Bush: ‘If it’s About Christianity vs. Islam, We’ll Lose’

Outside the Beltway ^ | 9/18/06 | James Joyner

[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.

[Kay]

Thanks.

[joesbucks]

I feel sure the only reason he would feel the meeting worth the time of the President of the United States would be that it would be helpful if those on the conservative side understood fully his thinking and beliefs. They are out there daily and stand up for him against the left. It would be nice if they were all on the same page as to "what" and "why" he feels as he does.

Then he should state it instead of using mouthpieces and off the record.

[Fishrrman]

spatso writes:
I think the President has spoken plainly for five years.

"Islam is a religion of peace" (G.W. Bush).

Need any more be said?

- John

[SMARTY]

I am and have always been behind the President's policy. However, no matter what we think now, time will tell. Nice meeting you, too.

[steve-b]

then pulled out and left them to stew in their own juices

That policy worked SO WELL after we no longer needed the Afghans to serve as a thorn in the side of the Soviets, after all....

[livius]

These people are not on our side; their goals at the moment coincide with ours, because we have determined that they are hostile to a common enemy (the particular group that is attacking us and them in a given situation) and therefore are "allies," just as the Russians were our "allies" during WWII because they were hostile to Hitler - but they were never really our allies, as the many years of Cold War showed.

I'm not at all opposed to alliances of convenience; I certainly don't think all Muslims should be exterminated, and I think there probably are many who just want to live their lives and get along. But you are overlooking the fact that Islam is not on their side, but on the side of the ones we consider "radicals." Even the slightest knowledge of the history of Islam will show you that the radicals always win. So in other words, by attacking Islam at its foundations, challenging its truth-claim and making it renounce violence and force, we are setting free the "moderate" Muslims too.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Mike Gallagher should never have been invited in the first place. He's a dishonorable and unprincipled buffoon who twists facts and goes out of his way to be inflammatory for ratings. He fits perfectly into the usually false stereotypes that the left/media tries to portray all conservative talk radio hosts as being, undercutting the good work of numerous others. Similar to Savage, but not quite as raving lunatic. And his true colors were once again revealed when motormouth leaks all about an off-the-record conversation, which will likely hand the media/left a chance to create a week of distraction over another tangential pseudo-controversy ("Bush again coordinating his right-wing radio tools", "Is Bush trying to disguise his theocratic Crusade"?)

Mike Gallagher is a snake and an idiot, hiding in the guise of a super patriot conservative. The kind of fool who screams to 'nuke everyone' in response to any outrage.

[SQUID]

Well, Americans have fought and died for freedom before so I don't understand why one would think they wouldn't do it again. Control immigration and you won't have to worry about civil unrest in the streets of Chicago, NY or LA. I have long ago stated the only way immigration can and will be solved is by a national referendum. But some people feel threatened because that would put the power into the wrong hands....the people.

The fact is, our politicians have failed us on this subject and the people have to hand them a swift kick in the az.

[joesbucks]

Mike Gallagher should never have been invited in the first place. He's a dishonorable and unprincipled buffoon who twists facts and goes out of his way to be inflammatory

Mike Gallagher is a born again, syndicated and working for an organization that is advancing conservative concepts from a Judeo-Christian perspective. Sadly, knowing that, your assesment of him would have been on the money from the get-go.

[livius]

I assume you're not a Christian but get your information about them from the media.

[PigRigger]

To me it's always been about Freedom vs. Tyranny....

I don't care what mantra the enemy wraps itself in...it is just another ideology looking to crush freedom and the empowering of the individual to make their own decisions....

[livius]

Your beloved "secularism" has raped and tortured innumerable people in the name of its "god," aka, itself.

[spatso]

"Should religious law trump civil law?"

Your questions are thoughtful. One of the spooky feelings I get in reading this thread is how strident the position of the religious right has become on the issue of holy war. As I was reading your post it struck me that Christian and Islamic fundamentalism may share a common understating of the coming rapture of end time. My fear is these guys are planning to take the rest of us with them. Perhaps the problems of modernity are not limited to the Islamic world.

[jusduat]

Very well put! Why do some people insist on making it more conplicated is beyond me.

Unless we wish to live and believe like they do, we'd better do something about it and stop trying to just change their minds.

[Antoninus]

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.”

And, IMHO, that's why we aren't winning as handily as we should be. It's hard to make the case rhetorically that we are fighting against something amorphous like "terrorism." What the administration should have done is laid out, from the very beginning, that this war is on Islamo-fascism. Then, force the Islamic nations to take sides. Those that take the wrong side need to be stomped.

We're going to be forced to do this at some point, anyway. Better now than when there's a weak Democrat in office.

[LibLieSlayer]

Zulu, I think we both know the same truth. I have no argument with your basic assumptions.

LLS

[PISANO]

I agree with the President, it is as simple as GOOD [US] vs. EVIL [THEM], all other nuances are nothing more than Clintonesque Barbra Streisand.

[Theophilus]

If it’s About Christianity vs. Islam, We’ll Lose

Who are the "We" he is talking about?

• "Christianity"?
• the Administration?
• the United States?
• the West?
• the "Coalition of the Willing"?
• "Compassionate Conservatism"?
• Humanism?
• Pluralism?
• Universalism?
• Tolerance?
• The Bush Family?
• All Of The Above?

Who would lose and how?

If the President means that God is for Himself - OK, he is absolutely right. But if he thinks that religion and the truth of religion is irrelevant in this fight. Or that religion is or must be subordinated to some kind of higher ideals like "freedom", "education", "science", "capitalism", "secularism", "diversity" or "democracy" he is in for a rude awakening.

We are not a better nation because we tolerate the evil cult of Islam, we tolerate Islam because we are a Christian nation that loves even it's enemies. If we are not a Christian nation anymore (I.E. God withholds His providence from us), then we (the United States) have no long term hope against the onslaught of Islam an obviously profound, powerful and Satanic counterfeit of the truth. The muslim nations will intimidate us; outsmart us, out populate us; prosper economicaly against us instead of with us, enslave us and even slay us. Our leaders and people will race each other to see how fast we can cave.

Essentially, we need to ask ourselves as individuals and as a nation: Are we on God's side?

Joshua 5

13 And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?

 14 And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant?

Ephesians 6:11-13

 11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

[steve-b]

Perhaps the problems of modernity are not limited to the Islamic world.

[spatso]

"I agree with the President, it is as simple as GOOD [US] vs. EVIL [THEM], all other nuances are nothing more than Clintonesque Barbra Streisand."

It is a total misrepresentation of President Bush's words to imply that his notion of good and evil included the entire Islamic world as evil. Indeed, if anything, he has been very careful to distinguish Islamic terrorism as the unique manifestation of evil.