[over3Owithabrain]

Why wouldn't Ferraro, a big government liberal, love the speech? Bush threw everything in there but the kitchen sink. I loved his war message, but the longer he talked, the more the federal government grew. And why do we have to exclude Christianity and Judaism from direct references in political speech, but Islam got effervescent praise from W, as if all that is good stemmed from Mohammed? Way too much butt kissing and pandering in this speech - it ruined it for me. Yes, I'll support Bush as a better alternative to the dreaded Dems, but I'm disappointed in his overall agenda. C'mon fellow conservatives - more homes for minorities, protecting all citizens from bad investments, free prescriptions for all old folks, happy with a tiny tax cut, another Peace Corps that caters to Islam (as if they want our infidel help). Lesser of two evils, I suppose...

[Brimack34]

Ferraldo is no different than Cliff only nicer. She is barf to me.

[BJClinton]

Lesser of two evils, I suppose...

Definately. But, let's see what happens with a Republican House and Senate, it may get better.

[Fury]

GW is smart like a fox. He knows what he is doing. Beating the Dems at their own game. Taking away their momentum. Many of these programs will not be the big government entitlements some thing. I expect programs will be consolidated, rates of growth set lower than expected. It will take time, but I believe GW is on the right path...

[Amore]

Reluctantly, I pretty much agree.

[Southern Federalist]

This is the sum total of Bush's references to Islam as a religion in the speech (other references were to the Islamic countries, not the religion):

All fathers and mothers, in all societies, want their children to be educated, and live free from poverty and violence. No people on Earth yearn to be oppressed, or aspire to servitude, or eagerly await the midnight knock of the secret police.

If anyone doubts this, let them look to Afghanistan, where the Islamic "street" greeted the fall of tyranny with song and celebration. Let the skeptics look to Islam's own rich history, with its centuries of learning, and tolerance and progress. America will lead by defending liberty and justice because they are right and true and unchanging for all people everywhere. (Applause.)

As far as I can tell, this is a reference to Islam's past, which was sometimes better than its present. It was quite different from the "Islam means peace" business. I think some of the criticism from people like Dan Pipes that the President has no business setting up as an Islamic theologian has gotten through.

In context, he was not so much praising Islam as proclaiming the universality of the principles of liberty and justice - you know, those "self-evident truths". That is an appropriate job for the president. He was saying that these liberty and justice are relevant to all people, they aren't just western cultural constructs, and that means Muslims too, and if you doubt it, look at the celebration of the end of tyrrany in Kabul and look back at the best days of Islam.

In any event, I don't think that that one sentence constitutes "effervescent praise" of Islam. I don't believe it's possible, actually, to effervesce in one sentence.