Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush: ‘If it’s About Christianity vs. Islam, We’ll Lose’
Outside the Beltway ^ | 9/18/06 | James Joyner

Posted on 09/19/2006 1:42:14 AM PDT by LibWhacker

President Bush told a group of radio talk show hosts that the war on terror must be framed in terms of values, not religion.

Coulter found herself in the uncharacteristic position of being upstaged by her introducer, Mike Gallagher. He told the audience he was fresh back from an hour-and-45-minute session which President Bush held in the Oval Office Friday afternoon with him and four other conservative talk show hosts: Atlanta’s Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Michael Medved. Rush Limbaugh couldn’t make it, he said.

Though he said this session was supposed to be off the record, Gallagher described it at some length, including Bush’s observation to the right-wing radio jocks that the War on Terror has to be about right versus wrong, “because if it’s about Christianity versus Islam, we’ll lose.”

“Remind me never to invite you to an off-the-record session,” Coulter said after his introduction.

Indeed.

Still, if Bush said what Gallagher said he did, he’s right. Islam is, of course, a big piece of the puzzle. But the battle over ideas has to be fought by finding common moral ground, not bashing Islam in general.

It’s no small irony that this was revealed while introducing, Ann “invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” Coulter.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; bush; christianity; coulter; dishonorable; egobeforecountry; gallagher; gallagheramoron; galleghermotormouth; islam; mikegallagher; rushissmart; values
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 281-295 next last
To: LibWhacker
.....hence Bush's continual drumbeat of "The Religion of Peace", much to the general consternation of some here at FR.

Whether it is, or is not, is debateable. Debating the issue distracts and detracts from the main job of prosecuting the War. This is merely Bush's attempt to stay 'on topic', not lose focus, and get dragged into esoteric arguments about 'how many angle's can dance on the head of a pin' with idiots and neanderthals, much the same as arguing with Creatiozoids and IDiacs.

141 posted on 09/19/2006 6:03:11 AM PDT by DoctorMichael (A wall first. A wall now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker; MNJohnnie; Txsleuth; All

wow.....

I gotta tell you- The President is right...

First let me explain what the President actually said..(I know- I was not in the room, and Mike was, but trust me, I was there Saturday night, and I heard the ENTIRE Quote)-

Bush said that we can't make this about Christianity vs Islam, because if it is about Christianity vs Isalm, we will lose.
What is the difference?

It is minor, but what Bush is saying is that if WE, I repeat, IF WE, make it about this, we will lose.

We all know that to the radical Muslims, it is a "holy war" - it is a jihad; to them it is about one religion must rule the globe- THEIRS!

WE must keep this about Freedom, about FREEDOM FOR ALL RELIGIONS. WE must stay focused on FREEDOM, not Christianity is better/truer/more peaceful/the only religion (etc) than Islam.....

The sad thing is that WE have already dropped the ball on this. Right now- any marine, sailor, etc can take the name of Christ in vain, use His name as a swear word, boldly and loudly, etc- this is Free Speech and Christians "offended" by this can just go pound sand....but if the name of Jesus is said out loud in prayer- suddenly you can find yourself in a courtroom...

At the same time- the rules pertaining to the usage of Allah and Mohammed are the opposite! Say the names in honor- you're fine.....but draw a cartoon, or mention the WAY ISLAM is spread, and well......we get calls for assassination, nuns shot, and churches burned.....

President Bush NAILED IT- but you won't hear people debating the truth of it in context--- you will only see the phrase used for ratings and Bush bashing.....and as a tool to try and drive a wedge between our President and his Christian Base......


142 posted on 09/19/2006 6:07:05 AM PDT by eeevil conservative (STEVE KING /JOHN BOLTON FOR '08...Ann picks King...I pick Bolton!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
After 9/11 the President has helped anyone who really wanted it a chance at a civilized society in the ME, he knows the West cannot win a religious war at this time.

If the moderates cannot find a way to meld Islam with liberty peacefully then so be it.

The next President of the US, and the next, will have to be a ruthless SOB.
143 posted on 09/19/2006 6:07:09 AM PDT by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Neophyte; livius
What you are missing is when a Christian says "It's God's Will" it cuts off all debate and rational arguments.

For example, if somebody did a study and found that Gay Marriage reduced pedophile by 85%, AIDS by 50% and Drug Use by 20%, Christians would still be against Gay Marriage because of "God's Will."

Theocracy in the broad sense of the word is to use the secular law to impose religious norms. You have the Muslim countries at one extreme and you have blue laws at the other.
144 posted on 09/19/2006 6:11:04 AM PDT by Hong Kong Expat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

Bus was well aware that they would run out there and say things....why else even bother having these guys there? New commentators are NEVER "off the record", even the conservatice-minded ones. Bush is obviously well aware of that and was happy to use that to his advantage. I wonder if that's why Rush didn't attend...he wants to be able to talk about President's comments, and a off the record format would put him in a wee bit of a moral conflict, which his fellow talkers seemed to b willing to toss aside. Has Hannity talked much about the President's comments? He was there.


145 posted on 09/19/2006 6:13:26 AM PDT by GLH3IL (What's good for America is bad for liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dynoman

This is the essence of the battle of good vs evil that started the day the Satan fell from God's grace. It is the battle of true Cristianity vs all other ways to God. Satan's choice is to use Islam as that enemy of the One True Way to God. Unfortunately, it is true that we have perverted "Christianity" into a RELIGION so that President Bush's statement ends up being correct.


146 posted on 09/19/2006 6:13:56 AM PDT by Montana4Jesus (Roll Tide...Class of 93)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: spatso
Pakistan is troubling. I believe President Bush has to tell General Musharraf that if the excursions of Al Qaeda and Taliban from Pakistan continue, and they retreat back into Pakistan, our military will pursue them into Pakistan. Then let the chips fall where they may.

What did you make of the recent intelligence reports presented to Congress that stated Pakistan does not have the 5 to 25 nuclear warheads we believed them to have, but up to 100 warheads with advanced delivery capabilities?

I don't see Pakistan as being a long term ally. The problem is Pakistan has a strong military alliance with China, primarily against India. Because so many of our Muslim allies have been eventually replaced by belligerent dictators and profoundly militant governments, I believe Pakistan and the USA have a date set in destiny, and it could involve many nuclear powers.
147 posted on 09/19/2006 6:16:26 AM PDT by backtothestreets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets
but up to 100 warheads with advanced delivery capabilities?

Well that just another drama queen lie. Pakistan nukes are either artillery or bomber deliverable small yield weapons. That is NOT "advance delivery capabilities"

148 posted on 09/19/2006 6:27:21 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Ann Coulter: "I love Freepers!" Told to Freeper eeevil Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Hong Kong Expat
Wrong as usual with the Moral Equivalence hysteria. Those areas with Blue laws do not routinely rape torture and kill people in the name of their "god". Such punishments are routinely imposed under Islamic law.
149 posted on 09/19/2006 6:30:03 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Ann Coulter: "I love Freepers!" Told to Freeper eeevil Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
You make a very good point. I think I now understand what you expressed. To Muslims jihad is both good and right, and militant Muslims also see jihad as both good and right. Telling them to do what is good and right would ultimately mean they be involved in jihad, in one form or another, and the complete opposite of the response we seek.

I haven't studied the Koran, but my understanding is that Muslims are commanded to jihad. Wherever we're headed in this conflict, it isn't going to be pretty.
150 posted on 09/19/2006 6:31:13 AM PDT by backtothestreets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Though he said this session was supposed to be off the record, Gallagher described it at some length, including Bush’s observation to the right-wing radio jocks that the War on Terror has to be about right versus wrong, “because if it’s about Christianity versus Islam, we’ll lose.”

I'm skeptical that the President would say anything quite so stupid, but in any case, my money is on Christianity.

151 posted on 09/19/2006 6:33:50 AM PDT by Invisible Gorilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Well that just another drama queen lie. Pakistan nukes are either artillery or bomber deliverable small yield weapons. That is NOT "advance delivery capabilities"

Actually, Pakistan's Ghuari MRBM has a 1500-2500km range, and the Ghauri III IRBM has a 3500-4000km range. They don't, so far as we know, have ICMBs, to say nothing of ICMBs sufficent to hit the United States, but they're known to be testing a model very similar to the North Korean Taepodong series.

They're a little beyond the artillery delivered stage, and not more than a decade from the point where they could hit pretty much anything.

152 posted on 09/19/2006 6:37:32 AM PDT by Steel Wolf (As Ibn Warraq said, "There are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets
Telling them to do what is good and right would ultimately mean they be involved in jihad, in one form or another, and the complete opposite of the response we seek.

Our arguement to be good and avoid jihad, to Muslim ears, is clumsy and unconvincing. It's like liberals who feel that it's okay to be Christian and believe in God, so long as you don't go to church and believe in all that Bible stuff.

153 posted on 09/19/2006 6:41:00 AM PDT by Steel Wolf (As Ibn Warraq said, "There are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

"It must be understood that we define Moslem, as one who follows the Quran, the life of Mohammed, and the traditions of the community. There are sects called Moslems that do not necessarily abide by these rules. They can be called "cultural Moslems," some of these are Ismailis, Druze, and Sufis. Secular Moslems like many Turks have a Moslem culture but because of Turkey's history and geography have been secularized. Fundamentalists, those that accept the Quran literally, and pattern their lives after Mohammed, as well as follow the traditions of those who have historically lived this way, are a growing threat to all mankind and all democracies of the world."
Five Misconceptions about Islam that could kill Democracy
By Larry Garza


154 posted on 09/19/2006 6:43:14 AM PDT by anglian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amanda King

Man I hate making stupid errors!

You are absolutely correct.

Mr. Impetuous was Peter, not Matthew.

Oops.


155 posted on 09/19/2006 6:44:07 AM PDT by Blueflag (Res ipsa loquitor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Blueflag
Thanks for straightening him out, but I believe Peter drew his sword.
156 posted on 09/19/2006 6:45:56 AM PDT by stevio (Red-Blooded Crunchy Con American Male (NRA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: spatso
Am I misreading you or are you already conceding we have lost the hearts and minds of the moderate Muslim world?

The hearts and minds of Muslims belong to jihad, and to Allah, as long as they are unconverted.

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you use the phrase "moderate Muslim world".

If there is such a thing, you'll have to point it out.

157 posted on 09/19/2006 6:46:15 AM PDT by Jim Noble (Something is happening here but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: stevio

Oh absolutely it was Peter. I made an error. I hate that ;-)


158 posted on 09/19/2006 6:46:52 AM PDT by Blueflag (Res ipsa loquitor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Values stem from religion!


159 posted on 09/19/2006 6:47:10 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Mike Gallagher, that pompous jerk who cheered Janet Reno's kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez and sending him back to that island gulag.


160 posted on 09/19/2006 6:47:57 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 281-295 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson