Replies

I posted this in May of this year. I believe it represents the president's private thinking on Islam. Of course, as president, he can never express it nor should he.

See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/687015/posts

Bush Middle East Policy Explained

Are you having a difficult time in understanding the Bush administration's Middle East policy? You are not alone, my friend. Many people across the political spectrum just don't get it either. They see it as inconsistent, flip/flop, disjointed, etc. Well, I see it for the brilliance that it is. Allow me to explain.

Bush is walking a tightrope between our true desire to support Israel and the absolute necessity to appear objective to the Arab nations and Muslims, in general. Contrary to his public statements, Bush does not believe Islam is a religion of peace. While he sees the spread of Islam as a great concern, he also understands that an "us versus them" tact will only exacerbate a very serious problem and subject all free nations of the world to the relentless terrorist attacks that Israel continues to face. Sometimes our policy appears very inconsistent in our support of Israel, but trust that Bush will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our only true ally in the region if push comes to shove.

In truth, Islam is indefensible as a faith- a complete sham foisted on a simple people, 800 million of whom can't read the Quran in the only language considered valid- Arabic (conveniently Mohammed's own dialect, no less). Mohammed was a violent, epileptic fit-inspired, plagiarizing, male chauvinistic, racist black slave holding (this will surprise the Black Muslims), child molester (Aisha, age 9) with an insatiable thirst for power, women, fame, and fortune and certainly no prophet of God.

Bush understands that only a gradual education of the Muslim masses will turn the tide. To do this, we cannot close our borders to immigrants from Muslim nations as many have called for, but invite them and expose them to a truly free nation founded on Judeo-Christian values and principles (well, it used to be before the liberals started mucking with things). We literally have to love them into the freedoms of democracy, capitalism, and the one true God.

Bush has been playing the events since 9/11 strategically correct by applying the principles of Dale Carnegie as written in How to Win Friends and Influence People. He has 1) made Arabs/Muslims feel important and has done so in a sincere manner, 2) shown respect for their opinions, 3) tried honestly to see things from their point of view, 4) been sympathetic with their ideas and desires, 5) appealed to their nobler motives, 6) thrown down challenges, 7) given praise and honest appreciation, 8) called attention to their mistakes indirectly, 9) let them save face, 10) praised their slightest improvements, 11) give them a fine reputation to live up to, 12) made them believe that any deficiencies in their behavior are easy to correct, and 13) avoided direct conflict as much as humanly possible.

Bush is not yielding to the Arab nations for their oil, as many believe. Our own technology will soon take us beyond the need for their oil. We will be left with the same dilemma- an ever-growing group of people that are being taught through their faith that those who reject Islam should be slaughtered. Bush is honestly trying to save them from themselves and the rest of us in the process. He understands that coalition forces cannot win an "us versus them" conflict without killing millions of innocent Muslims who blindly follow the teachings of Islam unto death. Until such time as Arab nations and Muslims mature spiritually, intellectually, economically, and politically this tact is a necessity. Bush is a saint with the wisdom of Solomon. Support him with your words and prayers!

I'm not going to rip your offering to shreds, but I do have some problems with it. Number one, I can't believe a strategy that sees ten million moslems immigrated to the US is going to influence 800 million to live by humane policies. The numbers just don't support that theory. There will be between 50 and 100 million Moslem children born in the next five years. They will not live in the US and will be taught by parents and school systems very skeptical of the US.

I must also say, that when you want your policies to be understood, you have to explain them in a clear, firm and completely understood manner. You can't tiptoe through the toolies and hope that your ideals will win out.

Bush is human. Humans do make mistakes. Bush is no different than other humans in that respect. I don't think my comments above were a damning to him. They were reasoned and accurate from my point of view.

I am sorry that I am unable to buy off on the version you posted, but it was interesting reading. However, I don't have a problem with praying for him or supporting him when I can.

Bush has been playing the events since 9/11 strategically correct by applying the principles of Dale Carnegie as written in How to Win Friends and Influence People.

Why in God's name would anyone want to reach out to these vermin, to try to "understand them" and see things from their point of view? These filthy b st rds murdered 4,000 of our countrymen for no appreciable reason.

You don't negotiate with a cancer. And you certainly don't try to win its friendship!

There was a quote some months ago that said something to the effect that Muslims children 1,000 years from now should be told the story of these days, the horrors of the Dark Times, when steel angels rained down spears of fire upon the land. A thousand years from now, the word "America" should strike terror into the hearts of Muslims.

That is the way to deal with our enemies. Leave the touchy-feely stuff to Sally Jesse Raphael.

Thanks, Rockitz, for a thoughtful and well-put theory.

Condemning communism or nazis as "evil" is one thing -- those are political movements. But to condemn a fairly ancient religion that has millions of followers around the world, and in particular one which is a conversion-of-choice for many Americans of African descent (I believe as a means of further segregating themselves from/protesting mainstream America and to emphasize their separate identity as "blacks"), would be a really, really stupid thing for ANY president of the United States to do.

Most of us here (I include myself) think that Islam is a false religion of violence and lust, a dangerous threat best judged by its fruit -- look at the state of misery and turmoil in Islamic nations today. It's within the perameters of preachers like Robertson and Graham to condemn such a religion on a national scale; Christianity in America has many followers of African descent, and they would not take offense. But if the President of the United States were to make the same declaration, Americans of African descent who have, and even many who have not, converted to Islam, would be called to arms!!! -- and as well, many Americans and the world would RIGHTLY be contemptuous of such a statement from a political leader. It is not a President's job to condemn religions, even when they are political theocracies as is Islam. So I think Bush is being smart, and I think Rockitz has a good view of how and why.

God bless Dubya with wisdom, popularity, and victory!

Finfreak

I had a very long post making a answer to all your points and it was just too long.

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.