Updated: I am sorry but this article was trash in its first draft. Teach me to attempt to write first thing in the morning. I have extensively edited it in an attempt to get across my feeling that the President needs to be much more upfront about the threat.
In this war our President has been almost faultless. His one weakness has been driven by his insistence not to name our enemy clearly. In the vacumn of the Presidents lack of desire to name our enemies step those who have much less resources availible to defend themselves.
Why the President refuses to do so is anyone's guess though I tend to believe it is a combination of two or three elements.
All of President Bush's political life has been spent in the company of men like Grover Norquist and Brent Snowcroft who have both forgotten who they owe their true allegiance to. Both of these men are completely unsympathetic to the idea that radical Islam is a problem. Both of these men have continued to push their belief that we can "work" with the chief financiers of radical Islam the Saudis.
Another element is simply being Christian he seems to want to believe the best of people. Not that he cannot see the evil but that he continues to believe that the evil is only a temporary position, one that can be forgiven if those evil ones would simply renounce their evil.
And naturally he believes that he must not upset those Islamic states who through fear are helping us right now.
Robert Spencer may be paying the price of being forced to be one of the pre-eminent voices in our country calling the threat as it is. Islam preaches Jihad, Jihad is not anything peaceful, Jihad demands of Islam's followers that they convert through any means including force all people not part of the Ummah. It is not as some of the more clever apologists for Islam some form of inner search for strength alone. That strength is found by the belief that all must be converted. There are peaceful followers of Islam but Islam is not a religion of peace. It is the religion of the sword.
Michelle Malkin has more.
Michelle Malkin: ISLAMISTS VS. ROBERT SPENCER Reference Article
Pierre Legrand @ 6/10/2005 07:42:00 AMIn this war our President has been almost faultless. His one weakness has been driven by his insistence not to name our enemy clearly. In the vacumn of the Presidents lack of desire to name our enemies step those who have much less resources availible to defend themselves.
Why the President refuses to do so is anyone's guess though I tend to believe it is a combination of two or three elements.
All of President Bush's political life has been spent in the company of men like Grover Norquist and Brent Snowcroft who have both forgotten who they owe their true allegiance to. Both of these men are completely unsympathetic to the idea that radical Islam is a problem. Both of these men have continued to push their belief that we can "work" with the chief financiers of radical Islam the Saudis.
Another element is simply being Christian he seems to want to believe the best of people. Not that he cannot see the evil but that he continues to believe that the evil is only a temporary position, one that can be forgiven if those evil ones would simply renounce their evil.
And naturally he believes that he must not upset those Islamic states who through fear are helping us right now.
Robert Spencer may be paying the price of being forced to be one of the pre-eminent voices in our country calling the threat as it is. Islam preaches Jihad, Jihad is not anything peaceful, Jihad demands of Islam's followers that they convert through any means including force all people not part of the Ummah. It is not as some of the more clever apologists for Islam some form of inner search for strength alone. That strength is found by the belief that all must be converted. There are peaceful followers of Islam but Islam is not a religion of peace. It is the religion of the sword.
Michelle Malkin has more.
Michelle Malkin: ISLAMISTS VS. ROBERT SPENCER Reference Article
> |








