GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

The President’s Biggest Failures: Not taking on MSM/Excessive Loyalty to Appointees

by

It seems that whenever I reveal my politics to a new friend, particularly if that friend is gay, he immediately asks if I like the president. And sometimes when I offer my qualified support of Bush, some readily accuse me of being a Bush apologist. But, those who read this blog know that while we have frequently defended the nation’s 43rd* Chief Executive, we have from time to time taken issue with him. As I wrote last year:

Perhaps, we spend so much time defending the president because his critics, particularly those on the gay left, make such outlandish (and very often inaccurate) accusations against him.

In that very post, when we graded the president on the Reagan legacy, we only gave him a B/B-.

Now, with the Administration’s clumsy handling of firing of the eight U.S. Attorneys, government appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president, we see once again one of the president’s biggest problem — his failure to consider how issues play out in the media. I would argue that his second biggest problem is his excessive loyalty to his appointees.

Then-president Clinton didn’t catch nearly as much flack back in 1993 when his newly-appointed Attorney General Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys, an unprecedented act. Before then, a new president only dismissed the attorneys appointed by his predecessor after he found individuals to replace them.

The president and his team at the Justice Department should have been better prepared for the media firestorm that was bound to ensue, given that, unlike Clinton in 1993, the incumbent’s party no longer controls Congress and given the media’s generally critical attitudes toward this Administration.

This is not the first time the president has failed to anticipate the media outcry against his policies. That he kept the defensive Scott McClellan on as press secretary for nearly three years suggests that he was not interested in standing up to a media which became increasingly aggressive and antagonistic as the president’s post-9/11 glow started to fade in 2002 and 2003.

Simply put, the Administration was not prepared to go on a P.R. offensive when the media began its attack. As one of Tammy Bruce‘s readers commented to her blog:

When the Dems first started saying Bush lied to get us into war, they should have been slammed hard and fast with the facts. When Murtha first talked about “redeploying” it was a shock but the administration let it slide until the public got used to the idea through unchallenged repetition. When the post-Katrina accusations of racism were thrown around, the outrage over such a slander should have been immediate.

Just look at how the Administration handled Joe Wilson’s lies. Instead of having the press secretary come forth rebutting that Democrat’s claims point by point (as the Senate Intelligence Committee would do more than year later), Administration officials worked behind the scenes to discredit that dishonest man.

But, it’s not just P.R. where the president has failed. He has also failed to adequately supervise some of his appointees. If they failed to produce results, he should have asked them to step down. When terrorists bombed the Golden Mosque in February 2006, he should have realized that we needed a new strategy in Iraq and replaced then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. (Had he done so, he may have saved Congress for the GOP — or at least limited the losses.)

We are already seeing numerous signs of success of the president’s new strategy. Imagine where we might be in Iraq had we shifted tactics a year ago. (And a year ago, he would not have to deal with a Congress eager to condemn his policies in order to please their base.)

There are many other issues on which to fault the president, particularly his failure to hold the line on domestic/discretionary spending, but the president would have surely improved his standing with the American people had his team been more attentive to improving his image. And to putting forward its message, particularly on the war in Iraq, at regular intervals to the American people.

While I think that, on the whole, the George W. Bush has done a pretty decent job as president, he — and his team — have been ill-equipped to deal with a media out to portray his Administration in the worst possible light. And for that reason, more often than not, we have defended him. But, it’s not just the media who have caused his Administration to suffer. The president is also responsible. He has been too loyal to his appointees, trusting them to fulfill their responsibilities often without verifying to see if the results of their efforts meet his expectations.

When historians look back at this Administration, I think they’ll give it decent marks, but they’ll wonder why the president failed to stand up to an antagonistic media — and to his own appointees.

*well, technically the 42nd since Grover Cleveland served two nonconsecutive terms.

Comments

  1. $64,000 question:

    When should you respond to your opponents’ wild claims? And when not?

    The Clinton way was to respond to everything, every day, all the time, in the most counter-attacking, personal way possible. It sort of worked for them. Sort of. It got them to the White House twice… but now we all see through them (if “we” have brains).

    While the Marie Antoinette way (according to the movie, she never said “Let them eat cake”) was to go, “Why would I want to credit this crazy attack by drawing attention to it with a response?” It didn’t work for her, obviously, but it has worked for many others.

    So which is right? when? why?

  2. Bush’s huge failure to me is not communicating to the American poeople and letting the media and democrats take control of the conversation.

    This country would not be in the state it is if he had done more leadership. To me, he totally abdonded the public argument and we’re going to pay the price for it.

    I started realizing this right after the Iraqi invasion when the first of many lies by democrats were getting into the newes.

  4. Once again I’m smiling. In the big picture, this guy is the biggest disaster of any 2 term president in history (Nixon aside of course – so far Bush has served further into his second term than Nixon did). Now I notice that Bush is talking about his full confidence in Gonzalez, what a great job he’s doing, etc. All of this while even Republicans are calling for his ouster. Didn’t we hear all of this when Bush said “Brownie” was doing a great job after Katrina?

    The original post blames Joe Wilson’s “lies” and being a “dishonest man”. (By the way, where is the proof he lied?) and #2 blames lying democrats. In the reasoning here, Bush didn’t do anything wrong; he simply miscalculated how those nasty press / democrats were going to respond. And why even bring up Janet Reno in 93? As you say, these folks serve at the pleasure of the president, so it makes sense to replace all of them at the beginning of the president’s term, like many other jobs when the president or a leadership of one of the house of congress changes.

    As I’ve read these stories in the last few days, I keep seeing the phrase “mistakes were made”. A mistake is when you accidentally do something, not when you systemically and methodically target very specific prosecutors because (gasp) they are actually doing their jobs and investigating political corruption involving Republicans. Seems more like a variation on the Saturday night massacre.

  7. Funny how those who call W the worst president in US history repeat that expression as mantra, the hurl a few insults, dwell on a few of his mistakes, and act as if other chief executives have never made such mistakes.

    He’s certainly no Washington. Nor a Lincoln and doesn’t even come close to a Roosevelt or a Reagan, but he’s no Millard Fillmore and he’s certainly no Jimmy Carter who certainly ranks as the worst president since Herbert Hoover. Indeed, his incompetence may even eclipse that of that hapless Republican.

  8. How difficult is this to figure out? In the Clinton firings, it was blanket. No discriminatory firing, all were fired. Here, it looks like it was discriminatory (read you’re not of the same political mindset and you’re out). In this game, looks are everything. It would seem that Bush wanted to get rid of all of them, he should have done so and he wouldn’t have yet another mess on his hands.

  9. In the Clinton firings, it was blanket.

    It’s not hard to figure out. Der Schlickmeister was clever enough to cover up his “discriminatory firing” by sacking the whole lot. Rostnekowski was going to be indicted and prosecutors were getting too close to White Water.

    Gonzales should have said nothing more than “I don’t recall”.

    The Hubbel Standard

  10. I think the problem is that some of these firings are not easily explained. For instance, why was someone fired just so that one of Karl Rove’s aides could get his job? Why was someone fired after he was (allegedly) pressured by Pete Domencini and Heather Wilson to speed up a federal investigation in time for the results to be released before Election Day and help Wilson get reelected?

  12. Tim: Better get ready for a 3rd War.. This is from Jihad Watch.. Those who don’t know thier history , are doomed to not know what the Iranians are doing..

    Iran president calls UN resolution “torn paper”
    Robert 3/15/2007 6:26 AM
    You know how we’re always being reminded that we have to read things in context. So here’s some context that may have been in Ahmadinejad’s mind when he referred to “torn paper” — since by all accounts he is a pious believer: at one point the Muslim prophet Muhammad of Islam wrote a series of letters to the rulers of the great nations surrounding Arabia, calling them to his new faith. To Heraclius, the Eastern Roman Emperor in Constantinople, he wrote: “I invite you to Islam, and if you become a Muslim you will be safe…” (Bukhari 1.1.6) He wrote a similar letter to Khosrau (Chosroes), ruler of the Persians. But after reading it, Khosrau contemptuously tore it to pieces. When news of this reached Muhammad, he called upon Allah to tear the Persian emperor and his followers to pieces (Bukhari 5.59.708): “Khosrau will be ruined,” Muhammad declared, “and there will be no Khosrau after him, and Caesar will surely be ruined and there will be no Caesar after him, and you will spend their treasures in Allah’s Cause” (Bukhari 4.52.267).

    Of course, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but in this case “torn paper” may not just be something worthless that the Thug-In-Chief is disregarding. It is a provocation. If the UN is “issuing” torn pieces of paper, he may be suggesting that it is behaving contemptuously toward him, and will ultimately pay for that contempt.

    From Reuters, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

    TEHERAN – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday dismissed any new UN sanctions resolution as “a torn piece of paper” that would not stop Teheran’s nuclear work, a local news agency reported.
    “Issuing such torn pieces of paper … will not have an impact on Iranian nation’s will (to obtain nuclear technology),” the semi-official Mehr news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as telling a rally in central Iran.

  13. How difficult is this to figure out? In the Clinton firings, it was blanket. No discriminatory firing, all were fired. Here, it looks like it was discriminatory

    Remember last week, I was posting a comment from a guy who I thought explained the moitivation of Leftists fairy accurately… compare the above objection to what the guy had said. I think this guy has it right.

    http://sayetright.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_sayetright_archive.html

    In my series of lectures entitled “Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals ‘Think'”, I summarize the dominant force in today’s Democratic Party’s philosophy by saying that “in order to eliminate discrimination, the Modern Liberal has opted to become utterly indiscriminate.”

    The Modern Liberal is convinced that rational and moral thought is so contaminated by one’s predispositions and prejudices that the only way to eliminate the evils of discrimination from society is to eliminate all thought. It’s why the “think” in the title of my talks is in quotation marks. The reality is that Modern Liberals not only do not think, they consider thought to be an act of evil.

  14. Indeed you are a Peggy Noonan follower
    Anyone who can rationally argue that Bush’s biggest problem is a lack of PR while using words like “clumsy firing” shows that she has influenced your political spinning.
    But:
    You can’t put lipstick on a pig…and over time his failure after failure followed by a scandal then another failure than another scandal just adds up until you can no longer trust the man with our nation’s pocketbook, military, privacy, justice system and even the friends he keeps.
    Nope, if I may keep throwing out clichés: you reap what you sow and he is standing in the middle of a bumper crop of his failings.

  15. I think that old refrain “Clinton did it too” is stretched beyond all recognition here. It is not unusual for an incoming President to replace most or all US Attorneys upon coming into office. Bush himself did it as did Clinton. What’s unprecedented here is that it appears that US Attorneys – appointed by Bush – were pressured by GOP politicians in Congress and the White House to pursue politically-motivated investigations (when Dems were involved) and not to do so when Republicks were involved. Those that obeyed kept their jobs; those that didn’t were fired. Now it may be legal but it would seem to me to set a bad precedent. Do you all really want a President HRC going after her political enemies with 53 hand-picked and cowed US Attorneys?

    What likely was illegal was the AG and possibly others in Justice lying to Congress about it. Maybe before Gonzales resigns in disgrace, we could waterboard him a little to find out more about what went on. 😉

  17. #15:

    What makes you think she wouldn’t? She’s certainly done it before.

    Hmmm. Last time I checked she’s never been President before. And do you really want to bring up Whitewater? Remind me again how much was spent on that fool’s errand of an investigation?

  18. #15 – “Last time I checked she’s never been President before.”

    But she was married to one, which is why some GayLeftLibs think she has “experience.”

    Yet you claim she was never really “president” (even though she vetted and hired Cabinet members like Janet El Reno). So based upon your twisted logic, if she has no political experience, why is she running for the highest office in the land?

    Try again.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  20. Do you all really want a President HRC going after her political enemies with 53 hand-picked and cowed US Attorneys?

    Didn’t we already have that in 1993?

    And believe it or not, Ian, I don’t care; it would be her perogative as the leader of the executive branch.

    The best way to manage this would be to immediately propose one of two changes to the law to ensure US attorneys are non-partisan — one, we amend the Constitution to make them life tenure, similar to judges, or two, we pass a law changing their terms to eight to ten years, with the only dismissal possible being for “cause”.

    Then watch how fast the Dems backtrack — when they realize that that really WOULD make the office non-partisan, and that they wouldn’t be able to pressure the US attorneys to lay off evidence of Democrat corruption — as they did through Clinton’s entire term.

    Remember, what ultimately undid the Clintons and their cronies was not the US attorney in Little Rock — but the independent prosecutor. Indeed, the US attorney in Little Rock did everything in her power to obstruct investigations into Clintonista figures.

  22. #21:

    what ultimately undid the Clintons

    Remind me again what Hillary was indicted for. I can’t seem to remember. And as far as Ken Starr’s investigation was concerned, I don’t seem to remember any charges against the Clintons apart from Bill lying about a blow job.

    #19:

    she has no political experience

    Last time I checked, being a US Senator qualifies as political experience. First you claim Hillary was President, then you claim a US Senator – re-elected to a second term I might add – has no political experience. Are you really that confused?

  23. Um, Ian, the charges were a little more than Clinton lying about oral sex.

    And as to the firing of the US Attorneys, yes, Clinton did have the right to do what he did. But, no previous president had ever fired all the attorneys at once. Most waited until they had appointed replacements (as I said above). And he may have ordered the blanket firing to appear evenhanded, but it served to end investigations against top Democrats — including some of his own political cronies.

  24. Ian, as usual you are twisting things around to satisfy your own warped worldview. Let me explain as I would to a child – which is about the same as in your case:

    1. You are the one that said Hillary was “never president” in response to my proof that she was in on all the doings in the White House. Even in her own campaigning, she refers to the “eight years she spent in the White House” as to why she should be elected.

    2. So what did she do while she was there, on-the-job-training? Well, it depends on whose autobiography you read – hers or Bill’s. Neither one dovetails with the other when it comes to issues like welfare reform, budget issues, media violence and children, adoption reform, child care issues etc. In fact, in his memoirs, Bill rarely mentions Hillary’s role in any of his administration’s policies, except for health care. One would have expected that he would have described some of the details of her unparalleled “experience.”

    3. So is this a big deal? Well, YES, because it belies any proof that she is qualified to run for office. But if her story is correct, and Bill was lying in his memoirs (which knowing his desire for a “legacy” would be a disaster), then ALL of his eight years in office were a lie – making him one of the worst presidents in history.

    4. I never said that she lacked political experience. YOU did (“Last time I checked she’s never been President before.”) I merely pointed out that if she spent eight years in the White House, did that automatically qualify as political experience? If that were the case, then Nancy Reagan and Laura Bush would be as equally qualified to run for office.

    For that matter, Obama is less qualified than Hillary (if that is at all possible) because he has only served in the US Senate since 2005 – not even half of his six-year tenure.

    Match, set, game. You lose.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  26. “we fudged the truth”, translation, “we told the truth, and no leftie can prove otherwise, but THEY want to fudge it as though we had somehow lied, without quite saying so, as they know they would be quite rightly and effectively shot down if they did try to say so”

  27. markie: Who do you think is the bigger liar.. you or Bush?

    I’d say it was you. You demostrate your lack of character and integrity time and time again. Pretty sad reflection of you and your family.

  28. oh, right, like this administration hasn’t lied to the public again and again. then to think that some of them think that they can lie to congress and get away with it, in DC no less. rotf.. what??? you have a genetic deficeit that prevents you from smelling coffee???

  30. #25: Oh Peter, if your arm-waving could be hooked up to a generator, we could decommission a couple of coal-fired electric plants! I said HRC had not been President, you claimed based on that that she had no political experience, apparently forgetting her experience as a US Senator. In fact you’re still ignoring that inconvenient truth. Sheesh, what a … oh never mind.

  31. Want to see the real threat we face… look at this video series

    Confrontation At Concordia – Radical Islam on Campus

    http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=NorthernAlliance

    Concordia University: Montreal
    A University with a significant muslim population and left wing professional activists. The year is 2002 and due to
    student apathy and low turnout in student elections a group of Islamists and radical leftists dominate the student union.United by their common hatred of Western Democracy and their
    lust for totalitarianism the radical leftists and the Wahabi led and Saudi funded Muslim Student Association terrorize Concordia’s campus, intimitading students violently
    and shut down free speech on campus.Fed up with being stripped of their rights and their denial of freedom of speech
    a group of grassroots Concordia
    students decided to fight back.
    This is their story.

    Everything else a distraction

  39. #36:

    oh pray tell, how is Torquemada Al racist???

    Well, markie, you see it’s this way in wingnuttia: it’s only racist to attack a conservative person of color. All the rest are fair game for the vilest of insults. As for “Torquemada Al” even the wingnuts are deserting him. His lasting legacy will be the establishment of torture as official US policy.

  41. Ian: I didn’t quite make the Torquemada = Gonzales is Pro Torture connection. I thought you were making the Torquemada = Gonzales is evil Spanish-last name -type.

    I thought John Ashcroft was the one who introduced torture to America and was establishing the camps to imprison all the gays. So you’re saying now that John didn’t do that ?

  45. I’m curious:

    Any time a controversy comes up involving something Republicans have done, is the reaction going to be:

    a) Clinton was bad/worse!!!

    and

    b) Look at our REAL enemy!!!

    ?

    Honestly, we had a real enemy during the 90’s, and Republicans at that time were obsessed with things like Vince Foster and Whitewater.

  46. #42:

    I didn’t quite make the Torquemada = Gonzales is Pro Torture connection.

    Gee Vince, you mean you don’t listen to Mike Malloy? I guess torture is good for some things: not only has KSM admitted masterminding 9/11, but he also apparently shot J.R., also shot the deputy(not the sheriff) and was the one who framed Roger Rabbit.

  48. http://the-gathering-storm.blogspot.com/2007/02/winds-of-war-islamist-threat-in.html

    Winds of War: The Islamist Threat and Their Useful Idiots In a Nutshell

    Want to understand the war that we are in whether we like it or not? Then these three books should be on the top of your reading list.

    From Denenberg’s Commentary in the Bulletin.


    This trilogy may be the most important reading of recent decades. It will convince any reasonable mind that our lives are at stake and so is our civilization.

    Of course, those who believe that war is an elective even if you are under attack, and believe that you can say “I’m not participating” and the war will go away, will not be convinced. Furthermore, those who believe in the approach of current French government, “negotiate, appease, retreat, and surrender,” will also not be convinced. Finally, those who think we should conduct wars by opinion polling and then micromanage wars in an attempt to run, cut and capitulate will also not be convinced.

    The three books are Mark Steyn, America Alone: The End Of The World As We Know It (2006), Melanie Phillips, Londonistan (2005), and Bruce Bawer, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying The West From Within (2006).


    The books pretty much demonstrate Europe is already gone, and has committed cultural suicide while surrendering to radical Islam. The United States may not be far behind unless we change our approach. The three books describe the problem and offer solutions. All three should have received nothing but readers and prizes, but a funny thing happened to Bawer. It was nominated for a National Book Critics Circle Award from a prestigious book group, but some involved in the process accused Bawer of being a racist, apparently because he offered criticism of radical Islam.

    There’s that damn idiocy again! Islam is NOT a race!! Why doesn’t someone grab the scruff of the neck of anyone who says such dribble and shake some sense into them? Where the hell are the senior editors at newspapers sworn to uphold journalistic integrity? Where the hell are the politically correct imbeciles who should run to the defense of real racist remarks and say such nonsense cheapens their fight against bigotry and prejudice? Where are the ethnic minorities themselves who are affronted by such sloppy thinking and racial equivalency?


    One board member of the Circle, Eliot Weinberg, said the book was “racism as criticism.” The President of the Circle said, “It’s hyperventilated rhetoric slips from actual critique into Islamophobia.” As far as I can tell such critics themselves did not speak to substance, but spoke only in their own hyperventilated and irrational rhetoric by condemning the book in hollow generalities, ignoring the most threatening facts and realities of our time.

    How true. But just like a liberal mind – feel, don’t think.

    Bawer had the perfect response: “As I and many others have pointed out a few million times, radical Islam is not a race…But it’s easy – and in some circles highly effective – to fling the ‘R’ word instead of trying to respond to irrefutable facts and arguments.” He continues, “One of the most disgraceful developments of our time is that many Western authors and intellectuals who pride themselves on being liberals have effectively aligned themselves with an outrageously illiberal movement that rejects equal rights for women, that believes gays and Jews should be executed, that supports the cold-blooded murder of one’s own children in the name of honor, etc., etc. These authors and intellectuals respond to every criticism of that chilling fundamentalist code – however cogent and correct the criticism may be – by hurling the ‘R’ word. I will not be cowed by such dangerous, duplicitous rhetoric. Civilized, tolerant, pluralistic values are at stake – values that affect freedom loving individuals of all races.”

    Touché.

    Then Bawer exposes his critics for the hypocritical, left-wing loonies and phonies they are: “Some people think it is terrific for writers to expose the offenses and perils of religious fundamentalism – just as long as it’s Christian fundamentalism.”

    Ron Dreher, who has written a book critical of Christian fundamentalist, writes that this is the standard approach of the left – to yell bigotry at any ideas they don’t want to confront, or perhaps can’t logically respond to.


    See my comment above about liberals who feel and don’t think.

    Because the left views criticism of radical Islam as bigotry, it has failed to rationally respond to this existential threat to our civilization. For that reason, Europe has virtually surrendered its civilization to the on-rushing Islamic fundamentalists and the demands of Islam.

    Dreher makes another point deadly to the critics of Bawer: “It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that this sort of liberal hates political conservatives and orthodox Christians more than he loves his own liberty.”

    Say that again? Are you listening liberals?

    “…this sort of liberal hates political conservatives and orthodox Christians more than he loves his own liberty.”

    ‘nuff said.

  49. #48: If you really believe this then you ought to detest Bush and his disastrous occupation of Iraq. Not to mention that he has tried to do it all with no pain excpet that born by the military and their families, no mass mobilization, no serious effort to wean us off fossil fuel energy, no capture or killing of Osama bin Forgotten or his Taliban henchmen. But big tax cuts for the wealthy and increased borrowing from the Chinese.

  50. I’m not going to blame Bush for being a victim of the same ignorance that infects all of Washington. If anyone, he’s the one who is futherest along in understanding the true situation. It’s clear the Democrats are still at least 10 years in the past in thier thinking. Because if they understand the threat , they wouldnt be doing everything in thier power to do everything the Jihadis want them to do.

    You seem to think the United States controls the world. That if someone the occupation of Iraq went better than none of this would have happened. That’s a blind and chauvinist point of view, completely devoid of facts of the other side.

    The Jihadis have been silently swaying people to thier side for at least two generations, which is why it is as entrenched as it is. Their program started long before teh United States was active in the Middle East.

    When will you face reality and stop blaming your own country for a religion that is bent on your destruction? Are you that hateful of the United States?

    And finally, I dont detest Bush because as bad he is, he’s the best we have right now.

    Why don’t you hate the Democrats? The 90s was the critical time to stop this and they didn’t.

    I am not blaming them because no one knew it / realized it. but you’re so hung up on party and since Clinton was in charge then , if you’re fair (and we know yo’re not) then you would detest Clinton for doing squat.

  51. Here’s a little Islam 101

    Shortly before Muhammad fled the hostility of Mecca, a new batch of Muslim converts pledged their loyalty to him on a hill outside Mecca called Aqaba. Ishaq here conveys in the Sira the significance of this event: Sira, p208: When God gave permission to his Apostle to fight, the second {oath of allegiance at} Aqaba contained conditions involving war which were not in the first act of fealty. Now they {Muhammad’s followers} bound themselves to war against all and sundry for God and his Apostle, while he promised them for faithful service thus the reward of paradise.

    That Muhammad’s nascent religion underwent a significant change at this point is plain. The scholarly Ishaq clearly intends to impress on his (Muslim) readers that, while in its early years, Islam was a relatively tolerant creed that would “endure insult and forgive the ignorant,” Allah soon required Muslims “to war against all and sundry for God and his Apostle.”

    The Islamic calendar testifies to the paramouncy of the Hijra by setting year one from the date of its occurrence. The year of the Hijra, 622 AD, is considered more significant than the year of Muhammad’s birth or death or that of the first Quranic revelation because Islam is first and foremost a political-military enterprise.

    It was only when Muhammad left Mecca with his paramilitary band that Islam achieved its proper political-military articulation. The years of the Islamic calendar (which employs lunar months) are designated in English “AH” or “After Hijra.”

    Muhammad’s greatest victory came in 632 AD, ten years after he and his followers had been forced to flee to Medina. In that year, he assembled a force of some ten thousand Muslims and allied tribes and descended on Mecca. “The Apostle had instructed his commanders when they entered Mecca only to fight those who resisted them, except a small number who were to be killed even if they were found beneath the curtains of the Kaba.” (Sira, p550)

    Following the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad outlined the future of his religion.

    Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177; Narrated Abu Huraira:

    “Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour {of the Last Judgment} will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”

    Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24; Narrated Ibn Umar:
    “Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.”

    It is from such warlike pronouncements as these that Islamic scholarship divides the world into dar al-Islam (the House of Islam, i.e., those nations who have submitted to Allah) and dar al-harb (the House of War, i.e., those who have not). It is this dispensation that the world lived under in Muhammad’s time and that it lives under today. Then as now, Islam’s message to the unbelieving world is the same: submit or be conquered.

  52. Time to catch up:

    #29

    oh, right, like this administration hasn’t lied to the public again and again. then to think that some of them think that they can lie to congress and get away with it, in DC no less. rotf.. what???

    What? No seriously. WTF was that?

    #31
    apparently forgetting her experience as a US Senator. In fact you’re still ignoring that inconvenient truth.

    And she’s done what, exactly?

    BTW, Torquemada was Spanish. Gonzales is American, born in San Antonio and raised in Humble, TX. But what difference does it make? They all look alike to Ian.

    The reality is that folks were outraged by Libby’s verdict, were starting to notice that the libs aren’t as united as they claim and that the “100 hours” hasn’t brought anything. Not only that, folks are starting to notice the lib’s pork. Naturally, it’s time to roll out yet another liberal created scandal to distract the masses. Problem is, folks ain’t as dumb as they hope like hell that we are.

  53. Trying to reason with Ian is like trying to explain to a child that there’s no such thing as Santa Claus. Like most liberals, they FEEL more than they THINK.

    And let’s not forget that brilliant CNN commentator who called Gonzales a “water carrier.” For you libtrolls, that’s an indirect way of calling him a WETBACK.

    Or what about Wolf Blitzed, who point-blank asked Gonzales: “Were your parents here illegally? Your grandparents?”

    And they say the GOP is full of racists. Yet the MSM can get away with all the name-calling they want.

    Scribes, Pharisees and hypocrites all. Shame, shame, shame.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  55. “And let’s not forget that brilliant CNN commentator who called Gonzales a “water carrier.” For you libtrolls, that’s an indirect way of calling him a WETBACK.” are you delusional or what??? or that’s right you just s sissy queen.

  61. ” just have a question…if W. is so incompetant why don’t YOU people come up with better answers? ” oh the answers are there hun but you refuse to listen. libs are broad-minded whilst conservatives are limited by definition. todays liberal is tomorrow’s conservative. i love they way today’s conservatives hold up yesteryear’s liberal, ie JFK. but that is what happens to peeps who refuse to think out of the box. oh, btw, the word is spelt i-n-c-o-m-p-e-t-e-n-t.