Posted on 06/15/2006 6:58:51 PM PDT by Urbane_Guerilla
This article presented me with a pov I had not seen nor thought of. I truly do not know if I agree with it, altho it makes a good amount of sense.
I am wondering what folks here think of it.
Bush remains both ignorant of the sources, the scope, and the full menace of the Jihad, and he certainly has not allowed the American government to conduct the kind of all-out propaganda, including making use of clever defectors from Islam, that is called for. He lacks imagination. He lacks broad cultivation.
Anyone who thinks Bush somehow knows less about all this than some obscure columnist doesn't know dirt. Anyone who buys that some ignoramus can become president knows nothing of the man other than what the MSM have fed them. (My source is someone whose father has worked with the President personally.)
However this "not very bright" guy always seems to beat all the "very bright" guys like rented mules. I wonder why?
It's kind of like the two campers who get woke up by a bear.
One starts putting on running shoes.
The other says "You'll never outrun the bear!"
"I just have to outrun you, buddy!"
Im sure i'll be called a Bushbot but oh well.
The author seems to think that Bush alone is responsible to know everything about Islam. The President is more than a man whether it is GWB or anyone else. Staff delivers information that is needed or requested. The President does not have time to stay up all night and learn every nuance of anything. The author even eludes to the fact that the Presidents day is full of immaterial garbage.
As for taking a more 'firm' approach to Jihad and the fight against Islam, the author does not consider the fine line of diplomacy that we have to walk in order to not offend every single muslim in the world. That would include those countries friendly to us who are rending a large amount of assistance.
While more common laymen may want an all out war on Islam that is not practical or doable from any President's position.
By the way, the idea is not original. Senator Aiken of Vermont suggested the US declare victory in Vietnam, and get out.
One other bit. The idea of the writer seems to be to get out of Iraq and declare war on Islam. The guy is a nutter.
How much respect do you have for the United States Constitution? For your elected Senator and Congressman? Because your elected representatives kicked off this war, not the President. I have nothing but scathing contempt for your stance and derision for your handlers. You, sir, are no conservative. You disrespect the executive branch. Open disagreement on policy is one thing.
NB4ZOT
Inane. We should leave now because a civil war is in our best interest? Last time I checked, the most violent and ruthless are the most likely to win civil wars. Unless you want 2,500 dead soldiers and countless more lives ruined for the purpose of establishing an Islamofascist state that is up to it's neck in oil, we have to stay the course. Ever run a race? You pump hardest at the end when the finish line is in sight. To do otherwise is to allow your competition to steal your victory at the end.
This numbnut compares the battle in Iraq, between Baathists, AQ, and disgruntled former employees and the elected government, to the Iran-Iraq war?
Iran-Iraq war was like watching the Germans and the Russians bloody themselves up in the 40's. It was in the worlds best interest that they bleed each other white. This is a contest for control of a strategic, oil-rich middle eastern state. Sorry, USA can't wait this one out and hope for the most bloodshed, which is what this article suggests. We have a dog in this fight and he has to emerge the victor, or the vanquished. This is vital. We lost a dozen and a half soldiers in Somalia. I remember their bodies dragged thru the streets of Mogadishu. At that point, Clinton ran like a scared rabbit because he didn't want to ruin his legacy. In the Middle East all they knew was that America turned and ran when the cameras rolled on their corpses. They know that they can't beat us in a fair fight. They also know if there were 5 figure American KIA's in this war, the majority of Americans would lose heart and call for a withdrawl. That is their strategy and anyone who proposes leaving now to a chaotic scene is playing their game.
All the rest of us have is our own perception of the man, and not some personal source.
The MSM is stupider than Bush by a lot, but that is not a comforting situation.
To my mind, both Clinton and Carter were gigantic ignoramuses, and they both became president. The position does not go to the most insightful or intelligent man. Bush would never have become president if he had been born you or me, or even Clinton or Carter for that matter.
I do not believe that Bush could discuss Islam on anywhere near the level most people on FR could. He gives no indication of having that capability.
Nixon's response wasn't much different. Just more "nuanced"
You have no way of knowing that; neither do I.
I do not believe that Bush could discuss Islam on anywhere near the level most people on FR could.
The fact that most of what he knows is classified information no one on FR has access to makes that assertion ridiculous.
Because, incredibly, they are even more clueless than Bush. Liberals/leftists are so very bright, by some measurements, but they are lacking in judgement and perspective. Many have deep psychological/personality problems, like narcisism.
In what respect has Bush indicated that he understands the evil of Islam?
You obviously received a better education than he did. Where was that, and what was your GPA?
And you've led what?
Just curious.
Oh I don't know could it be that he has presided over the killing of more of them than any CIC in history?
Well, some Iraqi official said he could see US troops out by mid-2008. I guess that's when we'll have the ticker-tape parade. But, yes, we should have a declaration that the war is over and we won, and we should make a big to-do about it. We didn't in Afghanistan. We should have.
This makes a lot of sense to me, and seems like a good answer to the article. BUT ...
It is very very disturbing that Bush insists on portraying Islam as anything other than evil, and that he permits himself to (literally) hold hands with the Saudis, like Bush was a little goggle-eyed boy.
And the article has a pov which is forceful ... which is, let the followers of the satanic "prophet" fight amongst themselves, to our benefit. That is the pov which Bush seems not to have considered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.