The Only Decent Solution to the Muslim Problem

When Nidal Malik Hasan, a military psychiatrist allegedly opened fire on his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood last week, it opened another chapter in the ongoing saga of whether or not Islam is a threat to civilized society. One of the most compelling arguments against Islam has been the assertion that no Muslim ever publicly condemns religious based violence. So I was eager to find some condemnation in the wake of the Fort Hood massacre. First, I saw a headline in the Huffington Post that gave me hope:

Muslim, Arab Groups Condemn Fort Hood Shooting, Brace For Backlash

Alas, the article was more about Muslim groups preparing for backlash than it was about them delivering an unqualified condemnation. Then on MSNBC’s “Hardball” there was an interview with the national director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Nihad Awad. The interview almost immediately descended into defensiveness and claims of victimhood with any condemnation of the violence being secondary. I was becoming frustrated. I was beginning to despair that the very vocal critics of Islam who frequent my blog were right and I was wrong.

Then on a subsequent edition of MSNBC’s “Hardball”, I hit pay dirt. Chris Matthews’ guest was Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. If you can ignore the host’s speechifying and focus on what Dr. Jasser has to say, this clip is well worth watching.

Here are some of the key statements from Jasser that resonated with me:

I will tell you, my parents came here. They taught me. And the reason I joined the military was, this country was able to give my family the protection, the freedom, the liberty to practice our faith like we could nowhere else in the world. …

However, that’s our Islam. There are other forms of Islam that are a threat. And we have to be careful that political correctness is driving us away from protecting ourselves from the enemy within and from the enemy abroad. And there is a political ideology that has masked itself within a theology that I love, but we can’t deny.

It’s time for Muslims to stop complaining and stop being victims, and say, you know, what we have to start within combating, no different than at the time of the American Revolution. They determined that there were Christians that were part of the Church of England, that were enemies of America, and there were Christians that believed in a country based on the Establishment Clause and based on freedom and liberty, that were about what the west was about.

… political Islam has made huge advances, while the West has been asleep against the spread of the, quote unquote, Islamic state movement. And I think clearly there are parts of the ideologies of hate of the West, of America, of conspiracy theories that this guy started to follow that were warning signs. via ‘Hardball with Chris Matthews’ for Monday, November 9 – Hardball with Chris Matthews- msnbc.com.

Without flinching, Dr. Jasser stated that there is a faction within Islam that is indeed dangerous. He confirmed my belief that the answer to our problem is for more Muslims who take messages of love and brotherhood from the Koran and discard the rest, to rise up and oppose the fanatical branch of the religion.

I am no authority on organized religion, nor a particular fan of it. However, history teaches us that reform within a religion is possible. Whether it is the Protestant reformation that strove to drive financial corruption out of the church, or the modern efforts of the Catholic church to wake up to an insidious pedophilia problem or the evolution of Mormonism to reject polygamy as a fundamental cultural phenomenon (albeit under pressure from the US government). There is no reason why Islam cannot be righted by peaceful, law-abiding and outspoken members of that faith.

There are those who want to deport Muslims from this country, stop immigration of Muslims, and essentially outlaw the practice of the religion within the US. Nothing could be more antithetical to the essence of what it is to be an American. The only decent solution to the problems that modern-day Islam presents us is to align ourselves with people like Dr. Jasser to ensure that the peaceful worship of Allah prevails and the barbaric violence of decadent Muslims comes to an end.

For more information on Dr. Jasser’s organization, visit the web site for the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Two Tea Party Witnesses for the Prosecution

Of all the positions I’ve taken on this blog, probably none has attracted so much vitriol as my attitude toward the Tea Party participants. I have called a good number of them uninformed and ignorant and a small minority of them outright racist. In return I have been told I don’t respect the first amendment and that I am un-American because I don’t support the common man in his effort to redress perceived wrongs. Perhaps if I saw a Tea Party participant present himself convincingly, I might be persuaded that the Tea Party movement is something more than misdirected rage and amorphous social anxiety.

This week the Tea Party movement took a far right turn and started to eat its own at a town hall with Republican South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham. Graham, one of the Senators most critical of President Obama, was called a traitor by folks in the crowd.

This odd turn of events demanded an explanation so once again, two “witnesses for the defense” of the Tea Party movement got paraded on national television and wound up simply winning the case for the prosecution. In fact, I challenge anyone to watch the following video and not cringe with discomfort:

Let’s start with some reasonable objections that Tea Party sympathizers might have with the above interview.

1. Chris Matthews is a bully. That is why the show is called “Hardball”. Chris reserves the right to be tough and often rude to his guests in what he believes is a quest for the truth.
2. The two men are relatively ordinary private citizens with no preparation for a TV interview, much less with a tough interviewer with Matthews’ experience.
3. In a corollary to point 1, Chris does not play fair, asking questions far afield from the main topic of why the sudden turn on Lindsay Graham.

With those objections out of the way, let’s look at how our defenders of the Tea Party movement fared:

1. Everett Wilkinson of Florida Tea Party Patriots starts off with the total foolishness that nearly 2 million marched on Washington on 9/12, when reliable estimates place the crowd at no more than 500,000 tops (more conservative estimates come in at about 75,000).
2. Wilkinson could not answer the question that I have repeatedly asked in the comments section of this blog, namely why the sudden need for protest when all of our fiscal problems, e.g. out of control spending, started in the Bush administration?
3. Next comes the old stuff about Iraq being responsible for 9/11 (and some odd comment about Iran thrown in there also).
4. Wilkinson ends up looking like a good natured guy who spouts Republican talking points without much underlying knowledge. He supports my supposition that a lot of Tea Party members are vague, to be kind, about what is really bothering them. Wilkinson’s finest moment, and I say this sincerely, is when he reminds Matthews that he is basically off topic. Wilkinson looks like a pro compared to what comes next.
5. Next up is Allen Olson, a self described South Carolina Tea Party organizer. His first “gripe” is that Lindsay Graham is willing to “meet the Democrats more than halfway” about social security.  OK, good specific gripe there. What about this social security debate has Olson upset? “Well, I’m not exactly sure exactly what the issue was but Senator Graham said he was willing to talk to the Democrats on the issue of social security.” In impolite circles, this is known as not having the foggiest idea what you’re talking about. Matthews exercises incredibly empathetic restraint with this fellow who on the very first question makes it clear he has no business being interviewed about politics. Maybe about the Clemson Tigers, but not about politics.
6. Matthews pours a bit of salt in the wound by suggesting Graham is a “Richard Russell conservative”, a reference to a Georgia Senator who led a conservative movement from the late 30’s to the early 60’s. I had to look Russell up to find out who he was. Olson, as he literally bobbed and weaved in his chair, was as clueless as I. Matthews has studied politics and Olson clearly has not. Unfair fight but again evidence that this representative of the “movement” is in way over his head.
7. Chris then explores climate change and evolution in an attempt to make the guy look like a real neanderthal. Olson handles this pretty well actually, saying he doesn’t believe in climate change (lots of folks agree with him) and that he supports science and religion.
8. While Olson distances himself from those calling Graham a traitor (Olson stops at RINO), he then caps off the interview by proposing a Sarah Palin/Jim DeMint President/VP ticket in 2012. We won’t discuss Sarah, whom I’ve opined on extensively but Jim DeMint? DeMint, the Senator whose only reason to block health care reform is to destroy Obama’s presidency? DeMint, who visited the foreign government of Honduras, not recognized by our government? The same DeMint who compared Obama’s administration to Nazi Germany? Yeah Olson sure does know how to pick ‘em.
9. Like Wilkinson, Olson ended his part of the interview on a sympathetic note, comparing Palin’s bomb of an interview with Katie Couric, to his own nervousness talking to Chris Matthews. An ordinary guy defending an ordinary gal.

Bottom line, these two gentlemen are the best the Tea Party movement has to offer as public spokespeople. In their cringe-worthy testimony, they prove my supposition that the Tea Party waters are rough but don’t run very deep.

The prosecution rests its case.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Silence is Golden

I’ve stated in the past that George W. Bush’s best post presidential strategy is to lay low and hope that sometime down the line events prove him to be a better President than the current polls suggest. Unfortunately, some of Bush’s former minions are not taking the same advice.

Tonight on MSNBC’s “Hardball”, former Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleisher got into a heated debate with host Chris Matthews. The second half of the debate appears below:

Primarily because of Matthews’ abrasive style, one could go back and forth on who was scoring more points in the debate. Fleisher held his own for the most part and Chris unnecessarily hit a very raw nerve by reminding Ari that 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch. It’s only at the very end of the interview that Fleisher proves why he and every other save-the-Bush-legacy talking head need to shut the hell up. At the 7 minute mark in the video, in defending the invasion of Iraq, Fleisher says:

After September 11, having been hit once, how could we take a chance that Sadam might not strike again?

To my astonishment both Chris Matthews and later Keith Olberman let this comment go by unchallenged! Perhaps Chris was just too tired by that point in the interview to actually hear what Ari said. “How could we take a chance that Sadam might not strike again?”

Sadam did not strike us the first time! What does Fleisher mean by “again”?

With this one sentence, Ari blew his entire argument out of the window, perpetuating the myth, even after Bush is gone from the public scene, that somehow Sadam was responsible for 9/11.  It gives further evidence of the constant state of delusion in which the Bush administration was mired. Fleisher says this foolishness with such conviction that I find it hard to believe it is a put on. The Bush White House really believes that Sadam was behind 9/11 and no evidence to the contrary will ever convince them otherwise.

My heart went out to George W. Bush when he left office. I was mortified when he received boos at Barack Obama’s inauguration. More recently, I’ve almost admired Bush’s restraint now that we know that Bush’s legal advisers essentially gave him carte blanche to run a dictatorship. So now I tell all those well meaning associates of the former President who want to ensure his positive place in history to do so by just shutting up. The only thing that will redeem the Bush presidency will be the eventual establishment of a stable democracy in Iraq, which can then be traced back to Bush’s efforts.

For now, to use a now infamous phrase, all the talk in the world will do nothing more than put lipstick on a pig.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

George W. Bush: A Final Assessment

Since I only became politically aware within the last two or so years, I’m always hesitant to use the phrase, “I’ve never seen …” but I’ve never seen an administration leave Washington with as much retroactive public relations as that of the Bush administration. It’s even been named by the media as the Bush Legacy Project Tour. We’ve seen the President, Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice and even the elusive Vice President, Dick Cheney on multiple talk shows proudly proclaiming the victories of the Bush administration. The latest example of this was the President’s final televised address to the nation.

As I watched him, I could see how he could be the target of both sympathy and utter disdain simultaneously. When George Bush says that he always had our country’s best interests at heart, I believe him. I have no reason to doubt that. He comes from a family that has given decades of service to this country. With the exception of relatively minor acts of terrorism (World Trade Center of 2/23/93, and Oklahoma City) our country had not sustained a direct attack from an enemy since Pearl Harbor and then September 11 came. Bush was faced with an unprecedented loss of life on our shores, lives taken not from a warring country but from a nebulous network of international thugs. Conservatives are right when they say that most Americans in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 would have given Bush carte blanche to make sure this never happened again.

Was the appropriate way to end WWII and avenge Pearl Harbor to drop two atomic bombs on Japan in 1945 and bring an horrific end to the lives of many innocent civilians? President Harry Truman did what he thought best for his country. He stands much higher in history then he did immediately upon leaving office. Bush made terrible choices in response to 9/11 but he did so to protect his country. This is where I do feel a sympathy for him. I find his exit from the world stage a sad one. I’m annoyed by folks who say they want to prosecute him for war crimes. I feel he should just be left alone.

But then I listen to some of what Bush says in his farewell address and the disdain starts to creep in. Not finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a “disappointment” to Bush. On MSNBC’s “Hardball”, Chris Matthews gave a brilliant analogy. When a cop sees a man reaching for his wallet and shoots and kills him because he thought the man was reaching for a gun, he doesn’t say “I’m disappointed that the man didn’t have a gun.” He says that he’s sorry he made a terrible mistake in judgement. Instead of regretting his decision based on faulty intelligence, Bush only regrets that the intelligence didn’t justify his decision. He’s happy with the decision and unhappy that he can’t justify it. When you hear this kind of logic you just want to slap the guy.

Bush angrily told a reporter at his last press conference that the government response to Katrina was not slow. He pointed to thousands of people being rescued from rooftops by “chopper drivers” (apparently George forgot the word “pilot”) as evidence of the government’s effective response, as support of his original assessment of “Good job Brownie”. His regrets about Katrina seem limited to whether or not he availed himself of a photo-op during the crisis. He seems oblivious to the fact that thousands were stranded without clean water and care in the immediate aftermath of the flood and that to this day many are still displaced. You watch Bush talk about this stuff and you say “the man just doesn’t get it.” You want to shake him and wake him up.

It is hard to look at the Bush presidency and come away with any sort of success story. To some extent, his administration was a victim of circumstance but sometimes it is not what happens to you but how you react to it that shapes public and historical opinion. I don’t blame Bush for 9/11 even though it happened on his watch. I do blame him for attacking the wrong country. I don’t blame him for Katrina. I do blame him for not taking the role of an empathetic leader at the time and not mobilizing his government to take proper action.

I believe the final assessment of George W. Bush is that he was a man not ready to be President, faced with challenges even the greatest of Presidents would have found daunting. He did his best but within his limitations, his best was no where good enough. Just as he wishes Barack Obama well, I wish him well. I hope he has a peaceful retirement and finds a way to use the role of ex-President to help the world in much the same way that Jimmy Carter, George-41, and Bill Clinton have.

I think given the choice between sympathy and disdain, I fall on the side of sympathy. I think we should let George W. Bush return quietly to citizen Bush and allow history to judge him in good time. That will be more than enough punishment for his sins.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Appeasement and Impeachment

MSNBC had a field day when Chris Matthews on “Hardball” nailed conservative commentator Kevin James on whether or not he knew what the word appeasement meant. After some 24 attempts at getting an answer, Chris finally got Kevin to admit he didn’t know what he was talking about.

In full self congratulatory mode, on “Countdown with Keith Olberman”, Friday night guest host Rachel Maddow interviewed Chris about the confrontation and they shared their concern that words, especially hot button words, be used properly. Unfortunately, earlier in the same episode, Rachel noted a political anniversary by saying that back in 1868, “the Senate actually came close to impeaching a president”. For an analyst and a network so intent on the proper use of words, Rachel and MSNBC blew it big time. The president in question, Andrew Johnson, did not come “close” to being impeached. He was impeached. He was NOT convicted. What Rachel should have said was that the Senate came close to convicting and thereby forcing out of office a president. To make the mistatement all the more glaring, she identified the president as Andrew Jackson. Fortunately, after a commercial break, she corrected that whopper but neglected to correct her use of “came close to”.

If MSNBC is going to self righteously pound its chest over historical accuracy, they need to do some fact checking before opening their mouth.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

Hardball Needs to Play Hardball with its Staff

On the 5pm Monday edition of MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews”, a story about Barack Obama was accompanied by a graphic of Osama Bin Laden. After the commercial break, Matthews apologized for the error and moved on with his show.

Over a week ago, MSNBC correspondent David Shuster was suspended when he suggested that the Clintons were exploiting their daughter, Chelsea, for their own political gain. The point could be argued one way or another but Shuster’s choice of words (that the Clintons were “pimping” Chelsea) was most unfortunate. Despite an on air apology, Shuster is still suspended. If Hillary had her way, he would have been fired.

Well, I think the more appropriate target for firing is whichever staff member “mistakenly” called up a picture of Osama Bin Laden during an Obama story. On the eve of the Wisconsin primary, a major news show “confuses” the most inspirational candidate of our time with America’s number one fugitive, responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans in the World Trade Center attacks of 2001. This mistake cannot get simply passed over with a curt apology from Chris Matthews. The parties responsible should be fired and their dismissal should be announced by MSNBC in a prominent venue (perhaps tomorrow nights edition of Hardball). I don’t blame Matthews personally for this screw up but I do hold him responsible to make sure the error gets publicly rectified.

In a country where a sizable percentage of ignorant Americans think Obama is a Muslim, this mistake on Hardball only serves as a subliminal reenforcement of that inaccurate impression. When the show ended this evening, I called MSNBC and voiced my concern. I’m now calling on MSNBC and Matthews to do the right thing and make it clear that encouraging any association between Obama and Osama, however accidental, is unacceptable.

Respectfully,
Rutherford