94 Comments

1. Salt Lick:

And you know you are starting to win if Sadr announces plans to turn the Mahdi Army into a civic and social service organization.

Aug 4, 2008 - 4:59 pm 2. bobal:

Against all expectations, W may come out smelling like a rose.

Aug 4, 2008 - 5:01 pm 3. fred:

It will be many years before the public’s perceptions of President George W. Bush change. Perhaps long after the current regime in the mainstream media has turned over. It won’t be the journalists who make the case for the President anyway. It will be writers who do their research and evaluate results and not political feuds.

Not even Richard Nixon was set upon so viciously as this President has been.

Aug 4, 2008 - 5:23 pm 4. totwtytr:

I made much the same point to some liberal friends earlier today. I pointed out that Lincoln and Truman were vilified during the administrations, but later generations of historians discovered how good they actually were.

I predict that 50 years from now Carter and Clinton will be looked at as feckless, non serious Presidents, while GWB will be looked at as a visionary and courageous leader and statesman.

Aug 4, 2008 - 5:55 pm 5. Gordon:

I agree with Fred: like Archilochus’ hedgehog, Bush knows one big thing.

Aug 4, 2008 - 6:01 pm 6. RWE:

“The number of terrorist incidents outside the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq keeps going down …”

Geeze! Just think about that! And it’s true! How many nutso Muslim doctors ramming airports in Great Britain or bombs blowing up Australian tourists have we had of late? Or for that matter, bombs going off in India? I guess there was an attack in Turkey the other day, but other than that, not much to report.

And that is it. Not much to report. So it isn’t. Maybe the title of this piece should not be from Men at Work but from Anne Murray, “A little good news today..”

And Obama stands up in Germany and urges them to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and help us roll up terrorist networks. Escuuuuseee me, Senator, but when have they NOT been doing that? At least since G.W. Bush took office. As for stopping the spread of nukes, ya just know that if this was 1986 he would have been decrying those Pershings and Tomahawks that led to the INF treaty. As well as those Peacekeepers and B-1’s that led to the end of the USSR. I am surprised that he did not urge the Germans to give up their desire for the Sudatenland and quit trying to annex Austria. Talk about out of touch.

And Fred, No. Ain’t gonna happen. Not ever. The Left still is mostly united in opposition to the Vietnam War. Its connection to the Cold War and the more recent Asian analyses that it saved Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and the Philippines from Communism have yet to register. There are even those who support the current conflict but still proudly say they were against Vietnam.

Modern communications means never daring to say that you are sorry. Or wrong.

Aug 4, 2008 - 6:15 pm 7. Jaded:

This President kept us safe and forced the World into protecting their citizens against jihad….he will be remembered for doing what Clinton would not do…fight back and taking a stand!

Aug 4, 2008 - 6:32 pm 8. what is "occupation":

As a old school democrat, I have been, since the beginning, I supporter of the War in Iraq and of Bush’s attempt to change the dynamic of the middle east. I have said, since the beginning, that years from now that Bush would be remembered as the greatest american president of his time.

Many have scoffed at my statement, however, the more I have studied the middle east, the more I have seen how the arabs, turks, brits, french & islamists have screwed things up…

let me continue to thank bush 43 for changing the dynamic of the arab occupied world.. If it had not been changed it would have had to be destroyed by those far less merciful than the Americans…

Just imagine a world where Saddam were to invade another country!

Oh that’s right, we can…

ask Iran, ask Kuwait…

Iraq, a modern invention (as well as Jordan) were created to settle the theft of the Hussein families control over Arabia.

Now finally the Kurds, a people who actually have a real claim to the land can live without fear of genocide by the arabs….

Much more is to be done to right the wrongs but a stable pseudo democratic Iraq is a great step in the right direction and more than france, germany, the UN, russia, china, the arabs themselves, the persians or anyone has done in 400 years

Aug 4, 2008 - 7:11 pm 9. LYNNDH:

I voted for Mr. Bush twice, and wish I could again. I have degrees in history, but decry what some socalled historians are now saying about his presidency. Too soon to say much, but I believe that History will be very kind to him.

Aug 4, 2008 - 7:17 pm 10. G.R.Langworth:

Dear Wretchard,
Carefully watching this amazing volunteer armed force of Americans, I am absolutely stunned by their achievement of what President Bush has asked of them.

The high character and extraordinary productivity of these young men and women is far more “American” than all those of my generation who called themselves so moved by JFK’s “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

Perhaps Bush’s eloquence is towering over these elegant words because ultimately the President has become what he most admires: a man of steadfast action.

We’re pretty damned lucky, any way you want to cut it.

Aug 4, 2008 - 7:39 pm 11. Papa Ray:

“Too soon to say much, but I believe that History will be very kind to him.”

Maybe for Iraq, but the Iran problem will be put on him, rather than where it belongs- on the EU.

He might not come out too well on the lack of pressure he has put on The Kingdom, or at least the results of any pressure he did apply.

Just my opinion

Papa Ray

Aug 4, 2008 - 7:43 pm 12. slade:

At what point will the American people demand the same level of performance from business that we have received from the military in Iraq?

If the security of government subsidies has made the energy business risk averse, then I am unsympathetic.

If the energy sector is unwilling to make investments that will not yield a return for 3 to 6 years then I remain unsympathetic.

It seems to me that – possibly as a remnant of the high-tech industry – business has become accustomed to the *immediacy of the response* of quarterly returns – at the expense of the traditional invest-grow-return business model.

The energy business is the old school industrial model – not the modern digital model. That is why USA is slow to make the turns required in the energy transition.

Aug 4, 2008 - 8:21 pm 13. J. Goodson:

What a thoughtful article. I,too, have thought all along that what Pres. Bush has done in Iraq is clarify things and open up possibilities for a tortured people. He has a great vision for that part of the world while it benefits us also. Luv u W!

Aug 4, 2008 - 8:23 pm 14. Derek:

Papa Ray:

Maybe. It’s too soon to see what happens with Iran. Anything that happens in the next 5 years with Iran, bad or good, will be on Bush’s ledger.

Derek

Aug 4, 2008 - 8:23 pm 15. slade:

About the only thing that is carrying the American economy through this rough spot is labor productivity – technology.

It sure isn’t management acumen.

Or foresight.

Or guts.

Aug 4, 2008 - 8:26 pm 16. fred:

slade,

Whenever I do an analysis of the value of a company, one of the valuation methods I use is called the Net Present Value of Future Free Cash Flow. Naturally, the farther off in the future the cash flow is, it will be discounted to a lower amount in the present. Favorable tax policy and a lower cost of capital makes those cash flows more valuable and it will yield a higher NPV. Of course, oil projects are complicated to value (I have no expertise or experience in valuing the oil industry), and you really have to work through a range of assumptions when you do these calculations, assigning a weight of probability for each outcome.

Uncertainly always raises risk, regardless of the business.

If we don’t mess with the tax structure and we do things to keep the cost of capital reasonable, that will go a long way in enabling these drilling projects, as well as other types of energy investments. Nothing I hear from the Democrats suggests that they understand these things at all. Say what you will about Bill Clinton, but at least he had some pragmatism in him and had advisers who were amenable to practical considerations. But, this is a much more Leftist Democratic Party now than it was during the Nineties. When you have congressmen and senators who talk about expropriation of entire companies or expropriation of profits, you are witnessing an entirely different animal than what we are accustomed to seeing.

Aug 4, 2008 - 8:32 pm 17. Charles:

I was at a family reunion way up in the mountains of North Carolina this week end past. Its sweet to sing old gospels with kin. Here was one of my favorites. (We didn’t do it this way or this well)
LOUISE & LINTON SMITH There’s Just Something About That Name

Aug 4, 2008 - 8:40 pm 18. Mike Sylwester:

In 2000 Bush ran on a platform opposing nation-building abroad, and I think that was his sincere opinion. After 9/11, he turned around and did what he had to do — nation-building abroad. He knew all the good reasons not to involve the USA in such projects, and we have encountered all those problems through the past seven years. The world will be a much better place in the 21st Century because we did so.

Also, I always have supported 100% Bremer’s decisions to outlaw the Baath Party and to disband the Iraq Army. Iraq and its military are much better now because he did so.

Aug 4, 2008 - 8:42 pm 19. Sparks:

This is encouraging to hear.

Aug 4, 2008 - 8:43 pm 20. fred:

Mike Sylvester,

I am 100% in agreement that the Baath Party had to go and a new military model created. Plus, the new model is more robust and would do a better job of resisting Iranian incursions.

I look at this conflict the same way I looked at it before the Surge Success. All wars are unique and the enemy will do things you least expect. We did not expect the Baathists’ Fedayeen units to be pre-positioned and ready for a guerrilla war, but we came to grips with it and in stages we took the enemy apart. As the Fedayeen were wearing down the al Qaeda thugs injected themselves more assertively, and concurrently with that development the Iranian al Quds units became more active. Counterinsurgency warfare is not easy or quick. Unfortunately, for the President and his cabinet, they decided not to tell the American people about what the Russian GRU was doing in Iraq in the months and weeks before the war. It cost him dearly in the nasty, vicious internal political war inside this country. The American people were not being told the whole story about how the war was going – how we were not losing militarily, but were stuck in a strategy of not being aggressive enough because the leadership thought we should have a lower profile. Interestingly, we could not begin to be truly aggressive until we got more Iraqi units up and running. It was they who gave us the cover to be more assertive. In Iraq the most visible elements were Iraqi, with us in the shadows with the mailed fist to back them up and do our own ops as well.

Another success story the public was never told was how we gradually used technology to pretty much get control of the enemy’s use of IED’s. But that program was classified and perhaps we didn’t want the enemy to know about it. Fair enough.

Aug 4, 2008 - 9:15 pm 21. Eggplant:

LYNNDH said:

“I voted for Mr. Bush twice, and wish I could again. I have degrees in history, but decry what some so called historians are now saying about his presidency. Too soon to say much, but I believe that History will be very kind to him.”

I also voted for George W. Bush and wish I could again. I do not have degrees in history but also decry what some so called historians are saying about him. I also believe that History will be very kind to him, e.g. put him on the same pedestal with Harry S. Truman.

Aug 4, 2008 - 9:22 pm 22. NahnCee:

Anything in the Constitution that forbids Dubya from running for V-P?

Aug 4, 2008 - 10:07 pm 23. Bob Murphy:

Lovely comments, Wretchard.
Well said.

Aug 4, 2008 - 10:33 pm 24. Bob Murphy:

Hey,Charles, there may well be something special about that name (Jesus) but with 15 million illegal Latinos and probably 30 million or more of our very own, uniqueness ain’t that something. Jus’ remember the J is pronounced H
That sho’ was one sweet horn.

Aug 4, 2008 - 10:47 pm 25. Fat Man:

“Anything in the Constitution that forbids Dubya from running for V-P?”

Am 12 [last sentence]
“But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

A couple of years ago a big name law prof wrote an op-ed in the NYTimes urging the Dems to pick Bill as Lurch’s running mate in ‘04. He had forgotten the 12th Amendment. ["The Next Best Thing to Being President" by Stephen Gillers on March 3, 2004] Oops.

Crosby, Stills & Nash – Southern Cross

Aug 4, 2008 - 10:54 pm 26. Dave:

An article in praise of The Man From Laramie—-Midland that is—-, 24 comments and not a single one of them unhinged. That is amazing
and it shows that Belmonters have just a little more self-control than is found elsewhere.

I have often said that Dubya accomplished just what Harry S did: committed the country to a necessary course of action that we may abandon only at our own peril.

That is probably all anybody could have done in their positions under the prevailing circumstances. Good enough for me.

Glad to see that the Permian Basin of West Texas came through in the clutch.

Aug 4, 2008 - 10:58 pm 27. Bob Murphy:

Wretchard,
I’m in Melbourne but can find no mention of Ali being in Australia on the net.

Will she be speaking in Melbourne?

Aug 4, 2008 - 11:07 pm 28. nichevo:

“fred:

Mike Sylvester,

I am 100% in agreement that the Baath Party had to go and a new military model created. Plus, the new model is more robust and would do a better job of resisting Iranian incursions.”

Mmmwellp…

1) The Garner plan could have been tried.

2) What I was actually for was keeping the Iraqi Army – locked up in their encampments. Then you have three options:

a) Shake-and-bake debaathification and US standard basic training, to hand over to Chalabi/Maliki/etc and walk away.

b) Long, thorough debaathification and AIT, etc., to be used as they are now.

c) Organized demob with pensions, background checks, monitoring, etc., and offers to retain the best X%.

d) Hold ‘em as detainees, hostages or “honored guests” and/or wipe ‘em out at leisure.

Even d) has advantages. The chief pool for insurgents has to be demobbed servicemen and their families. If you do nothing except keep them from going home, you increase the greatest threat to US forces. Then the only force out on the street (AQ or any popular mobs aside) is Uday’s (Qusay’s?) Fedayeen, the combings of the prison scum released to fight us.

In any case, the problem was not Bremer’s not keeping them as was, but his sending them home rejected and penniless. Never do your enemy a small injury, and better to take his life than his income (pace Machiavelli). The worst of all possible worlds. c) attempts to address this. Even if you send them home, do it with a pat on the back and a full dossier on this potential future enemy and all his generations.

a) probably not as good as b) but you would still be in the wings as deus ex machina, I don’t think we would have ever left lock stock and barrel. But either a) or b) has all the advantages of c) or d), or keeps them as options.

Or perhaps I am much confused because whenever I raise this on any blog or board, it gets dead silence. Sure, d) is a bit outside the box but would be approved tactics of any government except that of post-WWII America. Where’s thinking outside the box? I mean, DUH, you don’t just send them home!

Aug 4, 2008 - 11:39 pm 29. whiskey:

There was no point in keeping the Iraqi Army around in 2003, because it self-demobilized. People just threw off their uniforms and went home. No command structure, no discipline, no order, just total chaos. It just didn’t exist anymore.

Regardless of what the US did. Iraqis themselves decided they’d had enough of the Iraqi Army. and left.

Aug 5, 2008 - 12:12 am 30. Wadeusaf:

There were some options that General Garner left open to Mr. Bremmer. It is tough to say even at this point whether or not anyone could have been successful in implementing much of anything given the insurrection. Some will argue the lack of Iraqifcation in government as the reason for the insurgency, others will point to the lack of a ready civil structure or police as the cause for the rapid decline. There are a number of issues that could have been handled better before the invasion, but it is a matter of pure speculation if any of that would have made a difference in how things turned out. I’ll take the knowledge gained in changing the face of the Middle East and Southern Asia and now too the African Horn, and the ability to hammer away on the Islamists and keep my eye on the prize. It isn’t over yet, the gains are still reversible.
Iran and Syria must still be dealt with definitively. But for all the work yet to be done, looking back on how much has been accomplished, I think President Bush has earned the right to a little swagger, thats the thing they call “walking” in Texas.

Aug 5, 2008 - 2:10 am 31. Fletcher Christian:

what is occupation:

“Many have scoffed at my statement, however, the more I have studied the middle east, the more I have seen how the arabs, turks, brits, french & islamists have screwed things up…”

Arabs and islamists maybe. However, the Brits and the French decided to at least attempt to start cleaning up the cesspit that is the Middle East – and the USA, in its usual bully-boy manner, decided to stop us. Ever hear of the Suez Crisis?

Aug 5, 2008 - 2:37 am 32. Bob Murphy:

Fletcher, you have to be kidding.
The French were going to clean up the Middle East? Internationally they have always been part of the problem.
And post war Britain was so angst addled they weren’t good for doing much of anything except nationalising their industry and sabotaging themselves like a third world country.
I guess we were being bully boys when we finally stepped in to clean up fascism for you ‘cuz you weren’t doing all that good a job, right?
And that was only 25 years after we had to save your raggedy hides in France in 1918.
I’m only glad your navy and air force weren’t as incompetent as your army or you wouldn’t have been worth saving. Again.
As for the French…words fail.
What a punk neighbourhood. Get into trouble and then we had to go bail y’all out time after time.
The latest two being after that arms embargo the euro-weenies imposed in Bosnia leaving the Serbs with all the tanks, artillery, and planes from the former Yugoslav Army which they dominated and the Bosnians with nothing.
And then there’s cut and run in Basra…
Seems the Europeans are so busy wagging their fingers and moralising that they can’t even reproduce, nor invest enough in defence for their countries to remain viable.
Hiding behind Sam’s skirts as usual.
Hmmmffff.

Aug 5, 2008 - 4:00 am 33. Charles:

Bob Murphy:
She pronounced Jesus with a “J” and not an “H”. Most blacks do.

Aug 5, 2008 - 4:16 am 34. Charles:

Viewing empires as churchill’s “empires of the mind” maybe the best popular chronicler of that among elites is The Dark Knight

Aug 5, 2008 - 4:24 am 35. Charles:

Ever hear of the Suez Crisis?

imho Eisenhower made a mistake on this one.

Aug 5, 2008 - 4:28 am 36. hdgreene:

Ed Luttwak may have panicked on Iraq, but I was always there for Bush, arguing the correctness of the cause — at bars knocking back cold ones and in the booth at Micky D’s sipping hot ones, quietly comforting and encouraging the home front. Even here at the Belmont Club. No. No. No thanks needed.

Whenever I really wanted to irritate my liberal friends I’d tell them, “Keep running down George Bush. In twenty years they’ll give someone a Pulitzer for writing a revisionist history saying how great he was.” Perhaps Ed wants to get his paddle in early.

Aug 5, 2008 - 4:38 am 37. Joshua:

Too soon to say much, but I believe that History will be very kind to [GWB].

You’re forgetting one teensy little detail: History texts – or at least the only ones that really matter, the ones issued to schoolchildren – are still being written predominantly by Leftists, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

Aug 5, 2008 - 5:25 am 38. Lorenz Gude:

Yes, it’s too early to see Dubya in perspective, but I know this: He fought. And he persisted. And when he was beaten he was too dumb to know it and at the critical moment he rejected the opportunity to gracefully retreat supplied by his father’s secretary of state. And his gallant opposition unanimously approved his irrelevant choice of new commander to ensure he would be wholly and finally responsible for his defeat. How ironic that six months later they found themselves having to ’suspend disbelief’ at the disaster – political and military – that new commander had created in Iraq. Surely if the commenters on this blog can see it, some future historian will notice the irony.

In 1954 I put a full page Life magazine picture of Harry Truman on my 8th grade classroom bulletin board to tease my Republican teacher. When he discovered it he chewed me out for 30 minutes with genuinely felt fury. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

Aug 5, 2008 - 5:48 am 39. Jay:

I voted for the Bushes but since I am a strong conservative I wished that I had a real conservative choice. But the Dem Party has become a socialist party and thus I will not vote for any of them.
Let us not forget the big picture. The two main supporters of the worldwide Jihad are the Saudi and the Iranian regimes. The Bushes are too close to the Saudi princes and the payouts made by the Saudis have corrupted our Middle East policies.
I supported the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of the Baathist regime. But then we should have used the Iranian and Syrian support of the Jihadists to topple those regimes. We should have pushed Olmert to go after baby Assad’s Alawite gang and we should have separated the Iranian Arabistan from the regime over the mountains north of the Persian Gulf. The talk about invading Iran is nonsense. Look at a good topographical map of the region and look where the oil is located in the region.
Except for the tax cut, which was not made permanent due to the socialists, the administration’s economic policies have been terrible. The Sec Treasury he has chosen are Wall Streeters who support an easy money policy and bailouts for the rich Wall Street tycoons. My guess is that Bush’s education at the Harvard Biz School is partially to blame. I have some chums who taught there and I know the nonsense that especially the management profs put out as business strategies.

Aug 5, 2008 - 6:13 am 40. laocoon:

Several of my colleagues went to Iraq and talked to not only Iraqi leaders (tribal, sunni, shia, government) but also street-level fighters; I talked to my colleagues. This data is second hand, but I know the “data pedigree”, and it is definitely not a sample of the media echo chamber.

The Iraqis report several key factors:

(A) Al-Qaedi acted like monsters. They murdered, tortured and bombed anyone they considered insufficiently islamic and insufficiently supportive of their cause. (Kind of like the Nazis entering Ukraine: greeted with flowers, but later opposed)

They raised anti-american support with the claims that Americans wanted to steal their oil and rape their daughters. After a while, AQ began to collect taxes to fund their insurgency — and torture and kill anyone who resisted paying. Later, they said they had been alone too long and demanded to marry the daughters of the leaders. That is, to prevent the Americans from taking the money and the girls at gunpoint, AQ would take the money and the girls at gunpoint. And as the american soldiers and marines were doing neither, it was a pretty clear choice.

Did I mention that AQ brutally tortured a lot of muslim civilians?

(B) The American soldiers and marines fought well. They fought like real men, hand-to-hand through the grave yard, and they never quit. This won respect in a way that aerial bombing never could. In fact, USAF bombing just made them consider us cowards who could easily be beaten.

(C) Petraeus testified. Then they realized that Bush would not back down, Petraeus would not meekly go home, and Congress could not defund the war. We were a force to be reckoned with (point B) and they could not just wait it out.

Just some facts from the front.

Aug 5, 2008 - 6:17 am 41. oldsj:

Fred:
… what the Russian GRU was doing in Iraq in the months and weeks before the war.

Can you refer me to sources or earlier posts on this?

Thanks.

Aug 5, 2008 - 6:34 am 42. fred:

“oldsj:

Fred:
… what the Russian GRU was doing in Iraq in the months and weeks before the war.

Can you refer me to sources or earlier posts on this?

Thanks.”

I know this sounds kinda dumb, but I honestly do not know how to put links into the correct format for this blog site. I once just tried to cut and paste a link into this window, but the link address was so long it got cut off. I know there’s a way to do this so that you can just click on the posted link, but I am ignorant of it. Perhaps you would tell me how this is done?

Aug 5, 2008 - 6:45 am 43. Mark:

Salt Lick wrote:
“And you know you are starting to win if Sadr announces plans to turn the Mahdi Army into a civic and social service organization.”

I.e., “Let’s create a new and improved Iraqi Hezbollah!” Let’s hope Maliki and friends smash this cockroach again. He’s still wriggling.

Wrichard wrote:
“The representatives of a certain religion, represented by its most articulate members, were ready with well-spoken arguments about the ‘limits of freedom of speech.’”

If Belmonters have not yet experienced the pleasure of watching Hirsan Ali skewer her verbal opponents with her simple and profound arguments, just log in to CSPAN and watch one of the archived programs. The opponents are reduced to saying either “you’re a tool of the oppressors” or “you’re an apostate,” both of which criticisms she lobs back at them, with ease and grace, to her audiences’ great embarrassment.

Do you remember the dark days of pre-surge when you could see the darting eyes and hear quavering in the voices of Pres. Bush and P.M. Blair during their press conferences and question hours? Those were depressing sights and sounds. Their parties retreated to safety, almost all of them. All the more kukdos to the President and Prime Minister for being scared but still pressing on.

I want to hear someone produce a music video of “Real lefties of genius,” written to the Bud Light commerical melody. Anyone done one yet?

Aug 5, 2008 - 7:02 am 44. gumshoe:

fred –

to _shorten_ the length of your link try “www.tinyurl.com”…

as far as formatting the text to have an clickable link show in your post,someone else will have to help ya out.

Aug 5, 2008 - 7:18 am 45. slade:

Fred –

Late and veering off-topic but business concern about Obama’s cabinet level appointments and advisers is legitimate. I see no signs that the selections will mimic the *pragmatism* of Clinton for exactly the reason you cite – the *noise* coming from the Far Left crowd. Nor do I see any evidence that Obama himself is wise enough to understand the deeper implications of radical policy (further military cuts ranks right up there with fiscal and monetary policies that diminish incentives for private investment in transition technologies).

There are so many issues of legitimate concern to vote against this candidate and his platform (which is starting to spin like a top). It is a breath-taking measure of Republican Congressional hubris that polish and pizazz can take the Democrats this far.

My opinion.

Aug 5, 2008 - 7:24 am 46. Jason:

I had front row seats for this (recalled to active duty for ‘major combat operations’ in Qatar) so I paid attention.

When “W” said “bring it on,” he bet that the U.S. military and the average Arab citizen in Iraq would stand against the global weight of Islamic fundamentalism. He “stayed the course” until we achieved the equivalence of a total defeat for radical Islam.

President Bush got the big things right immediately after 9-11: his objectives were inspired, his strategy brilliant and, evaluated against the history of warfare, military operations were superb.

Aug 5, 2008 - 7:36 am 47. exhelodrvr:

bobal,
“Against all expectations,”

Not all expectations – some people always saw his inner strengths.

Aug 5, 2008 - 7:39 am 48. DanM:

Fred,

Without the square brackets -

[Text you want to show as the link here]

Make sure you include the open and close quotation marks and the greater then and less then signs.

Aug 5, 2008 - 8:29 am 49. DanM:

Now why did that take the HTML coding with the brackets????

Never mind….

Aug 5, 2008 - 8:31 am 50. DanM:

Fred,

Try this link…

HTML Coding Tutorial.

Should go directly to the proper linking page..
But, then again, I don’t know why this blog software recognized the link code in the square brackets… So, caveat emptor…

Aug 5, 2008 - 8:35 am 51. Linda P:

Yes, agreed about the Bush strategy and his steadfastness, BUT why the soft-pedaling of Islam as a religion of peace and allowing many more of its adherents into the US after 9/11? This amounts to importing a huge problem for us.

Aug 5, 2008 - 9:03 am 52. RWE:

Right around the time he took office, Pres Bush was asked by a foreign journalist why the United Sates was a great nation.

He could have said a lot of things about our founding fathers’ vision and our basic principles. I was disappointed with his reply. He said “It is because we are kind to each other.” Rush Limbaugh even said he was disappointed with that answer.

I was wrong. Rush was wrong. It was a great answer. And on 9/11/01 we saw the truth of it. How many people went to their deaths because they were trying to be kind to other people? The firemen and police officers and even civilians at the WTC. The passengers of Flight 93. All of them died not because they were following the principles of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution but instead because they wanted to be kind to others.

It was a great answer. Admittedly, it was those basic American principles, themselves rooted in kindness, that produced that ultimate kindness.

It was a great answer. We owe the President an apology.

Aug 5, 2008 - 9:38 am 53. Roderick Reilly:

I think the Truman comparison for Bush is apt.

I now want another Truman allusion to come true: for McCain to be Truman vs. Obama’s Dewey.

Aug 5, 2008 - 10:02 am 54. Roderick Reilly:

“It is because we are kind to each other.”

AND we are kind to the rest of the world as well.

My statement right there would undoubtedly cause many a Euro-weenie or American leftie to spew their lattes in hysterical laughter, because they see AmeriKKKa as the perpetrator of devastation. But from rescuing entire countries from distorships, to coming to the aid of Tsunami and earthquake victims in huge and spectacular ways, hospital ships, Peace Corps, private donations, staggering sums of money to combat AIDS in Africa, the real “Green” (agricultural) revolution, and so on, there has never, ever been a more generous nation more willing to reach out to others. Our most loyal allies in this kind of attitude and belief system is the Anglosphere in total.

All those “internationalists” with their ineffectual and phony “compassion” for the miseries of the world can go pound sand.

Aug 5, 2008 - 10:13 am 55. Eggplant:

Charles asked:

“Ever hear of the Suez Crisis? imho Eisenhower made a mistake on this one.”

In my opinion, the Suez Crisis was a feable attempt by the European powers to set things back to where they were before WW-I (a bit like the Congress of Vienna after Europe was finished with Napoleon). Eisenhower’s response to the Suez Crisis was a clear statement that the European Era had ended (died with Hitler) and future events would be dictated by the United States and Soviet Union.

Joshua said:

“You’re forgetting one teensy little detail: History texts – or at least the only ones that really matter, the ones issued to schoolchildren – are still being written predominantly by Leftists, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.”

That’s part of the whole Gramscian thing, i.e. control the education system, the news and entertainment media then eventually you’ll control the whole planet (a bit like “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world”). Unfortunately for the Leftists, two things have happened:

1) The Soviet Union imploded.
2) People are slowly getting wise to the Gramscian thing.

The MSM and the liberal elite have bet the farm on B. Hussein being elected as Messiah. If Hussein loses then their credibility will be seriously damaged (who will trust the MSM after that?). This is part of the process of rolling back leftist influence. That whole edifice is slowly being eroded away.

Linda P said:

“why the soft-pedaling of Islam as a religion of peace and allowing many more of its adherents into the US after 9/11? This amounts to importing a huge problem for us.”

After 9/11, we had too much on our plate dealing with the Taliban in Afghanistan and then taking down Saddam. Are we supposed to radicalize the peaceful Moslems already living in America? We’re eating the elephant one bite at a time.

Aug 5, 2008 - 10:28 am 56. bobal:

Against many expectations, W may come out smelling like a rose.

Aug 5, 2008 - 10:43 am 57. Linda P:

To Eggplant – 10:28 am

I think it’s apparent that when there is a critical mass of Muslims in a population, they aren’t exactly “peaceful”. At the very least, they feel empowered to agitate for imposing their way upon the host nation.

My one disappointment with President Bush is that he didn’t seize a golden opportunity, right after 9/11, to stop immigration from Muslim-dominated countries.

I only hope that his kindness (or, his blind spot regarding this religion) doesn’t bode ill for America.

Aug 5, 2008 - 11:16 am 58. Fletcher Christian:

Eggplant:

Perhaps. And it was also a screwup; leaving an incompetent Left-wing nationalist (and one who also believed in the Arab superstate) in charge of one of the world’s major international resources. Arab terrorism in all the years since, including the series of attacks on Israel, was the result of it. And the reason Eisenhower did it? The same reason as for the fact that the price of Lend-Lease was just about all Britain’s international reserves and most of its overseas bases.

Britain had its back to the wall – and acted as it had to, and the USA took over the leadership of the world; which was the whole point of the exercise. And just to make the result more certain, the USA took two years to join in the fight against two of the worst dictatorships in Earth’s history. Two years during which the UK was essentially alone except for a few underpopulated and/or underdeveloped colonies.

It ought not to be forgotten, either, that a long time ago, when the UK was doing its usual thing – fighting against the forces of totalitarianism (in the form of Napoleon this time) the USA was on the other side. Or that the “land of the brave and the home of the free” took fifty years after its formation for a large part of its population to share that freedom, even in theory. And a hell of a lot longer for them to share that freedom in fact.

The holier-than-thou attitude of some Americans makes me sick. You’re just another country – admittedly less of a police state than some at the moment, but that’s changing. Fast. Some may look forward to the American Imperium, but I don’t.

Legions – check. Using them for conquest – check. Praetorian Guard – check. Demands for tribute – check. Bread, circuses and bloodthirsty entertainment – check. Torture of the opposition – check. Dynastic rule – check (or at least starting).

Rome was a free republic once. Look what happened to them.

Aug 5, 2008 - 11:20 am 59. oldsj:

I should have googled first, Fred. Here’s an ABC story that looks like a good start.

http://abcnews.go.com/
International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490

Headline is “Did Russian Ambassador Give Saddam the U.S. War Plan?”

Aug 5, 2008 - 11:23 am 60. exhelodrvr:

Fletcher,
“Arab terrorism in all the years since, including the series of attacks on Israel, was the result of it”

Oh, yeah. It’s got nothing to do with the fact that hatred of Jews is inherent to Islam.

“fighting against the forces of totalitarianism (in the form of Napoleon this time) the USA was on the other side.”

As in British impressment of U.S. merchant seamen? The War of 1812? And, of course, the British actions had nothing to do with expansion of the British empire, did it? It was purely to combat totalitarianism. There was no desire in England to bring the former American colonies back into the fold. Just curious, what do the Irish think about the British struggle against totalitarianism during the 1800’s and 1900’s?

“Or that the “land of the brave and the home of the free” took fifty years after its formation for a large part of its population to share that freedom, even in theory. And a hell of a lot longer for them to share that freedom in fact.”

I wonder what the Zulus would think about the freedom that the British Empire allowed them?

Aug 5, 2008 - 11:54 am 61. Eggplant:

Fletcher Christian said:

“And it was also a screwup; leaving an incompetent Left-wing nationalist (and one who also believed in the Arab superstate) in charge of one of the world’s major international resources.”

I presume you’re talking about Gamal Nasser. I would agree that Nasser’s legacy for Egypt (and the world) was not a good one. Nasser certainly believed in the Arab superstate. He tried to create one with Iraq, Syria and Libya but failed. Nasser was also a socialist and tried (but failed) to establish Egypt as a Soviet client. However Nasser was also wildly popular with the Egyptian people. He was a classic demagogue. I would argue that the machinations of Israel with the European powers during the Suez Crisis greatly enhanced Nasser’s demagogic appeal and set the stage for the 1967 war with Israel.

Fletcher Christian also said:

“Arab terrorism in all the years since, including the series of attacks on Israel, was the result of it.”

No, Islamic fascism was a reaction to Nasser and Arab secularism. Islamic fascism emerged as Nasser’s secular/socialist style of politics declined.

Fletcher Christian said:

“Britain had its back to the wall – and acted as it had to, and the USA took over the leadership of the world; which was the whole point of the exercise. And just to make the result more certain, the USA took two years to join in the fight against two of the worst dictatorships in Earth’s history.”

The United States was really the only guy in the Free World left standing after World War II. Europe was a wreck and Britan’s economy was badly damaged. America’s natural inclination was towards isolationism. To a large extent the US had greatness thrust upon it.

Fletcher Christian said:

“It ought not to be forgotten, either, that a long time ago, when the UK was doing its usual thing – fighting against the forces of totalitarianism (in the form of Napoleon this time) the USA was on the other side. Or that the “land of the brave and the home of the free” took fifty years after its formation for a large part of its population to share that freedom, even in theory.”

England was and continues to be a great nation. However England’s behavior prior to World War II was mainly motivated by maintaining England’s political and economic advantage as an imperial power. Slavery in the United States (and England) was a national disgrace. It’s to England’s credit that they outlawed slavery without recourse to a civil war. We in the United States almost destroyed ourselves by the process of outlawing slavery. Fortunately justice prevailed. Unfortunately we had to wash away our earlier disgrace with considerable human blood.

“Legions – check. Using them for conquest – check. Praetorian Guard – check. Demands for tribute – check. Bread, circuses and bloodthirsty entertainment – check. Torture of the opposition – check. Dynastic rule – check (or at least starting).”

Do I hear a moonbat shrieking?

“Rome was a free republic once. Look what happened to them.”

The Roman Republic went through its life cycle just as the British Empire did. We need to be mindful of ours.

Aug 5, 2008 - 12:09 pm 62. Phil:

Fletcher:

“Or that the “land of the brave and the home of the free” took fifty years after its formation for a large part of its population to share that freedom, even in theory.”

Yes, it took the US longer than necessary to banish the evil of slavery and yes, Britain did take the lead in ending it’s part of the slave trade in the Americas. But, when it came to Britain’s addiction to its’ favorite beverage, the country quickly turned a blind eye to the plantation life and virtual slave conditions that existed in India, Burma and Ceylon.

Aug 5, 2008 - 1:20 pm 63. NahnCee:

“why the soft-pedaling of Islam as a religion of peace and allowing many more of its adherents into the US after 9/11?

In my own mind, I keep having to remember that Bush has always claimed to be a deeply religious man. His actions would underline those claims if you consider that (1) he’s been desperately trying to avoid genocide, and (2) he’s trying to be forgiving and to turn the other cheek. There’s also a (3) in that Pappa Bush is emotionally connected to his good friends the Saud’s, so if we start knocking KSA and/or killing its leaders Junior Bush’s administration would be responsible for killing Pappa Bush’s personal friends.

Mostly, I think it’s the genocide thing. If you look at Dubya’s strategy since 9/12/2001 he has deliberately gone for the long-term option of soft power and brainwashing over the short-term option of nuking the SOB’s — all of them. As I understand it, that is what Jesus would have counseled, even if the Pope or the elders of the Latter Day Saints or the Bishop of Canterbury might have a totally different interpretation how to be a good Christian when attacked by barbarians.

At least Bush *did* respond, even if he may have chosen the longest most complicated way to do it. Knowing now what we’ve seen since then I think there’s just about one other head of a nation who would have responded to such provocation, with – literally – every other country in the world rolling over, playing dead, and trying to placate the savages.

Aug 5, 2008 - 1:28 pm 64. Zim:

“Legions – check. Using them for conquest – check. Praetorian Guard – check. Demands for tribute – check. Bread, circuses and bloodthirsty entertainment – check. Torture of the opposition – check. Dynastic rule – check (or at least starting).”

WTF? I hope you typed all that drunk or mad (or both) because if it’s what you really believe you’re an idiot.

Aug 5, 2008 - 1:28 pm 65. steveH:

Fletcher Christian said:

“Britain had its back to the wall – and acted as it had to, and the USA took over the leadership of the world; which was the whole point of the exercise. And just to make the result more certain, the USA took two years to join in the fight against two of the worst dictatorships in Earth’s history.”

It had nothing to do with the fact that the U.S. Army in the late ’30s was almost on par with Belgium’s. That, in addition to still recovering from the Depression (along with most of Europe, granted), was still strongly isolationist. It hadn’t been all that long since 1918. In 1940 in the Louisiana war games, we were using trucks with broomsticks mounted to represent the tanks we didn’t yet have. Yeah, we’d have made such a difference in 1939 and ‘40.

Forgot about Lend Lease, it seems. American ships pitching in on escort duty for British ships hauling cargo out from Canada; does the name “Reuben James” ring any bells? You didn’t seem to mind taking over a couple dozen old four-stacker destroyers from our Navy, either.

Your lot weren’t seeing Imperial Japan as nearly as much a threat as we were at the time, watching their construction of their “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”. USS Panay, in 1937, not to mention Manchuria and Nanking. I guess Singapore rang an alarm, though.

Too inconvenient for your argument, I guess. Sorry ’bout that.

Aug 5, 2008 - 1:58 pm 66. Jason:

why the soft-pedaling of Islam as a religion of peace and allowing many more of its adherents into the US after 9/11?

Because the only way forward is to force an Islamic reformation: the Umma has to come to realize that a Islam can coexist with the modern world but only if renounces aspirations of restoring the Caliphate.

Aug 5, 2008 - 2:10 pm 67. Alexis:

FC:

I am ambivalent about the Suez Crisis. I think Eisenhower could have been more nuanced in his diplomacy. The problem the United States faced was that it didn’t want to get dragged into a war with the Soviet Union over the issue, a war that would have been fought on German soil. If there were a better means for the United States to express displeasure with British and French actions while avoiding getting sucked into a war with the Soviet Union, I would like to know. Please note that the Suez War was if anything more unpopular in Germany than the Iraq War is today. British and Commonwealth public opinion hardly reflected the sentiments of the Khaki Election. So, as clumsy as his diplomacy may have been, President Eisenhower was hardly alone in his opinions.

As French public opinion was far more solidly behind defeating Nasser, France has much more to complain about than Britain concerning Eisenhower’s diplomacy. There is good reason to believe that the Suez Crisis was a contributing factor leading Charles de Gaulle to move France out of NATO a decade later. I will credit him with this much – France left NATO honestly. And remember, American soldiers did leave France.

The United Kingdom, and for that matter any other European country, is welcome to leave NATO. The United States is not Athens and NATO is not the Delian League. If Spaniards truly believe the Spanish Socialist Party’s calumnies against the United States proclaiming Spain’s alliance with America as responsible for the March 11 attacks, Spain is welcome to leave NATO instead of proclaiming an alliance it doesn’t really believe in.

European polemic aside, there are things most Americans would rather do than fight wars. Americans have good reason to be annoyed by how the British Foreign Office sent us a pack of lies about bogus atrocities in Belgium during World War I. Alliances are a two-way street, and altogether too many European statesmen have looked at Americans as worthy of nothing other than cannon fodder in European wars for European interests and European reasons. At present, it is easy for an American to gain the impression that European public opinion doesn’t give a damn about defending America at all and merely regarded Americans as expendable commodities during the wars of the twentieth century.

I don’t easily forget how European statesmen talked about how important it was for American soldiers to die first in any Soviet attack on Western Europe. I don’t easily forget how many Europeans are more concerned about an “American overreaction” to the September 11 attacks than they are about actually lifting a finger to help Americans in this war.

Alliances are supposed to be a two-way street. Yet much of what I see from Europe is an intense desire to scold America for every sin in the book while systematically seeking to destroy the American economy through a combination of strategic subsidies and overloading the American taxpayer with defense responsibilities for Europe that have little to do with defending America, all the while secretly seeking to arm the Iranians and the Chinese against America. The strategy seems to be “tell the Americans we are their friends but do everything we can to sabotage their ability to fight”.

Whenever a European leader stands with the United States, he gets hounded with the epithet “American poodle”. Has it ever occurred to Europeans that this behavior causes a backlash? Has it ever occurred to Europeans that whenever they hail an American leader as wonderful, he might be regarded as a “European poodle”?

Back in the 1990’s, I kept hearing about how a “United Europe” was the highest priority for the American Secretary of State. This was idiocy. America’s highest priority must be the welfare of America, not the creation of a European superstate that will do everything within its power to undermine America. I don’t forget how the wars of Yugoslav succession were essentially a proxy war between Germany on one side and Britain & France on the other; the wave of anti-Americanism in Europe a decade later came partly because Europeans got accustomed to Americans taking care of their problems. There is something ridiculous about America becoming Europe’s nurse’s assistant, cleaning out a European bedpan every time someone else can’t control himself. If Europeans can’t take care of themselves, perhaps Europeans need to reap the consequences instead of relying upon American power to keep the peace.

Any American “imperialism” is at least as much the doing of Europeans who seek to use American power for their own purposes. After all, all a European statesman needs to do to wrap American statesmen around his finger is accuse Americans of being “isolationist” if we do nothing. If we don’t do what we are told we are called “isolationist”, if we do what we are told but then do it too well we are called “imperialist”, and if we do something other than what we are told to do we are called both “isolationist” and “imperialist”; American statesmen need to understand that there is no pleasing some people. American statesmen also need to understand that America’s capital is in Washington DC, not in Brussels. If any European state really thinks NATO is such a burden on it, it can kindly get out of NATO and stop petitioning America to use its power for its own interests. It is quite annoying to see American military power being used to defend people who seem to think America is the cause of all of their problems.

Aug 5, 2008 - 2:39 pm 68. exhelodrvr:

Alexis,
“it can kindly get out of NATO and stop petitioning America to use its power for its own interests.”

Of course, they would still reap the considerable economic benefits that accrue do the security and freedom of navigation that is provided by the existence of the U.S. military.

Aug 5, 2008 - 3:23 pm 69. Bob Murphy:

DeGaulle could afford to secede from NATO. He had American, German and UK armies between him and the Soviet Union.
But stratgecically he stabbed western civilisation in the back with that action.
I was the Soviet Order of Battle instructor in a US Army Long Range Reconnaissance Company tasked with defending the Fulda Gap against the Russkies.
They had a 10:1 tank advantage over NATO.
Our strategy in the event of war was for a fighting withdrawal into France where we had stockpiles of supplies and places where reinforcements could be flown in from the US and have their heavy weapons and equipment waiting.
By then Soviet supply lines would be extended and vulnerable to our Air Forces and other long range weapons systems with people like me calling the shots.
DeGaulle stuffed that utterly and he knew he was doing it.
He almost fatally weakened NATO.
The only option left was nuclear “equalizers”.
DeGaulle was a capricious, vainglorious and ineffectual French ankle-grabber when the Nazis invaded and he didn’t get any better in the postwar years.

Aug 5, 2008 - 3:46 pm 70. what is "occupation":

However, the Brits and the French decided to at least attempt to start cleaning up the cesspit that is the Middle East – and the USA, in its usual bully-boy manner, decided to stop us. Ever hear of the Suez Crisis?

But how was that cesspool created?

Read Bernard Lewis and his theory about how the FRENCH & it’s Vichy Government GAVE support to the arabs to create a nazi wonderland…

Read how the Brit’s handed promised MOST of Historic Palestine to the Jews (correctly) and then back stabbed the jews and stole it to give the King Hussein of Jordan (and include Iraq and it’s King, the Brother of the King of Jordan) and to create an additional arab state.

Go back and learn how the Brits created the cesspool…..

As for the French? lol so many examples, so little time…

Let’s just say… Algeria?

And just for shits and Giggles, remember than Suez Canal?

remember 1956 war? French and Brits…

thieves, occupiers, looters…

Oh and if you like to see what they looted? Visit London or Paris for a tour…

lol,,,,,,,,,,

Aug 5, 2008 - 4:23 pm 71. Brian H:

Mike S;
Agree. Once again I refer people to de Atkine’s “Why Arab Armies Lose Wars“.

Fred;
<a href=”the url goes here”>the title goes here</a>

Copy the above and replace the “goes here” instructions as instructed. By the instructions. Between the quotes and so on.

Aug 5, 2008 - 5:33 pm 72. fred:

Jason,

Almost every high-profile ex-Muslim who has come to the West and speaks out against Islam express great skepticism that Islam can be reformed. I won’t say it is impossible. I won’t go that categorically extreme, but I will second my great skepticism. Any truly curious and objective person who reads the Islamic scriptures (Qur’an) and understands how the Islamic doctrine of abrogation works will know that the Medinan “revelations” cancel out the Meccan ones. Also, every – EVERY – traditional school of Islamic theology, Sunni and Shia, affirms the bedrock hermeneutical principle that the Qur’an is the eternal, uncreated, perfect, literal words of Allah. That means you cannot add, subtract, or cancel any of it. So, in order to “reform” Islam you must first declare that the Qur’an is not the compilation of the very words of Allah. As things stand right now, any Muslim which denies this principle is declared apostate and ripe for murder.

That is what you are up against. This is why Ibn Warraq (not his real name), Walid Shoebat, Ali Sina, Ayyan Hirsi Ali, and others are extremely skeptical that Islam can be reformed. Ali Sina, in particular, studied to be a Shia cleric. He is deeply, formidably knowledgeable about every Islamic writing. My experience of reading the Qur’an (and parts of it I had trouble understanding)confirmed for my satisfaction that it is not a religion of peace and that it is imperialistic, aggressive, and violent in its very nature.

But right now the “reform” camp among our kafir elites holds sway and suppresses the contrary opinion. This is done in the government and in academia, and it is a well-financed campaign to slander people like Robert Spencer, Steve Emerson, and Daniel Pipes.

Aug 5, 2008 - 5:38 pm 73. NahnCee:

steveH – awfully defensive for a do-nothing, aren’t you?

I can’t decide from the internal clues if you’re a Canuck do-nothing or a British one. You want to declare yourself since you obviously want to start a name-calling contest? I’d hate to cast aspersions if you’re a German or New Zealand wuss instead.

Aug 5, 2008 - 5:39 pm 74. Brian H:

Fred;
Just to be clear, leave the quotes and everything else as is. Just replace the words of the instructions.

Aug 5, 2008 - 5:47 pm 75. Brian H:

fred;
Check out Totten’s writings on Kosovo and Albania. Their attitude is that the Arabs are crazy, and want nothing to do with their Islam. But they are laid-back Muslims, which infuriates the fundamentalists, Islamists, and jihadists. Wahabbis are trying to turn them, but aren’t getting much traction, despite all the money they can throw around.

Aug 5, 2008 - 5:53 pm 76. Teresita:

Eggplant: It’s to England’s credit that they outlawed slavery without recourse to a civil war. We in the United States almost destroyed ourselves by the process of outlawing slavery.

Really? Great Britain was firmly on the side of the CSA during the American Civil War, and it was only Lincoln’s total blockade of southern ports which kept them from financing more bloodshed through the cotton trade. The “special relationship” between the US and UK didn’t come into existence until Kaiser Bill’s U-boat campaign, which nearly won the war for him. After declaring war in April 1917, America began to help supply the British and make good on the UK’s losses in warships.

Aug 5, 2008 - 6:03 pm 77. fred:

oldsj,

Here is a link to an article about what the Russians were doing in Iraq just before the invasion.

http://www.tldm.org/news7/RussiaIraqWeapons.htm

And there are many more articles out there. I googled “Russian GRU activities in Iraq before the invasion” and turned up quite a lot.

Aug 5, 2008 - 6:16 pm 78. Charles:

Eggplant:

In my opinion, the Suez Crisis was a feable attempt by the European powers to set things back to where they were before WW-I (a bit like the Congress of Vienna after Europe was finished with Napoleon). Eisenhower’s response to the Suez Crisis was a clear statement that the European Era had ended (died with Hitler) and future events would be dictated by the United States and Soviet Union.
//////////////
According to Wikipedia:

The Suez Crisis, also referred to as the Tripartite Aggression,[1] (Arabic: أزمة السويس – العدوان الثلاثي‎; French: Crise du canal de Suez; Hebrew: מבצע קדש‎) (Kadesh Campaign) was a military attack on Egypt by Britain, France, and Israel beginning on 29 October 1956.[2][3] The attack followed Egypt’s decision of 26 July 1956 to nationalize the Suez Canal after the withdrawal of an offer by Britain and the United States to fund the building of the Aswan Dam.[4]

Aug 5, 2008 - 6:23 pm 79. fred:

BrianH,

Wahabbism IS the original Islam as intended by Muhammad. I’m not denying the fact or existence of cultural, nominal Muslims. It’s indisputable. The fact that most Muslims do not get with the imperative to wage jihad against the kafir does not in any way obviate what the Qur’an and ahadith say about it. But let me be clear about this. Those Muslims are not the good Muslims. They are considered bad Muslims AND WE WANT THE BAD MUSLIMS ON OUR SIDE. We want the Bad Muslims to win this fight. But, should we bet the farm on it and pin our hopes on it? I would argue against doing that. We can only put the pressure on Islam and continue to wage war on the Good Muslims who follow Muhammad’s and his sock puppet deity’s commands. Only when we convince them that they are not going to win this war with dar al Harb will we collapse Islam. Because when you take out jihad and the injunctions to conquer, convert, or kill us ubelievers (kafirs)and everything associated with it, there is not much left. No exaggeration.

Islam is a cult and a heresy. Its prophet was a false one and one of the most evil men in history. Anyone who cannot see that really needs to go back to square one of Christian theology, moral philosophy, and humanistic ethics.

Aug 5, 2008 - 7:01 pm 80. Dave:

Teresita: Whereinhell do you get your spin?

The Special Relationship between UK and US got started by two old, and somewhat inimical,
warhorses: Andrew Jackson and Wellington.
Read your Paul Johnson and this time keep your eyes open while reading.

And during The War of Northern Aggression, England was neutral. N-E-U-T-R-A-L. Had England been on the CSA side, they would have (a) given the CSA diplomatic recognition and (b)used their superior naval force to lift Mr Lincoln’s blockade. Instead, they sat back
and gave their eventual support to—–The Winner.

Oh yes, and while they were waiting they kept an eye on the West Coast and let the Czar know that he was NOT to take advantage of all the confusion to try to increase his holdings. Or else. Thank you, John Bull.

In short, I fail to see how English conduct could have been more proper. Indications are that both Marse Robert and Uncle Billy concur.

I could go on and tell you how Rip Ford and Chino Cortines ran the TEx-Mex Border during those times, but you would never believe it.

Aug 5, 2008 - 8:41 pm 81. Bob Murphy:

I wouldn’t go back too far with Christianity,Fred.
what’s the biggest difference between Christianity and Islam?
’bout 500 years.
It was not that far back that people regarded the Bible as the undisputed word of God and burned people at the stake if they had a different take.
When it actually was, as with the Koran, the work of religious bureaucrats with their own spin on things.
And it was in my own youth that I was told I would go to everlasting damnation if I ate meat on Friday.
Perhaps the main moral difference between Christianity and Islam is reason/volition and its nominal importance in Christianity and total irrelevance in Islam.
As in that rather interesting dialogue between the Eastern Roman Emperor and the “Learned Persian” spoken about by the current Pope that cause so many Muslims to riot. Again.

Aug 5, 2008 - 8:45 pm 82. cedarford:

fred:
It will be many years before the public’s perceptions of President George W. Bush change. Perhaps long after the current regime in the mainstream media has turned over. It won’t be the journalists who make the case for the President anyway. It will be writers who do their research and evaluate results and not political feuds.
Not even Richard Nixon was set upon so viciously as this President has been.

Bush will rise only if history veiws a small band of Islamists that killed a few thousand people in the West as a great enough crisis that Bush’s domestic disasters, his immigration and China policy can be ignored. His failing to act on anything other than reactively, and even then, sometimes stubbornly locking himself in for years with failed subordinates and failed policies. His lack of vision on how going trillions in hock to China to pay for Iraq and his tax cuts for the rich failed to advance America’s interests overall.
Just as importantly, the man failed to articulate his policies, even the good ones, and sold out those initiatives faster than he sold out the American worker.

Yep, if the threat of a gang of 6.000 stone age Muslims required an “American Churchill”, or the American Hedgehog that only knew ONE thing in an America that required a leader to know, comunicate, and lead on over a dozen things….well, yes, history may be kind. But maybe only in the sense the most Brits think of Churchill…he was indispensible for 1 year (1940), but other than that is known as an awful leader who is properly detested for a lifetime of terrible mistakes and misjudgments, who the UK would have been better off in the sum had he never lived.

Aug 5, 2008 - 8:58 pm 83. Teresita:

Dave: And during The War of Northern Aggression, England was neutral. N-E-U-T-R-A-L. Had England been on the CSA side, they would have (a) given the CSA diplomatic recognition and (b)used their superior naval force to lift Mr Lincoln’s blockade.

The British gave ships from the CSA the same rights as Union ships. This, combined with their constellation of facilities throughout the world, permitted the rebs to attack Union ships across the globe. For comparison, imagine that the entire southwest US from California to New Mexico and from Nevada to Colorado declared their intention to become part of Mexico. Now imagine Canada declaring “neutrality” but allowing California and Texas carrier battle-groups to be supplied at Nanaimo, British Columbia for their ongoing strikes against the US. We wouldn’t much like Canada for doing that, would we?

Aug 5, 2008 - 9:28 pm 84. Dave:

“The British gave ships from the CSA the same rights as Union ships.”

That means Union ships could use certain British facilities. That also means that Confederate ships could use certain British facilities.

“permitted the rebs to attack Union ships across the globe.” Said arrangments also permitted the damnyankees to attack Confederate ships across the globe.

When you treat both sides the same way, you are neutral. UK treated USA and CSA same way. Astute move on their part.

Aug 5, 2008 - 9:58 pm 85. Lifeofthemind:

The problem with Suez was that it went down the same weekend the Soviets invaded Hungary. Dulles and Eisenhower had supported the British position to the extent that we withdrew from funding the Aswan Dam project. That precipitated Nasser’s seizure of the canal. Anthony Eden did not include the American’s in the Sévres negotiations with the French and Israelis and Eisenhower did not feel bound to a non Nato action taken without prior consultation.

Aug 5, 2008 - 10:00 pm 86. Lifeofthemind:

Of course I would like to believe that I would have been gifted with such insight that the effect of this humiliation of our allies on Britain and France and Nasser and other enemies would have given me pause. We can grant Fletcher this much. The world would probably be a better place if Nasser had been defeated. The European allies would still have needed to undergo a painful readjustment to a post colonial world. Fletcher’s seething hostility to America is the British equivalent of Pat Buchananism. Eventually he will run into the embrace of the enemies of all he cherishes to punish the ally he despises.

Aug 5, 2008 - 10:10 pm 87. Gary Rosen:

“sold out those initiatives faster than he sold out the American worker”

Must be one of them Joooish Bolsheviks.

Aug 5, 2008 - 11:57 pm 88. fred:

“Bush will rise only if history veiws a small band of Islamists that killed a few thousand people in the West as a great enough crisis that Bush’s domestic disasters,” comment by C-fudd

More Americans killed in this event than at Pearl Harbor when the Japanese naval air forces left a mess in their wake.

Also, it was just one large event in a long chain of them going back to 1979. Airline hijackings, Marine barracks’ bombing in Beruit, kidnapping and murder of CIA and embassy personnel, Khobar Towers, embassy bombings, Mogadishu, “maybe” even involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing, 1993 World Trade Center bombing attack, the U.S.S. Cole, and others…

When the worst one happens on your watch and there’s a pattern to the jihad, either you put your foot down or you continue to do what prior administrations did: appease. It must be said that President Thomas Jefferson’s decision to give the Muslim pirates the cold, hard steel rather than continuing to pay the jizya was politically unpopular, even when the jizya was about 20% of our Gross Domestic Product in those days.

We have a long history of appeasing Muslim terrorists and it was time for another American president to either take it up the **s or dish it back. Otherwise our deterrence posture would continue to deteriorate.

Oh, and dose joooooos had to be behind it all…

Aug 6, 2008 - 7:21 am 89. Mark:

As the thead diminishes,and the comments fade into the internet ether,Fred writes:

“. . . the Qur’an is the eternal, uncreated, perfect, literal words of Allah.”

and

“Islam is a cult and a heresy. Its prophet was a false one. . . .”

Yes, it’s important to keep examining Islam.

As John of Damascus pointed out to the new Muslim guys in town in the 7th century, if you affirm the first statement regarding the koran, above, God is no longer ‘one,’ since there was another one (the koran) with the one (allah)at the beginning. Christians don’t have a similar problem, openly acknowledging the paradox, calling this uncreated word “the Word” and the outpouring of the mutuality of God and the Word “the Spirit.” Muslims deride Christians as “polytheists.”

As a result of the Islamic doctrine regarding the koran, you get the situation noted in Fred’s second statement, i.e., a religion that most resembles a cult, relying on self-referential justification. (”Sock puppet deity” really is a pretty good term.)

And Bob Murphy wrote:

“I wouldn’t go back too far with Christianity,Fred.
what’s the biggest difference between Christianity and Islam?
’bout 500 years.
It was not that far back that people regarded the Bible as the undisputed word of God and burned people at the stake if they had a different take.
When it actually was, as with the Koran, the work of religious bureaucrats with their own spin on things.
And it was in my own youth that I was told I would go to everlasting damnation if I ate meat on Friday.
Perhaps the main moral difference between Christianity and Islam is reason/volition and its nominal importance in Christianity and total irrelevance in Islam.
As in that rather interesting dialogue between the Eastern Roman Emperor and the “Learned Persian” spoken about by the current Pope that cause so many Muslims to riot. Again.”

As Bob notes at the end of his comment, there really is a big difference between the two religions. So why begin the comment by entertaining the notion that there may not be a big difference?

Bottom line: Christians make a fundamental distinction between the “Word of God” and the “word of God” (scripture).

People perhaps need to get over their bad experiences with the nuns and parish priests. That was another time.

Aug 6, 2008 - 7:23 am 90. fred:

“People perhaps need to get over their bad experiences with the nuns and parish priests. That was another time.” comment by Mark

Right on the money. My experience with them was mixed. I had the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur in grammar school and the Salesian Fathers and Brothers for high school. The latter were truly great guys who treated us kindly, respectfully, and like we were human beings. Some of the religious sisters did not. I think some of those women never should have been in a room full of kids, but there were other sisters who were quite good.

Most critics of Christianity and Catholicism have a lot of anger issues. I can understand and empathize – up to a point. When you go as deeply into the Church (and aspire to the priesthood)as people like me have you DO find where the bodies are buried. But, you have to make an evaluation of the big picture and the entire history of the Church and Christianity. Were the horrendous episodes the essence of our Church or were they deviations from the Gospel and the best teachings of the Church? I like to think that Thomas Aquinas would have disapproved of many medieval practices and episodes, but then again he died too young and only left us a prodigious amount of work.

Christianity and the Church ARE NOT at all the same as the Founder. It aint perfect, and I don’t expect perfection from people or institutions.

When comparing Christianity with Islam, I just am amazed and dumbfounded that some people can get it so wrong. If you compare the behavior of Jesus of Nazareth with the behavior of Muhammad, the difference is so stark as to defy the need for a comparison to begin with. So, I can only conclude that those who lump the two together as roughly equivalent know neither of them at any depth at all. And that confirms an observation I have made about our modern world as it is right now: intellectual sloth and moral torpor are rampant among our populations, especially among the educated elites.

Aug 6, 2008 - 8:00 am 91. Fletcher Christian:

Fred:

I think that I can put the point somewhat differently, if you don’t mind. The essential difference between the Crusaders and the Inquisition, on the one hand, and the jihadis in various wars right up until the present day on the other, is that the violent Christians were very poor Christians going against the chief commandment of the founder; and the violent Muslims were and are exemplars, going along perfectly with the commandments of theirs.

And that is why the problem of Muslim violence is only going to be solved in one of three ways, one of which is completely unacceptable to me and presumably all the people reading this blog. That one is for us to give in and let Islam take over the world. The more acceptable solutions; for Islam to have a reformation that changes their religion utterly and removes the violence from its fundamental tenents. And the last one, one set out by Wretchard quite some time ago and unfortunately (for them, obviously, but also for us) most likely; they all die. Every last stinking, intolerant, neck-chopping SOB one of them.

Aug 6, 2008 - 11:32 am 92. Mark:

Fletcher wrote:

” . . . the violent Christians [crusaders] were very poor Christians going against the chief commandment of the founder . . . . ”

O.k. you dead-ender commenters, I can see that I’m going to have to bore you dudes into giving up this thread! You asked for it:

Pope Urban, at Clermont, according to the chroniclers, told his audience that they should be ashamed of the violence that Christians were visiting upon fellow Christians. The usual rapine, theft, oppression that brigands visit upon their fellows.

He urged them to undertake war against the infidels. Not least of all because the war would be just. Admittedly, some chroniclers say that Urban claimed it was God’s will; others that the audience said it was God’s will. But throughout the call to arms, there is an argument for just war. And it sounds not unfamiliar to modern ears, including the Muslim beheading fixation. Here’s a spicy excerpt from Robert the Monk’s version:

“From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has been brought to our ears, namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God, a generation forsooth which has not directed its heart and has not entrusted its spirit to God, has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire; it has led away a part of the captives into its own country, and a part it has destroyed by cruel tortures; it has either entirely destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of its own religion. They destroy the altars, after having defiled them with their uncleanness. They circumcise the Christians, and the blood of the circumcision they either spread upon the altars or pour into the vases of the baptismal font. When they wish to torture people by a base death, they perforate their navels, and dragging forth the extremity of the intestines, bind it to a stake; then with flogging they lead the victim around until the viscera having gushed forth the victim falls prostrate upon the ground. Others they bind to a post and pierce with arrows. Others they compel to extend their necks and then, attacking them with naked swords, attempt to cut through the neck with a single blow. What shall I say of the abominable rape of the women? To speak of it is worse than to be silent. The kingdom of the Greeks is now dismembered by them and deprived of territory so vast in extent that it can not be traversed in a march of two months. On whom therefore is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory incumbent, if not upon you? You, upon whom above other nations God has conferred remarkable glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity, and strength to humble the hairy scalp of those who resist you.”

Maybe the final detail is to the unshaven Taliban types?

Aug 6, 2008 - 3:03 pm 93. Wolf Pangloss:

Mark, FC’s point was that no matter how persuasive Urban’s argument for a Crusade to the Holy Land might have been, Jesus not Urban was the founder of Christianity. Jesus never argued for warfare against even the most benighted villains.

Compare that with Muhammad, you’ll find that Muhammad was quite a bit more like any standard raping, murdering, stealing highwayman or brigand from European and American history, if you add in a personality cult. For instance, the Harpe Brothers who plagued Illinois and Kentucky at the end of the 18th century. Or the Scots cannibal Sawney Beane and his vicious clan.

Aug 6, 2008 - 8:51 pm 94. Mark:

Wolf,

You are right that FC’s main point is about Jesus vs. Muhammad, and you are right about the very different messages of each.

The earthly followers of Jesus fall short of the ideal.

(At the same time, however, I resist well-intentioned generalizations such as FC’s that implicitly or directly bash the [so-called] Middle Ages, which is the crucible of our civilization. That’s like insulting your ancestors for no good reason. We have to give those ancestors a lot more credit. The Crusades, for example, as called by Urban, were about responding to unjust conditions and restoring just order. Of course the real Crusades failed to live up to the ideal.

If we take FC’s arguments to their logical extent, pacifism seems to be the only moral position for a follower of Jesus? Plenty of Christians take this point of view. I don’t. I find it interesting that Jesus, as far as I know, never criticized a soldier, nor any of Israel’s military history. At least as far as I remember. He criticized Peter for using the sword unlawfully, for sure. And the default teaching is always in favor of love, peace, and fellowship.]

Thanks for the comment.

Aug 7, 2008 - 7:30 am

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.