Posted on 11/13/2002 4:24:18 PM PST by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Wednesday took on the Christian right core of his political base, denouncing anti-Islamic remarks made by religious leaders including evangelist Pat Robertson.
Bush said such anti-Islamic comments were at odds with the views of most Americans.
"Some of the comments that have been uttered about Islam do not reflect the sentiments of my government or the sentiments of most Americans," Bush told reporters as he began a meeting with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
"By far, the vast majority of American citizens respect the Islamic people and the Muslim faith. After all, there are millions of peaceful-loving Muslim Americans," Bush said.
"Ours is a country based upon tolerance ... And we're not going to let the war on terror or terrorists cause us to change our values."
Bush did not identify conservative Christian leaders as his target, but White House officials said he was prompted by the anti-Islamic remarks of some of them, particularly religious broadcaster Pat Robertson, who reportedly said this week Muslims were "worse than the Nazis."
"He (Bush) wanted a clear statement," a senior White House official said.
Spokeswoman Angell Watts of Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network said she had no immediate comment.
A representative of a Muslim-American civil rights group, which had stepped up calls for Bush to repudiate such remarks, welcomed Bush's words.
"Obviously, we'd like to hear him repudiate these people by name, but we appreciate that he's moving in that direction," said Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
"It's encouraging to see that the president is finally addressing the issue of Islamophobia in America by addressing a specific attacks on Islam. This is a new stance, and it's one that we would encourage and support," Hooper said.
BID TO DISCOURAGE BACKLASH
Bush's efforts to discourage a backlash over the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, which were blamed on Islamic militant Osama bin Laden, have come increasingly into conflict with antipathy to Islam shown by some conservative Christians, a core of his support.
Robertson, a popular conservative commentator who sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1988, was criticized by CAIR and the American Jewish Committee for reportedly saying on his network Monday, "Adolf Hitler was bad, but what the Muslims want to do to the Jews is worse."
Jerry Falwell, a Baptist minister and leading voice of the Christian right, in an October television interview described the prophet Mohammad as a "terrorist."
Evangelist Franklin Graham, who gave the sermon at Bush's inaugural service in 2001, has also been criticized for comments on Islam. Asked about Bush's comments on Wednesday, Graham spokesman Mark DeMoss said Graham was traveling abroad.
"He has not added to any comment he's made on the subject in months, because he's getting tired of getting asked about it, and any time he answers about it he gives the impression he's crusading on this issue and he's not," DeMoss said.
The extremists who murdered 4,000 American citizens on Sept. 11. And anyone who helps them. And anyone who is too vocally sympathetic to them. And anyone who is likely to do likewise. And anyone who supports the Oakland Raiders.
Being the most macho guy on the block might be carthetic, but it is a public policy roadmap to Erewon at best, and probably something worse.
Yes, it might even be cathartic. Appeasment is a public policy roadmap to Vichy.
Bedtime for me. Au revoir, Monsieur Petain.
I will say this - George Bush was not elected to be the savior of the Islamic world. He was elected to be the President of the United States and I do not believe ever in the history of the world, a war has been won by 'loving' - or by appeasment.
In my opinion, President Bush has ignored and threatened the American people while doing the Dale Carnegie, 'positive reinforcement' route with the Muslims. Have we seen any improvement in a year? No, now they have gotten President Bush to turn on the Christian religion to keep from offending them. How long before we know his approach is working - how many years - how much will be left of this country - and what happens if his experiment doesn't work?
Saint? Well, only God knows - but count me as a skeptic
Now you are saying in order to win this war - and he has called it a war - we must bring our enemy into our bosom so we can love and understand them - then we will not have to kill them. WEll, you are right on one account, we won't have to kill them - we will be the ones who are killed. 'You knew I was a snake when you put me in your pocket'.
Now no offense, call me crazy but I don't want Dale Carnegie or Mr. Rogers, or a saint leading this nation into battle - I vote for a Patton, MacArthur, Stormin' Norman, or someone of their ilk.
Spencer believes the U.S. is not prepared to fight a war on terrorism because the nation fails to understand the true nature of Islam. says Robert Spencer,here author of Islam Unveiled We are at WAR with ISLAM, the sooner we ACCEPT the TRUTH the sooner we will WIN! Islam is the enemy and terror is a bi-product of this enemy we face. The sooner we accept who the enemy is the way to victory will become clear. said TLBSHOW 4/11/2002
Some advice- don't go into politics, business, or diplomacy. You'll be eaten alive.
Ann Coulter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/744663/posts?page=68
You've been losing me post after post until you mentioned the Raiders. Now there's a plan I can get behind.
Seriously, while I don't care for your solutions, I agree with you on the problem. Islam is the problem. Like it or not rabid hate-filled anti-American sentiment isn't growing in most of the world, except for Islamic nations. Oh sure, there's some Euro-whining, some Chinese posturing etc., but I see no group outside of Islam hell bent on our destruction.
That being said, I realize that not all muslims are inclined to commit acts of violence against us or anyone else. Now, I'm a hardass in that I really don't give a flying ---- about what happens in other countries. If it comes to war and collatoral damage in Islamic nations runs high, I'll sleep like a baby.
However, I have to take a different tack on American citizens who happen to be Muslim, especiallly sovereign citizens as opposed to naturalized citizens. For them, we can only judge (in the legal sense involving punative action) them individually, by their individual actions. Any action taken against an American for practicing the "wrong" religion, is simply unamerican. So long as an citizen in this country breaks no laws, we have no choice, and should have no choice but to leave that citizen unmolested no matter what fellow believers in his religion have done.
One final caveat. I can see no reason why in these dangerous times why more resources can't be diverted to keeping American citizens who happen to be Muslim under closer scrutiny. No freedom is lost, and no liberty infringed by keeping tabs on potential threats. If the threat never materializes, good on that muslim. No harm done, and maybe we'll catch the threats that do materialize. It's one thing to honorably grant a muslim citizen the benefit of the doubt that he means no harm, but foolish to trust in it blindly.
Surely we can keep the Muslim threat amongst us in check without sweeping the innocent out with the guilty. This will probably teach me to prattle on at 2am, but that's the way I see it at this point in time. My position has changed remarkably in the course of a year. Maybe this time next year I will no longer believe it possible to safeguard the innocent Muslim citizen and ensure our safety at the same time. I hope that's not the case.
In your pea-brain, and in the minds of some others around here, maybe.
But the United States is fighting terrorists, not a religion.
For the record, I don't think there should be any collective STATE action taken against American Muslims. But I consider it thoroughly fitting and proper for citizens to institute INDIVIDUAL action against them in the form of social ostracism, segregation, and overt hostility where it is warranted. The goal is to let Muslims know that since their religion dictates that they destroy us, we don't trust them. There's little I can do about their being here, but I don't have to rush to embrace them.
I don't have to paint my well-founded antipathy with a patina of soothing platitudes. I'm not the president.
I honestly don't know what to think of some of President Bush's actions. While I agree we should have gone to Afghanistan - but why did we not take precautions here at home? And we did not - there is no way you can say we did. He did not close the borders - he just allowed his INS head to tell the BP to 'Shut UP and TAke It'. He still played footsy with Fox and was either unwilling or afraid to close the borders to protect us. You just don't stir up a hornet's nest like the Al Queda and then leave your doors and windows open. That is what he did. He continued to let men from ME come in to take 'flying lessons'. Just now he is proposing to fingerprint ME folks coming into this country!! He was right going to Afghanistan - but he did not do what was needed to protect this country. There was danger from there, but there was and is danger right here and they are still coming. The little 1 at a time - 5 at a time, etc. just will not get the job done. It will take years at that rate. I will bet more are coming each day than he is catching.
I know he is reshuffling the INS, etc. - but that will take a lot of time to get it going once it is rearranged. We have adequate laws in place to protect us now. Just use them. But, personally, I believe the reshuffling, etc., is just a smokescreen. I think theya re worried because some of the American people can see he is not enforcing the law, but disregarding the law. Now if he can rearrange the agencies, it will take some time before people we be able to see just how little is being done there.
As far as Iraq - I don't know exactly what he is doing, I, just like everyone else, has to pray he knows what he is doing and it is for a good reason and gets the job done.]
[ He is not dissing Christians. I agree with Pat Robertson in principle, but by comparing all muslims to nazis, he didn't do any better than the demoRATS calling Republicans...well take your pick... Instead, he should have been specific about some of the stuff that's in the Koran...you know...specific TRUTHS!! As it is, he put President Bush in a bind because if he doesn't say anything, it's as if he agrees with that name calling.]
No he did not have to say anything. It is a religious matter - not a political matter. He did diss the Chritians - there is no way around it. Has he mentioned to the Muslims they have not come out in force to side with America? NO! All he has done is treat the American people to 'tolerance' lessons and threats if they dare do anything - and 'anything' might just mean speaking out. No, it was not the President's place to get involved in a religious issue. Not at all- not at all. Once again, he has shown that the Americans, especially the conservative and especially the Christians do not matter. It is just that simple to me.
[Another point: for those who want to kill all muslims because they're just "trash", I'm glad Jesus Christ didn't feel that way, because in his eyes we were trash and he still did the ultimate sacrifice to redeem us. We should on the other hand stand up very firmly to radical Islam and believe them when they say they want to kill all infidels. I speak from experience as I'm from the Middle East.]
I don't know for sure, but I don't think either of these two ministers suggested we should kill all of them. Am I wrong? I know I didn't. I have no problem with redeeming the Islamic people or anyone else. But that is not the job of the President of the United States. He is not our religious figurehead, nor is he our Sunday School teacher. He needs to stay the heck out of religious matters and that is just what this was. Since youa re from the Middle East - I assume you do have a bit of a prejudiced view of things as I do since I am from America. There is no hatred in my heart for anyone - but there is anger, fear and distrust. It is just folly to suppose that you can continue to disregard the safety and wishes of the people of your own country and still be respected as a leader of that country.
Now someone called President Bush a saint. Believe me a saint doesn't get to be President of the US and that kind of attitude frightens me. It is so dangerous.
[Also, while trying to convert muslims, just remember that their Koran says that any muslim that converts away from Islam should be killed. Don't you love that freedom of choice? I think they should wonder why their God would have Mohammad write stuff like that; I mean why give human beings the opportunity to chose if that's the way he wants it?!!]
I have no problem with anyone believing anything they choose. That is their choice. It is not President Bush's job to convert them. Just to see that this country is protected so it can prosper. Anything else is not in his contract. As a Christian, if he wants to do what he can personally, fine, but as a President stay out of it. Now isn't it odd that he can use his office as President to chastise Christians for their speech about another religion - yet he is unwilling to use that same office to speak out against abortion?
You say you are from the ME. What nationality are you - or should I say what ethnicity are you? What have to tapdance around words these days - lest we offend someone and I do not intend to be offensive. How long have you been in America? I am just trying to see why our attitudes are so different.
An excellent quote, worth reposting --
"The scalpel of the abortionist is the sword of Islam." -- freeper Loyalist
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.