Not when al-Bush hold this guy's hand and chants "Islam is a religion of peace."
And let's not forget
Controversial Muslim Group (CAIR) gets VIP Airport Security Tour (DSH shows all)
Posted on 08/20/2006 2:40:27 AM PDT by goldstategop
One way to measure how the world has changed in these last five years is to consider the extraordinary address to his nation by General Musharraf on Sept. 19, 2001. Pakistan was one of just three countries in the world (along with "our friends the Saudis" and the United Arab Emirates) to recognize the Taliban -- and, given that the Pakistanis had helped create and maintain them, they were pretty easy to recognize. President Bush, you'll recall, had declared that you're either with us or you're with the terrorists -- which posed a particular problem for Musharraf: He was with us but everyone else in his country was with the terrorists, including his armed forces, his intelligence services, the media, and a gazillion and one crazy imams.
Nonetheless, with American action against Afghanistan on the horizon, he went on TV that night and told the Pakistani people that this was the gravest threat to the country's existence in over 30 years. He added that he was doing everything to ensure his brothers in the Taliban didn't "suffer," and that he'd asked Washington to provide some evidence that this bin Laden chap had anything to do with the attacks but that so far they'd declined to show him any. Then he cited the Charter of Medina (which the Prophet Muhammad signed after an earlier spot of bother) as an attempt to justify providing assistance to the infidel, and said he'd had no choice but to offer the Americans use of Pakistan's airspace, intelligence networks and other logistical support.
He paused for applause, and after the world's all-time record volume of crickets chirping, said thank you and goodnight.
That must have been quite the phone call he'd got from Washington a day or two earlier. And all within a week of Sept. 11. You may remember during the 2000 campaign an enterprising journalist sprung on Gov. Bush a sudden pop quiz of world leaders. Bush, invited to name the leader of Pakistan, was unable to. But so what? In the third week of September 2001, the correct answer to "Who's General Musharraf?" was "Whoever I want him to be." And, if Musharraf didn't want to play ball, he'd wind up as the answer to "Who was leader of Pakistan until last week?"
Do you get the feeling Washington's not making phone calls like that anymore?
If you go back to September 2001, it's amazing how much the administration made happen in just a short space of time: For example, within days it had secured agreement with the Russians on using military bases in former Soviet Central Asia for intervention in Afghanistan. That, too, must have been quite a phone call. Moscow surely knew that any successful Afghan expedition would only cast their own failures there in an even worse light -- especially if the Americans did it out of the Russians' old bases. And yet it happened.
Five years on, the United States seems to be back in the quagmire of perpetual interminable U.N.-brokered EU-led multilateral dithering, on Iran and much else. The administration that turned Musharraf in nothing flat now offers carrots to Ahmadinejad. After the Taliban fell, the region's autocrats and dictators wondered: Who's next? Now they figure it's a pretty safe bet that nobody is.
What's the difference between September 2001 and now? It's not that anyone "liked" America or that, as the Democrats like to suggest, the country had the world's "sympathy.'' Pakistani generals and the Kremlin don't cave to your demands because they "sympathize.'' They go along because you've succeeded in impressing upon them that they've no choice. Musharraf and Co. weren't scared by America's power but by the fact that America, in the rubble of 9/11, had belatedly found the will to use that power. It is notionally at least as powerful today, but in terms of will we're back to Sept. 10: Nobody thinks America is prepared to use its power. And so Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad and wannabe "strong horses" like Baby Assad cock their snooks with impunity.
I happened to be in the Australian Parliament for Question Time last week. The matter of Iraq came up, and the foreign minister, Alexander Downer, thwacked the subject across the floor and over the opposition benches in a magnificent bravura display of political confidence culminating with the gleefully low jibe that "the Leader of the Opposition's constant companion is the white flag.'' The Iraq war is unpopular in Australia, as it is in America and in Britain. But the Aussie government is happy for the opposition to bring up the subject as often as they want because Downer and his prime minister understand very clearly that wanting to "cut and run" is even more unpopular. So in the broader narrative it's a political plus for them: Unlike Bush and Blair, they've succeeded in making the issue not whether the nation should have gone to war but whether the nation should lose the war.
That's not just good politics, but it's actually the heart of the question. Of course, if Bush sneered that John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi's constant companion is the white flag, they'd huff about how dare he question their patriotism. But, if you can't question their patriotism when they want to lose a war, when can you? At one level, the issue is the same as it was on Sept. 11: American will and national purpose. But the reality is that it's worse than that -- for (as Israel is also learning) to begin something and be unable to stick with it to the finish is far more damaging to your reputation than if you'd never begun it in the first place. Nitwit Democrats think anything that can be passed off as a failure in Iraq will somehow diminish only Bush and the neocons. In reality -- a concept with which Democrats seem only dimly acquainted -- it would diminish the nation, and all but certainly end the American moment. In late September 2001 the administration succeeded in teaching a critical lesson to tough hombres like Musharraf and Putin: In a scary world, America can be scarier. But it's all a long time ago now.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo!)
Not when al-Bush hold this guy's hand and chants "Islam is a religion of peace."
And let's not forget
Controversial Muslim Group (CAIR) gets VIP Airport Security Tour (DSH shows all)
God, however, is still sovereign, and world events will take place under His command.
Iraq and Afghanistan were tremendous military victories, and they served His purpose. If one believes in the Almighty, one does not have be afraid. What is happening today in Iran and Syria will also be dealt with in His perfect timing.
We can wring our hands and sob, but I choose to smile and to be confident that the pagan Democrats and the evil Muslims don't yet know that God (the real one) cannot be kicked off His throne.
Wait on the Lord. He will be victorious.
Bush has much to answer for.
Explain why Bush
1. Calls Islam a religion of peace.
2. Embraces (and more) Islamic thugs.
3. Has the Dep't of Homeland Security give behind-the-scenes airport security tours to a Muslim organization with a lengthy history of terrorist ties.
4. Sold Israel down the river to the Hezzies with the UN Security Council
I don't hate Bush. After voting for him twice, I'm profoundly disappointed that he's auditioning for a place in history somewhere between his "no new taxes" dad and Jimmy "killer rabbit" Carter.
Man, get over it. You sound like those libs who think we should just stop buying oil.
He held a feeble old goat's hand on the way to a meeting--wow, he's a traitor! ]
Cram the "al-Bush" stuff. You Libertarian types are a cancer on the body politic.
When Bush starts defending America's interests, instead of the Saudis and the Mexicans, I'll consider respecting the man as a person. I respect the office. He's not fit to serve in it. The straw that broke the camel's back was this FR Post.
If a Dim prez did this, we'd be calling for impeachment.
Controversial Muslim Group (CAIR) gets VIP Airport Security Tour (DSH shows all)
WorldNetDaily ^ | 08/18/06 | n/a
Posted on 08/18/2006 3:09:02 PM PDT by mojito
The Department of Homeland Security took a Muslim group with known past ties to terror organizations on a VIP tour of security operations at the nation's busiest airport at the same time British authorities were working to break up a plot to blow up U.S. airlines.
On June 21, a senior DHS official from Washington personally guided Muslim officials from the Council on American-Islamic Relations on a behind-the-scenes tour of Customs screening operations at O'Hare International Airport in response to CAIR complaints that Muslim travelers were being unfairly delayed as they entered the U.S. from abroad.
CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Association for Palestine, identified by two former FBI counterterrorism chiefs as a "front group" for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Several CAIR leaders have been convicted on terror-related charges.
During the airport tour, CAIR was taken on a walk through the point-of-entry, Customs stations, secondary screening and interview rooms. In addition, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents were asked to describe for CAIR representatives various features of the high-risk passenger lookout system.
In a meeting, Brian Humphrey, Customs and Border Patrol's executive director of field operations, assured CAIR officials that agents do not single out Muslim passengers for special screening and that they must undergo a mandatory course in Muslim sensitivity training. The course teaches agents that Muslims believe jihad is an "internal struggle against sin" and not holy warfare.
Customs agents involved in the CAIR tour at O'Hare tell WorldNetDaily they were outraged that headquarters would reveal sensitive counterterrorism procedures to an organization that has seen several of its own officials convicted of terror-related charges since 9-11.
"Isn't that nice of CBP," one agent said, to provide a "group like CAIR with a guided, behind-the-scenes tour of our customs facilities, explaining how programs designed to catch Muslim terrorists work."
CAIR says the tour allayed its concerns about profiling and that it "looks forward to continuing the relationship with U.S. Customs and Border Protection offices in the region, and to furthering understanding between the organizations as well as facilitating future communication in order to eliminate problems for Muslim travelers before they even arise."
The Muslim-sensitivity training course at O'Hare is taught by Margaret Nydell, an Arabic professor at Georgetown University, home to a large Saudi-financed center on Islamic studies.
A Customs and Border Protection supervisor described Nydell's instruction, along with CBP's companion training manual and video, as "politically correct drivel."
"It's all about how Islam means peace and tolerance," he told WorldNetDaily. "We're told how to deal with Arabs and Muslims, that they are loving people and not terrorists. That jihad is struggle with sin and has nothing to do with violence."
The Department of Homeland Security invites CAIR itself to conduct sensitivity training for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and supervisors (CBP's counterparts) in Chicago. The course is taught by local CAIR officials Christina Abraham and Mariyam Hussain. More than 30 ICE staffers have gone through the CAIR awareness program so far.
CAIR – which is bankrolled by the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates, two countries that formally recognized the Taliban – also offers religious and cultural sensitivity training about Islam and Muslims to the military. In June, for example, CAIR trained more than 300 military personnel at the Marine Corps Air Station in Yuma, Ariz.
Also in June, CAIR was invited by the Pentagon to a ceremony dedicating the first Islamic center in Marine Corps history at Quantico headquarters outside of Washington. Washington-based CAIR also has regular meetings with the FBI and Justice Department. In fact, FBI case agents complain the bureau rarely can make a move in the Muslim community without first consulting with CAIR, which sits on its advisory board. CAIR in the past has cried racism and bigotry when the bureau has moved unilaterally with investigations and raids in the community.
When the democrats set out to defeat President Bush by opposing the Iraq war, they divided the nation without regard to the effects of defeat.
Why do the Democrats historically work for the defeat of America on all fronts?
I understand you believe a Democrat taking the White House would be a good thing, as you've posted, but do either of these things come within light years of the daily treason of the DUmmies? No, they don't, hysteria over photo ops notwithstanding.
You obviously enjoy calling Bush names, and it's fun to armchair QB the WOT, and but the silly namecalling has no connection with reality, and the reality is that the imaginary perfect war some folks here think is possible is a crack pipe dream. Could W do some things better? yes. But this silly "al-Bush" crap, while fitting for someone who thinks it'd be better to have the Dems win in '08, displays a disconnect between what is truly important (Afghanistan and Iraq) and what is just stupid but ultimately meaningless (a "goodwill" tour of an airport). And the "selling out Israel to the UN" shows an even greater disconnect from verifiable reality.
BTW, your whole post collapses at the source. WorldNetDaily is the right's version of TruthOut.com or whatever the hell that site is called.
Actually of the current crop, Rudy is the best on the war on terror. I hate his stance on abortion but being pro-life is a moot point when the jihadists are pushing Armageddon.
As for Bush, I stick by my posts. Being better than treasonous Dims doesn't excuse him for repeatedly and willfully breaking his constitutional oath to defend this country against enemies, both foreign and domestic. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
I don't read WND anymore.
It has become a waste of time - unless you're looking for entertainment...
And as I pointed out, the story has been posted elsewhere, including National Review Online.
And trashing the source doesn't detract from the veracity of the content.
Punctuation is a good thing.
You may have a point here, but I can't tell with your run on sentences. So, I stopped reading it, as many people will do. Lack of punctuation also suggests the poster is ignorant - not a good thing if you are trying to make an intelligent point.
Not trying to be ugly here - I'd like to know what you have to say, but I'm not gonna decipher it - my time is limited.
So, are we forgetting that Mr Bush is still conducting a two front war against the total weight of world and senatorial opinion?
1. Have you heard the President anytime in recent history, call Islam a religion of peace?
2. You will have to name names, times, and places for the Islamic thug question, and in partial answer, President Bush probably has to have meetings and conversations, and photo ops with a whole host of folks he'd rather not, but in the interest of propriety, and show, he has to do a lot of things he might prefer not.
3. CAIR seems to be one of the main go-betweens right now, and we wouldn't want to antagonize our "friends" in the Muslim world, by jailing their hirees in the US. A show tour is a small price to pay while waiting for sufficient rope to appear for the hanging, which can happen when the organization is sufficiently emboldened by appearances that it can do no wrong.
4. I would want to hear the answer to this question, from the sold down the riveree's, and not from someone with a perception that someone else was sold down the river. At the moment their is a mountain of rhetoric on the subject, and the vote is not in that I've seen. You are joining the "sky is falling" crowd of roosters crowing much about appearances that are not substantiated in fact.
I think it is perfectly normal to have issues with a president and his policies. I have issues with the fact that he is not conservative, doesn't share my views on immigration, spends too much money, but he is the president and God help us if anyone from the opposition party was to walz into the office with contrary views on the subject of the war on radical Islam.
Personally, I don't thing Mr Bush gives any thought whatsoever to his position in history, unlike some other recent presidents. He has the fate of the USA and it's people upper most on his mind, and that's good enough for me. Stop hammering on the President for your lack of faith in your own selection in the voting booth and your inability to see past the nose on your face. It's a disease that infects the left, and moderates, (same thing) not grounded citizens.
Ditto
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.