November 20, 2015

"I’ve seen my share of nasty, bizarre, and over-the-top political ads. But this may be the first that I can honestly say is just plain stupid."

Says Mediaite about this Democratic National Committee ad. I happen to think it's a great ad:



At 0:23, I was all my man.

ADDED: It's interesting to see the Democrats honoring George W. Bush, the man they impugned and reviled for so many years. Bush does deserve honor for what this ad shows, not that the Democrats honored him when it wasn't part of achieving some political goal of their own as it is now. The current GOP candidates have been pushed by the GOP base to say the word "Islamist," and that empowers their opponents to remind the more moderate among us that we should not alienate or disrespect the vast numbers of Muslims who are not violent extremists.

174 comments:

exhelodrvr1 said...

It is stupid, because even Democrats will notice that the ad pretends no one clearly states "radical"

Clyde said...

Islam is NOT peace. Islam means SUBMISSION. Those are two very different things.

Meade said...

We could use your man back in the White House. He understood what many Democrats still can't: we may not wish to be involved in war, but evil nihilistic religious fanatics, trying to gain control of the Islamic religion, will not stop involving us until either we perish or they do.

rcocean said...

"Radical Islam" doesn't equal "Muslim". That's why all the Repub kept saying "radical".

And thanks for reminding me how stupid Bush II was. We were just against "evil"
during the Iraq war? No wonder we got bogged down - I'd prefer a less metaphysical enemy.

The Drill SGT said...

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

This was attributed to Trotsky

grimson said...

I would not say it is a great ad, but it cuts two ways.

It points out that W., unlike the Republican candidates shown, agreed with avoiding the term "radical Islamic terrorists." But it also reminds viewers how much warmer a person he was than the current Democrat President, and presumed Democrat nominee.

Abdul Abulbul Amir said...


Being at war with radical Islam does not mean you are at war with all Muslims any more than being at war with Lutherans means you are at war with all Christians.

SMGalbraith said...

It is a bid odd listening to President Obama (and others on the left) say that Islam has nothing to do with this AND then lecture us on the evils done by Christians like the Inquisition and Crusades and how Christians need to show humility.

If religion has nothing to do with these acts then why bring up the sins done by Christians?

Something doesn't add up, Mr. President.

Meade said...

COOPER: Which enemy are you most proud of?
(LAUGHTER)
CHAFEE: I guess the coal lobby.
COOPER: Governor O'Malley?
O'MALLEY: The National Rifle Association.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians.
(LAUGHTER)
Probably the Republicans. (LAUGHTER)


Talk about "not presidential". Also, notice she said "the Iranians" not "radical Iranians" or "extremist Iranians" or even "nihilistic jihadist Iranians".

Just plain "the Iranians".

Anonymous said...

Hillary Clinton is probably closer to a GWB than any of the radical Republican candidates.

Freeman Hunt said...

I miss George Bush. He makes me think back to the recent days when adults ran our national security.

Freeman Hunt said...

Too bad the DNC didn't notice Bush was not indicting Islam back when he was our president.

Bay Area Guy said...

If I may list a few facts:

The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bafi Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Musiims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims

We could now add Paris attack and Mali attack and Boko Haram in Nigeria too.

Kinda looks like a pattern to me. Kinda looks like there's a common denominator, too.

I guess somebody from the DNC could try to explain the context of each of these attacks in an effort to rationalize them or justify them. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank; the US troops in the Middle East following Gulf War 1, blah, blah, blah.

But does anybody deny these facts?

More so, nobody is declaring war on Islam -- what a strawman. We are saying let's find the radical Muslims who are doing these terrible things and inflict a good, old-fashioned Yankee beating on them. I don't foresee going to war against Muslim countries, Jordan or Indonesia, jeez.

Anonymous said...

When a Republican candidate for President such as Trump, advocates registering Muslims in some national database, then that candidate has revealed his own radical agenda.

I Callahan said...

Being at war with radical Islam does not mean you are at war with all Muslims any more than being at war with Lutherans means you are at war with all Christians.

The left IS at war with all Christians. So they don't see the dichotomy in either case.

Anonymous said...

Invading Iraq was hardly a responsible thing to do. Look at what destabilizing the region has wrought. Leaving the dictators in place was probably a better idea.

Drago said...

Remember how horribly stupid W was according to the dems and how wrong all his policies and beliefs were and how we needed a yuuuuuuuuuuge "Reset" and pivot away from W's policies to get our foreign policy "right"?

Good times, good times.

Meade, nice catch at 6:07 re "the Iranians".

But remember, it's Fen's Law all the way down.

Drago said...

Georgianna: "When a Republican candidate for President such as Trump, advocates registering Muslims in some national database, then that candidate has revealed his own radical agenda."

Trump asserts that the "national database" item was a journalist term, not his own.

According to the David Carlson "rule" promulgated on this blogsite recently, you done been played grrrrrrl!!

Drago said...

Georgianna: "Invading Iraq was hardly a responsible thing to do."

Hillary was not being responsible?!!

You must be a Trump supporter.

Freeman Hunt said...

Invading Iraq was hardly a responsible thing to do. Look at what destabilizing the region has wrought. Leaving the dictators in place was probably a better idea.

I would argue that it wasn't destabilized until we left when we shouldn't have. Saddam Hussein supported terrorism.

Lydia said...

It was during the early days that Bush talked like that. In 2006, he was even calling it Islamo-fascism.

PB said...

Democrats have a comprehension problem.

SMGalbraith said...

Taking our troops out of Iraq after it had been - finally - stabilized wasn't too smart either. And letting ISIS build up despite the warnings about it wasn't too swift. It's been the policy of the Obama Administration to remove the dictator Assad. Haven't those efforts destabilized the region as well? ISIS emerged from there, from parts of Syria, and joined up with Sunni forces in Iraq that re-emerged after we left.

Lots of blame to go around.

And finally: the argument has been that these dictators radicalize their societies through their repressive policies. Eventually, Saddam or Assad will die off; or be overthrown. And when that happens all of that built up anger explodes. We see that happening in Syria.



Brent said...

Like it all you want Ann. But if you agree with its premise, then you are an evil fucker.

Amy said...

It doesn't matter what Islam means to US, it matters what it means to THE TERRORISTS (i.e. 'them').
IF to them, it means war, then it does in every way that now matters.
Who are we to conclude what someone else's religion means (to them)?

I think that many Americans are AFRAID - that is why you see the huge push back on taking the Syrian refugees. We see the reports of murderers yelling Allahu Akbar. When we see those candidates speaking of Islamic terrorism or radical Islam in the beginning portion of the spot, it resonates. We don't see it as inciting fear. TERRORISM incites fear. (that's why they call it terror-ism, right?)

chickelit said...

PB said...
Democrats have a comprehension problem.

No shit. And I can't believe that Althouse risks looking so stupid over this and refuses to explain. She must be trolling for hits.

Anonymous said...

Saddam Hussein kept the radical Islamists under his control. The region obviously needs dictators to keep the radical jihadists in line. It's not the job of the west to police the Mideast. We should never had mettled in their affairs. Afghanistan harbored Al Qaeda and we had no choice but to intervene. Now we have a terribly destabilized Mideast in which we have ISIS and it's acolytes that plan attacks on the west with impunity. If Bush wouldn't have destabilized the region by knocking down the first domino, we wouldn't be where we are now, IMO.

chickelit said...

Targeting a species does not target a genus. Don't you and the DNC get that, Althouse? Why not?

Writ Small said...

Hillary said in the last debate that "Radical Jihadists" was a more responsible term than "Radical Islam," and I can only assume the DNC approves.

Using "Jihadists" may assure Muslims we're not talking about them, but doesn't that run the risk of offending non-Islamic Jihadists?

rcocean said...

"When a Republican candidate for President such as Trump, advocates registering Muslims in some national database, then that candidate has revealed his own radical agenda."

A total lie and something Trump never said. Read Breitbart or rush Limbaugh.

bagoh20 said...

In this ad, who is equating radical Islam with all Islam?
Hint: it's the ones ignoring the word "radical".

That's why it's incredibly dumb, at least to smart people.

eddie willers said...

If Bush wouldn't have destabilized the region

The mideast has not been stable in my lifetime. And that started 1/19/1952.

Watchful Hours said...

I think they should have included this GWB quote: "I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch."

Except that might hit a little too close to home for most Democrats and reflect poorly on our current President.

Anonymous said...

rcocean,
Watch the video for yourself. No need to filter my news through right wing propaganda sites, thanks all the same. This is the video in which he reveals his facsit wet dreams of a national registry for people who belong to a certain religion.

here

Lem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

Georgianna: "If Bush wouldn't have destabilized the region by knocking down the first domino, we wouldn't be where we are now, IMO."

History began on January 20, 2001.

Thanks for playing.

Michael K said...

"Leaving the dictators in place was probably a better idea."

Says someone who doesn't know history and doesn't care.

There is a lot of history there that gets forgotten.

Drago said...

In Georgianna's link you hear the reporter bringing up and continuously referring to a "database" and of course, we already have national "registry's" and databases full of muslim names as well as watchlists and no fly lists and a million other "lists", "databases", systems, etc.

Georgianna would have us believe none of these things actually exist.

I can't wait for Georgianna to take obambi to task for maintaining such lists/databases.

Deja Voodoo said...

evil nihilistic religious fanatics, trying to gain control of the Islamic religion
Islamic religion? I take it you mean Islam.
Which was founded by evil nihilistic blood thirsty child raping murdering fanatics.

Theodore James said...

The ad doesn't work for me because the DNC spent years trying to convince everyone that Bush II was an evil war monger and moron in service to Haliburton etc.

Now they try to use the evil war monger's own words as theirs.

I guess they think that nobody remembers their hyperbolic craziness.

It would seem that they think Americans are really stupid people and wouldn't notice the hypocrisy.

So for me it fails.

Derp said...

Factoid:
Muslims in the US are in a far different situation than Muslims in Europe even though we all know that Europe is better than us in every way because socialism.

U.S. Average income is $42,158 per year (U.S. Census 2000)
66% of American Muslim HH's earn over $50,000 / year.
26% of American Muslim HH's earn over $100,000 / year.


Muslims in Europe are not only living in countries that had brutally colonized them, but they are often in the lowest paying jobs or on the dole.

Muslim households make, on average, 400 euros less than matched Christian households each month, the equivalent of 15 percent of the average monthly income for France in 2007

So there are reasons to believe that Muslims are more integrated into American society than they are into French, even with France's long history in the Arab world.

John Henry said...

No Bullshit tag?

Bush says Islam means "Peace" I just checked to make sure and find that it means "submission"

That is what we are fighting against and That is why we must fight the imposition of Islam. Especially why we must fight the imposition of Islam by force.

John (I will never be a Dhimmi) Henry

SMGalbraith said...

"Saddam Hussein kept the radical Islamists under his control"

By slaughtering them? Along with the Kurds and anyone else who opposed him. He didn't just "keep" the Islamist under control. He kept an entire population, many of whom weren't radical Islamists.

If you think our policy should be supporting dictators then make it.

I assume you think the Obama Administration's policy of removing Assad is wrong as well? And Qaddafi?

Again, the very methods that these dictators used to keep their populations under control radicalized them further. Eventually these dictators are removed from power; they die or are killed. Then all of those radicalized elements explode.

Or we can simplistically blame Bush.

Or equally simplistically blame Obama.

Laslo Spatula said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcocean said...

"Watch the video for yourself. No need to filter my news through right wing propaganda sites, thanks all the same. This is the video in which he reveals his facsit wet dreams of a national registry for people who belong to a certain religio"

Its always interesting how the left is uninterested in facts or honest debate. Just win baby, just win.

Matthew Blaine said...

Not all Muslims are whacked out murderers. Just the ones who work for the Jews, from what I gather. There are Muslims that don't work for Mossad, from what I understand they will become radicalized upon awareness that some people mock their religion.

pst314 said...

"Its always interesting how the left is uninterested in facts or honest debate. Just win baby, just win."

Because importing millions of people likely to vote for Democrats is all that matters. It doesn't matter if they are generally hostile to our secular government and culture It doesn't matter if they want to replace our system with sharia law. it doesn't matter if they tend to sympathize with terrorists. It doesn't matter if they approve of the killing of Jews, gays, uncovered women, apostates and atheists. It doesn't matter if some of them go on to kill Americans.

Meade said...

Hillary? or Trump?:

"I know that Saudi individuals have certainly funded other related terrorist groups over time, and also exported a lot of Wahhabi radicalism by kicking out or sending out imams and teachers to set up schools and mosques to preach that particularly harsh brand of Islam."

chickelit said...

Watch the video for yourself. No need to filter my news through right wing propaganda sites, thanks all the same. This is the video in which he reveals his facsit wet dreams of a national registry for people who belong to a certain religion.

Notice Georianna's lie (supported by her link): she turns Trump's plan to monitor incoming immigrants into a master plan to register all Muslim's in America. Once again, the left cannot understand the difference between a genus and species.

Titus said...

The Southern accent is so abs gross. I hate hearing that redneck shit.

So stupid are southerners.

The south sucks; please secede.

tits and muscles.

chickelit said...

Hillary? or Trump?:

Probably Hillary. And, there's nothing wrong with the terms "radical Wahhabist" or "Wahhabi radical." Also, there's nothing wrong with the terms "radical Shi'ite" or "radical Sunni" or more broadly, "radical Muslim." None of those terms featuring an adjective include the entire noun which the modify. That's why the DNC (and Althouse, apparently) look so stupid. They don't get simple grammar, even after lecturing us so often about grammar over the years.

Charlie Eklund said...

How well I remember 2003, 2004, and so on when my Democrat family members would tell me how President Bush was so much further to the right than the reasonable and sober President Reagan and how horrible Bush was in comparison to Reagan. That was a lie.

Now, the lie is how ridiculously further to the right the current horrible Republican field is in comparison to the reasonable and sober George W. Bush. That is today's lie.

Democrats. The lies change but the liars stay the same.

rehajm said...

If not stupid, it does make Democrats appear to lack skills in comprehension.

Daniel Richwine said...

Bush talked about this when he was president, but when he was running for president. It's not fair to compare the president to the candidates.

And yes, I miss him too.

traditionalguy said...

Gotcha confusion of terms to blind the simple minded is not all that impressive.

Fighting the Japanese Army in the Phillipines in 1945 was not made any easier by pretending our Army was discriminating against dear old Bushido. They intentionally slaughtered 6 million civilians the same way they did the Nanking civilians until MacArthur let the Army use artillery on the Manilla buildings to end the killing by killing 4 million more.

The casualty rate among MacArthur's Army was still 55% because MacArthur pulled the terms of engagement crap too and forbade Air support and, until it was a total 30 day slaughter, artillery support. Trying to prevent that kind of slaughter of free men by Muslims dedicated to suicide or Japs dedicated to suicide is not a pretty sight. But so what!

Paco Wové said...

"If Bush wouldn't have destabilized the region by knocking down the first domino"

You can certainly argue that the Iraq war was poorly conceived and poorly executed. But Iraq was hardly the "first domino". And the rate of Mideast destabilization seems to have increased dramatically post-Bush.

Matthew Blaine said...

Titus is your selfie from inside a restroom at Waffle House? I think you protest too much.

rwnutjob said...

Difference/ W's statement was followed by
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NktsxucDvNI

traditionalguy said...

Titus hates the rednecks, but his Boston area culture has always depended on the USMC for its continued existence, and they are red necks on a mission he chooses to avoid at all cost.

readering said...

The Democrats are pushing back at Republicans who are issuing mindless attacks against those who choose not to use the name of the religion Islam in their condemnation of terrorism. I think a good analogy is that in the Second World War we condemned Nazis and Fascists, not radical socialism, since our allies included socialists.

madAsHell said...

"But Putin STILL smelt the cucumber."

Smelt??
This is a fish joke.
Isn't it?

Anglelyne said...

eddie willers to Georgianna: "If Bush wouldn't have destabilized the region..."

The mideast has not been stable in my lifetime. And that started 1/19/1952.


Stability is relative. Gaddafi was a shit who sponsored terrorists, too. Was getting rid of him a good idea?

Georgianna is right. (About this, anyway. Can't vouch for the other stuff she's nattering about here.) It's pure partisan bullshit wishful thinking that Bush had a wise and sane foreign policy that turned on protecting the interests of ordinary American citizens, if only Obama hadn't fucked it all up. (Not that Obama isn't a total useless fuck-up his own self.)

Bush/Obama, Democrat/Republican are just different flavors of globalist, for whom the interests of actual American citizens come a far distant second to grander concerns. (See ¡Jeb! for the full flowering of the Bush world view.) The difference being that, although both think that everybody on earth is an American who just hasn't made it here yet (or managed to reconstruct their countries in our image), Bush, unlike Obama, didn't seem to have an active hate-on for ones who were already here.

Rick said...

I happen to think it's a great ad:

For who?

R. Chatt said...

BTW, in case you were wondering, that man standing behind GW Bush, is Nihad Awad, the Executive Director of CAIR. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, is a Muslim advocacy group founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, but claims it is no longer connected. However the United Arab Emirates’ ministerial cabinet recently listed CAIR as one of 83 proscribed terrorist organizations, up there with the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and ISIS. link At least seven board members have been indicted on arrested, denied entry to the U.S., or were indicted on or pled guilty to (or were convicted of) terrorist charges. link More about Nihad Awad who endorses Hamas and supports terrorism by Hamas and the PLO for the purpose of destroying the State of Israel. Notice how he blinks hard when Bush says Islam is a religion of peace, maybe because as a Muslim he knows he is not supposed to lie and he knows very well that peace is achieved through the sword.

GW Bush is a nice man who meant well by that statement about Islam but he was bamboozled by his advisors. He could have protected American Muslims without getting into defending a religion he knew nothing about IMO. He could have saved a lot of lives if he had learned something about Islam before invading Iraq. All those years we heard about "insurgents" we should have been using the real word, "jihadi." His good intentions delayed meaningful discussion and worked against those who have called for much needed reformation in Islam.

paminwi said...

Bay Area a Guy: may I add the Muslm who be headed a woman at a plant in Oklahoma in Seotember 2014? It may only be one person but he was still a terrorist.

Achilles said...

How come the "moderate" Muslims are always trying to convince me Islam is a religion of peace? After all of these random unconnected events where people shouting Allahu Akbar kill people who aren't Muslims as we are told the moderate muslims come out of the woodwork and tell me how peaceful Islam is. Progressives whine at me that Muslims are being misunderstood.

Ann Said:
"At 0:23, I was all my man."

Bullshit. All of you are full of shit.

These people would throw Ann's son off of something high or burn him alive because he is gay. They would kill him. We are talking about a majority of Muslims, not some small violent minority. Every country where Islam is the dominant cultural force would kill Ann's son because he is gay.

Rick said...

I like the ad. It clearly shows the DNC are liars, claiming the Republicans are referring to all Muslims when every single usage clearly shows that to be false. I also love that it shows how little respect the DNC has for its own supporters by urging them to support a conclusion contradicted by the very evidence they submit and expecting them to fall in line.

But I think the term "good ad" implies the ad accomplishes the goals of those who make it, and I just can't make myself believe the DNC tried to sabotage its own credibility.

The Godfather said...

It's a stupid ad for the Democrats to run because it holds up the Dread Pirate Roberts Bush as the voice of reason. Yes, I know he's not running this time, and his kid brother isn't likely to be the GOP nominee either, but this undermines the messaging the Democrats have been pushing for a dozen years. If Bush wasn't that bad after all, how bad can Rubio be, or Cruz, or Christie, etc.?

Just look at Bush in that ad and then look at Obama's latest presser or Hillary!'s assertion that "Muslims have nothing to do with terrorism". Who do you choose to protect you and your family?

But please, Georgianna, stop attacking Trump for being too hard on the terrorists. That kind of criticism has put him at or near the top of the polls and will get him elected if people like you indentify him as the one candidate who will do whatever it takes to protect this country. Please attack Rubio, Cruz, Christie, etc., too. They'd be just as tough on the terrorists.

Sebastian said...

""Radical Islam" doesn't equal "Muslim". That's why all the Repub kept saying "radical"."

That. Would seem obvious even to a lawprof. Apparently not. Set up for "how the GOP lost me."

The"war on terror" was a euphemism from the outset. Now even the euphemism is taboo.

By the way, ma'am, have you ever studied Islam or its history? Have you read the Koran and the hadith? If you have, could you tell us the difference between "radical" Islam and normal Islamic eschatology?

William said...

I saw some American Muslims on tv this morning. They were bitching about Republcan rhetoric. They said such rhetoric drove Muslims (not them, but other Muslims) to terrorism. Am I wrong to get angry about the implied threat in their warnings about Republican rhetoric? They said that the jihadis are actually at warr with Islam. They've got that right in the sense that our casualties are infinitesimal compared to the mountain of corpses their warriors have created in the Caliphate. Still though you never hear any protests from the Muslim community about that. But let Israel build a housing project in he occupied territories, and they're out in droves. I don't think that even the moderate Muslims are the least prejudiced people in America.

Fernandinande said...

Derp reported for CAIR...
U.S. Average income is $42,158 per year (U.S. Census 2000)
66% of American Muslim HH's earn over $50,000 / year.
26% of American Muslim HH's earn over $100,000 / year.


And yet -

"45% of Muslim Americans now report having total household income of less than $30,000 a year, compared with 36% of the general public."

14% of muslims earn > $100/year; 8% of native born muslims do so; 16% of the general population earns > $100K/year.
...etc...
http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/section-1-a-demographic-portrait-of-muslim-americans/ (Pew)

walter said...

Damnit Altparse,
You HAVE to be trolling on this one.
But..not surprisingly, the party that wants to call illegal immigrants "undocumented" (keep up, documenters), has no problem ignoring the adjective "radical" and crying broad brush.

But..you know..just put a nice piano figure underneath it and it's a great ad...(puke)

Mid-Life Lawyer said...

President Bush is a good man but he was sorely mistaken when he believed that those savages in Iraq would ever accept a democratic government.

William said...

You could understand Bush's words as talking to his base, telling them to hold it together and don't go all nutso on the Muslims in our midst and Muslims in general. I would have liked to see Obama taking in such a fashion to his base during he Baltimore and Ferguson riots.

Browndog said...

Why would a muslim, from the hot barren deserts of the Middle-east, ever want to come to America, literally a world away?

Just throwing it out there....

Dave in Tucson said...

A couple interesting implications from this video:

* The Democrats apparently don't see any difference between "Islam" and "Radical Islam".

* The Democrats think George W. Bush set an excellent example as president.

eddie willers said...

Georgianna is right.

She's wrong.

There were two Arab/Israeli wars, the assassination of Anwar Sadat, the Suez Crisis, Yasser Arafat and the PLO, The Shah and then Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, Iran/Iraq wars, Saddam into Kuwait.....these are just off the top of my head and all in my lifetime. I'm sure you can think of many others (and not counting those that took place outside the region....'72 Olympics, The Achille Lauro etc.)

My my.....then GW Bush went and messed with all that admirable stability.

robother said...

Muslims are laak a box o' chocolates. You never know what yer gonna git.

Big Mike said...

@Anglelyne, I disagree. I think each country needs to be looked at individually.

Iraq: As I recollect the situation, Saddam Hussein was himself actively attempting to destabilize the region. If you limit your definition of "weapons of mass destruction" to nuclear weaponry, then our intelligence estimate of his WMD capabilities was woefully lacking. If you include chemical and biological weapons, which are encompassed in the formal definition of "weapons of mass destruction" then we know for a fact that Hussein was actively working on weaponizing anthrax (though the anthrax used in the attacks on Leahy and others was not Iraqi) and we know that he had stocks of chemical weapons.

Libya: Qaddafi was neutralized as a sponsor of terrorism. We should have left him alone.

Syria: I continue to believe that the US is pursuing a policy of regime change solely out of Obama's petulance that Assad challenged his "red line" and has refused to go quietly. 129 Parisians paid for that petulance with their lives. I think Vlad Putin is right to back Assad as the lesser of two evils, compared to ISIS.

The current reality is that there is a non-governmental organization which is variously called ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh, and which uses violence to enforce an extreme view of Islam based on Saudi Wahhabism onto the people within its conquered areas, much as Islam itself was spread by the sword hundreds of years ago. Related organizations include Boko Haram, which loosely translates into "books (meaning western education) are a sacrilege". Whether we refer to these organizations by the umbrella term "radical Islam" or call it some other name like "fubelfratz" doesn't matter -- either way there is a reality that must be addressed.

So, a couple questions. First, was Bush right in going into Iraq or should he have invaded Saudi Arabia and uprooted Wahhabism at its source? Or should he have done nothing? Was invading a Middle Eastern country better than doing nothing? Sometimes "better than doing nothing" is a high bar, but in my opinion not in this case. George Bush relied on his Director of Central Intelligence, as any president ought to, and George Tenet let him down.

Second, does the world need a country to act as policeman, and part B of that question is whether the US should be that country. I answer both questions affirmatively, part A because the UN has hardly ever been effective as a peacekeeping force (you might check in with the men and women of Srebrenica, except you can't because they were massacred when the UN peacekeepers, afraid that the Serbs might jump out of the bushes and say "boo" ran away) and part B because there's no other country I'd trust to act appropriately.

Third, and most basic, is this a wise commercial? I think Democrats are trying to tell the people of the United States that "radical Islam" is equivalent to all of Islam. I think that they will be surprised to discover that most of the people of the United States understand that there is no fundamental disagreement between what Bush said and what Republican candidates are saying today. What ties together the various organizations -- the remnants of Al Qaeda, Daesh, Boko Haram -- that are spreading terror through western nations is an extreme view of Islam called Wahhabism. I think Bush phrased himself as precisely as he did because at the time he said what he said tempers in the US were running high. People suspected of being Muslims were being murdered here in America, and that extended to Sikhs, who wear turbans but who have been fighting Muslims tooth and nail for a thousand years. I also suspect, but can't prove, that he chose not to go into Saudi Arabia because he felt that the US had an alliance with that country and he could count on the Royal House of Saud to deal with the Wahhabis. (If so, he was wrong.)

Michael said...

There is no contradiction between what GWB said and what the other Republicans said. We are not at war with Muslims or Islam per se, but with radical Islamism. No one in that ad contradicted either end of that. The Left, with it's characteristic disregard for the truth, simply conflates two different things.

Mac McConnell said...

Yes Gaddafi sponsored terrorism till Bush pushed over two dominos, Afghanistan and Iraq. Then Gaddafi fail in line, turned over his nuclear program and ended his support for terrorism. Bush also put pressure on Iran, he flanked it with Afghanistan and Iraq.

Bush handed a pacified Iraq to Obama, Obama blew it for ideological and political reasons. Isis is the creation of Obama, Hillary and Kerry. At least Bush had a plan for Iraq, Obama in Iraq, Syria, Northern Africa, nada.

Cue Obama's CIA Director Brennen.

"CIA Director John Brennan has admitted that the Islamic State terror group has grown by around 4,400 percent during President Barack Obama’s tenure in office, according to remarks delivered in a speech.

The Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) was “decimated” and had around “700 or so adherents left” during former president George W. Bush’s term in office, according to Brennan.

The CIA has found that the Islamic State currently has anywhere from 20,000 to 31,500 fighters operating across the Middle East.

The Islamic State “was, you know, pretty much decimated when US forces were there in Iraq. It had maybe 700-or-so adherents left. And then it grew quite a bit in the last several years, when it split then from al Qaeda in Syria, and set up its own organization,” Brennan said."

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

Con strategy: permanently occupy these countries until there aren't any Muslims left to cause trouble, then we can leave.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Well, priorities change. And Republicans nowadays need all the support they can gin up.

Terry said...

Sanders in last week's Dem debate:
The scientific community is telling us that if we do not address the global crisis of climate change, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy, the planet that we're going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be habitable. That is a major crisis.
Kids and grandchildren? Is he a nutbag? Global warming is going to make the planet uninhabitable in half a century? Where did he get this crazy idea? Where is his media 'factcheck'?

Coupe said...

President Bush had an excellent relationship with all the Kings of the Middle East. He couldn't afford to disrespect them.

Obama? Well, he couldn't get a passport to any country in the Middle East, well except for Egypt and Israel, where he dumps large amounts of the treasury.

The Bush message, is the Presidential message.

jaydub said...

I agree with AA that it is a great ad for its intended audience, which is democrat partisans. The party is trying to rally the base, and the party base is not interested in accuracy or truth, but just winning. I don't think it would be a good ad to bring converts to the democat fold because, as most people here have pointed out, its partisanship is completely transparent.

Also, as The Bay Area Guy so eloquently points out above, all muslims may not be terrorists, but almost all terrorists do seem to be muslim. Certainly, someone's identifying as muslim is not a sufficient reason to declare that person a terrorist, but it does seem to be a necessary condition. I would think most muslims would prefer some additional qualifier such as "radical" be used to further separate the terrorist from the general muslim population.

richardsson said...

Well, the ad was nicely produced, it was soft and soothing; just the kind of thing that used to work I suppose. I'm not so sure anymore, and especially not on this issue. When they had the moment of silence for the Paris victims, the muzzies were yelling Alllah Akbar. What? We're suppose to pretend we didn't hear that?

eric said...

I don't understand how this ad works to help the Democrats.

They show a clip of different Presidential candidates saying, over and over again, Radical Islam.

Then President Bush says Islam.

I realize there are a lot of low information voters out there, but surely people will hear the different in the repeated line of radical Islam vs Islam.

Also, it doesn't work because they ingrained these same low information voters to believe that Bush was Hitler. An Evil Monkey Chimp.

They make all Republicans look good by reminding people of what a great man he was.

averagejoe said...

So the democrat party spends years destroying the credibility of George Bush, makes his name toxic to the average American, and now holds him up as an exemplar of behavior? I imagine this will have the exact opposite intended effect on the LIV's democrats depend on to win elections. An idea so stupid it must be the brain-child of Liz Mair.

averagejoe said...

Republicans: We oppose illegal immigration.
Democrats: Republicans are anti-immigration!
Republicans: We oppose radical Islamic terrorism.
Democrats: Republicans hate Muslims!

Democrats: George Bush is the stupid evil! George Bush is Hitler! Bush lied, people died! Worst president ever! Worst person in the world! Bush's fault! Shrub! Chimpy McHitler! Booooosh!!!!!
Democrats: Hey everyone, this guy had it right!....

averagejoe said...

readering said...
The Democrats are pushing back at Republicans who are issuing mindless attacks against those who choose not to use the name of the religion Islam in their condemnation of terrorism.
11/20/15, 8:33 PM

"those who choose not to use the name of the religion in their condemnation of terrorism" Committed solely by terrorists united by and adamantly espousing that very singular religion which democrats choose not to name...

The terrorists themselves are very open about what religion they are, and how this religion compels them to be terrorist murderers. But republicans are mindless because they are taking the terrorists word for it, while democrats pretend it has nothing to do with it, despite what the terrorists themselves are telling them... But republicans are the mindless ones...

casualscholar said...

The problem is fundamentalism, believing literally in the founding text.

The American right can't attack Islamic Fundamantalism at the root of the problem (the Fundamentalism) because so many of its supporters are Christian Fundamantalists (eg ID supporters).

Fundamentalism is anti-reason, anti-evidence, anti-compassion. Its a perfectly closed and imprevious state of mind.

I'd like to know if there are any studies showing what proportion of the believers in different religions are Fundamentalist. Please let me know if you are aware of anything on these lines.

Anonymous said...

Since this thread is about naming, about "radical" islam in relation to islam and "this-is-not-islam" (aka that-which-should-not-be-named), the following link;

"Palistian poet sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia for renouncing islam"

This of course has nothing to do with islam.

Laslo Spatula said...

madAsHell said...
"But Putin STILL smelt the cucumber."

Smelt??
This is a fish joke.
Isn't it?

11/20/15, 8:40 PM

Sorry, MadAH, to throw this out of context.

I deleted the original comment: it was hack.

Not intended to be Hack, but that is what it ended up being.

I am Laslo.

tim maguire said...

Ok professor, in what way is this a great ad? I can't identify a single level on which it can hope, alone or as part of a series, to accomplish the goals of the DNC. What am I missing?

Mark Caplan said...

The Democrats are using a man universally regarded as a village idiot to advance their politically correct, hallucinatory message that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance.

Hillary Clinton, speaking out of both sides of her mouth this week at the Council on Foreign Relations, said: "Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism." "We still can't close our eyes to the fact that there is a distorted and dangerous stream of extremism within the Muslim world that continues to spread."

BDNYC said...

Bush really was so damn likable. I don't understand how some people couldn't see that. I also don't understand how people can like a transparent phony and asshole like Obama, but hey, different strokes. Clinton was a skillful liar and a charmer, so I can understand his appeal.

But to me Bush always seemed warm and honest and earnest. I disagreed with him on many things, but I trusted him and believed that he cared about the country and the institution of the presidency in everything he did.

Larry Day said...

Bush said "Radical Islamic terrorism means peace"? Thanks, up until now I'd been unaware of that.

Jon Burack said...

I looked through the comments here for some clarification from Ann as to why she thinks this is a great ad. To me it is truly a stupid ad. The vast majority of Americans will find absolutely nothing wrong with the Republicans' use of the phrase "Radical Islam," and will see no contradiction whatsoever with what W says about Islam as a whole. As to the ad, it is preachy and incoherent both. What's great about it?

Mark said...

'Also, as The Bay Area Guy so eloquently points out above, all muslims may not be terrorists, but almost all terrorists do seem to be muslim.'

Except for those white American mass shooters, whose acts are no different than terrorists but you conveniently forget about.

Tank said...

. The current GOP candidates have been pushed by the GOP base to say the word "Islamist," and that empowers their opponents to remind the more moderate among us that we should not alienate or disrespect the vast numbers of Muslims who are not violent extremists.

The non-violent Muslims, when given the chance, will be quite happy to vote to put your son in jail and you back in the kitchen, where women, according to them, belong.

Unknown said...

Don't care about the ad really. But, at the end...the logo. I got super hungry. http://www.deweyspizza.com/

sydney said...

Slightly off topic, but I've noticed a change in the way the mainstream media is portraying our brother citizens who happen to be muslim since the Paris attacks. After 9/11, our local newspaper carried stories about how mean non-Muslim Americans were to Muslim Americans. I distinctly remember a local story with this theme- they found one college student who had some insult hurled at her from a passing car. This week, there have been stories about how local Muslims must reject terrorism. There was a big story this morning from the local mosque in which the imam denounced terrorism, and a Muslim-American policewoman described everything she loves about this country. And most stunning, I heard a monologue on the BBC morning show that runs before the NPR morning show last week that referred to IS as "Islamic Scumbags." Wow. That would never have passed muster before Paris.

Robert Cook said...

Big Mike said:

"Iraq: As I recollect the situation, Saddam Hussein was himself actively attempting to destabilize the region. If you limit your definition of 'weapons of mass destruction' to nuclear weaponry, then our intelligence estimate of his WMD capabilities was woefully lacking. If you include chemical and biological weapons, which are encompassed in the formal definition of 'weapons of mass destruction' then we know for a fact that Hussein was actively working on weaponizing anthrax (though the anthrax used in the attacks on Leahy and others was not Iraqi) and we know that he had stocks of chemical weapons."

You recall incorrectly. Almost NONE of the above is true.

The only part that is minimally true is that remnants of OLD chemical weapons were found here and there. There were no NEW chemical weapons being produced, there were no NEW chemical weapons programs up and running. Hussein was NOT "actively working on weaponizing anthrax." The remnants found were few in number and were merely the forgotten and overlooked dregs of old stocks from many years before, (when he HAD been developing chemical agents, before Desert Storm.) The weapons found were not weapons Hussein was concealing or intending one day to use, (their efficacy had been largely vitiated), but were the bits and pieces of old trash, as one will find when emptying out a garage or storage bin and one discovers old photos or scraps that one had thought long ago consigned to an upstate landfill.

john marzan said...

Sorry miss althouse, even a moderate like rudy giuliani would disagree with you. The "base" isnt pushing him to say anything. Im just as comfortable with him in saying "radical islam" as i am in using the term "radical christian" groups

Curious George said...

"Mark said...
'Also, as The Bay Area Guy so eloquently points out above, all muslims may not be terrorists, but almost all terrorists do seem to be muslim.'

Except for those white American mass shooters, whose acts are no different than terrorists but you conveniently forget about."

How typically lame. First, WHITE American shooters? Why white Mark? And you see no difference in planned coordinated multi-person attacks that kill tens, hundreds, thousands, in the name of God, in the name of organization...and some random nut with mental problems?

Than you remain a moron.

Derp said...

The religion that can't get along with the others vs the race that can't get along with the others, and we know who we are. This should be easy to settle peacefully.

JAORE said...

"I guess they think that nobody remembers their hyperbolic craziness."

For a substantial number this is, unfortunately, true. I have been confronted by numerous progressives that say it is obvious racism the way the right treats President Obama. Why? Because they don't give him the respect due the President whether you agree with him or not. I ask about President Bush. If they acknowledge any disrespect they respond, "He deserved it."

Derp said...

Except for those white American mass shooters, whose acts are no different than terrorists but you conveniently forget about."

Percentage of Muslims in US .8, percentage of whites 63. S0 there are something like 2.5 million Muslims v @ 200 million whites. So unless we can show that whites are killing 100 times the numbers of people as Muslims in mass shootings or otherwise, that argument fails.

Also, please include the murders committed by blacks, just out of completeness and a sense of fairness. show your work.

Here is homicide watch Chicago as a helper for you http://homicides.suntimes.com/

J Melcher said...

I offer some alternatives to "radical Islamic terrorists" that might be helpful or at least provide historical comparisons:

Jihadis

Vikings

Jay-Hawkers

Assassins

Filibusters

Corsairs

Vandals

All of these are or were non-state groups who organized to go places, take stuff that could be carried, break stuff that could not, capture hostages (or slaves) and kill people in furtherance of a particular social goal.

Somehow or another the newspapers and leadership of the eras afflicted managed to use the terms without being struck down by Heaven.

MathMom said...

We must always remember that the vast majority of one billion Muslims around the world are peace loving people who just want to get on with their lives. Only about 1/10 of them are radicals, supporting violent jihad.

Uh...that means only 100,000,000 are radical jihad-loving potential terrorists.

How's that gonna work out, really? Especially now that we see, again, how much of a mess can be made by 8 determined radical Muslims? And when we learn that 8 Syrians were caught two days ago entering Texas at Laredo?

Sorry...I flinch when I see a headscarf on a woman working in the luggage area at Sea-Tac.

Fernandinande said...

The video - great punch line at the end, always good for a laugh.

we should not alienate or disrespect the vast numbers of Muslims who are not violent extremists.

Oh, I dunno.

People who adhere to a handbook and philosophy which specify that I should be killed kinda alienated and disrespected me first.

Big Mike said...

@Cookie, my source for the assertion that Saddam was trying to destabilize the region was the newspapers that I read at that time. If I'm mistaken, so were they. My source for Saddam's efforts to weaponize anthrax was the book The Demon in the Freezer, by Richard Preston (one can buy it through the Althouse portal). After the invasion we discovered that research had not been going forward, but Saddam's intransigence prevented the US from knowing that ahead of time. As I said in my comment, George Tenet's CIA let us down in that respect. My source for Saddam's chemical weaponry was page 88 of American Sniper, by the late Chris Kyle (a wonderful Christmas present, purchasable via the Althouse portal, for any patriotic friends you might have).

Big Mike said...

@Derp, the religion of the American mass shooters tends to be "Democrat." (It's true; you can look it up!)

Kansas City said...

Fascinating that someone as smart as Ann thinks this is a good ad. Makes me fear that there is a group of "swing" voters who might be influenced to support democrats based on this type of argument.

I think overall the democratic madness of refusing to say "radical Islam" will hurt them, but they somehow got President Obama elected president twice, so I am hesitant to be confident about that.

To my ears, there is nothing inconsistent between the current republican candidates and what George Bush said.

Below is must read about how ISIL recruitment is driven by Muslim supremacy and victories, not by rejection of stupid liberal arguments like closing Quantamino [sp?]

https://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2015/11/20/obama-and-the-isis-recruitment-tool-canard

exhelodrvr1 said...

Mark Caplan,

"The Democrats are using a man universally regarded as a village idiot to advance their politically correct, hallucinatory message that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance."

I think Obama is a horrible president, but I wouldn't characterize him as a village idiot.

cubanbob said...

Mark said...
'Also, as The Bay Area Guy so eloquently points out above, all muslims may not be terrorists, but almost all terrorists do seem to be muslim.'

Except for those white American mass shooters, whose acts are no different than terrorists but you conveniently forget about.

11/21/15, 7:10 AM"

Setting aside that your point makes no sense, what is it you are saying? That we need to balance out the crazy in this country-can't have it too white Christian male, so lets import diverse crazy?

Robert Cook said...

"Bush really was so damn likable. I don't understand how some people couldn't see that...to me Bush always seemed warm and honest and earnest."

I had a completely opposite reaction to him...completely aside from his politics, (which, prior to 9/11, when Cheney had the opportunity to put in place the Neocons' ambitions to invade Iraq, seemed vaguely moderate, to the extent they could be discerned at all). I always saw him as an Eddie Haskell, whose snide jerkiness always shown through his obsequious and never convincing "charm." I had a visceral dislike to his personality.

To fully disclose, however, a woman I know--a woman whose politics are poles apart from Bush's and who would never have voted for him--met him briefly when he came and introduced himself around at a group event in Washington of which she was a part, and she said he seemed like he'd be a really great guy to have a beer or attend a barbecue with. So, I can't say he did not have some sort of charm. Perhaps it came across in person, but I never saw it in his canned television appearances.

Achilles said...

Robert Cook said...
Big Mike said:


"You recall incorrectly. Almost NONE of the above is true."

You cling to your no WMD lies even now. They shipped most of the good stuff to Syria. There was plenty of chemical weapons around still and they were trying with biological. They were retards and poor because of the sanctions you lefties wanted to lift but they were trying.

Unknown said...

Inciting ridicule also is not presidential, but we see our commander-in-chief doing that almost every time he opens his mouth. He seems not to Realize that almost 50% of the American people vote Republican , so he is inciting ridicule against a lot of people .

Original Mike said...

"You recall incorrectly. Almost NONE of the above is true."

Yeah, I remember when Iraq's supposed invasion of Iran turned out to be just a poorly marked frontier border.

john marzan said...

george w. bush not only used the term "radical islam", he used it in the STate of the Union address in 2006

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013101468.html

another variation is "Islamic Radicalism". bush mentioned that term at the National Endowment for democracy in 2005

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/10/bush-speech-clarifies-the-war-against-terrorism

Mark Jones said...

" "Bush really was so damn likable. I don't understand how some people couldn't see that...to me Bush always seemed warm and honest and earnest." "

"I had a completely opposite reaction to him...completely aside from his politics, (which, prior to 9/11, when Cheney had the opportunity to put in place the Neocons' ambitions to invade Iraq, seemed vaguely moderate, to the extent they could be discerned at all). I always saw him as an Eddie Haskell, whose snide jerkiness always shown through his obsequious and never convincing "charm." I had a visceral dislike to his personality."

I had the exact opposite reactions to Bush and Clinton. Bush seemed genuinely likeable, but Clinton--despite all the commentary about what a charming, likeable guy he was--always made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. I found it genuinely mystifying when women said he was attractive. How could they possibly not see what a complete snake he was?

Bay Area Guy said...

What Althouse doesn't understand is that, as Commander-in-Chief on a warpath, W had strategic and tactical reasons to isolate the "bad" Muslims, and not antagonize the moderate, non-radical Muslims with whom he sought alliances. Why make unnecessary enemies with Jordan, Indonesia and other "moderate" Muslim countries when your plate is already full - bombing Al Queda in Afghanistan and bombing Iraq?

It was easy and smart of him to not declare war against Islam in general. Duh.

That doesn't answer the question of what to do in response to muderous terror attacks by Radical Muslims in 2015. Most sane people say:(1) strike back, (2) don't let it happen again & (3) prevent them from entering our country with ease.

This isn't hard.

wholelottasplainin' said...

What I wanna know is, if ISIS isn't really radical Islam, and only pretends to be, then why aren't the billion supposedly peaceful Muslims staging massive demonstrations against ISIS for saying they ARE Muslims?

IOW why no anger against having your religion hijacked?

Fabi said...

All those white shooters, Mark? The Navy Yard shooter, the DC snipers, the Isla Vista shooter, Maj. Hasan at Ft. Hood, the Umpqua CC shooter... Forget about those, did you?

And when you factor in their demographic representation in our country, it makes your comment even more asinine. Keep up the good work!

Steve M. Galbraith said...

"By allowing radical Islam to work its will, by leaving an assaulted world to fend for itself, we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals or even in our own courage." G.W. Bush, 2006 SOTU address.

More true today than it was then.

Bob Ellison said...

It's a cult. Islam is a cult. It's a pretty stupid cult, too.

Let's call it what it is. A cult.

A murderous cult. A stupid one that attracts young, testosterone-rich boys who have not learned how to be members of society and not of a murderous gang.

Rick said...

that empowers their opponents to remind the more moderate among us that we should not alienate or disrespect the vast numbers of Muslims who are not violent extremists

Referring to radicals does not alienate or disrespect non-radicals, nor are people who pretend this is true "moderates". People who believe this are simply poor thinkers who also belittle non-radical Muslims with their belief these Muslims are as confused as they.

Qwinn said...

That's a fair point wholelotta. Someone draws Mohammed and this sparks riots across the Middle East, but having the entire religion hijacked by assassins gets a meh, no big deal from the same "moderates"? If the terrorist's version of Islam is as corrupted as justifying mass murder would suggest, why aren't these people being executed everywhere they're found just like anyone who dares to convert to Christianity is?

There's really only one possible explanation.

Drago said...

Cook: "You recall incorrectly. Almost NONE of the above is true"

Says the October Surprise Truther.

bbkingfish said...

Today, I see that everyone's favorite Republican, Vladimir Putin, has come forward sheepishly, with bowed head and hat in hand, to importune the West for help in extricating Russia from the quagmire in Syria into which Putin strode shirtless so confidently such a very short few weeks ago. Republican admiration for his tough-talking "leadership" spiked immediately, with leading GOPers expressing their unbridled attraction to Putin's smooth-skinned torso and rhetorical manliness.

What consequences his current case of the vapors might have for the "Draft Putin" movement in the GOP is not immediately clear.

averagejoe said...

Big Mike said... "People suspected of being Muslims were being murdered here in America,"

11/20/15, 10:36 PM

What? Where? Bullshit. The first things democrats do after a muslim terror attack is cry about the "backlash"- backlash that never happens. Some guy in a turban got jumped by an angry American? Unfortunate. "People suspected of being Muslim were murdered"? Fucking Bull-Fucking-shit! Never happened.

Anonymous said...

There are many good points being brought up here that should be, IMO, addressed by the OP (Ms. Althouse) if she were indeed looking to stimulate and elicit meaningful (her term, I believe) commentary from her readers. Yet she doesn't truly engage. She rarely refutes facts or claims to facts. She will, occasionally, drop in with a response to a commenter more akin to delivering a homework assignment. For the most part she engages in no debate.
That's OK if that's her style. We can chat amongst ourselves.
But that leaves defense of her point of view to leftist sluggards who just can't play in the same intellectual league as most commenters here (e.g. garage), or to ahistorical Stalinist America-haters like Robert Cook.
They just aren't capable of keeping pace in a fact-based argument and so they turn to sophistry and red herrings.
Responses to that type of input rarely take long to devolve into ad hominen and tu quoque slinging.
Perhaps if Ms. Althouse would jump in with a "good point I hadn't considered" or an "here's why that point is wrong" then the substance of commentary would improve.
perhaps it is too much to ask for a tenured professor of law to admit she's mistaken every now and then. It's like all the valid points that are made here just dissolve into the ether.

I do agree with the main point in her earlier post that she needs better lefties. Those who visit here now are woefully inadequate.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

It's called "strange new respect," folks, and it's nothing new. It happened with Reagan, it happened with HW Bush, it'll happen now with W Bush. The Left laughs, insults, and demonizes leaders on the Right when it matters and then years later admits they weren't so bad after all.
I think Taranto has "Strange New Respect" as one of his trope names for Best of the Web.

Drago said...

bbkingfish: "What consequences his current case of the vapors might have for the "Draft Putin" movement in the GOP is not immediately clear."

This is what the left and far left have been reduced to in order to change the subject away from how "flexible" obambi has been towards his boyfriend in the Kremlin.

Frankly, given Putin's status as former KGB Colonel, it's a wonder that the left is holding ticker tape parades for him.

You just know if Castro showed up in NYC the love that would pour forth from our resident lefties for this lobotomizer of gays would cause even him to blush.

Anonymous said...

The attack of the Sikh temple in Oak Creek WI was perpetrated by a white supremacist who thought they were Muslims.

Gabriel said...

@Georgiana:The attack of the Sikh temple in Oak Creek WI was perpetrated by a white supremacist who thought they were Muslims.

Awesome, you found 1 case. Now find 60 times as many cases as have already been cited, of Muslims killing non-Muslims in this country, with 60 times as many victims, and you then have a shot at establishing that Muslims are doing no worse than whites.

Big Mike said...

@averagejoe, here's a list of Sikhs attacked after 9/11 and Sikh temples vandalized following 9/11 under the (false!!!) presumption of their being Muslims. Here is another list of anti-Muslim incidents following 9/11. Note that the SPLC, being composed of know-nothings, include crimes against Hindus and Sikhs in their list of crimes against Muslims. Most of the incidents are upsetting but thankfully relatively minor, however arson is not minor, nor are the murders of Balbir Singh Sodhi (Sikh), Waqar Hasan (Muslim), Vasudev Patel (religion not stated but all the Patels I personally know are Hindu), and Abdo Ali Ahmed (Muslim) minor. Note that attempts were made to murder people who merely looked Arabic, including gunshots fired at a Latino(!) and a brick thrown through the window of a cab driven by Balbir Singh Sodhi's brother.

By now you should know that I'd have my facts at hand when I post.

Steve M. Galbraith said...

"Today, I see that everyone's favorite Republican, Vladimir Putin..."

Is this the same Putin that Mitt Romney, the Republican standard bearer, said represented the biggest geostrategic threat to the US?

Or is it another Putin?

Original Mike said...

"The attack of the Sikh temple in Oak Creek WI was perpetrated by a white supremacist who thought they were Muslims."

Well, that's one.

Big Mike said...

The current GOP candidates have been pushed by the GOP base to say the word "Islamist," and that empowers their opponents to remind the more moderate among us that we should not alienate or disrespect the vast numbers of Muslims who are not violent extremists.

@Althouse, no, not true. They have taken to using the phrase "radical Islam" (with emphasis on the word "radical") because there are more than one group of Muslims who share a common desire to attack anything and everything Western. If all Muslims were violent extremists then the West's task would be easy: just kill them all. Use nukes, drop conventional bombs by the ton, pull the recipes for napalm out of dusty old filing cabinets, and send in troops to shoot everything that moves except for people who wear crucifixes and can recite the Lord's Prayer. But we aren't going to kill them all precisely because not all Muslims share that common desire to attack everything Western. So the whole thing is harder than it looks.

I admit I wouldn't have pegged you as a low information voter.

Hyphenated American said...

I wonder why liberals always say that calling Moslem terrorists "Moslem terrorists" would upset Moslems and turn them into terrorists, while calling kkk nutcase "right-wing terrorists" is okay, and won't turn right-wingers into terrorists. Is it because they think Moslems are much closer ideologically to Moslem terrorists than right-wingers to kkk?

William Chadwick said...

The "liberal" Hive--for which the Democratic Party serves as the political arm--will always prefer a Republican president who is little to no threat to the Hive. Bush's "compassionate conservative" had the same roots as the "compassion" of "liberal" Democrats: a compassion exercised at the expense of the taxpayer.

Ken B said...

This is the most foolish post in the history of this blog. If I decry "fundamentalist Christians" it is peculiar to read that as applying to the non-fundamentalist ones. Qualifiers matter. If I say this was a foolish Althouse post, would anyone ignore the qualifier "Althouse" and assume I meant all posts on the entire internet are foolish?

Original Mike said...

I'm sorry Mike but that list is pretty pathetic in a country of 300+ million when compared to the list of terrorist attacks perpetrated by, if I may be so bold, radical Islamists.

cubanbob said...

Steve M. Galbraith said...
"Today, I see that everyone's favorite Republican, Vladimir Putin..."

Is this the same Putin that Mitt Romney, the Republican standard bearer, said represented the biggest geostrategic threat to the US?

Or is it another Putin?

11/21/15, 1:29 PM"

Yes indeed. The one and only Putin. Accept no substitutes. Funny how Obama mocked Romney in 2012 about Putin and Russia and now three years later Obama is Putin's bitch.

SGT Ted said...

"Radical Islam" is different from "Islam". Funny how Democrats can't tell the difference.

SGT Ted said...

And based on that, it is a stupid ad. If you're a thinking person.

Douglas said...

Realy, Prof. Althouse, how hard would it be for a Democratic candidate to say, "Radical Islamists, those who seek to impose Islam on the world through the sword, are our enemy, and I call on the vast majority of Moslems everywhere who reject this violent ideology to join with us in this fight."

RecChief said...

I heard the other day that there are an estimated 33,000 American Veterans living on the streets, homeless. Until that's fixed, we don't have room for refugees or immigrants, legal or otherwise.

Robert Cook said...

"I wonder why liberals always say that calling Moslem terrorists "Moslem terrorists" would upset Moslems and turn them into terrorists...."

I think it's more a matter of recognizing that most Muslims are neither terrorists nor terrorist sympathizers, and discouraging invective that includes the entire Muslim community. What might drive Muslims to become Muslim terrorists is to drop bombs on them, blowing men, women and children into mush, (among, of course, many other reasons, including the same reasons that drive people to join the KKK or the American Nazis or to shoot up campuses).

Robert Cook said...

"Yeah, I remember when Iraq's supposed invasion of Iran turned out to be just a poorly marked frontier border."


Actually, we encouraged that, and gave Hussein aid to help him in the fight against our hated enemies the Iranians.

Anonymous said...

ISIS is a Sunni cult, not all of Islam. There are more than a billion and a half Muslims who manage to live peacefully. Everyone that takes the scribblings in an ancient holy text literally are dangerous, that includes Christian and Islamic fundamentalists.

jr565 said...

Its not a war against muslims, Its a war against Evil people...who are muslims. Which is why those saying "radical Islam" are putting the word "RADICAL" in front of the word Islam. To differentiate the two.
Now, Bush in fact overstated that Islam is a religion of peace. But fair enough. Not all muslims are jihadis. But those that are ARE.

jr565 said...

"Yes indeed. The one and only Putin. Accept no substitutes. Funny how Obama mocked Romney in 2012 about Putin and Russia and now three years later Obama is Putin's bitch."

And remember what Obama said? "the 80's called and want their foreign policy back"
Not only was he wrong. But he proved himself to be juvenile about it. That's something someone might say in junior high school. I'm surprised he didnt' follow it up with a "Your mamma" joke.

Gahrie said...

I heard the other day that there are an estimated 33,000 American Veterans living on the streets, homeless. Until that's fixed, we don't have room for refugees or immigrants, legal or otherwise.

The homeless will not be covered by the media until after a Republican is in the White House. The homeless will then be blamed on the Republican also.

I drove through downtown Los Angeles one night a couple of months ago, and was appalled by what I saw...none of which is being covered by the media. Whole blocks of downtown LA are now a tent city.

john marzan said...

george bush saying radical islam in a non SOTU setting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFtM-bG9iQw&feature=youtu.be

john marzan said...

more bush saying radical islam

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02tymMOA_iQ

Original Mike said...

This is germane: /bill-maher-blasts-liberals-for-believing-that-muslims-share-the-same-values/ (via Instapundit)

(One of the downsides to moderation is I can't test the link)

Hyphenated American said...

"I think it's more a matter of recognizing that most Muslims are neither terrorists nor terrorist sympathizers, and discouraging invective that includes the entire Muslim community."

So, the term "moslem terrorists" include all moslems? Does it mean that "right-wing extremists" include all right-wingers? There are far more right-wingers in the US than moslems, should we assume massive increase of terrorism in USA due to media using the term "right-wing terrorism"?

"What might drive Muslims to become Muslim terrorists is to drop bombs on them, blowing men, women and children into mush, (among, of course, many other reasons, including the same reasons that drive people to join the KKK or the American Nazis or to shoot up campuses)."

It might, yes. But from history, we also know that millions of moslems turn into terrorists because they believe in the words in the Koran, and they do want to slaughter infidels and take over the world.

About 70% of Egyptian moslems want to kill all homosexuals, kills all apostates, kill all who committed adultery and who mocked Mohamed. When was the last time homosexuals, apostates and adulters blew up Egyptian men, women and children into mush? Same questions goes to people in Pakistan and many other moslem countries who share the insanity of Egyptian moslems.

averagejoe said...

Here I am, Big Mike, back from washing my mouth out with soap. I went through the list provided by the Southern Poverty Pimp Center- I will say that I am disappointed and disturbed to read about attacks on innocent people committed by Americans, especially murders and arson and so on. I will note that these incidences are documented over a more than ten year period, so to characterize them as being a response to 9/11 is misleading and untrue. I'll also note that many are allegations and insinuations without even knowing the identities of the perpetrators or their motivations, as in several instances of arson and vandalism or the burning/defacing of building site signs, yet they are still listed as hate crimes. Furthermore, it seems to me that several of the incidences have post facto hate crime designations, when in fact it seems more of an argument/fight in which one party called the other a "so-and-so muslim" or towel-head or something, and this elevated an argument over a parking space or taxi fare into the realm of hate crime, and even then it would have absolutely nothing to do with backlash from 9/11. All in all, I see there very few actual acts of violence committed in response to the terrorist attacks against our country, and those that are are committed by individuals acting solely on their own impetus- There are no mobs roaming the streets torching mosques and burning out muslim businesses, there are no American organizations dedicated to eradicating Islam and ridding the country of muslims, there are no American leaders calling for "Death to Islam" or inciting our countrymen to attack muslims. So all in all, it appears to me that any backlash against muslims has been extremely rare and the isolated acts of angry individuals.

Now as far as you having your facts at hand, keep in mind that frequently simple facts get freighted and gilded with a lot of presumptions, biases and conclusions which have nothing to do with fact.

Mark said...

"I heard the other day that there are an estimated 33,000 American Veterans living on the streets, homeless. Until that's fixed, we don't have room for refugees or immigrants, legal or otherwise."

So what are you planning on doing about it?

You can't make this statement and just leave it there. If this is important to you, why did it take a terrorist act in Paris to make you bring it up?

This is not a new problem, just your use of it as a talking point. How convenient.

grackle said...

There are more than a billion and a half Muslims who manage to live peacefully.

Peacefully? Sure, if you think living without freedom and under a smothering, backwards, totalitarian society as living “peacefully.” If you believe honor killings of raped women, children married to adults, children kept as sex slaves(which US soldiers are not allowed to interfere with), apostates from Islam murdered or jailed, extreme misogyny, Sharia controlling all aspects of society, including political organizations, the “legal” system, the family, education, literally everything – if you think living under these conditions is a peaceful existence, then you have a point. A weak point, true, but a point nonetheless.

The only real “peace” in these Islam-dominated societies is in the graveyards.

Gahrie said...

What might drive Muslims to become Muslim terrorists is to drop bombs on them, blowing men, women and children into mush,

Or, what might drive Muslims to become terrorists is the demands that Islam has been making of them over the last 1,400 to convert everyone to Islam or kill them.

Was it Western bombs that drove the Muslims to invade Spain?

Was it the Crusades that drove the Muslim to attack the holy lands?

Was it Western imperialism that drove the Muslims to attack Bulgaria?

Literally, the first command Mohammed made to his new converts was to attack Mecca....and Islam has been waging war on the non-Muslim world every since.

RecChief said...

Mark said...
"I heard the other day that there are an estimated 33,000 American Veterans living on the streets, homeless. Until that's fixed, we don't have room for refugees or immigrants, legal or otherwise."

So what are you planning on doing about it?

You can't make this statement and just leave it there. If this is important to you, why did it take a terrorist act in Paris to make you bring it up?

This is not a new problem, just your use of it as a talking point. How convenient.


Actually I can make this point and 'leave it there'. It's a pretty direct and straightforward statement, although this country is no longer comfortable with that. I sense that you would like to believe that this is some knee jerk, jingoistic response by some mouth breathing conservative. If I'm incorrect in the inferences I draw from your statements, I apologize.

While I don't feel the need to justify my actions to anyone but myself and God, I'll indulge you this one time.
The purpose was to get people to think about those who are already citizens, rather than aliens (in the legal sense). And not just any citizens, those who have served, voluntarily or involuntarily, this country's political leaders when they make a decision. War is after all, a tool of policy.

While you don't really need to know, I've worked with homeless vets by volunteering at Missions, soup kitchens, and Habitat for Humanity, depending on the time available and where I've been posted. Currently, I'm working with the VA's Housing First program, by hiring Vets where I'm able, although I still think the program is mostly cover for the embarrassment of the VA scandal, which we don't seem to be making much headway on by the way. So no, it didn't take a terrorist attack in Paris to make me speak up, ask my Senators and Congressional Representatives about how many letters they've received over the years.

You speak of 'talking points', and maybe that's the problem, any utterance that isn't in service to your agenda are mere disingenuous talking points. At least that's my take on the false moralizing tone of your comment. Take your virtue signals somewhere else. I can easily ask the same question, if the problem is not new, what have YOU done to lessen it?

If you really can't understand the thinking behind that statement, that the nation has a moral obligation to its citizens, especially those who have served it in uniform, and has no similar obligation to citizens of other nations (all the 'citizen of the world' new age claptrap aside), I can have my 12 year old explain it to you, she understands it perfectly.

Big Mike said...

@averagejoe, I had my mouth washed out with soap when I was young; the memory is still terrible and I'm nearing 70 years old. So please don't even joke about it.

I agree regarding the SPLC list -- in my recitation I limited myself to events that happened only a few months after 9/11. The SPLC is not above stretching a point to invent a "fact," and is not above inventing "facts" to make a dubious point.

I knew about the attacks on Sikhs because back in the halcyon days before 9/11 I was working with some Sikhs on a project and I took advantage of the Internet to research their religion. It's very fascinating. Sikhs were heavily persecuted by Muslims after the Mughals invaded India and during the time of the Mughal Empire. Consequently during the Partition of India the Sikhs were the most violent of the Indian religions in expelling Muslims from present-day India. A common Sikh adage of the time was "if you have only one bullet in your gun and are confronted by a cobra and Muslim, shoot the Muslim as he will be the more evil."

As to my facts, I was a software architect primarily in very large data analytic applications back in the day. I learned to double check and triple check and test to destruction (my favorite book was "How to Break Software," doubtlessly available via the Althouse Amazon portal) because screwing something up at those scales meant a big dent in the IT budget and could be "severely career limiting," to use the phrase in vogue at the time. When I comment on Althouse or Instapundit I try to distinguish between when I have double-checked my facts and when I am speaking from opinion.

Big Mike said...

@RecChief, how could I help? There has to be more that one can do than soup kitchens.

Anonymous said...

Grackle, until they reform Islam they will continue to live under a repressive theocracy. It's not the job of the US to reform their religion for them or to import our western way of life to them. That's very arrogant. If they use want to import their fundamental Islam to western countries, or attack western countries, then they have a problem that needs to be addressed.

Jupiter said...

Bob Ellison said...
"It's a cult. Islam is a cult. It's a pretty stupid cult, too.

Let's call it what it is. A cult.

A murderous cult. A stupid one that attracts young, testosterone-rich boys who have not learned how to be members of society and not of a murderous gang."

This is the problem. Islam is an ideology designed to bond violent young men into a military force capable of conquering and enslaving their neighbors. Because it explicitly demands that behavior, anyone who attempts to make a more "moderate" interpretation is clearly and undeniably going against its fundamental precepts and dictates, and any "moderation" of Islam will always be vulnerable to the charge of apostasy. Islam goes through cycles, in which it is captured as a house religion by some monarch, and made more or less peaceful, only to be "reformed" by fundamentalists who return it to its original savagery. And those savages have the authority of the Koran on their side; "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out".


RecChief said...

@Big Mike,
One way to help is to keep pressure on our political representatives. The state of the VA is still atrocious. A fair amount of the homelessness, Veteran or otherwise, is due to mental illness. For Vets, that means the VA, first and foremost.
As for actively doing something, you'd be surprised what volunteering your time and talent can do. The thing is, a person has to get involved, to the extent they are able. Just my opinion, but most action happens at the local level. Habitat for Humanity might not necessarily help a Veteran, but it most likely will help a citizen.

grackle said...

Grackle, until they reform Islam they will continue to live under a repressive theocracy.

A reformation is a return to fundamentals, a purifying movement, as with the Christians in the 16th century, a reformation that spawned Protestantism. The Roman Catholic Church was seen as corrupt by the followers of Luther.

Readers, the Muslim reformation is already here and it is very ugly. ISIS, al Qaeda, and the other Islamic terrorists are the Muslim reformation in action. They are going back to Islamic basics as taught in their Koran and preached in their mosques: convert or kill the infidel. The words “al Qaeda” translated means “The Fundament.”

https://tinyurl.com/cezg5hh

Rusty said...

Tammyfayebakker said...
ISIS is a Sunni cult, not all of Islam. There are more than a billion and a half Muslims who manage to live peacefully. Everyone that takes the scribblings in an ancient holy text literally are dangerous, that includes Christian and Islamic fundamentalists.



Then where is the massive moderate muslim outcrying in support of the west?

Someone here said this and it's entirely appropriate.

"Radical muslims want to kill us.
Moderate muslims want radical muslims to kill us."

Rick said...

Robert Cook said...
discouraging invective that includes the entire Muslim community.


Radical Islam does not include the entire Muslim community except to those who believe the entire community is radical. It's interesting people who claim to believe the opposite base their arguments on statements which are not true unless this is so.