The American Spectator : 9-11+9

Text Size

9-11+9

By Jed Babbin on 9.13.10 @ 6:08AM

Islam and the politics of 9/11 don't add up.

The ninth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 was, as it should always be, a highly political day. Because the terrorists' act and motivation were political, so must be our response. But our leaders -- Obama and Bush before him -- have chosen not to speak candidly about the nexus among terrorism, politics, and Islam.

Our Malaisean president's statement at the Pentagon on 9-11 is redundant proof. Speaking of terrorists, Obama said, "They may seek to spark conflict between different faiths, but as Americans, we are not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam." Barry added, "It was not a religion that attacked us that September day; it was al Qaeda -- a sorry band of men which perverts religion. Just as we condemn intolerance and extremism abroad, so will we stay true to our traditions at home as a diverse and tolerant nation."

What Obama and Bush have refused to understand is that terrorism is a political act. It can be an act of war between Westphalian states, as when Iran, Syria and others sponsor terrorism, or it can be a smaller but nevertheless political act of a single person. And because it is a political act, and because those who sponsor it do so in pursuit of their political goals, it is essential that we treat it as such.

The hijackers who crashed four airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field on 9-11 committed a political act of suicide driven by a religion that intentionally combines politics with religion.

Islam is not only a religion, but an integrated system of beliefs that requires the imposition of a particular theocracy. And Islam is based on intolerance. The Koran is replete with statements such as, "O believers, take not for your intimates outside yourselves; such men spare nothing to ruin you; they yearn for you to suffer." It is a religiously required paranoia that creates an unyielding intolerance of those who are not adherents to Islam.

When Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey reacted to the Fort Hood massacre by saying, "What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here," he betrayed the soldiers under his command, and surrendered to Islam's most potent weapon against the West: our fear of intolerance within ourselves.

Feisal Rauf, the imam of the proposed Ground Zero mosque, plays on that fear relentlessly, and our president and the liberal media have so thoroughly surrendered to his agitprop that they repeat it consistently as disinformation. (A former communist intelligence chief explained this crucial distinction: when someone spouts propaganda, it is less effective than when the propagandist persuades the adversary to repeat it as though it were his own thought. The latter is disinformation.) The New York Times, ever eager to publish disinformation, wrote in July of Rauf's new mosque, "The Cordoba House was supposed to be a monument to religious tolerance, an homage to the city in Spain where Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived together centuries ago in the midst of religious foment."

Cordoba, the capital of Islamic Spain, was nothing of the sort. According to Philip Hitti's indispensable History of the Arabs (1937), the conquest of Spain began in July 710 and was completed only after warring Arabs settled their differences and established Spain as part of the Umayyad caliphate. All across Spain, Hitti writes, "From the beginning the policy followed by the Arab conquerors in the treatment of their subjects in Spain was not fundamentally different from that pursued in other conquered lands." Christians and Jews were required to pay a poll tax relieved only by their conversion to Islam. Territories acquired by conquest -- from the church and fleeing nobles -- were confiscated, landowners made into sharecroppers. Under these oppressions many Christians and Jews converted to Islam, some secretly worshipping their own faiths, fearful of the penalty of death for Islamic apostates. That was the reality of idyllic, tolerant Cordoba.

Ever-tolerant Rauf insists that the chosen site for the Ground Zero mosque must not be changed. His motivation is political and so is the weapon he chooses to achieve his goal. He preys on our fear of intolerance. Last week, he told CNN, "If we move from that location, the story will be the radicals have taken over the discourse. The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack." On Sunday he told Christiane Amanpour that if we make the wrong move it will expand and strengthen the radicals and that his proposed mosque is intended to build inter-faith understanding. Nonsense. If it were, it would be not a mosque but a non-denominational chapel.

It is always thus: those who use political actions to oppose Islamic political aggression are threatened with the reaction that liberals fear so much. But Rauf -- and the useful idiots who agree, such as Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama -- have a political goal that is as bad, or worse, than the construction of "Cordoba House": they want to make any protest against Islamic political action illegitimate. It is a tactic in political warfare that aims to limit free speech and end debate by rendering opposing positions beyond the pale.

Former British PM Tony Blair gets it right. In the postscript to his memoir, Blair writes that the terrorist threat has to be fought politically, its ideology attacked and defeated: "[The threat] doesn't begin on the battlefield, it begins in the school. It starts not with talk of military weapons but with talk of religion. You have to take on the clerics who foment extremism, not just the people who engage actively in terrorism…The ideology is not born of a desire for military domination; it is born of a world view based on belief in God's will. Not only its narrative but also its ideology has to be systematically dismantled, just as it has been systematically constructed." Just so.

A week after 9-11, President Bush said, "…the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam." Perhaps. But the face of Islam is a political face, and by fearing to oppose even the most aggressive Islamic political action -- on the battlefield or in New York City's mosque controversy -- we surrender our political rights.

Obama's 9-11 statement reveals his belief that -- like George Casey -- he believes that tolerance and diversity are more important than defending the nation. George Bush didn't have the courage to fight the ideological war and Obama is pre-emptively surrendering.

9-11 isn't a day to worship the gods of tolerance and diversity. It's a day of remembrance, resolve and rededication to defeat the enemy decisively wherever he appears with every weapon at our disposal.

About the Author

Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (99) | Leave a comment

Appleby| 9.13.10 @ 6:46AM

When I heard Zero at the Pentagon addressing the survivors and the families of those who did not survive, urging the building of the GZM, I realized I could well be watching and hearing the Abomination of Desolation standing in the holy place.

Many people believe this man is merely stupid. I think he is sinister masquerading as stupid.

Abdul-Bari| 9.13.10 @ 9:56AM

PORNOCRACY: I think the DisUnited Mistakes of Amerika is the greatest Pornocracy on Earth.

We just can't get enough of your Porn; keep it cummin'!

Sheila| 9.13.10 @ 10:34AM

You know, when I read the "Left Behind" series some years ago, I thought I was reading fiction. Religious beliefs and the Book of Revelation aside, how The Won differs from the anti-Christ in those fiction books is truly hard to discern.

All these lamestream conservatives labeling Obama merely stupid or incompetent re the economy are displaying their own ignorance and pacifist tendencies. The man is truly malevolent and those who refuse to recognize the strategy behind his machinations deserve the catastrophic results that are now unavoidable. Keep walking West on on Eastbound ship, guys. Decline and fall.

Alan Brooks| 9.13.10 @ 10:24PM

Biggest enemy in American history, though, was the Confederacy, not Islam.
Islam is a grave threat to America; the Confederacy, the Axis, and the Soviet Empire were mortal, existential threats.

BTW, if it isn't so wrong to burn Korans, then burning the Confederate flag isn't such a bad idea, is it?

Linda| 9.16.10 @ 12:09AM

Your a moron...

Ret. Marine| 9.13.10 @ 7:26AM

I will agree with your last statement Appleby, not only is he very cunning of his words least we forget actions speak louder. He calls his brethren "a sorry brand of men", not in the least, these are not men, but cowards who hide behind their woman, children, their places of supposed worship and behind a deceiving political veil. I curse all who have ever spouted the words "peaceful religion" for they are the true cowards and deceivers of men, G.W. among them.
I was appalled with his torments, thinking somehow We the People are as stupid and cowardly as he, we are not. We are their betters, we hide not from the truth. He (obamas Bin Ly'n) would not know the truth even if the teleprompter told him so. He daily insults us, belittles everyone except his fellow Muslim's, talks to the world from the mouth of an appeaser, arrogant little flea that is biting at one's ass refusing to let go. And he has the nerve to lecture We the People of items his teleprompter know little of, as in what is means to be an American who loves his fellow countrymen/ladies, their children, our God given rights, our Constitution, ( no it is not a entitlement of what the government can do to individuals but in fact the restriction of what the gubmint is entitled) our customs, values, principles and love for a peaceful world. He is a shame and a sham, a Flin-flam Coward pretending to be the leader of the free world. Gawd, this punk makes me sick and angry all at the same time. IMPEACH THE PUNK ALREADY.

skedaddle| 9.13.10 @ 8:42AM

Well said!

Margie| 9.13.10 @ 11:33AM

There is no will in existence to impeach the abomination named Obama, sadly.

The God of the Bible is not the god of the Koran and their false god is just an excuse to commit terror upon Americans.

The only way to get rid of the scourge named Obama, the enemy of our country, is at the voting booths. Unless we come out in droves and vote Republican he WILL be re elected.

Obummer's mocking of Christians who agreed with the burning of the Koran was a slap in the face intentionally. I couldn't care less if it burned. The issue was his statement of trying to charge Christians with "seeking to spark conflict between different faiths"~ is a lie from a lying man. It is Islam that causes all the conflict. And its "believers" are the ones committing their murderous acts in the name of their false god.

Radegunda| 9.13.10 @ 6:02PM

When Zero used the anniversary of 9/11 to lecture us about not "succumbing to hate," it was not surprising even though it was utterly sickening.

If Zero had any moral fiber, he would be lecturing his Muslim brethren on their need to grow up, stop blaming their failures on others, stop aiming to destroying--by stealth and threats as well as by terror--all that does not conform to their hateful, totalitarian ideology.

Linda | 9.16.10 @ 12:13AM

I could not have said it any better....Here! Here!

Mike| 9.19.10 @ 4:52PM

You cannot impeach Barry Soetoro(aka:BHO), you cannot impeach someone who is not president! Prove to me he is our Constitutional President.

Lawrence Boccardi| 9.13.10 @ 7:34AM

As I heard a lady remark, last week, "I learned all I need to know about Islam, on 9-11"!. I remember the tens of thousands of Muslims, dancing in the streets around the world. As far as the POS goes, I will give credence to what he says on the mosque issue, when he produces ALL of his university records, showing his declared faith, as something other than Islam.

martin j smith| 9.13.10 @ 7:36AM

I think it is important that Bush not get off the hook on his stands on terrorism in general and 9/11 in particular. Of course BHO's policies go without saying are extraordinarily dangerous. But Bush led the way. Perhaps this is out there, but I would like to see some deal investigative reporting on the reasons why these two presidents chose to appease. The American people deserve to know why. The real reasons I mean.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.13.10 @ 8:00AM

Martin,
Thoughtfully stated. In W's defense, I would remind you of him floating the "Triangle of Evil" or some such relating to nations that supported evil/terrorism.
In those days, people were focused upon the "terrorists themselves", and excorciated W on the "Evil nations" remark.

Only now are the American people waking up to "creeping Sharia" as equally dangerous.

So far as the appeasment issue on W's part, well that was a two way street. The Saudis had to do some appeasing as well, seling their oil to Infidels, and inviting us in when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
The Wahabis had a s--t fit when our troops got there and our Chaplins began having worship services in the US camps.

They came very close to overthrowing the royal family, believe it or not.
We get a significant part of our imported oil from Saudi Arabia, but western Europe, our former allies get a huge percentage of their oil from the area. Euope would be instantly in a world of hurt if those imports were interrupted.

A US President has to balance a lot of plates, OK?

Retired Marine

A simple majority in the House can "Impeach" a President, just about any time they choose to. Impeach is merely an indictment. The Senate must try the case however. A whole different can of worms.
I would appreciate an indictment anyway, or the threat of one. Maybe just maybe it could put the punk on the defensive...but so would de-funding his programs...also a function of the House or Reps.

John II| 9.13.10 @ 2:27PM

"A US President has to balance a lot of plates, OK?"

And I don't think it was necessary or useful for Mr. Babbin to balance his own stack of rhetorical plates by attributing the same imbecility to Bush as he does to Professor Obama.

Bush's blather in the early days of the crisis regarding Islam being a "religion of peace" was, at best, a bit of ad hoc political boilerplate aimed at keeping some distance between official America and the crazies who had already torched a few mosques in response to 9/11. At worst, of course, the designation was historically and linguistically false, and a bit of kneejerk political correctness to which "compassionate conservatives" are prone. In either case, Bush can never be accurately accused of riding the multicultural hobby horse in the obsessive manner of the Professor, and certainly not in the context of a perfunctory nod to the victims of Islamic jihad.

I think American consciousness is slowly waking to the unpleasant realization that the trouble with Islam is Islam itself, not merely Islam's "fundamentalists." And, American or otherwise, a seriously believing Christian who has studied both the Bible and the Qur'an cannot help discerning that the god worshipped by Islam--a rapacious and remote being of Absolute Will for whom right and wrong are matters of cosmic discretion--comes straight out of hell.

It is entirely plausible to a believing Christian that the derivative and utterly uncreative Qur'an was indeed dictated to an illiterate Mohammed by an angel. But the angel wasn't Gabriel.

Margie| 9.13.10 @ 2:48PM

Some are waking up. Others are accusing those of us who speak truthfully as being haters. But the Bible said that would happen.

"Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man!" Luke 6:22.

As for me~

"I hate the company of evildoers, and I will not sit with the wicked." Ps. 26:5.

John II| 9.13.10 @ 3:16PM

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. . . . Thus will you know them by their fruits." (Matt. 7:15-20)

So much for Professor Mohammed and his admirer, Professor Obama. I plumb reckon.

Radegunda| 9.13.10 @ 6:07PM

Just about every "leader" in the Western world has been appeasing Islamo-supremacism to one degree or another. I think the reasons are varied: naivety, misplaced "tolerance," a misguided belief that we can win them over by being nice, a sense that we really need to keep that Saudi oil throwing (thanks to infidel technology and infidel labor). Some reasons are undoubtedly more malignant.

JR| 9.13.10 @ 9:35PM

The "real" reason: oil.

JP| 9.13.10 @ 7:46AM

What the Muslims intend to build at Ground Zero isn't a mosque, per se. It doesn't fit the strict architectual requirements of a Mosque, or a House for Prostelyzing. According to Amire Taheri, what will be built at 51 Park Place will be a Rabat. Traditionally, a Rabat housed ghazis (litterally raiders). It is a place where they can pray, rest, eat and prepare for thier razzias (raids). These raids are not necessairily violent. They can be anything from simple protests, evangelizing, to terror attacks. Traditonally, Islam sets up Rabata in the heart of the infidels' cities and lands. And from there, they weaken the infidels ability and will to resist. This was how Byzantium was defeated, as well as many lands in Southeast Europe and East Asia, as well as Africa.

If one reads Islamic newspapers, blogs, and magazines, one finds that the 9-11 terrorists are not called terrorists in Islam, but ghazis; thier attacks are called razzias. And while, they might call certain Islamic meeting places mosques when speaking to Westerners, they refer to those buildings as Rabats. The proposed Ground Zero Mosque or Cordoba Center is no different. It is a Rabat.

Deborah D| 9.13.10 @ 8:00AM

Thanks for that information, JP. I shake my head in disbelief everyday at the ignorance that abounds in this discussion about the "mosque" at GZ. Rauf is a big believer in shariah, for God's sake. He plans to have a portion of that place dedicated to shariah. Now, I am a woman. I have a daughter. I have sisters. I had a mother. I have aunts and nieces. I am sick to death of all of this tip-toeing around this Imam and this mosque and this subject. Islamic law (shariah) is not compatible with our Constitution. It is not compatible with our culture of freedom and equality. It is not compatible with our tolerance (because it does not tolerate).

Thank you, Mr. Babbin, for your clarity. Thanks to Tony Blair for his as well. If the country won't talk about this, then as a nation we should hide our own faces when we look into the eyes of any woman or young girl we know--because this country is betraying them with this reluctance to call a spade a spade. What say you, Michelle Obama? You have two daughters. What say you, Mr. President? Yeah, I didn't think so. Cowards.

Yosemeti Sam| 9.14.10 @ 1:41AM

Um, yeah - what you said.

BTW, how come this Rauf characters' wife is not all cocooned in black?

Special dispensations?

radegunda| 9.13.10 @ 6:22PM

Thanks for the info. When the defenders think they're helping their case by saying "it's not a mosque," my reply has been, "Indeed, it's not merely a place of worship, but a headquarters for imposing shariah." You've confirmed that, and then some.

BackToBasics| 9.14.10 @ 12:36AM

Would to God that he would raise up some Christians filled with the Holy Spirit and wisdom who would set up "rabats" in our own cities. They'd be a center of firestorm but through them the Holy Spirit would shake things up big time, including the Moslems.
Amen!

Louis Jenkins| 9.13.10 @ 7:57AM

The Iman Rauf is practicing Taqua' to the extreme. He fills the USA airways with platitudes, lies, and falsifications, then in the middle east he lets 'er rip. Do not be misled by this charlatan citizens, the Cordoba Mosque will go up inspite of the mass opposition. Remember, it is the later part of the Koran that has the last say over the first parts. Bush coined the Religion of Peace issue. I shook my head then knowing Islam is anything but that. Obama has continued with that useless piece of flotsam. Why do these two people chose to appease you ask? Both Bush and Obama are "one worlders." They will work together or separately to obtain their desire, meanwhile, you and me breathern, are left holding the bag and the tax dollar. It's time to stop this non-sense and get down to basics.

Jeremiah| 9.13.10 @ 8:03AM

I will disagree with you, Mr. Babbin, regarding George W. Bush's courage.

When W spoke of fighting terrorists who had hijacked a 'religion of peace' he was engaging in a necessary act of diplomacy. It was in hopes that institutional Islam would respond in kind and with unambiguous condemnation of these attacks. Before attacking a group for the actions of a few in the group's name it is prudent to give the group substantial opportunity to repudiate the terrorists in their ranks.

To do otherwise is to invite a larger scale conflict than may be necessary. Certainly a war with institutional Islam is a much more terrible and existential matter than a war with even a sizable minority of misguided zealots.

If you read my routine posts here on other threads involving Islam, you will know I have become an absolutist in fighting and targeting the institutional leaders of Islam, as they have made it clear that they are in an existential conflict with us. I, too, had hoped it was not so in the early days.

But what I remember after the short glow of national unity after 9/11 had passed, beside the disgusting ploy of the left of making the war a political tool against Bush, was the cowardice and cupidity of many conservatives and conservative commentators. After early success in Iraq, when things bogged down, many conservative commentators joined in the Bush-bashing on almost the same grounds as the left - that we were encouraging terrorist recruitment. They weren't principled, just opportunistic. There is a huge strain among some conservatives of wanting to be conservative, but still acceptable to the cool kids on the left. But Bush stood his ground and kept us safe, despite the howls from the left and from his own party in 2006.

Now some of the same conservative commentators who were ripping Bush for unnecessary aggression then are scoring him for not being certain then of what most of those commentators have only recently, and delicately, begun to realize: that institutional Islam is at war with us.

Over the last year and a half I have had occasion to give quite a few speeches at large political events. Right around Lincoln's birthday this year I was at a dinner of about 500. When I spoke, I started to give the normal accolades to Lincoln and Reagan as archetypes of Republican leadership. But several before me at this Republican dinner had taken the opportunity to speak with disdain about Bush. So I rather intensely said that there is another Republican president we owe a profound debt of gratitude to, a man who stood strong against the most wilting and savage attacks since any pres. since Lincoln, George W. Bush. I said that I am a frank and unapologetic admirer of Mr. Bush and I think his critics disdain say much more about their character than his. The room absolutely exploded with thunderous applause. I was startled; I thought I was being a courageous contrarian. As I left the dais, people at tables all along my way stood up to shake my hand and thank me. No speaker after that had any little sneers for Bush.

W had his flaws and made mistakes. To discuss them or to disagree with him does not bother me in the least. But to call him a coward outrages me. He is a man of character, grace and profound courage. And you, who worked for him, owe him better. Or are you, like Peggy Noonan and David Frum, hoping to be invited on the cool kids TV talk shows?

JP| 9.13.10 @ 8:34AM

I tend to give W the benefit of the doubt. He is essientially a Progressive with some conservative tendencies. I put him in the same boat as Dick Lugar, John McCain, Gerald Ford, and Bob Dole. His education, background, and religious expierences point to a person who would have been right at home in the GOP circa 1948-1976. Nothing wrong with that. Liberals have been part of the GOP since Hoover.

To his eternal credit, W had the best interests of the nation at heart. He stuck to his guns despite being villified by people in both parties. It is unfortunate that he made a strategic error in assessing Islam. But, he is not alone.

Jeremiah| 9.13.10 @ 10:55AM

I would rate him much better than that, JP. On the social issues he was the most conservative president we have had. He did more to advance the pro-life agenda than any president since the passage of Roe v Wade (I say passage because that is what the Supreme Court did; it was not a ruling in any classic judicial sense). Reagan certainly made pro-life a key plan of Republicanism, which was key and laid a foundation. But the left's vitriol was because of w's authentic conservative social stands. When he limited federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, he was never going to be able to have peace with the left.

He gave us two great Supreme Court Justices, who have already proven vital to preventing the court from spinning right off earth's axis. (Admittedly, his second was off in his first instinct). At least as important, his lower court nominees, despite Democrat refusals to go to the floor and Republican perfidy, were as critical to holding some line as the dutch boy's finger in the dike.

What do I consider W's mistakes? Obviously No Child Left Behind, which empowered govt. On economics there are things to be said on both sides. He did create a growth economy through lowering taxes - a growth economy that got us out of the crach of the dotcom bubble and carried us through the economic catastrophe that could have followed 9/11. His penchant to sign off on big spending and his choice of allowing a weak dollar were very bad, particularly the weak dollar.

His mistaken strategic decision was to try to restore civility by reaching out to the left in areas he thought not immediately vital - and the spending was part of that. His failure to use the veto pen allowed the Democratic minority to often have its way with him. It didn't work, but I don't know that it wasn't worth a go, if nothing else to expose that the blind partisanship of the left was beyond reason or civility any more.

The weak dollar decision was particularly bad because it was his and a purely optional decision. The left does not know enough about economics to understand the different consequences of a weak or strong dollar (except, I must concede, Bill Clinton, who covered a lot of his economic errors by robustly insisting upon a strong dollar throughout both his terms).

On the early approach to Islam, that was not a strategic mistake. It would have been a strategic mistake to immediately confront institutional Islam. Islam had to be given the chance to join in the war against Jihadists. Just as I don't fault former British Prime Minister Ramsey MacDonald for his early outreach to Hitler after the latter came to power in 1933. There are two great temperamental faults that cause unnecessary bloodshed. The first is to provoke war with someone you might be able to make peace with is. You have to first probe and offer a few branches to find out. The second, and more devastating temporal disorder is to try to appease an opponent who will only have victory or death. By the middle of Stanley Baldwin's temure as PM and through all of Neville Chamberlain's, Hitler's nature was clear and the delay only further empowered him. I think that has been the case with institutional Islam since about 2006 or 2007.

Even so, in terrible times, the people must be prepared to follow or the greatest leader cannot lead them. Churchill as PM before the invasion of Poland would not have been successful. He was prepared to lead but the people weren't prepared to follow. Similarly, even now, a huge number of people in America are not willing to recognize the existential threat Islam poses to our country, western civilization and freedom itself. Certainly, Obama is not leading, but is chief among the deniers, a genuine modern-day Chamberlain. Perhaps the best example of a leader biding his time, not discrediting himself by acting too boldly until the people were ready to follow, but doing what he could while trying to pull the people in the right direction, was Franklin Roosevelt. He understood the threat of Hitler almost as soon as Churchill did. He could not act boldly, though, because the people were unwilling. He did, however, push through the lend-lease program, which kept the fire burning in England until America could fully weigh in. And when the time came that Roosevelt could act fully, he struck hard and immediately.

After 2006, W's foreign policy was mostly exhausted and broken. The culmination of six years of villification by the left, combined with the opportunistic piling on of some of the right and much of the right commentariat, took its toll. The forces of darkness and destruction took new heart in N. Korea, China and Afghanistan. But even here, W stood firmly on Iraq, understanding it was a front we must win if we were to have any chance at all of holding the Islamicists at bay.

Bush's biggest failure was his inability to communicate the larger framework of the battles that surrounded us to the American people in a compelling way. Even so, future generations will credit him for delaying our decay long enough that the infrastructure of cultural and military defense systems were not completely collapsed when the nation fully awoke to the existential peril.

When I think of George W. Bush I think of the dutch boy with his finger in the dike - but with a twist. First, he had to hold it there as his enemies flailed him mercilessly - and then as even his friends did the same. His stamina wore down, but his central resolve didn't even as foes and friend alike beat and reviled him for doing the very thing that gave them a chance to survive.

W is a flawed man, but a truly great one. I admire him, period.

Mimi| 9.13.10 @ 1:37PM

BRAVO !! Many of us out here feel the same way. HISTORY will reward George W Bush. Thanks for the great writing.

canuckistani| 9.13.10 @ 2:03PM

Reward him with what?
He got us to this place, so what reward did you have in mind?

John II| 9.13.10 @ 2:58PM

How about award him with some mature judgment as balanced and informed as Jeremiah's?

My God, Nuckie, are you libertarians stuck in a permanent emotional atavism? I'll bet you consider Ayn Rand to have been a great philosopher. Take a break from the action thrillers and watch something of depth like, say, "Babette's Feast" (1989) or "The Nun's Story" (1959).

And now back to my Bullwinkle collection.

Jeremiah| 9.13.10 @ 3:05PM

Every time I begin to think you may be something more than just an idiot who can only offer snark and sneer, canuckistani, you prove me wrong.

I have long believed the left is no longer capable of rational discourse. You hav e been lecturing for so long without listening that you have suffered a hardening of the intellectual arteries. The only counterpoint you have to offer is character assassination and insult.

One of the consolations of the conflagration that is upon us is that it will reveal you and your comperes to all as the shallow, pompous, ignorant blowhards you are.

Margie| 9.13.10 @ 3:28PM

"You have been lecturing for so long without listening that you have suffered a hardening of the intellectual arteries."

I vote this best modern day proverb of the day.

Jeremiah| 9.13.10 @ 3:36PM

Thanks, Margie :-)

Margie| 9.13.10 @ 3:50PM

I truly second that emotion, Mimi. And Jeremiah~ I used to use the same analogy about GW being the President who's job was to have his finger in the dike. And I knew the dam wasn't going to hold for long. God bless GW for the good and decent man that he is. Like the bumper sticker says~ "Do ya miss me yet?" Yes, I do.

Occam's Tool| 9.13.10 @ 8:27PM

Things are relatively simple for a President in these times, sorry---keep taxes low, bash terrorist heads. Everything else is political maneuvering, not basic policy. GWB did an OK job, although he should have hammered Iran first, THEN Iraq. His big problem was in kow-towing to the Left on financial issues.

Occam's Tool| 9.13.10 @ 8:29PM

What I meant by that is the "plate spinning" thing is a chimaera. Focus on the big picture and the details resolve themselves. Obama has no clue regarding domestic or foreign policy. That is because he is a Charismatic leftist twit who has no love for his country. Show me otherwise in any of his speeches or actions.

Radegunda| 9.13.10 @ 6:34PM

A sensible and balanced assessment of GWB. On the whole, I think he's an admirable person who loves America and who stood up to outrageously nasty vitriol--most of it lobbed by the very same people who say it's racist or Nazi to raise any doubts about the policies or character of BHO.

michigander_sandusky| 9.13.10 @ 9:47PM

Jeremiah,

Great post! This is the only post that I've ever saved to my hard drive.

Jeremiah| 9.13.10 @ 10:04PM

Wow, thanks mich! I appreciate it.

BackToBasics| 9.14.10 @ 12:55AM

I always got the impression that GW loved blue-blood Republicanism first and America second. Where those 2 overlapped he showed his strengths. Where they did not such as his attempt to win over Hispanics to the Republican party and import cheaper labor with an amnesty-lite program was disasterous in my opinion. I believe we are yet to see the "Balkanizing" effect this will have in America. I repeat what I've said before, such an open-borders, amnesty-lite policy shows little understanding of human nature with its "tribalism" and selfish bents. Hispanics, as a group, coming from such hardship, would naturally gravitate to the Democratic give-aways.

No, Bush actually badly hurt not only America but the caonservative base of his party. He continually ignored his conservative base with the exceptions of the Supreme Court nominees.

By alienating the passionate core conservative base, he helped Republicans lose majorities they had not seen in Congress since the 1920's!!!

This is a very mixed legacy. The final chapter has not yet been written and already I think his grade is a C. It may drop yet firther if the balkanizing effects of his and Clintons and Papa Bush and even Reagans is considered. But Reagan and GH Bush did not have the Republican Congress GW had and he helped lose this majoirty in quick fashion after the Republican triumphs of the 2004 elections.

He squandered most of his opportunity. How is this a great success?

Spike| 9.13.10 @ 10:19AM

Jeremiah,

Great post.

I had an epiphany after watching this weekends Sunday shows. Negative attitudes towards Muslims (in general) is higher today than following 9/11. Why is that?

Following 9/11, George Bush accurately defined the enemy - Radical Islamic Terrorists. Not Islam.

Obama, particularly evident following the Fort Hood shooting, removed the distinction of evil associated with the Radical elements of this religion. By doing so, he has confused the American people. If "evil" is not defined, then what part of their religion is good? Political correctness gone awry.

Anthony| 9.13.10 @ 12:01PM

Your point is well taken, however, the rise of negative attitudes towards Islam since 9/11 is directly related to what Islam has presented to the world since then.
The radicalism, that Bush attempted, in a gracious act of good will, to distinguish from mainstream Islam, has been demonstrated to be a distinction without a difference.
Since 9/11, we have seen the Islamization of Europe and the existence of caliphates within these European nations, seperate and distinct from the actual national politic.
We have seen the demonization of critics of Islam, along with the hyperbolic emnity and threats directed towards those criticisms.
We have seen a religious double standard from the Left and Islam that would gag a T Rex. Islam is immune from causing the vapors the hyper anti religious Left gets about any other religion.
Finally, today, Imam Rauf dared to tell America that G.Z. is not sacred ground, because of the nature of certain businesses surrounding the site.
As is this slicksters modus operandi, Imam Rauf slides over the fact that "sacred ground" is defined by an attack on America by followers of his religion, not some business of the unsavory sort.
Yes, 9 years have shown rational Americans what the true face and purpose of Islam is. It's no wonder Islam's polling matches that of Obama's.

JP| 9.13.10 @ 1:49PM

"Following 9/11, George Bush accurately defined the enemy - Radical Islamic Terrorists. Not Islam."

That's where I think we differ. Islam is problematic to say the least. It's bloody borders are for all to see. Terrorism is is no more than enemy than the German King Tiger tank was during WWII. Where Islam spreads, strife soon follows.

Deborah D| 9.13.10 @ 4:48PM

Amen...oh, can I still that? Or is it forbidden?

Sheila| 9.13.10 @ 10:42AM

While I absolutely agree that W had his flaws and made numerous mistakes and had some truly awful policies, at heart he was a good and decent man. While his unrequited love affair with Mexican illegals resulted in a disastrous immigration and border policy, he generally had the nation's best interests at heart (and certainly bore it no ill will, unlike his successor). No, he was no coward, but I think he truly lost heart during his second term and constantly second-guessed himself ; perhaps he listened far too much to his liberal advisers and press pool.

Either way, policy and political issues aside, while I don't blame him in general for the mess we're in now, I do blame him for the prescription drug give-away boondoggle and beginning the "Islam is a religion of peace" fallacy. Those were errors of judgment, though, not of character.

Sharon Clark| 9.13.10 @ 12:32PM

Thank you for speaking up for President Bush. S man people seem to pile on with criticism taking any little thing he may have done that didn't sit exactly right with their idea of what was need. We must give him t least some breathing room to live his life and act as he thinks proper without such instant criticism and beating him up over the smallest thing.

Paul Kotik| 9.13.10 @ 8:07AM

Mr. Smith's question is excellent. Parsimony suggests that the real reasons why American Presidents (pretty much all of them) have chosen to appease is are the simple and apparent ones: it's easy and it's profitable in the short term. Stupidity has caused at least as much trouble as has evil!

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.13.10 @ 8:07AM

Correction:
"Axis of Evil" referred to Iran, Iraq, and N. Korea.

Pasted from above :

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.13.10 @ 8:00AM
Martin,
Thoughtfully stated. In W's defense, I would remind you of him floating the "Triangle of Evil" or some such relating to nations that supported evil/terrorism.
In those days, people were focused upon the "terrorists themselves", and excorciated W on the "Evil nations" remark.

Only now are the American people waking up to "creeping Sharia" as equally dangerous.

A US President has to balance a lot of plates, OK?

Retired Marine

Reply to this

PCC| 9.13.10 @ 9:21AM

Yes, more of the same is what we need, since it's been working out so well for us thus far.

6,000 service personnel dead, 40,000 wounded, a trillion dollars and 9 years later? Bin Laden alive, the Taliban resurgent, 100,000 troops stuck in the AfPak shithole, Iran on the verge of nuclear weapons, and the US neither respected nor feared around the world.

Whaddaya think, maybe time to try something new?

davelnaf| 9.13.10 @ 9:21AM

Good article. It is interesting that we have so many discussions about Islam’s intentions. This ongoing national conversation is mainly limited to traditional conservatives and liberals. As far as Muslims here are concerned there is no need for a discussion of any kind: they are right, we are wrong, end of discussion. But this country and most of the rest of the world is rational enough, so we have these public debates about Islam and what it is up to.

Conservatives understand what Islam is all about because we are able to take its bits and pieces and conceptualize them into something larger and far more powerful than the sums of Islam’s parts. It is a synthesis that, for whatever reason, appears to elude liberals, not to mention Muslims. These parts might be taken from the Koran, from the acts and methods of terrorists, from the history of Islamic conquests and the treatment of subjugated peoples, or it might even be the mealy mouthed words of a self-promoting mosquer like Rauf. Combining these parts and pieces together we get a picture that is clear and irrefutable. It tells us that the GZ mosque is a victory mosque, end of story. But, sadly, this is not how our liberal friends see it.

Quite simply liberals are unable to grasp the concept—as they are unable to do for so many other issues—that Islam is not like any other religion by a long shot. Feeling obliged to clear up their confusion, conservatives engage with them to explain why this mosque should not be built. But in a short time liberals turn the ‘facts’ in this matter on their head and say the issue is really about something else: bigotry. And the really sad thing is that as far as they are concerned they are not pulling this stuff right out of a hat. Debates of this kind often end up resembling the kinds one might have with an intellectually immature juvenile.

It would be nice if the rest of us we could ignore liberals (as I mentioned, they are a minority). But the rest of us, the majority, conservative part of this country feels obligated to wean liberals off their Kool-Aid logic. We want to bring them up to speed on all kinds of issues they are failing to grasp. We try, with some patience, to do this with deep, heartfelt sincerity. But, as the juveniles they are to the core, liberals are unwilling to accept the reasoning of adults as long as the adults keep coming back time and again to debate them on self-evident issues and they get such a big, malicious kick out of it.

Margie| 9.13.10 @ 11:41AM

You are so right. Great post.

J.C.Eaton| 9.13.10 @ 9:45AM

It seems to me that it's passed time for a bit of systemic, institutionalized zenophobia. The immigration of Islamists[from any country], all illegals[from any country]and anyone from a so-called "formerly Communist" country[any one of them] should halt now....and stay halted until some dust settles and true assimilation[you know the kind, like genuine allegiance to America] can and does occur.

Anthony| 9.13.10 @ 9:45AM

President Bush can and must be forgiven for his statesman-like comments about Islam after 9/11. It was essential for a real leader not to inflame passions. I doubt that Bush actually believed what he said, but it most essential at that time to say it.
Obama, on the other hand, hides behind Bush when it suits his purposes, otherwise, he's trashing Bush at every turn, like the thin skinned empty suit that he is. Only the truly clueless are unsure where Obama, our Muslim born president, really stands on this issue.
We know that Islam is not a religion of peace. The past 9 years have demonstrated the point for anyone who has not been under the spell of Leftist deconstruction. We've yet to see the so called Muslim "moderates" rise and condemn the radical actions of their fellow believers. We know why that is as well.
So now we have the slick, two faced, Imam Rauf, with the soft Tom Daschle like "voice of calm reason", who calmly tells us that G.Z. is the ONLY site that will due, or else the rabble of Islam will rise, and of course, it will be all the fault of the intolerant American Right. It's amazing how an insignificant pastor, with a following lower than Joe Biden's I.Q., can stir the entire Muslim world into full explosive mode, on the mere suggestion that he might burn a Quran. Seems that accommodation and reason are a one way street, with Americans doing all of it, or else!!
The Useful Idiots on the Left, both in the MSM and the political world, led by Obama, who have adopted Islam as their religion of choice, as their purposes are the same, the destruction of America and Western Civilization, are all to willing to bend over for these fanatics to insure that this mosque be built at G.Z.
Watching this entire spectacle unfold tells us all we really need to know about these people and who America's true enemies are.

stpehanie| 9.13.10 @ 1:25PM

The imam is a snake in the grass. He knows all the right words to use, his voice is like velvet. He is bad news and obama is letting him run roughshod over NYC.

Deborah D| 9.13.10 @ 4:50PM

His eyes are sheer evil. There's such a hardness about them. The window to the soul and all...

Ned the Red| 9.13.10 @ 10:10AM

Rauf says, "If we move from that location, the story will be the radicals have taken over the discourse. The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack."

I read, I think, in Carl Sandburg’s "Lincoln" that when our civil war was ratcheting up Lincoln was told by the South, that whether we have war or peace, it was all up to him. He could force the war to happen by continuing his stated course or he could take the correct action and avoid war.
Lincoln replied this choice offered was the same as holding a gun to a man's head and stating it was all up to him. If you take the correct action I won't shoot you, if you make the wrong decision I will shoot you and the fault will be yours. Lincoln didn’t fall for that line of bullshit then and we shouldn’t now.
On Saturday watching some of the programs retelling the attacks of September 11, 2001 one thought kept entering my mind. Thank God that we had a president who struck back with the violence our enemy deserved.
I wish we had gone further and cleaned the whole shithole out, but at least we got something more than a speech full of threatening words spoken in faux resolution. I was very happy when I heard boots were on the ground in Afghanistan and bombs were finding targets. I will always be thankful for President Bush for that reason, that and sticking to his commitment in Iraq and not running for the sake of political power at home. You take what you can get in this world. Sometimes it is all you want, other times it is some of what you want, and sometimes it is none of what you want. More than likely what we got is the first battle in a long war that will be fought whether the Bloombergs of the world want to or not.

Anthony| 9.13.10 @ 10:53AM

Well put. Imam Rauf offers up a syrupy Hobson's choice to America. Essentially, it's heads we win, tales you lose.
The American Left's adoption of this "choice" tells us all we need to know. We are fighting a two front war with Islam and Leftism.
Obama is at the vortex of both.

Texas Mom| 9.13.10 @ 12:19PM

Agreed, but I would proposition that we should promise not to burn a Koran unless an American is killed. If 'extremists' kill one of us we should then say, you must want us to burn your (un)holy book. Or perhaps a billboard of Mohammed in drag accusing of pedophilia, of which he was truly guilty by marraige to a 6 or 9 (not sure which age) year old girl... But only if they kill an American.

Sheila| 9.13.10 @ 2:01PM

I must disagree with you, Texas Mom (and I'm another Texas mom!), because it would make the Koran worth as much as an American's life. It's not tit for tat; we can (and should) reject Islam itself, regardless of whether violence is committed in its name, because the very nature of Islam is the antithesis of the Christian underpinnings of American values.

Joe Snuffy, Iraq & Afghan vet| 9.13.10 @ 11:31AM

General Casey is a career soldier and political appointee who does not know his ideological left hand from his right hand. The Fort Hood shooter should have already been tried, sentenced, and executed. A century ago, he would have been. Look at the assassins of Garfield and McKinley. What did it take to bury them? One month or was it two? Islamists respect only a few things strength, resolve, and courage. Which od those is America missing? I love Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and Laura Ingram. :-)

Margie| 9.13.10 @ 11:42AM

Amen.

caitlin| 9.13.10 @ 11:49AM

I just have to say I'm disappointed in the Christians who attend churches that are preaching non Christian tenets. We are called to love our neighbors, forgive our enemies, and not judge others. Jesus tells us that whatever we do to another we do to Him. I've been reading so many hate filled postings lumping all Muslims with the jihadists. It's sad. For the record, I don't think the proposed mosque should be built so close to ground zero. It seems the least to be bad manners. I know the 9-11 attackers were following the Koran and we should be aware of others like them. I know there are so called moderate Muslims who have been outed as terrorist supporters. But in Christ's own words, we aren't suppose to do the judging. ( Of course, concrete knowledge of wrong doing is an exception.) There are many Muslims who oppose the park 51 project. If they say their interpretation of the Koran excludes violence and denounces acts of terrorism, shouldn't we do as Jesus asks us and judge them not? What kind of an example are we showing as people who believe in a higher power whose duty is to help others, treat all human beings with respect, and see Christ in all people?
I can't read every post on the web, but I noticed some comments criticizing Obama, Bloomberg, the Pope, among others for denouncing the minister in FL for wanting to burn the Koran. But never mentioned the fact that prominent Republican/Conservatives like Sarah Palin and Newt Gringrich also spoke out against the burning.
If a Christian minister can preach non Christian beliefs, than why not an Islamic Iman preach non violence and peace?

Texas Mom| 9.13.10 @ 12:31PM

Catty, It is not unchristian to wish the mosque to be built elsewhere... You are sounded as judgemental as those you describe 'unChristian' and 'hateful'. We have plenty of Mosques here in the Houston area as well as one in my neighborhood. My children go to school with children from all around the world and there is no issue with these children or Families. We all live peacefully alongside each other.
That being said: As far as the GZ Iman, he has talked from both sides of his mouth, stating different beliefs depending on his audience. He is stirring up the pot, refusing to meet with the Governer of New York and at the same time threatening violence around the world on international TV if he does not get HIS way. He is not willing to compromise. Where is the 'peace and non-violence' from this Iman? I do not see any.
As Ronald Reagan said, I prefer the 'Trust but Verify' policy for our country. This Iman has proven to be untrustworthy at a minimum and very possibly a vile instigator of civil unrest and potential violence.

Mimi| 9.13.10 @ 2:08PM

They call it...." Yelling FIRE in a crowded theater " He will stop the GZM ... when the PRICE is right!!

Margie| 9.13.10 @ 12:42PM

It's very un-Christian of you to falsely accuse those of us who speak the truth as un-Christian. Take your place amongst the Leftists, dear.

Jeremiah| 9.13.10 @ 12:54PM

I appreciate your sentiment, caitlin, but I think you (and many others) have misunderstood Christ's command not to judge. He clearly intends that we should not to assume to know another's final destination, heaven or hell, but He also does not enjoin us from using our discernment to make tough decisions. When He sent the 72 out, He told them to be as "wise as serpents and gentle as doves." He also told them to let their peace rest upon those who received them and to shake the dust off their feet in testimony against those who did not receive them well. He was calling on them to make judgments about others. There are many other such cases. In Luke 22:36 He specifically tells His disciples that now the time has come when they must not go unprepared and must purchase a sword if they don't have one. Talking about making some very serious judgments there.

I think Christ is absolute in commanding us not to judge another's final end - that is reserved to God. But he does not command us not to discern or to judge at all. He does tell us to be very careful in making judgments and not jump to conclusions (John 7:24 -where He specifically enjoins us to judge righteously and not by appearance). We can know truth from the Bible, but we need to look at the fulness and totality of what Christ said to fully understand (or judge) what He was commanding us.

JP| 9.13.10 @ 4:03PM

And I don' believe Christ intends for us to be dumb asses. Byzantium failed because its leaders were too weak, too "pure", too theologically driven to realize thier enemy before it was too late. Judging has nothing to do with it. Millions of people in Turkey are now Muslim and not Christian because of the hubristic pride of the the leaders of Byzantium.

I find it funny that even in light of 9/11, continued terror attempts every year, not to mention news from around the world concerning the terror minorities are subjected to in Muslim lands, most people still have this strange notion that somehow we are to blame. Even conservatives seem to fight eachother to show the world just how "tolerant" (read dhimmi) they are. Five million Muslims live at peace in the US while hundreds of millions of "infidel"s are being continually brutalized by Muslims from Africa to Indonesia. But who is on the moral defensive? It certainly isn't Islam.

Jeremiah| 9.13.10 @ 4:31PM

Well said, JP. It drives me nuts that our idiot schools continue to teach that the Crusades were a Christian attack against innocent Muslims. Christianity kept failing to take Islam seriously and believing it could be beguiled into a peaceful co-existence. But Islam was out to conquer the world and destroy all religions but Islam (by persuasion or coersion if possible, but by the sword if not). By the time Christianity finally got around to taking Islam seriously, the entire Iberian Peninsula was gone along with half of France and other chunks of Europe. The Crusades were the Christian counter-attack against Muslim aggression.

I said as much in a speech to a group of students at a blue-blood university in the midwest 14 years ago. The students were stunned and outraged. The much-regarded chairman of their philosophy department was there (more than a passing historian, himself, even though it was not his department. They appealed to him to correct me. Did their jaws drop when he confirmed the accuracy of what I had told them.

The Battle of Lepanto in 1571 was the greatest existential crisis western civilization has ever faced. The odds were against us and had we lost, it was hard to see how Islam would not have then conquered all of Erope and Asia. We would all be living under sharia.

For us the Crusades are a bit of history. For Islam it is a fight which has never ended and for which the effective cease-fire was far too long. I fear that before all is done the Battle of Lepanto will be remembered as the second greatest crisis in the history of western civilization.

Radegunda| 9.13.10 @ 7:16PM

You're showing the kind of self-righteous naivety that puts your neighbors in danger. We'll let Christ do the judging of people's souls in the hereafter, but here on earth we need to defend ourselves and our country and our civilization. Or do you think Christianity is a suicide pact?

I don't think people are lumping all Muslims in with the terrorists. What people are commenting on is the basic character of Islam, which has an aggressive and bloody history. And since Islam regards deception is a sacred virtue for spreading its control over the whole world, we owe it to ourselves to be wary about any "moderate" pronouncements by Muslims.

If that makes things uncomfortable for any Muslims who really, sincerely are tolerant and don't want to force Islamic ways on us, that's too bad. But it's folly to expose ourselves to more risk just because it might hurt the feelings of some Muslims. They should either work harder to civilize their own religion, or make such a large mass exodus out of Islam that the "radicals" can't punish them all.

ABNCP| 9.13.10 @ 12:34PM

I am so enthusiastic about this and other sites I am part of. In my lifetime I have never seen so many Americans who are so involved and so passionate about what is going on in our country.
The opinions vary and they are often at odds with one another perhaps much like what was going on during the forming of our country at the Continental Congress. Lots of arguments there if anyone reads that history. When 9/11 took place America and Americans were united for a short time and then within a couple of years we seemed to go back into that lassitude common for most of America for decades, family, jobs, work, entertainment. Let the Politicans run the country. But then we had the 2008 election. Less than a year later the country woke up and started to realize something radical had happened. Our country was going in a direction the majority didn't want and was not going to accept. The Tea Party concept was born. The Tea Party concept, love it or hate it the juices started to flow. we have seen more Americans involved in politics than any time I remember.I don't mean just the normal power structure. I mean ordilnary people who had never before participated or even had the desire to participate. We woke up to the realization that we had a Government who REALLY wanted to transform our country into something we didn't want any part of and in order to prevent that we had to organize and take action. Great stuff! The next great event was Imam Rauf and his Cordoba project. This Islamist fraud and his cohorts believed America was so stupid and indolent (perhaps because of our Presidents apology for America tours) he could build this insult to the American lives lost by radical Islam and get away with it. Thereby making himself a hero to Islam. Guess what, he had no idea that at this time in our history too many of us had become ACTIVE patriots once more. As the movie said, "were mad as hell and we are not going to take this S==T any more"! So thanks Mr. President, thanks Imam Ruaf. Thanks for bringing real Americans together again. Only this time folks we have to stay united and yeah we can disagree on some things but keep our minds on what's important. The United States of America the only hope left in this sorry world.

Jim| 9.13.10 @ 12:52PM

Mr. Babbin has hit the nail on the head. Good piece!

An excellent good book to read is The Crisis of Islam by Bernard Lewis. A Princeton professor, Lewis is widely respected as an expert on the topic.

In my opinion, Islam is a political ideology deserving the same total rejection as Hitler's National Socialism. Islam is subversive to the U. S. Constitution.

Even the Ayatollah Khomeini said that "Islam is politics or it is nothing". It's all about theocracy, which is profoundly alien to freedom. Another book to read is Reflections on the Revolution in Europe by Christopher Caldwell. This book describes how Europe's identity and freedom are being eroded steadily by Islam.

Mosques and sharia courts should be outlawed in the United States. Obama is 180 degrees WRONG when he calls for "toleration" of evil.

Margie| 9.13.10 @ 12:56PM

Yet another fabulous post. Amen, sir.

stephanie| 9.13.10 @ 1:31PM

Short and to the point. And so correct.
I'll add an AMEN as well!

Ned the Red| 9.13.10 @ 2:57PM

Amen to you and I'll raise your Amen. I spent a few months this year reading about the war against Japan in the Pacific. The hell our fighting men went through to win that war was a result of Japan's religion and government being one in the same.

Radegunda| 9.13.10 @ 7:29PM

Bernard Lewis seems too inclined to think that something bad happened to Islam in the course of its history. A more accurate appraisal is that Islam is a very bad thing that happened (& is still happening) to the world. Islam was rotten from the beginning. Anything nice about it was brought in later by people forced to live under it.

fundamentalist| 9.13.10 @ 1:36PM

Who are we to decide what is real and perverted Islam? The 9-11 hijackers claimed to be following true Islam. Other Muslims disagree. That is for them to decide, not us. But we can say with certainty that some forms of Islam promote terrorism.

Les Nesman| 9.13.10 @ 1:49PM

I agree. Because we cannot tell which form is which, we should ban the whole lot.

Radegunda| 9.13.10 @ 7:34PM

We can also say with certainty that the more Muslims there are within infidel societies, the worse life becomes for the infidels. The more Islamic a society becomes, the more miserable life is for everyone.

Many of the Muslims who thought 9/11 didn't represent "true Islam" disagree only with the means, not the end. Many of them are still active or complicit in the grand jihad to bring the whole world under submission to Islam.

It's naive and/or ignorant to believe that terrorists are the only Muslims to be wary of.

Philosopher| 9.13.10 @ 1:49PM

Where's the President's support for America? He can't bring himself to condemn the social insensitivity of building a mosque on ground zero, but can't shout out fast enough his pleas for 'tolerance' for Islam when an American wants to burn Korans.
Is book burning stupid? Yes.
Is it insensitive? Yes.
But it's legal just like the mosque issue the President could support his own people on.

My blog post on this topic: http://pracphilosblog.wordpres.....9/13/where’s-the-president’s-support-for-america/

Oldefarte| 9.13.10 @ 2:50PM

It's called POLITICAL CORRECTNESS 101, folks! We have sadly allowed the election of a stealth, flying-under-the-radar, Muslim sympathizer to become PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and we are now seeing the mistakes of our generosity, slavery-guilt, etc come back to haunt us. The military chief of staff's procalmation of DIVERSITY as of prime importance after the Ft Hood massacre was his oath-of-office allegiance to his cm=ommander-in-chief; and represents the depth to which our country has been politically taken over and the extent of the political brainwashing contained within our government. Our former military commander in the middle east was fired for speaking the truth concerning his civilian commanders and being punished for same by loss of his military career. Our majority political leaders are now cramming down our throats radical-extremist sharethe wealth legislation all due to this same POLITICAL CORRECTNESS 101 mantra. Face it folks, your government has been invaded and captured by a stealth army of Muslim sympathizing conquerors. Your/our only hope for survival is for you, your friends/family/church members/work mates, etc to go to the election polls on 11/2/10 and vote for Republican conservatives congress candidates. The fate of this country is in your [and my] hands, so DO YOUR COMBINED DUTY AS CITIZENS/TAXPAYERS/VOTERS!!!!!!!

Margie| 9.13.10 @ 3:31PM

Hear, hear! I'm THERE with you, oldefarte.

Mimi| 9.13.10 @ 10:33PM

Heh Margie...you got that right..nobody says it better than .." THE GREAT..OLDE FARTE "

martin j smith| 9.13.10 @ 3:51PM

When Imam Rauf said in essence: you allow me to build my Mosque where I want it or there will attacks on America. This kind of remark should have brought out strong condemnation publicly. It is possible that behind the scenes "words were said" and so Imam Rauf seems to be talking a different line. But, in my oppinion he should be given NO consideration at all given his clear anti-American attitudes. But I have not heard that much at all. BHO I expect nothing of because he has his agenda and it is not for America. Now GWB is very silent has been especially during his second term. In fact there was a dramatic pull back from first term when he stood on the rubble of ground Zero with a bull horn with arms around a worker there if you recall.

Radegunda| 9.13.10 @ 5:38PM

Do the editors at the Times not know what "foment" means? For starters, it isn't a noun. It also sounds a little like a Freudian slip.

jack| 9.13.10 @ 7:42PM

Obama could care less if Dems lose in Nov. He knows if the gutless and hapless Republicans win he can spend two years beating their brains out. He then wins in 2012 which is all he really cares about. If Dems win in November he has no chance in 2012 if the country still exists,why do you think he out campaigning for Dems? He wants to make sure the Republicans win.

jack| 9.13.10 @ 7:45PM

Republicans have yet to realize those who vote for socialist moron like Obama are voting for style. So what should they be doing. They should spend every dime running ads of Obama the Dork on the bicycle, throwing the baseball and bowling. There is no way the fools will vote for a guy who bowls or throw like Obama,let alone the dukakis like bike pictures

Tony in Central PA| 9.13.10 @ 10:00PM

My Dad told me that during his time in the Army after WW2, he had a chance to meet with soldiers from other NATO countries. A guy he met from Norway was in a commando unit that sabotaged a heavy water production facility the Nazis were using for their atomic research. He was a very interesting fellow, just based on his appearance you'd expect it more likely he was a department store Santa than a former commando.
One thing he told my Dad that really stuck was that when the Nazis decided they wanted Norway, the elites, intellectuals and intelligentsia eagerly jumped to their side to assist. There was no use fighting, they told the rest of the Norwegians. It really won't make much difference who is in charge of our country as long as we get along with them. It became obvious that these Quislings wanted preferential treatment under the new masters.
Instead of the Nazis, we now have Islamists. The elites and intellectuals and intelligentsia are unfortunately still the same.

Jim O'Brien| 9.14.10 @ 12:52PM

Islam deserves the same treatment as Hitler's National Socialism or Lenin's Communism. Islam is subversive to our Constitution, yet Obama and his fellow Demo-Socialists say America should tolerate it. Throw the bums out.

Founders were Pluralists| 9.14.10 @ 12:52PM

"It is a religiously required paranoia that creates an unyielding intolerance of those who are not adherents to Islam" ..... Or Chrisitianity.

You guys here are NO different than muslim extremists. No different. Slaughter and commit genocide on non white, non Christian American Indians. Fund death squads in Guatemala and South America to slaughter and annihalte native indian leftist protesters and students. Assasinate black third world leaders who challenge American corporations.

Seriously, what is the difference between Islamic extremists and Jed Babbin, the Spectator and you white christian men here? It appears .... nothing.

Margie| 9.14.10 @ 9:44PM

Wow. Talk about extremist!

Tony in Central PA| 9.14.10 @ 9:11PM

The vague, sweeping generalizations you employ are an attempt to relativise Christianity and Islam. The problem is, they really are different. As offensive as it is to many these days, there is simply no revising the history of our nation, its form of government and the freedoms we enjoy to erase its cultural foundation of Christianity. If Islam and Christianity are " the same " where are the representative democracies like ours among Islamic nations ?

Unlike Muslim extremists I don't think anybody on this board is making plans to knock off infidels. You can say the worst things possible about Christianity here in America and experience no risk to yourself or your family. You can say them in public, in a crowded public place if you like, and you are probably less likely to suffer physical harm than if you disparaged somebody's favorite sports team. Do you think you would have the same experience if you denigrated Islam in a place like Pakistan ?

Founders were Pluralists| 9.15.10 @ 2:23PM

First, there are 200,000 American soldiers right now in muslim countries - THEIR land - killing muslims. And many on this board support that killing simply because they want to be at war with Islam. Also, are you saying that that since Americans have not tried to commit genocide or funded death squads in the last 10 years and that I can go on internet chat rooms absolves extremist Christians of their bloodthirsty history?

No matter what the religion - the extremists in that religion (see Gary's post below) are willing to take localized and relatively small exceptions and turn those instances into a reason to indict and possibly slaughter millions of people. Extremists have done this since Mohammed's purges and the Inquisition. The internet does not make it any different. But nuclear bombs and drones and IEDs and suicide bombs do.

gary siebel| 9.15.10 @ 2:56AM

Obama is correct when he says we are not at war with Islam. However, there is no question Islam is at war with US.

Last time I checked, Ayatollah Khomeini, who called US the "Great Satan," was not a member of Al-Queda; Khamenei and Ahmenijad were not members of Al-Q; the Taliban were not, technically speaking, members of Al-Q; Hamas and Hezbollah were not Al-Q; the Deobandi of Binori Town were not Al-Q; the Jamaat al Islamaya were not Al-Q; the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, despite one of it's members, Zawahiri being 2nd in command of Al-Q, were not Al-Q themselves; the countless imams in charge of madrassas producing jihad cannon fodder throughout the middle east were not Al-Q; the thousands of Muslims throughout the mid-east who cheered the collapse of the Towers were not Al-Q; nor is the Q'uran and sharia Al-Q, yet they are all at war with US, and wish US dead.

Permitting a shrine to the hijackers in the form of Park 51 will only encourage further hijackers, because all martyrs seek green gardens with flowing waters and doe eyed virgins, and shrines to their memory.

Founders were Pluralists| 9.15.10 @ 2:27PM

Gary, I have a suggestion. Read a little about the U.S. overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh, a Harvard trained, elected Prime Minister of Iran and the installation of the Shah as bloody dictator. Then come back to me about what meanies the Iranians are. Read a little about the U.S. support of the 30 year brutal dictatorship in Egypt and tell me what meanies the Muslim Brotherhood are.

If some other country installed Lyndon LaRouche as dictator of the U.S. would you consider setting off some bombs or kidnapping people? Heck yeah you would.

SpeakEasy| 9.16.10 @ 4:12AM

For all the (deserved) name calling of this president, all the (deserved) questioning of his bona fides, why is it, in this country, with the (undeserved) reputation of being the most open society and freest country on this earth - are we not free to know if this president is a citizen of the United States?

When are we going to get a law that makes it mandatory for those seeking office, give proof of citizenship. Not a "certificate of live birth", which is not the same as a Birth Certificate.

Why are records "sealed" in Hawaii? Does anyone recall any other president of the United States having his birth records sealed? Recall Obama's "vacation" to Hawaii right about that time?

If such a Birth Certificate exists, would it not put an end to speculation that Obama was born in Kenya?

My birth certificate includes the name of the doctor who delivered me. That would be a clue!

Spooky stories abound - - such as his mother was denied boarding of a plane in Kenya because she was too far along in pregnancy - - peculiar stories about Kenyan birth and birth records there..

If Obama was born in Kenya, even as an infant he would have needed a passport to travel to Hawaii - somewhere those records exist.

Why, in this land of "transparency' are we not allowed to know if the man destroying this country has any legal right to hold office.

What about the town hall meeting when he was running for Illinois Senator against Alan Keyes and blurted, "Well, what if I am not a citizen, I am only running for Senate." That appears to be a factual account of their little set-to when Keyes challenged his citizenship. And yet we have no right to an explanation.

I have read that Mama Obama's time in Indonesia, when she was hooked up with Indonesian Muslim guy, occurred at a time when Indonesia was at war - and a law existed that no child could attend school unless an Indonesian citizen. We know he attended school - that is where he first aspired to public office!

OK, so the consspiracy story goes if he attended school, he had to be Indonesian citizen, to comply with their wartime law. If he became a citizen ( if he even was a US citizen) his mother had to renounce his US citizenship in order for him to go to school in Indonesia.

Therefore, the story continues, if he became an Indonesian citizen, when he returned to Hawaii, he had to shed his Indonesian citizenship and become a naturalized US citizen.

Why was it impolite to ask Senator Obama to prove he was eligble to run for president ? Was it because he is half Black and therefore immune to question? Why was it not rude and secretive for him to decline to prove that he is eligible?

Demanding proof - real proof - that may or may not exist - would at least tell us if our Muslim/Christian, mulatto/Black, fulfills the citiznship requirement.

And if he cannot prove what he says, is that not grounds for impeachment? Yes, I know we tried that with BIll Clinton. He only lied under oath to a Grand Jury. If Obama cannot produce a birth certificate stating he born in a delivery room in the hospital in Hawaii, delivered by a doctor, then he has lied to the American people and fraudulently been sworn in as President of the United States.

And we are never going to demand what we should not have to demand. Obama is "stickin' it to da man" in the most blatant way in the history of this country. And we are taking it.

As we writhe in impotence, we just continue to make up silly names to call him - Obummer, Obama bin Lyin' - - Remember the childhood saying? Sticks and stones? Well, all our derisive, cutesy Obama labels make make us feel better, but it's a long haul t0 2012 and beyond.

When I was employed by an airline, I underwent a background check that went all the way back to my elementary school and here we have a president of the United States with a murky background and he poofs it off by saying, "I can't go around with my birth certificate plastered to my forehead . ." and that is the only answer we get.

Ask any school teacher or college professor in the country if they got their job without providing a transcript of their grades and proof they graduated. President Obama's education records are also sealed.

The Bamboozler In Chief really pulled a fast one. And continues to.