Posted on 07/04/2007 9:09:03 AM PDT by SJackson
Exactly 50 years later, standing shoeless, George W. Bush rededicated the center last week. His 1,600-word speech also praised medieval Islamic culture ("We come to express our appreciation for a faith that has enriched civilization for centuries"), but he knew a mosque from a church and he had more on the agenda than flattery.
Most arresting, surely, was his statement that "I have invested the heart of my presidency in helping Muslims fight terrorism, and claim their liberty, and find their own unique paths to prosperity and peace." This cri du coeur signaled how Mr. Bush understands to what extent actions by Muslims will define his legacy.
Should they heed his dream "and find their own unique paths to prosperity and peace," then his presidency, however ravaged it may look at the moment, will be vindicated. As with Harry S Truman, historians will acknowledge that he saw further than his contemporaries. Should Muslims, however, be "left behind in the global movement toward prosperity and freedom," historians will likely judge his two terms as harshly as his fellow Americans do today.
Of course, how Muslims fare depends in large part on the future course of radical Islam, which in turn depends in some part on its understanding by the American president. Over the years, Mr. Bush has generally shown an increased understanding of this topic. He started with platitudinous, apologetic references to Islam as the "religion of peace," using this phrase as late as 2006. He early on even lectured Muslims on the true nature of their religion, a presumptuous ambition that prompted me in 2001 to dub him "Imam Bush."
As his understanding grew, Mr. Bush spoke of the caliphate, "Islamic extremism" and "Islamofacism." What euphemistically he called the "war on terror" in 2001, by 2006 he referred to with the hard-hitting "war with Islamic fascists." Things were looking up. Perhaps official Washington did understand the threat, after all.
But such analyses roused Muslim opposition and, as he approaches his political twilight, Mr. Bush has retreated to safer ground, reverting last week to decayed tropes that tiptoe around any mention of Islam. Instead, he spoke inelegantly of "the great struggle against extremism that is now playing out across the broader Middle East" and vaguely of "a group of extremists who seek to use religion as a path to power and a means of domination."
Worse, the speech drum-rolled the appointment of a U.S. special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, directing this envoy to "listen to and learn from" his Muslim counterparts. But the OIC is a Saudi-sponsored organization promoting the Wahhabi agenda under the trappings of a Muslim-only United Nations. As counterterrorism specialist Steven Emerson has noted, Bush's dismal initiative stands in "complete ignorance of the rampant radicalism, pro-terrorist, and anti-American sentiments routinely found in statements by the OIC and its leaders."
Adding to the event's accommodationist tone, some of the president's top female aides, including Frances Townsend and Karen Hughes, wore makeshift hijabs as they listened to him in the audience.
Sitting in the front row at the Islamic Center on June 27, 2007, senior Bush administration staffers Frances Townsend (left) and Karen Hughes wore makeshift hijabs.
In brief, it feels like "déjà vu all over again." As columnist Diana West puts it, "Nearly six years after September 11 nearly six years after first visiting the Islamic Center and proclaiming Islam is peace' Mr. Bush has learned nothing." But we now harbor fewer hopes than in 2001 that he still can learn, absorb, and reflect an understanding of the enemy's Islamist nature.
Concluding that he basically has failed to engage this central issue, we instead must look to Mr. Bush's potential successors and look for them to return to his occasional robustness, again taking up those difficult concepts of Islamic extremism, Shari'a, and the caliphate. Several Republicans Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and (above all) Fred Thompson are doing just that. Democratic candidates, unfortunately, prefer to remain almost completely silent on this topic.
Almost 30 years after Islamists first attacked Americans, and on the eve of three major attempted terrorist attacks in Great Britain, the president's speech reveals how confused Washington remains.
Bush can take a lesson from this man, he shows the proper degree of decorum and respect in a mosk.
Post #17 is so sweet
If your fighting a World War against Islam fanatics; you just DON’T GO to one of their events. The symbolism of this is downright scumballistic. You send brave men and women who are all volunteers to fight and die and you go sucking up to the very demonic institution that is the root cause of their deaths and maiming? Would Truman have whored himself to be speak at a shinto shrine during the War in the Pacific? Hell FREEKin NO! On the 4th of July to even hear this treachery makes me sick to my stomach!!
Imagine the shame they feel, putting trust in the President even though they know, deep down, they are doing the wrong thing.
No. It's funny for about 20 seconds, but he's doing more harm than good. He makes Muslims look good by comparison.
The President finally explains what he means by the remark, and the author removes the context.
End of list.
Don't forget that they also gave us the
NEVER forget that “Clinton knew what [who] he was doing”, too.
Knowing what you are doing, and doing the right things are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but neither are they necessarily the same.
Cowering Clueless enabler.
I don’t see Reagan, or his friend John Wayne for that matter, holding hands with the enemy. This photo does not show any strength for a world leader. Wait a minute, maybe GWB does not want to be seen as a leader. He does bow to the throne of the global GDP, while throwing the US and it’s rich heritage and giving citizens to the lions.
Now it makes sense.
I think the Muslims gave us the number “Zero”.
Other than that, they’ve contributed nothing but an awful lot of misery, mayhem, and mass murder.
This is not Japan, who surrendered. The Muslims will continue to attack, thanks to GWB’s global agenda.
well said
If he was throwing babies into the street and running over them with a truck, then maybe he would be making Muslims look good by comparison.
Well, actually, no. Muslims have done worse than that many times over but it would be a closer comparison.
"You shall know them by their fruits" is one of the wisest things ever said. If we looked at the fruits of men, instead of their rhetoric and appearance, we would see more clearly and would not be deceived so easily.
These Muslims look good to you? Did you look at the photos of the doctors in London recently, the ones who were planning to burn, maim and kill as many people, mostly women, as they could? The nice doctors doing good for people. Did they look good to you?
Yes, we should be nicer and more polite else we will be thought of poorly when compared to Muslims.
Nope they stole it from the ancient Greeks and Hindus. Throughout history Islam has been a retrograde force, it merely loots the corpses of civilizations it destroys.
Second, I refuse to believe that, just because they didn't have a separate symbol for it, that Greeks and Romans never got around to asking, "If I have 5 olives and give Alexander 3, and give Titus two, how many do I have left?"
What is significant is decimal notation, and different fish entirely.
Reagan left Lebanon after our Marines were murdered.
John Wayne was a movie actor.
Our current President fights a WOT around the globe.
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.