Bothered by The Whole Port Thingie…..
Wolves watching the henhouse.
I’ve been one to defend Bush-Cheney and some of the things administration has done over the past 5 years. But this one…. nahhh. I can’t do it.
Anyway, my recent thoughts on this….(as posted on the 5th quarter):
Someone asked me:
So Kerry, why do you think he’s so adamant about making this thing happen? I don’t ask this as an argument, I seriously wanna know, and you’re the only Bush person I know, so even though it angers you as much as it does me, I wanna know what in the world makes this so important to him, other than “being right.”
I know you’re not asking to start an argument. We’re on the same page here. Here’s some food for thought on the whole thing (and as you can tell, I’m quite bothered by it….really just irritated… but I’ll get over it….)
Bush isn’t stupid, but he won’t admit wrong in public (one of the things that bugs me about him). Brownie gets fired quietly, for example.
Remember the presidential debates where someone asked him what was one thing that he regretted as far as decisions he’d made ? He answered back “I regret appointing some people. I’m not going to mention them publicly.”
It’s no secret that Bush isn’t as friendly in the WH halls as he is on tv and that staff that screws up routinely gets blasted by a rather cold Bush, than the friendly ‘every-man’ Bush we see on TV.
Expect to see some heads roll over the next few months. Why’s he defending it ? He won’t publicly admit (at least not fully) all the implications of a screw up like this one. Nothing big. No cover up. That’s one part of it. The other is listed below.
To his credit, he does make a good argument. And the ‘we can’t racially profile people – even Arabs’ argument would be valid with just about any other country or nationality at any other time. I just don’t think that the argument is valid when it comes to Islam. Before Islam became an issue with terror and America, I studied it (a decade or so ago) in detail, including all factions, offshoots like the Ba’hai and so forth. The only ‘peace’ in Islam comes at the end of a sword when you confess that Muhummad is the prophet of Allah. Why do you think there is no tolerance of other religions in Islamic countries ? Surah 9 commands the slaying of ‘infidels’ (those who do not believe in Allah) – thus, in Arabic countries like Saudi Arabia, according to Sharia law, the penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity is death. Saalman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses” easily got him a fatwa because open criticism of Islam is not allowed or tolerated. Public evangelism for Christianity, for example, is not allowed. The underground church in most middle east countries is under constant persecution with folks locked up, tortured, jailed, KILLED and taxed heavily – for being anything else but Muslim (especially if they are Christians or Jews).
Orthodox Sunni AND Shiite philosophy seeks to conform the entire society to Islam wherever they settle. What they do is set up community centers, organize and gradually seek to grow in influence, until they are able to ‘take over’. Why do you think, for example, France had a near-riot break out years ago when they banned Muslim headcoverings for women ? The Muslim population in France and England has quietly exploded over the past two decades. As mentioned above – there are now more Muslims in England than Baptists.
Bush’s entire approach to the ‘war on terror’ reeks when it comes to how to deal with Islam, but I know why he does it. I simply don’t agree with his approach. That’s why our soldiers are still on the defensive over in Iraq instead of whuppin’ arse and getting things done quicker. His approach (Bush’s) is to approach Islam like one would approach Christianity – and appeal to the general want for peace, safety and quiet and non-violence. The problem, however, is that from a theological perspective and a worldview perspective, that ain’t how Islam operates. But Bush seeks to make friends in Arab countries by appeasement. It’s not just him, though. Clinton, Bush Sr., Regan and others have all done the exact same thing. That ‘door’ has just been opening up more and more lately since Gulf War I.
I simply know – from studying the theological foundations of Islam (including current academics, clerics, translators, debaters, etc….) – that appeasement will NOT ultimately work. While there are a few ‘liberal’ Muslims, the bulk – even the name-only Muslims – integrate their faith (specifically the Qu’ran and Hadith) into how government is operated. Islam, by it’s very nature and from its’ very foundation, has always been militant. The ‘fundamentalist radical Islam’ nonsense that gets attacked on TV as not representing true Islam…. actually does. A lot of people just won’t admit it because it’s not politically correct. Islam does seek to ultimately take over society and impose itself on all.
That’s why, for example, though the Iraqi folks are happy Sadaam is gone, they view Americans and others as ‘occupation forces’ and would prefer them gone, even with the ‘good’ presently going on that doesn’t get reported on CNN.
A guy in my caregroup at church – http://ht4e.blogspot.com – a very proud Democrat – and I had very interesting convo the other night after care group meeting was over. Besides the fact that he says Bush is not a Republican, but really a neo-Con (and I’m starting to agree, although I said on here months ago that Bush is more of a moderate than people give him credit for), since one of ‘our’ tenets is smaller government with less spending. His solution to dealing with the war on terror had me cracking up – it was very controversial though….
US: Dear Middle East – These nutcases are your problem. Your countries harbor them, train them and encourage them tacitly. You need to stop them – and now. If we get another terror attack, here’s what’s going to happen – your SECOND most holy city – Medina – will glow in the dark for 1000 years. No joke. We’re dead serious. If things don’t change and we get hit with another attack, no one will be able to do a Hajj for the next 1000 years.
In return, if you work with us, after setting things right in Iraq, we will leave your countries. If you’re working with us, we’ll give whatever resources are necessary to help out in fighting these nutcases and then leave. Leave us alone, leave everyone else alone, we’ll both be fine.
That’s his solution.
And truthfully, I like the approach.
Of course, I know from the Truman doctrine, that none of this stuff is going to resolve the way I’d like it to, for the most part. The US is always going to be involved in world politics, with its’ hand in everyone’s cookie jar because if we stay OUT of the world scene (ala 1933-1940), eventually the world scene will affect us for not acting sooner (Pearl Harbor).
That’s my rant. I’m going to bed.