn’t have to be that long and difficult. He tied our hands.
progressoverpeace on June 6, 2009 at 1:22 AM
Just a comment that most have ignored: Thank you Jim Inhofe for speaking the truth against the flood of MSM press! I appreciate you standing for what you and your constituency believe. You have my continued vote and my support. While I am all for term limits, you and Michele Bachmann are my only regrets re: term limits. We need you.
Christian Conservative on June 6, 2009 at 1:35 AM
It’s Islam.
Connie on June 6, 2009 at 1:36 AM
Part 1: I agree
Part 2: Not so much. I believe what killed the GOP was the GOP not allowing the military to do what the military is designed for, killing the enemy. While the bloated Bush budgets sealed the deal, I believe the moment the administration put away the big stick caused average Americans to abandon the GOP. Nobody hates lip service more then us neanderthals.
Limerick on June 6, 2009 at 1:49 AM
prgoress,
Rumsfeld was silly for failing to plan for winning the peace. Bremer was a friggin idiot for disbanding the Iraqi Army and his de-ba’athification schtick.
People often forget that for about 6 months, the Iraqis loved us. And then we basically let the whole thing fall apart because we didn’t have enough troops to replace the Iraqi Army and/or Police (who have always been more corrupt that the Army) and the basic level of services for the average Iraqi didn’t improve.
Iraq was targeted – but it wasn’t for the oil. The real reason is that Saddam was in large part logistically isolated – his major trading partners couldn’t do large deals with him because of the sanctions, and he couldn’t maintain his arms and equipment. Given that he also did not have free movement of his troops – we were overflying more than half of the country for years – his disposition of remaining conventional forces was well known to us. He was also a leader whose people, in large part, despised him, so much so that many of them gave up their lives in rebellion, which we encouraged politically but did not fund or support logistically. In short, Iraq was THE perfect country to try out democratic nation-building. The problem is that the ideologues – the idea men – failed to let the military planners – the doers – run the show. We almost lost the peace, until we changed strategy and tactics and conducted large increases in our deployed forces.
flashoverride on June 6, 2009 at 2:20 AM
I hope Obama fails.
JellyToast on June 6, 2009 at 4:12 AM
I agree with your part 2. Well put.
It did start out okay. The “Mission Accomplished” sign was on May, 2003. The Fallujah attack was March, 2004. Your 6 months, after which it was only slightly deteriorating, though thoroughly manageable until Fallujah – by my memory, at least. That’s about 10 months. To me, Fallujah was the real turning point, because we just let it go, for over half a year. That was chumming the water for sharks. After that, the sh!t really hit the fan, and by the time we got around to hitting back (still not harshly enough, and with personnel being brought up on charges over every little thing, as the press was looking for Iraqi sob stories and war porn everywhere) the insurgency was pretty potent.
It wasn’t to take oil, but it was to secure the oil – flow and field. Everything in the middle east is about oil, since no one would ever bother sitting for 2 minutes with the arabs for any other reason. Oil is the lifeblood of the planet. There’s nothing wrong about that. It’s just how it is.
Oh, I have to strenuously disagree, here. The whole “Democracy” theme was secondary, perhaps tertiary. The primary reasons for invading were to topple Saddam and remove a major threat and destabilizing force in the region. There were certainly larger strategic reasons, as Iraq was the most powerful secular piece of a triad of independent enemies from the arab/persian/muslim world, but it was mostly to get rid of the threat posed by that regime in that ultra sensitive area.
Well, I can’t say that I was privy to what was really going on in the planning, but I would have done the whole operation differently, myself. I saw no need to rebuild Iraq. I would have just taken the oil fields and the gulf access, helped the Kurds (who were our only semi-dependable allies there) and let the rest of the Iraqis run around in the desert. If they wanted help, they could have asked for it, but this idea that we are bound to rebuild the country that made itself such an intolerable threat to us just doesn’t work for me.
I would note that many in the West still don’t understand the middle east. People still look at that area and think in terms of things we have done for them and how they should feel about it. The problem is that there is really no such concept as “building up goodwill” out there. The cultures just don’t work that way. A “best friend” can turn and stab someone in the back one day, out of nowhere. Think of honor killings and the personalities that that requires. It’s just that raw. Our work in Iraq will be forgotten, or even worse, demonized, as has everything else we’ve ever done for the arab/persian/muslim world.
progressoverpeace on June 6, 2009 at 5:57 AM
Geochelone-There are only two types of Muslims
1 Extremist Muslims who crash planes into buildings.
2 Moderate Muslims who stand on rooftops and cheer as extrermist Muslims crasd planes into buildings.
The sooner we understand this the better.
MaiDee on June 6, 2009 at 6:22 AM
What is this war of choice stuff? All wars are wars of choice. We did not have to have a revolution. We did not have to have a civil war either. The country could just have imploded. The Europeans were fine with that. We did not have to go across the ocean and fight in Europe in two world wars either. After all, other than Canada which was part of the British Empire…how many countries in our hemisphere did go to war?
We could have made peace with the Japanese and told the Nazis to pound sand and come and get us if they were so bound and determined to have a war.
We could have looked the other way at the expansion of communism in places like Korea too. We could have responded to the attacks on 9/11 the way we had responded to other terrorist attacks in the past too.
But we did not, because Americans do not back down from a fight when they think they are right.
So what is this war of choice nonsense?
Terrye on June 6, 2009 at 6:56 AM
MaiDee:
There is one other kind of Muslim. The kind who pretend not to notice the other kinds. They are afraid of them.
Terrye on June 6, 2009 at 6:57 AM
The world according to Obama:
Jews are bad.
Pass the salt.
angryed on June 6, 2009 at 7:20 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »