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.
Sociologists speak of mono-theistic societies as though they could possibly co-exist with different tenets and practices; the Islams believe Allah is the perfect being while the Christians also believe God is perfect, how can this be so unless Allah and God are the same being with two faces?
I'm not eager for war, and I don't think Muslims, in general, are, either.
Their glory days are gone, or else in the far off, imaginary future.
"Allah and God are the same being with two faces?"
with problematic children.
Right, and President Bush has the right idea of what this is not, in terms of earthly conflict. It is not Christians vs. Muslims.
He also knows what the conflict actually is and what it must become, though pragmatically, it is not just "right vs. wrong." It must be seen as Koran-believing Muslims vs. the World.
And that is why he's dropping by lower Manhattan, today.
Gee it is so glad to have brainacs like you to straighten us out. Just pay no attention to the millions of Moslems killed by the Islamo-fascists. Ignore those fighting and dying at our sides in Iraq and Afganistan. It is just another trick when terrorists are arrested and imprisoned in Morocco, Jordan, Eygpt or Pakistan.
We should not believe our lying eyes but geniuses like you.
You mean the one which forcibly converted Jews. It proved a lot but not what you think.
What an active imagination.
It was a lowlife approach, to be sure. I'm actually not completely surprised.
the War on Terror has to be about right versus wrong, “because if it’s about Christianity versus Islam, we’ll lose.”
And on top of that, quotes him out of context. Oops, convenient of Gallagher to leave out the first part. Oh, accidental, I'm sure. (with sarcasm) Pres. Bush cut right to the heart of it, terrorism is wrong. Also, the anti-Christian sentiments in the West preclude a religious approach, at least at this time. Our lefties wouldn't have any of that, and Bush needs all of us to be on board, or as many as possible. The Muslims terrorists screeching on TV are not shy about their 'annihilate all' dreams. But shhhh, don't tell the lefties, who apparently think they are somehow excluded from the murderous rage of terrorists.
Timing is of the utmost importance in this battle. There is NO doubt that the vast majority of those calling themselves Christians are NOT ready to make this a religious war. Most understand nothing of Islam or its founder.
For the war you wish for MUCH more education about Mohammedanism is necessary. We are in tactical partnerships which are crucial to the war against Terrorists.
The US has never fought a war for religious reasons. Your attempt to pretend it has would only work on those knowing no history.
looks like Bush showed poor judgement in trusting him when the fellow betrays him less than 24 hours after making a promise.
Do you really believe that bush didn't want the whole dog and pony show broadcast far and wide?
He used the "off the record ploy" so he could deny anything that got bad press.
If it hadn't been for the fact that armstrong williams poped off about being on the payroll, this wouldn't have been necessary.
after all, why do you think limabaugh wasn't there?
I'm not talking battle - I'm talking politics.
I agree with you about troops in battle though. As for the Muslims on "your"side - remember - everybody has their own motivation. They may be on your side now - but its because your objectives and theirs happen to coincide for the moment.
The future is a different story.
Changing allegiances in war and politics - especially in the middle east - is the rule rather than exception.
No, we won't. Bush is DEAD wrong here. Christians can kill a billion muslims a lot faster than they could return the favor.
I don't consider myself a fringe character. I know of lots of people who agree with me about Muslims.
As for the President, I hope he has the intellegence to defer to the military experts in the field and not try to micromanage battles - thats what screwed up Viet Nam.
As for their overall strategy in the Middle East - only time will tell and I hope they are successful. Our existence depends on it. But it deosn't mean I have to be mental automaton and go along with everything the government says about anything. That doesn't make me a traitor and it certainly doesn't make me a liberal since my views are generally to the right of the administration's - when they don't coincide.
We didn't pulverize the Afghans. They were our "allies".
We DID pulverize the Iraqis. The response was remarkable.
The Iranians stopped talking about the Great White Satan and Khadaffy came clean about his weapons program. Everybody was afraid the second shoe was going to fall.
It should have.
An interesting point.
There are about 50 or so nuclear weapons in (argueably) Muslim hands, in Pakistan. Pakistan, for better or worse, depending on your point of view, is led by a dictator who's not down with the jihad. At all.
There are tens of thousands of nuclear weapons in (argueably) Christian hands, in the U.S., Russia, France, and the U.K. There are also a few hundred in (arguably) Communist hands, in China and North Korea, as as well a few hundred more in the hands of the Indians.
From that perspective, it wouldn't be much of a fight.
Salafism is a modern movement in Sunni Islam, supported by the Saudi royal family, and spread by their funding of mosques throughout the world, and giving away free copies of the Koran with commentary that support this ideology.
Bin Laden is an extreme practitioner of Salafiyyah but he's not at all inconsistent with their goals.
The "moderate" Salafis advise not using violence and terror to achieve their goals, because they are outnumbered, except in the ummah, where the goal of reuniting the Caliphate is the goal. This is Bin Laden's goal, this is Al Sadr's goal, this is Amadinejad's goal, this is the goal of the Saudi royal family.
The only thing they disagree about is who gets to be the Caliph, and which version of Islam gets to be on top.
As long as Muslims are fighting Muslims, we have less to worry about than if they ever unite. Don't kid yourself, they will probably overcome their divisions within your lifetime.
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.