Posted on 10/12/2007 12:48:13 AM PDT by neverdem
In the spin room after the Republican debate on Tuesday evening in Dearborn, Mich., a reporter from the Arab-American News asked Ron Paul what he thought of the term "Islamic fascism."
"It's a false term to make people think we're fighting Hitler," Paul responded. "It's war propaganda designed to generate fear so that the war has to be spread."
Now, when Paul asserts that the war in Iraq is a mistake that is bankrupting America, he's making a serious argument which current polls suggest a majority of Americans agree with -- though not most Republicans. When he says 9/11 was the result of "blowback" from decades of U.S. foreign policy abroad, he's on somewhat more precarious ground, but at least there is still some shred of intellectual basis for his view -- albeit a Chomskyite one.
But when Paul says that the term "Islamic fascism" (or, for the purpose of discussion, its synonymous twin, "Islamofascism") is propaganda designed to spread war, he's veered off into the sort of paranoid fringe kookiness that keeps his campaign relegated to a side-show novelty act.
The term "Islamic fascism" was popularized, though not coined, by Christopher Hitchens, who wrote in the aftermath of September 11 that the attacks represented "fascism with an Islamic face" - which was itself a play off of previous variations of the same phrase. Long known for his Marxist beliefs, Hitchens, who supported the invasion of Iraq, has since fallen out of favor with the left. But that hardly makes him a propagandist who uses the term with the intent of "generating fear" and trying to spread war.
Indeed, as William Safire pointed out last year, since 9/11 the Bush administration has gone out of its way to find a label for the threat behind the...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Exactly....Paul should realize that Islamo-fascism is alive and well in the Middle East. Just a few examples include Saudi Arabia (where Chrisianity is banned), Egypt (where Christians are attacked on a daily basis), Uzbekistan (where demonstrators are shot down), Afghanistan (where Christians are expelled), and Pakistan.
Ooops, scratch that I should have said that these are emerging democracies supported by our tax dollars and, of course, anyone who doesn't know this should be "vetted" out of the debates, right?
Exactly....Paul should realize that Islamo-fascism is alive and well in the Middle East. Just a few examples include Saudi Arabia (where Chrisianity is banned), Egypt (where Christians are attacked on a daily basis), Uzbekistan (where demonstrators are shot down), Afghanistan (where Christians are expelled), and Pakistan.
Ooops, scratch that I should have said that these are emerging democracies supported by our tax dollars and, of course, anyone who doesn't know this should be "vetted" out of the debates, right?
Actually, that definition better fits more nationalist oriented states Egypt, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia than a missionary Islamic state such as Iran...so if Paul is "wrong" he is only wrong in not calling these states Islamofascist (that is if your defnition is accurate).
Senators don't get to vote to impeach. That is the job of the House of Representatives.
Thompson voted to convict and remove Clinton from office on the charge of obstruction of justice.
“...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley’s broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else... almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’.” -George Orwell 1944
Great quotation. Completely agree. The word fascist has become entirely meaningless. Paul was right to question it, esepcially nobody who trumpets the term uses it for Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, which are often just as repressive toward minorities.
>>>That being said, watching him talk about the war against Islamo-fascism is painful. He has blamed the US for “them” hating us, he has no understanding that this Islamist movement is trans national, very real, and very determined to enslave everyone else to their ideology with force. In an age of nuclear, biological, and other weapons that they desire to inflict pain on the world, his views are really naive at best.
Sadly, it looks like Dr. Paul needs to read “America Alone” by Mark Steyn, so he can see the international and demographic dimension of this Islamic conquest.
Still, Dr. Paul is one of the VERY FEW Republican candidates that is SERIOUSLY against illegal immigration—a critical component to win Republican votes. The U.S. has indeed been heavy-handed in the MidEast (to protect our oil source), but the international scope of the Islamic aggression and depravity far transcends Dr. Paul’s assertions.
In terms of politics, the GOP functionaries can only put up loser-Dole like characters: those who are faithful but uninspiring to the voters. Empty-suited politicians, not leaders.
There’s no mechanism (because of the ingrained GOP functionaries beholden to the current or past politicians) to bring up fresh candidates who can win. If the GOP can’t produce a non-RINO, anti-illegal, conservative candidate in this election, the GOP will follow the age-old pattern of a massive and cleansing defeat in order to produce the winning candidate four or eight years later.
“Less Bad” than the Democrat is not a winning strategy to values voters.
The Islamic facists want the whole world to follow their form of government. By the way, that's exactly what Hitler was trying to achieve as well.
Islamic facists is the perfect description of them, and Paul was wrong.
I stand corrected. An odd vote, but at least he got one right, which means he isn’t as much of a wuss as I thought. I was mislead by Ann Coulter’s latest column.
But what about his failure to get to the bottom of the Clinton/Red Chinese campaign finance schemes? Wasn’t he the Chair of the investigating committee? Did he even issue any subpoenas?
Touche. Again in my defense I plead that I was mislead by Ann Coulter’s latest column.
Fine....but then don’t quote your dictionary because it doesn’t say anything of the sort. The definition from the dictionary you quote describes fascism as a nationalist or racial movement. Those words apply to the more nationalism and/or racism of Hitler, Mubarik, etc. but not to any movement that wants to impose a single religion on the entire world. BTW, there is no evidence that Hitler (unlike Stalin) particularly cared what form of government other countries, such as Bolivia, followed. His main focus was on German domination of Europe.
Yep, and Islamic facists want a one world government, all run just like Afghanistan used to be.
Hitler was not interested in a “one world” government, neither was Mussolini or Tojo. That movement better applies to Stalin and even he was more of a natioanlist.
No problem. I actually like Coulter and have bought several of her books. When she has her facts right she is both devastatingly effective and hilarious.
I’m not turning on her with my criticism, I’m simply disappointed in her this time. We all want someone willing to stand up and fight the good fight, which she does, but we must insist it be done with the facts and truth.
For the record, I’m not yet sold on Fred Thompson, or any other candidate. I have read his analysis and explanation of his impeachment votes, I understand it, and I disagree with him and think he was simply wrong on his not-guilty perjury vote.
It’s just unfortunate that while Ann Coulter’s opinion of his votes is right, her arguments are wrong. /grin
Far from wussy. Did you see how fast he slammed Chris the other day? No delay time whatsoever when he told Chris he didn't care about his opinion, something to that effect, after Chris jokingly chided Fred for elaborating on one of his answers. Fastest gun in the west.
"But what about his failure . . . "
Tell ya what. Why don't you make a list all his failures not to do something and I will address those I'm familiar with. That way we can get 'er done all at one time.
I keep waiting for the REAL Republican candidate to stand up...
Thompson could not "vote to impeach" Clinton. He was a Senator.
You would rather play games with semantics than address the real issue, which is that Ron Paul is unfit to be president because he is blind to the danger that radical Islam poses to the West. Whether or not the jihadists who want to impose Islamic law on the entire world are actually fascists is really besides the point. Paul is hopelessly naive if he believes that the jihadists will leave us alone if we pull out of the Middle East and hide behind our borders. This alone disqualifies him to be president.
I can't help titles.
Your screen name is “neverdem”... well, the Dems over on “Democratic Underwear” are all rejoicing today at Al Gore’s trifecta - - Oscar, Emmy and Nobel and here you are on FR sliming the cleanest and best of all the GOP candidates! Ironic timing. Sad, too...
I think Dr. Paul's foreign policy prescriptions are willfully blind.
Are you REALLY saying that Hitler's intent wasn't to take over the world? Is that what you are REALLY saying?????
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.