Going a little too far...

Apparently, the president's "tolerance" extends to groups who support Islamic terrorism: Key Bush Aide Praises HAMAS Front

One phrase for posterity

In what was in all other respects an outstanding address, President Bush made the grave error of (again) trying to legitimize Islam by equating the Qur'an with the words of God.

In referring to the giving of the Law to Moses at Mount Sinai and the words of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, the president includes "...the words of the Qur'an."

Of which words was he thinking? "Slay the unbeliever wherever you find him"? Perhaps he had in mind Allah's command to fight the unbelievers until "all religion is for Allah." Was he referring to the command to fight Jews and Christians "until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya"?

Obviously not.

But for what reason would someone so knowledgeable and well-versed in history (the president referenced at least Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Jefferson in his address) make such an obviously misleading statement?

Is President Bush trying to give our Muslim "allies" a means to save face? Is he trying to make American Muslims feel accepted? (Indeed, this latter explanation was my rationalization for why after 9/11 the president referred to Islam as a "religion of peace" and to Allah and Christ as the same God).

To equate the words of a murderous pedophile with the words of God is, three years after 9/11 (by which time someone in the Administration should have read at least some of the Qur'an), inexcusable.

What should have been a speech for the ages will be marred forever by one phrase.

Media's coverage has distorted world's view of Iraqi reality

LTC Tim Ryan, Commander, Task Force 2-12 Cavalry, First Cavalry Division in Iraq writes of the media's one-sided coverage of our efforts in Iraq. Notably, he plainly states the effect of such unbalanced "news":

"Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy."

I've made the same argument since the Democratic leadership crawled out from under their rocks and thought it finally safe enough to try to hurt the president by attacking our military effort.

From one serving on the ground in Iraq, the assertion cannot be easily dismissed, even by those who claim to "support our troops."

This media bias, whether intended to harm our military effort or not, actually harms our military. It aids the enemy. It is treason.

And as noted in "Postmodern War"" (cited below) by Victor Davis Hanson, the resultant demoralization of our forces and the weakening of our will to win here at home is the only hope the enemy has for victory.

Read Lieutenant Colonel Ryan's thoughts here or here.

Win at all costs

Victor Davis Hanson very articulately argues that despite our military and technological superiority, absolute victory is attainable only if we have the will to win at all costs: Postmodern War

The Religion of Peace still at work in America

Three years removed from 9/11, it may be tempting to believe that the horrors of that day were an aberration, but jihad is here, it is coming, and it will not relent.

9/11 was not a fluke.

In just the last few days, jihad again has raised its grotesque head.

In New Jersey, a man and his family were slaughtered like animals, apparently for his criticism of Islam: New York Post Online Edition

And in Texas, a young man was nearly decapitated by his muslim "friend": Saudi pleads guilty to killing Jewish friend

And more evidence for why our borders must be secure: Criminals, jihadists threaten U.S. border

From Islam's beginning until today, because of Allah's commands and its founder's example, Non-muslims have only three choices under Qur'anic Islam: conversion, submission, or death.

An excellent site for staying informed: Jihad Watch. Share it with your family and friends.

Be prepared.

Because Americans are too self-centered to have noticed?

I just heard a teaser for an NBC special to benefit victims of the south Asian tsunami featuring "some of the biggest stars in the world" (or some similar silliness).

While I respect every attempt to help those in need, it is now three weeks after the initial disaster. Millions have been given and pledged by private citizens all across the United States, and our government has generously offered our tax dollars in the form of financial aid, food, supplies, materials, and military support.

With this in mind, what do the celebrities performing (I think I heard the ubiquitous Bono in the ad) think they are doing? Motivating the unwashed masses who, apart from a celebrity on whose every word they hang, would be completely unaware of (and indifferent to) human suffering?

I can't help but wonder about the rationale behind something like this.

A response to the Chairman of the RNC

After receiving an e-mail regarding renewing my support for President Bush, I sent this reply:

Dear Mr. Gillespie,

I have been an ardent supporter of President Bush and his waging of the War Against Islamic Terror. I believe the president is a good man. Even if I wasn't convinced that his opponent in the last election was a liar, a traitor, an appeaser, and a socialist, I still would have supported him.

Now that President Bush has won re-election, there are two major areas where I believe the president's policies are headed in the wrong direction: Illegal Immigration and Domestic Spending.

First, the president must lead the effort to really secure our borders. He must not allow those who (for whatever reason) would violate American law and sovereignty.

Second, though the president has proven he is in most important ways socially-conservative; his fiscal policy is indistinguishable from a Democrat's.

In order to receive any more of my financial support, President Bush must demonstrate the courage and conviction to uphold all of the Constitution.

Regards....

One can hope that if enough of those who supported the president in his last run send responses along this line, change will occur.