Worry about Mr. Abdul Rahman and less so how the president may feel embarrassed that his policy may result in a Christian's martyrdom.
Bush never once mention the hundreds of Churches and Christians Kosovo Muslims destroyed on his watch - maybe it is time he was embarrassed a little bit and he take back his words that "Islam is a Religion of Peace".
Or is confronting Bush on this verbotten party policy because he is the Dear Leader?
George Bush said "It is deeply troubling that a country we helped liberate is - would hold a person to account because they chose a particular religion over another."
In January 2004, Bush had this to say about Afghanistan:
"We’re making good progress, we really are, in parts of the world. Afghanistan has now got a constitution which talks about freedom of religion and talks about women’s rights."
What I find amazing about this is that it's suddenly Bush finds the situation in Afghanistan 'troubling'. That is embarrassing.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, never thought a Moose would actually go for the Gospel? Fooled you, Jorge.
In January 2004, Bush had this to say about Afghanistan:
"We're making good progress, we really are, in parts of the world. Afghanistan has now got a constitution which talks about freedom of religion and talks about women's rights."
"Talk is cheap."
Understood that this stuff goes on in other countries, but the US took an active role in setting THIS country up, and President Bush said (see above) about it.
He set an expectation. He could have set it lower. That reasonable people are "disappointed" (to put it very mildly) should not come as a surpise to ANYBODY.
Re-read my post. I said it was amazing that suddenly the MSM discovered Christian persecution....and believe me bud I know a heck of a lot more about it than you do....unless you've spent more time in pakistan, egypt and other mid-east crapholes than I have.
And that's all it does George. Talk. Why? Because conservatives, not Republicans, have been stating for some time that a Western form of democracy will not fly in these nations. It has nothing to do with the quality of the people, their race, or anything of the sort. It has to do with the fact that the religion they choose to follow is incompatible with western ideals or forms of government. You can't 'spread democracy' in regions that don't want democracy, no matter how many rigged polls show the 'majority' of the people want it. They see the elections and all the other nonsense only as a way to get forces out of their nation. Then they will use those purple fingers to elect a theocracy. And within a generation, the Iraq/Iran relations will be much closer to final unification.
Expect issues like this to arise within Iraq by the end of the decade, if not sooner. Unfortunately my original timetable idea of theocracy in Iraq may have to be pushed up by 10-15 years. We could have a Persian superstate within our lifetimes.
His post 18 to me in the thread "Democratic Apostasy: The Martyrdom of Abdul Rahman
The first four paragraphs are exactly the same. Oopsies!