Redstate

Not if he is offering to cut taxes. Even they have their limits.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

has done everything possible to support OBL's goals over the last few years. They have been an undending source of help to his cause. And you're absolutely right, they are disgusting. And, they are the "enemies...domestic" refered to in the founder's writings.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

What is bin Laden's greatest propaganda tool? What his strongest recruiting rallying point?

I'll tell you. From the NIE last summer:

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.
• The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

How have the Democrats "done everything possible to support OBL's goals?" It was not them who started this war, it was not them who disastrously mishandled the aftermath, and it was not them who have allowed the Iraqi jihadists to perceive themselves as victorious.

“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” Mark Twain

If OBL wasn't using "Iraq" as a recruiting tool he'd be using something else. The best part of recruiting for Iraq is that we get to kill them there, not here.

If you think that the anti-American and anti-military drumbeat that have come from Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, Durbin and the rest of the elected Democratic Party elite isn't supporting aQ and OBL's goals, your head will never see sunlight.

In a civilized society the leadership of the Democratic Party would have been hung (following the appropriate trial) several years ago. They are utter, complete, disgusing filth. I'm hoping to live long enough to be able to urinate on their graves.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

but you left out Kerry and Kennedy, who IMO are always at the top of any list of Democrats who do not support America. But the rest of your message is outstanding.

I get tired of typing their accursed names. There are a bunch of others we could also add, but I tend to view bandwidth as a finite resource and I prefer not to waste it.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

How could you pick out that particular snippit from the NIE:

• The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

AND yet, you fail to pick out the relevant part about how OUR success against the jihadists in Iraq works against UBL and al Qaeda -- and terrorism in general?

The "cut-and-run" immediately Democrats have been trying for YEARS now to "inspire" the jihadists to vicory!

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

the US as a broken paper-tiger, unable to summon the national will to protect itself from the eventual caliphate. This perception was created by the Clinton (Bill) Administration and is being revived by the Congressional Democrats (and their allies in the MSM, and alternative press & blogosphere, the the odd, assorted lefty special interests).

as far as I am concerned is a capital offense. Few things degrade a discussion like cherry picking quotes to make a point. see below.

If, at some future time, you decide you have the ability to behave with a bit of integrity, click the contact button and make your case.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Don't you laugh at how the libnuts take every word of Bin Laden(The man that murdered 3,000 people 6 years ago.) as GOSPEL TRUTH ? How idiotic can you be to believe any given thing that comes out of a murderers mouth? It is sad that the left will stoop to such lows in search of some ounce of political gain.

Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite

...while reading Hismama been Layen's transcript from his last pronouncement some 3-years ago, it was hard to convince myself that it wasn't written by Dick Durbin or Chuckles Schumer - except for the multiple favorable references to religion, that is.

Sorry if this all hits too close to home, Maxie - but if I have to drive daily next to Suburu wagons with BusHitler bumperstickers on the roads of the Commonwealth, we can certainly make the apt comparison between the rhetoric of bin Laden and that of the political party that wants to hand him a strategic victory in the middle if Jihadistan.

Fair's fair, after all.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

I understand how the comparison could make you uncomfortable. I makes me uncomfortable.

What is insightful is that you apparently have no issue with the fact that bin Laden is parroting the Democrats but you do have an issue with pointing out that we have a political party whose objectives are virtually indistinguishable from al Qaeda.

If it really bothers you, door-butt-way out, etc.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

"What most people really object to when they object to a free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will. At the bottom of many criticisms of the market economy is really lack of belief in freedom itself."

-- Milton Friedman

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

I frankly do not care much for debates in which everyone agrees on everything.

We each stood up for our candidate in a vigorous debate so what more can you ask for.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

You can only have so many enemies take up your platform before people start to notice.

I don't know about that. The MSM does a fine impression of an ostrich. If the public never hears about it, did it really happen ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Everyone will cover it. The people do not need the MSM to lead them to the truth. UBL's words speak for themselves.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

but that didn't get on the news.

Only with a hard attack will this truth get out. Ads that make the Cleland ads look like kids sipping tea in the backyard.

The main difference between the Democrats and bin Laden is that the Democrats shave more often.

n/t

Are we SURE this wasn't Kos with a beard?

I haven't seen the tape. But if Osama looks taller than 5'2" and doesn't sound like Kermit the frog, then it's definately not Kos.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

ever!

Molon Labe!

------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.

-Edmund Burke

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

We need to give him press so we remember. Every time he surfaces, he brings back memories of a time when (almost) everyone understood the evil that is out there, and was prepared to do whatever it takes to defeat it. Too many are forgetting, or losing resolve.

He wants to influence our policies, but he will only influence us to do the opposite.

I hope he makes another video for release Sept. '08.

by Sept 08.

Sounds good. That should have been our first objective instead of running around from country to country.

By the way, if we always do the opposite of what he wants, aren't we setting ourselves up? I mean, all he has to do is tell us to do the opposite of what he wants, and he's got us right where he wants us. Oh, wait. We're already there!

He has you and most of the Democrat party where he wants you. On his side. There is no "US" anymore you idiot you have joined the dark side. Yea, I question your patriotism.

Exactly what makes me an idiot? Because I don't see things precisely the way you do? The dogma is dripping from your lips.

And, of course, it should go without saying that you have no right to question my patriotism, especially for the comments I made.

Have you given any thought to the fact that Osama could be quite happy with how things are going? Could it be that our strategies aren't the best? It's not enough to put full force behind your actions...you have to have the right actions to begin with. IF Iraq wasn't the right strategy (notice I say "if"), then we should consider if another strategy would be better.

What I find ludicrous and borderline unpatriotic is the idea that we have to stay in the same strategy regardless of the level of success. If what you're doing isn't working, perhaps you need to do it longer, but ALSO perhaps a different strategy is better. What I see from so many in my party is a mindless endorsement of "stay the course" because if we don't then we'll be giving up. That's not really true. We'll be giving up on exporting democracy to Iraq, true, but that wasn't really the goal in the first place, was it? And I can quote countless Republican authorities from the past, including especially Ronald Reagan, who emphasized that the reason we don't attempt nation-building is not because we don't wish it could happen, but because we, as conservatives, know that IT DOESN'T WORK. It doesn't matter how many years we stay to build a nation from scratch...it won't happen.

Instead, our goal should be, and should have been, to take out Osama and his cabal. He was never in Iraq, and never will be. The people we're fighting there are a disjointed variety of Hussein loyalists, al-Qaeda wannabes, and local Shias who are frustrated by our continued presence. None of this is helping us defeat al-Qaeda. Nor does it bring the so-called "war on terror" any closer to an end.

If you want to defeat an enemy, you have to go after the head. What we're doing is pointless, and it will only lead to endless war.

By the way, if you think questioning your chosen strategy is akin to treason, you are deluded. Pull your head out of the sand for a while and look around. Nobody thinks like you, except for a handful of Bush loyalists. Our party is likely to go down in defeat if you and our candidates can't get it through their heads. You take the blame for delivering the nation to Hillary. Good plan you've got there.

Germany (democracy) 60+ years still there

Japan (democracy) 60+ years still there

South Korea (democracy) 50+ years still there

Vietnam (Communist) we quit no troops there

Iraq (democracy) 5 years still there

See a pattern Scotty? If you think that jerking our military around to win in 08 is the thing to do join the Dems, that's what they do. If you ARE in that mind set, picture the Jihadists firing their guns into the air on the streets as our troops retreat. How many votes will that win you Scotty?

It is your clear and comprehensive lack of understanding of the real world which you display in painful detail.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

he's already influenced our policies because the Democrats are simply acting as sock puppets for him. Not to compare them or anything...

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

there is certainly a knucklehead or two over at Kos claiming the Osama must be a Republican.

Actually, the first thing I did when I finished reading the speech was to see how quickly and how blatantly folks here and there would start with the Democrats/Republicans=al Qaeda, respectively, nonsense. I honestly can't say I'm surprised that I found it in both places, disappointed but not surprised.

Does anyone really believe that either political party is anything close to al Qaeda? It's a terrorist organization that wants to bring about a worldwide theocratic Islamic government via killing civilians. The fact that Democrats want to pull out of Iraq (because they don't believe it's working, not because they "want al Qaeda to win" or some such garbage) or that Republicans tend to be religious and derive their values from God (because they believe a society grounded in faith makes for a better society, not because they want to impose some kind of "theocracy" upon the infidels) doesn't make either like al Qaeda.

Claiming that the Pope=the Devil was a pathetic line of argumentation in the Early Modern Period (not to mention more recent Person X=the Antichrist claims), and claiming that Political Opponent X=the closest thing you can get to him here on earth isn't any better. I totally agree with you that the way to react to a jackass like OBL is to ignore him.

The Democrats cheer at every bit of bad news that comes out of Iraq. The scum do it out of blind hatred and personal gain. Don't EVEN try to compare us to them.

Why do you have to go and rain on everyone's parade with common sense?

As a liberal with a strong Burkean streak (I know, I'm an oddball that way), I tend to prefer measured dialogue when it comes to all things politic over "But your side eats babies"-type rhetoric.

If everyone else would rather just burn their opponents in effigy and swing pinata bats at the burning corpse, though, please, don't let me get in the way.

It came right out of UBL,s mouth that he and the Democrats are striving for the same thing. But deflecting from the truth is a leftist strong point.

All this time I've been attending an Episcopal church, even teaching Sunday school, but secretly, like any good Democrat, I've been conspiring directly with al Qaeda operatives to overthrow our government and replace it with an Islamic theocracy. I couldn't hide the truth from you, though. Brilliant, Holmes!

Seriously, though, you realize when you say crap like that it sounds about as rational as when far-lefties go on their "Bush wanted Iraq's oil, so that's why he didn't do anything about 9-11 even though he obviously knew it was happening" spiel, right?

That's what the left needs to do so our troops can fight this part of the GWOT which your side voted for too BTW. I'm not accusing you of conspiracy but the left and UBL both want us to quit. You will never admit it but it's all about hatred of GWB.

but I have absolutely no "hatred" of GWB. I believe that he made several foolish decisions, including invading Iraq, as well as poorly carrying it out, but I hardly think that political disagreement warrants my hating the man.

The issue is not whether we should or shouldn't fight al Qaeda, the issue is which methods and battlefields are the best means and places to fight them. Right now, the Right and Left disagree about that. I don't think that Republicans want to destroy America by (in my opinion) foolishly trying to fight al Qaeda in Iraq rather than in a nation that isn't already on the brink of a civil war. I disagree with their plan, but I don't hold any ill will toward them or think them to be "evil" or some such.

All I'm asking is for the same courtesy to be extended to Democrats (and to Republicans by my fellow Liberals over at Kos). Democracy only works when people are willing to listen to what each other say (not what their opponents' caricature of them says) and try to reach a consensus. I realize it isn't easy in such a heated political climate, but Redstate is one of the few places I generally find intelligent dialogue and respect for disagreement. That, by the way, is why I'm a member here but not at Kos, even though I'm a bit left of center.

the participants share a common goal, the attainment of which requires reaching a consensus on the appropriate methodology to be employed. In that the Left/liberals are seeking to destroy America through their usurptation of the Democrat Party, there is no common goal between that inherent evil represented by the Left and the proven, traditional values of the Right.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

And the best way to ensure that all Americans share common goals and reach a consensus is by referring to Americans with different views as traitors, and by talking about hangings for treason and urinating on their graves - as a number of people have done on this thread.

Just like Honest Abe said, you can catch more flies with a drop of gall than a gallon of honey. Or is it the other way around?

Yes, there are some individuals on the left who are beyond hope (as there are on the right and in the center). But there are a whole lot of people who initially supported the invasion, who now feel grossly deceived by the reckless claims that were made about WMDs, but who are still open - indeed, who desperately want to be convinced - that we are still doing the right thing. But they need to hear logic, not cheap partisan insults.

What I hear from people like Murtha and Kerry (or CrabCakes, respectfully) doesn't make sense to me. But neither does shallow talking points from President Bush like "the strategy is to win" - or the angry invective on display here. And if anyone wants to brand me a troll or question my patriotism, knock yourself out. I'm too disappointed by the comments on this thread to even care anymore.

to lose. The WMDs are in Syria

"Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, said vehicle traffic photographed by U.S. spy satellites indicated that material and documents related to the arms programs were shipped to Syria."

Sen Rockefeller, provided the advanced warning that was necessary Here

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The — I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq — that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.

While Democrats in Washington are berating the White House for having prewar intelligence wrong, a high-profile U.S. senator, member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, who has a name more internationally recognizable than Richard Cheney's, tells two putative allies (Saudi Arabia and Jordan) and an enemy who is allied with Saddam Hussein (Syria) that the United States was going to war with Iraq. This is not a prewar intelligence mistake, it is a prewar intelligence giveaway.

Our forefathers put Article III, Section 3 into the Constitution for a reason. What is the difference, between Benedict Arnold giving information to the enemy and Sen Rockefeller giving information to them?

Treason is not a difference of opinion, it is clearly defined Here

1) No, I don't want to hear "the strategy is to lose." I want to know what "the strategy is to win" actually means. Winning, you see, is not a strategy. It's a goal. I want to know how we reach that goal, to the extent that I - as a patriotic citizen and a taxpayer - have a right to know. I've been looking for a remotely-logical explanation, yet I keep coming up short. "Can't wait to urinate on their graves," you see, just isn't cutting it for me.

2) If the weapons are now in Syria, why on earth isn't anyone going in there and making sure they don't fall into the hands of . . . oh, you know, terrorists? I mean, if that was our primary reason for going into that neck of the woods and all.

3) So hang Rockefeller and urinate on his grave if it makes you feel better. If he had been talking to Hussein, you might actually have a point. But by then, I and everyone else I know believed that an invasion was likely. Gee, maybe it's because Bush - as early as November 2001, I might add - was already saying things like "He'll find out." If that wasn't a shot across Hussein's bow, I don't know what is.

1) Just because you haven't taken the time to find something out, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'd suggest reading this before making another comment on the subject. Actually, you don't have a right to know the strategy. We have a concept called "security classification" and "need to know" to protect that type of information.

2) How do you know that isn't happening?

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

If you can't accept the words of the Democrats
concerning WMDs and won't accept the words of our experts, such as Gen Clapper on where the WMDs are now located, why would you have ever asked?

As to why someone hasn't gone in to Syria to get the WMDs, again, I don't have the answers, because I don't have the need to know. My guess would be that with the American leftists apparently unwilling to defend themselves or America, the decision has been made not to enlarge the area our military needs to cover.

As to the difference in Sen Rockefeller explaining to Syria's leaders that America planned to go to war with Iraq,and explaining that directly to Saddam, I don't think it made a bit of difference, my guess is Saddam was getting the entire message as it was being related to Syrian officials. But if you really care, I would think Sen Rockefeller would be the one to ask, not me.

As to winning being a goal that you can not understand, because you don't know what the strategy is; I just can not see where that is my fault. The American people selected the best person, to reach the goal of winning the war on terror, for President in 2004. In college football, the school selects a coach and he develops the strategy. In running this country, I believe the President is responsible for the developing the strategy. He has no more obligation, IMO; to get my approval for said strategy, than a coach would have to get the school administration's approval for the strategy necessary to win games.

We've been in Korea for over 50 years, lost many more soldiers there than in Afghanistan and Iraq put together, and still don't seem to have a strategy completely worked out for that
area. Why do we demand instant success for Iraq?

on anything thing, did they? Actually, Americans share common goals. It's unfortunate that the Democrats don't share the same gaols as we Americans. Democrat motto "Us first, US second."

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

...their side actually does eat babies.

No, seriously, it's passing strange that bin Laden uses some of the cant of the Left to try and get his bizzaro worldview across to the ever-gullible Islamic ummah.

This speech does sort of lend some substance to the argument of some on the Right that there is an informal Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between the Left and the Islamic Fascists. Throwing Chomsky in there as if he is an old pair of slippers is a dead giveaway.

We in the Conservative Movement need to watch ourselves as we toss around charges of treason and sedition. McCarthy did that, and it led to his marginalization (notwithstanding his attempted rehabilitation by Anne Coulter) by the political establishment.

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill

A leftwing nutcase in Congress, Neil Abercrombie from hawaii has introduced a bill to block all funding for training and arming the Iraqi Army.

*scratches head* b-b-b-but I thought Democrats wanted to pull our troops out because "it" isn't working -- not because they want us to lose. Gee, you'd think the Democrats would want to fund the Iraqi forces so they can take over and let our troops come home.

It's almost like the Democrats want to make sure we'll lose, isn't it?

I'm sure you have an answer Crab. Just spare me the Humanities 101 cliches, kay? Just answer the question. If the Dems don't want us to lose, how come they're pushing legislation that guarantees we lose???

so I'll take your word for it on the general contents of it. The issue is not whether we are going to "win" or "lose" in Iraq. The definition of winning and losing have changed quite a few times since we invaded, and I don't bother keeping up with what "winning" means this week. The consistent theme that I hear running throughout all the definitions of "losing," though, is that it involves leaving. I, frankly, don't buy that definition. Winning, in my book, involves no more al Qaeda, anywhere (not just Iraq), not a peaceful democratic Iraq, which doesn't look to be in the cards.

The Democrats (or at least those like me) want us to destroy al Qaeda. We don't see that happening by continuing to maintain a military presence in Iraq. In fact, were we to withdraw from Iraq, it would likely be taken over by the Shi'ites, who aren't exactly best buddies with al Qaeda. Since, in our opinion, a continued military presence in Iraq is not the best way to defeat al Qaeda, the sooner we get out the better. Therefore, any more money that we spend there should be on bringing our troops home, not on a surge, the Iraqi army/govt. etc.

I hope that makes sense, even though I'm sure you probably don't agree with much of it.

I am working on Oahu and went to the Bellows AFB beach last weekend and the leftist nuts are protesting the training of OUR marines. Not a democrat in the bunch I'm sure. You see CrabCakes they don't want to fight anyone.

When are you going to figure out its not just AQ but all Jihadist. What a great idea to leave Iraq to the Shi'ites.
How long before they carry out the promise to wipe out Israel?
Unless you advocate abandoning Israel there will be a war sooner or later. I guess you prefer later when they have nukes.

what the difference is between the Democrat plan to abandon any person who has supported us in Iraq, and the Democrat plan to abandon those Vietnamese, Cambodians, etc who supported us in the Vietnam War? Democrats always want to talk about building alliances, getting others to help us, etc. But when a enemy says boo, they immediately want to abandon the same allies they were asking to help us.

Asking American soldiers to die for America, asking American allies to die for America, and then abandoning them because "the sooner we get out the better" is not just wrong (IMO) it is criminal.

although I'm not sure if anyone is even reading this post anymore, since it's a couple of days old.

I would compare the way Democrats view Iraq to the way Republicans view entitlement spending for the poor (i.e. Welfare, etc.). Many Republicans oppose the latter because they believe it actually makes the problem worse. Now imagine a debate going something like this:

Democrat: Why do you hate poor people?
Republican: I don't, I just don't think Welfare is the way to solve the problem; it may even make it worse.
D: Then how would you solve the problem?
R: I would rather increase the incentives to work and see private charities provide for the most impoverished.
D: So what you're saying is you hate poor people, but you won't admit it.
R: No, I care very much about poor people, I just don't think your plan to help them works.
D: I just don't understand why you hate poor people so much.

Frustrating much, yes? I, along with the vast majority of Democrats, believe that we must defeat al Qaeda. We just don't believe Iraq is the way to do it.

Most Democrats today (as opposed to the Nation Builders of the pre-Rwanda era) believe our military should be used strictly to defend America. When America's interest cease to be directly threatened, American military action should cease. As to your point about letting (potential) allies down, I would argue that such a possibility should serve to warn us against future military entanglements in the order of Iraq and Vietnam. I am not willing to leave American soldiers in jeopardy in a place like Iraq solely to encourage other nations to trust us a bit more in the future, though.

and you're right on one thing, this thread seems to have whimpered out.

I think the Poor theme could be put in to a blog that would generate some good discussion. Rather than try to counter it here, I'll watch for a blog piece if you feel like it.

As for the vast majority of Democrats believing we must defeat Al Qaeda, I see no evidence at all of that. What I see is that the
constant harping against the war by the Democrat political leadership, undermines the American effort and strengthens the terrorist effort, thereby leading the terrorists to believe they can win.

Al Queda sends message daily and Bin-Laden comes along and issues reinforcing message, demanding that the US do exactly what the Democrats want, which is what Al Qaeda wants,us to
leave Iraq.

If America had decided that going to war in Iraq was wrong before we went to war, it might have been possible to say we have not made a strong commitment and those fighting Saddam will have to do it on their own. That is far from the situation today. It is impossible for our ground force to operate in Iraq with out some cooperation from the local citizens. Every single Iraqi who cooperates with us is known to the opposite
side, just like they were in Vietnam. Every single one faces not only death for themselves, but also their families. Millions of South Vietnamese killed for one simple reason, they believed us military members who assured them that America would protect them. American leftists made it impossible to keep those promises. Today, we have American military members doing the same in Iraq and Afghanistan, while at the same time we have American leftist politicians assuring Al Qaeda that they are doing all they can to insure that Al Qaeda's goals are met. These two opposing positions are what is endangering our troops and the citizens that support us in Iraq and Afghanistan. America needs to speak with one voice in the war against Al Qaeda, Iraq is where we need to be fighting
now, and to abandon them is wrong.

...something that (to paraphrase Leon Wolf) would have made a classic Scrappleface parody. The fact remains that he did - which gives some heft to the steadily more-and-more exasperated observation from my side of the fence that too many of the antiwar movement's not antiwar: they're just on the other side*.

Don't like that? Excellent. Clean your house.

Moe

PS: I don't care if you think that we need to, too - or need to, more. Clean your house.

PPS: I don't care if you're not personally one of these people we so rightly abhor. CLEAN. YOUR. HOUSE.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

*Not all of them are knaves. Some are fools. Some are just dupes.

In the 1980's the Democrats talking points were indistinguishable from speeches by Daniel Ortega, Castro, or the Guardian.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Honestly, I really dislike comparing fellow Americans to alQueda. Liberals and Democrats are the opposition, not the enemy.

I dislike it too. I'm sure there are others here who share that.

The problem is, you CAN compare them. Easily. Without a lot of manipulation or assumptions.

When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail. -- Abraham Maslow

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

What I can't understand is that Western nations seem to welcome these efforts to subdue themselves with open arms. How can it not be seen how he and his supporters treat women like they are slaves.
Gays and adulterers (or those accused of being gays or adulterers, because there is no defense allowed)are stoned, whipped and have their lives destroyed and yet there is no outcry from the citizens of Western nations. I have no idea how America is to be awoken to this menace, before it is too late.

One advantage we have is that the strategy is being employed in Europe first. We have the benefit of seeing what happens there and then taking measures against it here. Our biggest weakness is ignorance and naive belief in the "religion of peace" propaganda.

If more people read Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Lawrence Wright, Michael Scheuer, Mark Steyn and others they would see Islam and terrorism for what it is.

Bat Ye'or in her book, Eurabia tells how Europe invited in millions of Muslims as part of several decades of trade agreements and cultural exchange. Then they give welfare to Muslims, but don't assimilate them into the culture. So radical ideology offers identity and a cause separate and distinct from the host country.

At this time most Muslims in America are still interested in assimilating and adopting some American values. The challenge we face is whether Muslims will ultimately put the demands of Islam ahead of American law and custom or if they will choose Jihad and Islamic domination. So far the polling is not encouraging.

One question I want to look at is whether Republicans can attract the Muslim vote? What do you think?

No, I do not think that America will fall to Islam during my lifetime, but that's because I'm on the downhill side of my life span. I think there is a real serious chance that one or more European countries could go with in the next few years. Every single day, we see stories like this Article from American Thinker.com

" Only traditions coming from other cultures, specifically non-Western cultures, deserve respect in the multi-culti handbook."

Here's another one that no one seems to get upset about, from a Frontpagemag.com Article

"Beating Muslim Women “For Their Own Good”

"In fact, several high-profile cases suggest that European magistrates are no longer above passing “Islamic” judgments in ordinary cases. For this reason, claims Germany’s only minister of integration at the state level, the cases of Nishal and Fatima represent the “latest link[s], for the time being, in a chain of horrific rulings handed down by [European] courts.” Worst of all is the fact that these rulings were produced entirely in deference to “respect for traditions,” and required little or no coercion on the part of Islamist activists."

With Stories like these, where Americans do not appear concerned in the least that it could happen here; plus stories
like we have heard in the past few days about Syria and our
Congresspersons

Again, an American thinker.com Story "Former US Senator on terror TV channel"

We've already witnessed, in our lifetime, Jane Fonda, Ramsey Clark, John Kerry and others helping the terrorists in Vietnam and now offering their support to the terrorists in Iraq.

In just the past several weeks, we have seen jihadists kidnap South Korean Christians and kill them if they refused to convert. Supposedly, 42% of American Democrats claim to believe George Bush is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. How many of that group does anyone think will choose death over dishonor of their selves and/or their religion or nation?

They can hurt us, but they're not going to conquer us. I'm as solid on the War on Terror as you can be, but I'm not afraid one tiniest bit that we're going to see a Caliphate in North America.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

You're probably right about not seeing a Caliphate in North America, but the whole War on Terror is yet another reason why we should have much stricter immigration policies. It borders on madness to allow anything other than a tightly controlled trickle of Muslim immigrants while we are fighting radical Islam. Yet thanks to unending chain migration, we can probably expect to see Muslim immigration continue to grow, and that will be a problem some day.

as seen Here

"And now that CAIR has been named as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Hamas fundraising trial against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), and copious amounts of evidence linking CAIR to both Hamas itself and the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood have been reported,"

"Yet again, when given an opportunity to report on CAIR’s Executive Director Nihad Awad being officially placed by the FBI at the notorious 1993 Philadelphia meeting of Hamas activists and supporters, or the fact that there is documentary evidence consisting of official Muslim Brotherhood manifestoes from the trial directly linking CAIR with other noted American-based Hamas-front groups such as the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) and the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), the Times completely ignores the evidence and is nowhere to be seen."

America has a group (CAIR) that has been designated an unindicted
co-conspirator in a trial, claiming to represent the Muslins of America.

These comments from a Muslim leader visiting in Britain confirm the patience and long term strategy I mentioned above. Read it at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2409833.ece

Some tidbits:
"Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani argues that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle."

"He agreed that it was wrong to suggest that the entire nonMuslim world was intent on destroying Islam. Yet this is a man who, in his published work, argues the case for Muslims to wage an expansionist war against nonMuslim lands."

"For Mr Usmani, “the question is whether aggressive battle is by itself commendable or not”. “If it is, why should the Muslims stop simply because territorial expansion in these days is regarded as bad? And if it is not commendable, but deplorable, why did Islam not stop it in the past?”

He answers his own question thus: “Even in those days . . . aggressive jihads were waged . . . because it was truly commendable for establishing the grandeur of the religion of Allah.”

Mohammed himself was involved in around 70 battles. He used warfare to gain the loyalty of the Arab tribes and from there continued to consolidate his power. His example continues to guide his followers to this day.

...here (Table III) via the Mark One eyeball suggests otherwise. Immigration from majority Muslim countries is dwarfed by that from Mexico, the rest of Latin/South America, China, and the Philippines; for that matter, looking at Table XI I'm not seeing any majority Muslim state getting significant numbers of naturalizations in 2006 because of "Family-sponsored preferences" or "Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens" status, except for maybe Pakistan.

Now, I know that you're arguing future, not present, but I also suspect that this was a round-Robin-Hood's-barn approach to getting support for changing immigration policy to make it harder for newly-naturalized Mexicans to bring in their relatives. Which is an entirely different argument, for an entirely different thread, and right now I'm about 47% amused by the fact that it's cropped up here. You may want to contemplate the consequences suffered by others who have let that percentage slip.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I certainly don't deny that one of the reasons I oppose chain migration is because of how it will allow mass immigration from Latin America to continue for decades to come. I don't think unending mass immigration -- wherever it is from -- is good for the country. Politically speaking the results are clear, and if it continues, it will bury the GOP.

So I don't hide my dislike of mass immigration, and why should I? It is a very mainstream, common sense view. But since a distressing number of high-ranking Republicans think that an unending wave from south of the border is all good, I do hope that they stop to think about the potential for chain migration from Muslim nations. The same extended family chain migration polices that unleashed mass immigration from Latin America and Asia could also happen with Muslim nations. Of course, with the GOP succumbing to Diversity Worship, the Bushes, McCains, and WSJ-types in the party probably wouldn't have a problem with that either.