Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

August 31, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

ISLAMOFASCISM....David Weigel quotes Jack Reed on George Bush's newfound infatuation with the ridiculous neologism "Islamofascism":

And again, I think it goes to the point of that their first response is, you know, come up with a catchy slogan, and then they forget to do the hard work of digging into the facts and coming up with a strategy and resources that will counter the actual threats we face.

Preach it, brother. The modern Republican Party has mastered the art of winning elections by beating culture war campaign tropes to death in 30-second ad spots, and they seem to think that you can solve actual real-world problems the same way. Sadly, it isn't true. With any luck, the American public will finally figure that out this year.

Kevin Drum 12:23 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (153)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I don't know why this is so hard for you, Kevin, but Al will set you straight: If we don't spend hundreds of billions in Iraq and put thousands of US citizens through the meat-grinder of the "civil war," then the US won't be safe!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on August 31, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

"With any luck . . ." Hah!

Posted by: SqueakyRat on August 31, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

David Weigel quotes Jack Reed on George Bush's newfound infatuation with the ridiculous neologism "Islamofascism": And again, I think it goes to the point of that their first response is, you know, come up with a catchy slogan, and then they forget to do the hard work of digging into the facts and coming up with a strategy and resources that will counter the actual threats we face.

Uh, no Kevin. The reason why Bush is using the word "Islamofascism" is because that's the best way to describe the enemy. The enemies are Islamic people who want to kill infidels and become dictators who control the world with their new Islamic form of fascism and Sharia law. Why do you have such a problem with conservatives telling it like it is? In any long struggle, it is important to dispell any moral or intellectual confusion about the nature of the enemy and why we're killing them. Liberals are as usual morally and intellectually confused about Islamofascism and the enemy and that's what Bush and Rumsfeld are fighting against.

Posted by: Al on August 31, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

I thought it was good marketing. Aim the diatribe at the Islamics, connect them with Jew hating Germans, make the conection, indirectly to Vichy France and the appeasers. It defines an enemy we can shoot at, and an enemy vile enough that few of us, even the liberals, give a damn about if we shoot them.

It as the other advantage of putting a warning shot toward the so called Muslim moderates, if any exist, that they should straighten out that absurd religion or risk getting shot in self defense.

And finally, the implication of the term is that no Democrat would be foolish enough to include crazed muslims in their circle.


Posted by: Matt on August 31, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

Where is the evidence that they actually want to solve real world problems?

I'm not kidding. Anyone?

Posted by: craigie on August 31, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

I'm not sure why you object to the term "Islamofacists," since it pithily describes the folks who have declared themselves to be our enemies, but if you don't like that, I suppose you could use "jihadists." Or is there some other word or term you prefer? Maybe you think we should stick with "terrorists?" I really can't tell what you want.

Posted by: DBL on August 31, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

Al, It's remarkable how well you proved the point of the post. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their followers can't tell the difference between an actual radical Islamist and a plain old everyday Muslim because to you guys, any old raghead is an "Islamofascist". Hence the inability to understand that Iraq was a SECULAR state. Hence the inability to understand that Khatami was a REFORMER. And any number of other ACTUAL FACTS about the real world that don't fit into your prepackaged notion of "Islamofascist".

It's a damn stupid way to form foreign policy.

Posted by: Phil on August 31, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

The problem with the term Islamofascism is that it doesn't go far enough. We should be talking about the wider problem of Religiofascism. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are all being distorted, perverted, and abused to support the political goals of a few fanatics.

Posted by: George Dorn on August 31, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

Ironically, Weigel slams the term "Islamfascism" on the blog belonging to Andrew Sullivan, who has been one of the most enthusiastic users of the phrase. Physician, heal thyself!

Posted by: Fred App on August 31, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

Phil
Al, It's remarkable how well you proved the point of the post. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their followers can't tell the difference between an actual radical Islamist and a plain old everyday Muslim because to you guys, any old raghead is an "Islamofascist".

Bzzzt! That is not Al's point. No one (except you) is suggesting Islamofascist be blanket applied to all Muslims.

Posted by: Red State Mike on August 31, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Muzzlum is as muzzlum does, eh boys?

Posted by: Wonderin on August 31, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

The closest thing to real Islamic fascists are the guys running Saudi Arabia. But they're our buddies!

Posted by: Virginia Dutch on August 31, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

I think these fuckers have finally jumped the shark.

1.You have Olbermann spanking Bush's bare emperor's bottom last night, turning their foolish arguments back against them. "Fascists," indeed.

2.Paul Begala stating that he basically would love to see Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld out campaigning this fall because they are like a rotting albatross around the neck of the Republican party.

3.The continuing weakness in the polls indicating that the Chimperor's remaining support is the blind and insane "base" plus or minus (on any given day) a few wavering special cases.

4.Chris Shays in Connecticut (a formerly staunch war supporter) now says a staged withdrawal may be desirable...What next? Joe-mentum calling for a new policy as well?


I have been watching and waiting a long time for this. But, just to be safe, I will hold off on dancing in my office until after the November elections. But is it ever going to be sweet to see those assclowns covered with the scorn and disgrace that they so deeply deserve.

Posted by: Baldrick on August 31, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

Somebody else suggested--but I am happy to propogate:

Opportunofascism

Posted by: Buce on August 31, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike,
Oh, you're SO right. No one but me, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Conrad Burns, Michelle Malkin, Anne Coulter...

Posted by: Phil on August 31, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Here's Senator Conrad Burns's nuanced appreciation of the Islamofascist threat:

'Burns talked about the war on terrorism, saying a "faceless enemy" of terrorists "drive taxi cabs in the daytime and kill at night."' (link)

Posted by: Phil on August 31, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans know that, if people are worried about terrorism, Democrats have given absolutely no reason to vote for them. It may be playing politics to focus on that angle, but maybe the Democrats should start worry about the preception of them being pansies on the world stage... the same preception that's been out there for decades.

Posted by: Frank J. on August 31, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

The Six Ages of Man:

The Golden Age
The Silver Age
The Bronze Age
The Heroic Age
The Iron Age
The Marketing Age

Posted by: Anon on August 31, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

...maybe the Democrats should start worry about the preception of them being pansies on the world stage... the same preception that's been out there for decades.

Maybe warmongering Rethugs like yourself should stop worrying about a "perception"--however old--that has nothing whatsoever to do with reality.

Posted by: Baldrick on August 31, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

I thought that quote was from Harry Reid.

Posted by: Jackm on August 31, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

This all reminds me of a song during my time in Nam (or right after). Some of which resonates till this day.

Go ahead and hate your neighbor
Go ahead and cheat a friend
Do it in the name of Heavan
You can justify it in the end

Won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgement day
On the bloody morning after
One Tin Soldier rides away

Islamofascism...Right
Whatever lets you sleep at night after your crusader war.

Posted by: MLuther on August 31, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

DBL:

The proper term is "Islamist extremist."

The analogy with Fascism is extremely poorly-drawn for a whole number of reasons that were detailed ad infinitum in the last thread on this subject.

I just haven't had enough coffee yet to begin the tiresome process of reiteration.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 31, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

I'm with Al (or is that AI?). "The enemies are Islamic people who want to kill infidels and become dictators who control the world with their new Islamic form of fascism and Sharia law." Really indistinguishable from Mussolini, if only he'd grown a beard.

What's "infidel" in Italian?

Posted by: Jonathan Lundell on August 31, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

Virginia Dutch makes an excellent point.

The Arab and Muslim regimes that are our closest allies: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan -- are heavy-handed authoritarian states with strongly repressive internal security apparatuses. That's precisely how they, umm, control their homegrown Islamist extremists.

And to the extent that they are authoritarian and repressive, is the extent to which they can be fairly labeled fascistic.

Freakin' Orwell is rolling in his grave.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 31, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

Frank J: but maybe the Democrats should start worry about the preception of them being pansies on the world stage...

We think you should start worrying about being perceived as a candyass on the stage of reality. You were, I recall, the 20-something who couldn't fight this war you love because you have "a job, a girlfriend and dreams." Unfuckingbelievable.

MLuther: Good god! Billy Jack. Surely the end is nigh.

Posted by: shortstop on August 31, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

The modern Republican Party has mastered the art of winning elections by beating culture war campaign tropes to death in 30-second ad spots, and they seem to think that you can solve actual real-world problems the same way.

Aw, horse manure. Show me how the Republicans in the White House and Congress seem at all interested in solving "actual real-world problems." They know their radical rhetoric can win actual real-world elections -- with a little help from Diebold, of course -- and that's all they care about.

Posted by: Gregory on August 31, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

Um, how about just plain "gangs"? Isn't that what they are?

Posted by: Pothique on August 31, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

...and, of course, craigie beat me to it. Hats off to you, sir.

DBL: I suppose you could use "jihadists." ... Maybe you think we should stick with "terrorists?"

And what would be wrong with those, save that they don't throw red meat to the Little Green Footballs crowd?

Speaking of which...

RSM: No one (except you) is suggesting Islamofascist be blanket applied to all Muslims.

...now, "ragheads," on the other hand, is a term RSM can get behind!

Franj J: but maybe the Democrats should start worry about the preception of them being pansies on the world stage... the same preception that's been out there for decades.

Yeha, thanks mostly to the relentless branding efforts of the Republicans. Why should the Democrats worry? The Republican would portray them as weak on defense no matter what their position...it's what they do.

Fortunately for the Democrats, the Republicans' conspicuious incompetence is ruining their carefully wrought marketing appeal. No one will trust the GOP with national security for a generation.

Posted by: Gregory on August 31, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Al-bot, et al: Riddle me this: If, indeed we are engulfed in an epic struggle against the modern equivalent of Nazis, Fascists, etc. , then can you explain why there are no GOP calls for a draft, war bonds, or any REAL sacrifice at all? If the very existence of our way of life is at stake, then why is one of the main domestic priorities of this admin. the repeal of the estate tax? Something doesn't compute; so please help me out here...

Posted by: southend on August 31, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK
The problem with the term Islamofascism is that it doesn't go far enough. We should be talking about the wider problem of Religiofascism.

I think we should be more concerned with just-plain-fascism: the combination of militant exclusionary nationalism supported with appeals to cultural tradition, authoritarianism justified by exaggerated domestic and foreign threats trumpetted by the leadership and framed in the context of broader global struggle between races or civilizations, close ties between government leadership and favored major business owners in a mutual backscratching circle, with the regulators serving to protect major firms against smaller competitors by raising barriers to entry and sheltering, authorizing, or forgiving anti-competitive actions, with superficial praise for meritocracy covering the strong preference in government policy for the interests of the rich.

Posted by: cmdicely on August 31, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

And to the extent that they are authoritarian and repressive, is the extent to which they can be fairly labeled fascistic.

Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob, BOB!

Authoritarian and repressive does not equal fascist. North Korea is not fascist, for example.

Posted by: Red State Mike on August 31, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

If memory serves me right, when Huey Long was asked whether we'd ever have fascism in America. he replied, "Of course we will. but we'll call it 'anti- fascism.'"

Posted by: Gregory on August 31, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

what you said, cmdicely. And, I thought that the basic root of fascism requires the presence of an actual state. In this state, all power is relegated to the state, usually represented by a leader uniquely chosen by detiny to lead his homeland against a uniquely evil threat. Where is that state in the middle east? I would guess that if we left the middle east, those groups that are loosely allied aginst us would break up into infighting within weeks. Would the Wahabis accept the Shiites and the Sunnis? Would they form a united caliphate with a military force able to conquer the world and force conversion? Only silly idiots think so.

Posted by: Neal on August 31, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Who would that be cmdicely?

This whole round of war mongering is completely daft. That this is even a discussion is surreal.

Posted by: ChrisS on August 31, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

North Korea is not fascist, for example.

Why not?

Posted by: ckelly on August 31, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Whe fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross...

Posted by: Neal on August 31, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely, as usual, has the proper perspective on "fascism".

Posted by: Baldrick on August 31, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

"Opportunofascism"

Funny. Est. 2000!

Also funny how the insane rural christofascist base is suddenly dependent on a turncoat Connecticut Jew for its salvation. Even Alanis Morisette could see that irony.

Posted by: Kenji on August 31, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

rmck1 >"...The analogy with Fascism is extremely poorly-drawn for a whole number of reasons..."

Jonathan Lundell >"...Really indistinguishable from Mussolini, if only he'd grown a beard..."

"From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48:

fascism \fasc"ism\ (f[a^]sh"[i^]z'm) n.
1. a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government; -- opposed to democracy and liberalism.
[WordNet 1.5]

2. an authoritarian system of government under absolute control of a single dictator, allowing no political opposition, forcibly suppressing dissent, and rigidly controlling most industrial and economic activities. Such regimes usually try to achieve popularity by a strongly nationalistic appeal, often mixed with racism..."

I hadn`t heard that them Islamo-whatevers had been "...rigidly controlling most industrial and economic activities..."

Who knew ?

Musta missed it what with our librual media and all

Does kinda remind me of some folk I hear a lot of ranting & screaming from on that there tvee thingee tho

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Giovanni Gentile

Posted by: daCascadian on August 31, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike:

North Korea is also kind of a unique regime -- the last remaining explicitly Stalinist cult-of-personality state.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, not so much.

And notice I called their repressive mechanisms fascistic, not the regimes themselves Fascist per se.

Also, you said in the earlier thread that Saddam's Iraq was not an "Islamofascist" state. Ironically enough, I'd argue with that and call Saddam's pan-Arab racism and penchant for genocide -- lumped in with the dreaded, terrorizing Mutabarak -- enough to make it count as a genuinely capital-F Fascist state.

And Saddam used Islam just as cynically as Hitler used Bavarian Catholicism.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 31, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

Neal >"Whe fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross..."

Been usin that one meself a fair amount lately I have; must be something in the air I suppose...

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Posted by: daCascadian on August 31, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

Well, of course in America we don't get Fascism -- we get Fascism Lite.

20% less knocks on the door in the middle of the night -- the same great paranoia-inducing fear!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 31, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Giovanni Gentile
Posted by: daCascadian

Be careful in your conclusions. What Gentile meant by "corporate" is not the same as the modern day corporations. Corporate was meant in the sense of "corpus".

Posted by: Red State Mike on August 31, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

I really don't see the "fascism" in "Islamofascism."

It's just another attempt to tie them to Hitler and the Greatest War.

"Islamototalitarians" is accurate, I suppose, but a mouthful.

The truth that they're Islamic fundamentalists hits a little too close to the Republican home of Christian fundamentalists. Nothing wrong with fundamentalism as long as it's OUR fundamentalism, the Republican't Party would say.

Do these guys even have enough savvy to have a economic preference? Capitalism? Socialism? Communism? Facism? I think they are still too focused on political power to look at economic systems.

So, for my money, and just because there's nothing I like better, from now on it's "Islamopublicans."

Posted by: Cal Gal on August 31, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

RS Mike, Al, anyone: Again: Why does the actual domestic legislative agenda of the GOP (estate tax repeal, gay marriage ban, cutting vets benefits, etc.) not come even close to matching up with their foreign policy rhetoric? It couldn't possibly be that their "Long War" BS is just that?

Posted by: southend on August 31, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

hey southend ! turn over a few more spades full of that the odor drifted way up here.

Posted by: BIG STATE on August 31, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

To BIG STATE: Huh??

Posted by: southend on August 31, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

FASCIST IN A TURBAN

They say Osama's weird and mean
He sounds just like a drama queen
And Adolf Hitler can be seen
Although he lacks a war machine

Oooh ... Oh Sama! Osama drama
Oooh ... Oh Sama! Osam Islama

They try to inflltrate the West
Because we think it is the best
And put our values to the test
Because we balk at false arrest

Oh ... Oh Sama! Osama drama
Oh ... Oh Sama! Osam Islama

Bush claims it's a global war
He knows what we are fighting for
For Halliburton he's no whore
It only gets the liberals sore

Oh ... Oh Sama! Osama drama
Oh ... Oh Sama! Osam Islama

The bases shriek Apocalypse
And Bush won't die by "Read my lips!"
He puts his hands upon his hips
And down the hole the country slips

Oh ... Oh Sama! Osama drama
Oh ... Oh Sama! Osam Islama

Bush will win on both accounts
Despite the cost in large amounts
The Democrats are quickly trounced
Because he's got the Diebold counts

Oh ... Oh Sama! Osama drama
Oh ... Oh Sama! Osam Islama

He needn't have an Iraq plan
Because now he will bomb Iran
And though we love to hate the man
That loving hatred is his fan

Oh ... Oh Sama! Osama drama
Oh ... Oh Sama! Osam Islama

Hating Muslims all in love
Our ideology's made of
And if they can't see what's above
They'll surely note it's not a dove

Oh ... Oh Sama! Osama drama
Oh ... Oh Sama! Osam Islama

This just flew out. Hehe, I'll expect I'll have chords and a melody line by the weekend :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 31, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

President Bush is trying to cast dispersion of the label of fascism upon others to avoid the same being applied to his own Neoconservative movement?

Considering the following attributes of past Fascist regimes:

(1) A loathing of international institutions and alliances;
(2) A loathing of science, academia and intelligentsia;
(3) Engaging the politics of the persecuted majority;
(4) Engaging in stab-in-the-back rhetoric;
(5) Scapegoating adversaries; (6) Engaging the politics of resentment;
(6) Using government to advancing corporate interest;
(7) Confusing patriotism with militarism;
(8) Pursuing authoritarian culture through conflation of religion and politics;
(9) Waging preemptive war;
(10) Obsession with crime and punishment while overlooking cause and affect;
(11) Rampant corruption and cronyism;
(12) Undermining the labor movement as a means to obtain fair wages for workers;
(13) Concentrating wealth and power;
(14) Fraudulent elections evidenced by a persistent pattern of narrow majority contests (a 1% majority consistently win nearly all elections!);
(15) Employment of Orwellian nomenclature;
(16) Racism and sexism (overt or implicit);
(17) Constriction of free press as a form of propaganda (overt or implicit);
(18) Constriction of free expression of opinion (overt or implicit); (18) Unwarranted searches and seizures;
(19) Constriction on civil rights;
(20) A need to identify enemies as a unifying and mobilizing force even if there arent any;
(21) (Character or otherwise) Assassination of dissidents and opponents;
(22) Concentration Camps;
(23) Diplomacy characterized by bullying and coercion;
(24) The use of terrorist events as a pretext for compromising the rule of law and civil rights;
(25) The application of torture;
(26) Labeling criticism of pre-emptive war as defeatist;
(27) Resentment of and reaction to modernism.

Certainly many of these attributes apply to the terrorist, but even more apply to the Neocon movement. Given this list, maybe Mr. Bush is starting to worry about his administration going down in history as being labeled euphemistically as the 4th Reich.

After reading this list, anyone anywhere who has voted for or advocated for Bush should feel the intense need to take a shower as an act of cleansing oneself. Including the troll Al.

In the past, Neocons have Orwellingly labeled others to avoid being labeled as such themselves: Despite the Neocon control of most of this countrys wealth and every branch of government they label Democrats as elites; Despite Neocon ownership of most mainstream media, they label the press as liberal; Despite overwhelming evidence suggesting desertion from the National Guard, Mr. Bushs campaign in 2004 succeeded in labeling John Kerrys decorated service in Vietnam as unpatriotic; Despite their political philosophy being founded upon atheism (religion is seen simply as a utility for controlling the masses) Neocons have labeled the Democrats as Godless; Despite being decidedly authoritarian they label Democrats as authoritarian regulators; and so

Could it be then, that the Neocons are trying to do a similar dodge with the word Fascism by casting it upon others as well?

No doubt, being labeled Fascist constitutes a danger to the Neoconservative movement. However, their avoidance at being so labeled constitutes an even greater danger to America and the world at large. My guess is that the labeling of others as fascist has only just begun.

Through all of this, I would remind you that if it looks like a fascist, and squalks like a fascist and it walks like a fascist, then chances are the Neocon Republicans are all Fascist, All the Time.

Amongst such fascist, I include troll Al.

Al, why deny it, why not be proud of who and what you and your kind are.

Why be cowardly? You act like a facist, and sound like a fascist because you ARE a fascist.

Why be ashamed of what you are?

Why not revel in who and what you are?

Chuck the freedom diatribe, you are all for authoritarian institutions that exist to support hierarchy, which is the very anti-thesis of democracy and freedome.

You no more want equality, democracy, decency and freedom than you want to be dry dicked up the ass with a Johnny holmes dildo.

But you are all for doing that to the people at the bottom end of society and that requires authoritarianism. Let them eat cake and be anal raped. If that's how you feel, don't avoid it, don't try to paint a macaque into something noble go to the highest mountain and scream it out at the top of your lungs. And just hope that you don't ever lose your job, your health insurance, get sick and lose your savings to doctor bills, or you'll be out on the street where some neocon will be hunting you down with his Johnny Holmes dildo.

Posted by: Bubbles on August 31, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

I really don't see the "fascism" in "Islamofascism."


Yes, Cal Gal, it's just another cheap Hitler tie-in, but the an "o" to make the neocons feel scholarly. Funny how they don't like it when the left tars every authoritarian regime with the fascist brush, but they are happy to whip it out for people who have no state apparatus and only a loose affiliation based around fearing America, women, and change in general. Gee, I wonder why that strikes such a chord in Washington.

Posted by: Kenji on August 31, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

This just flew out. Hehe, I'll expect I'll have chords and a melody line by the weekend :)

The chorus made me think of Jolly Mon Sing by Jimmy Buffet. I know it really shouldn't but there you go. Regardless, great lyrics. let us know when we can download a mp3.

Posted by: Edo on August 31, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK
What Gentile meant by "corporate" is not the same as the modern day corporations. Corporate was meant in the sense of "corpus".

This is true to an extent, though the distinction is nowhere near as significant as you seem to be trying to suggest; the use is very close to the modern denotative use of "corporations", that is, "corporate power" refers to the power of collective institutions with legal recognition (its not limited to businesses, which is a frequent limiting connotation in the modern use of "corporation", but encompassed the entire broad denotation of the modern "corporation", including things like labor unions, etc.) Both the modern use and the use Gentile was making derive, of course, from that of the Latin corpus.

As in the modern, say, American usage, this collective groups (whether industrial, labor, or otherwise) are, in the corporatist model, granted sanction, and official prerogatives that are backed by the coercive power of the state.
The difference between the corporatist model and the modern American model (at least in theory of the two models) is, as Gentile describes, the degree of formal integration of the corporate bodies with the state. In America, corporations are, of course, nominally "private", not the overt government organs that corporate bodies are in the corporatist model, though they remain invested with special prerogatives, and something that is in effect, if not in formal structure, very similar to what corporatism seeks to acheive seems frequently to occur with powerful corporate actors through "iron triangles" linking government regulators with the major players in the areas they regulate.

But, statements of fascists aside, while corporatism is an element of fascism, it is not the same thing as fascism as that term is usually used. Fascism usually refers to regimes that feature corporatism along with authoritarian militaristic nationalism (there are other common features as well, but those two are the key ones.) The PRI regime in Mexico, for one example, had many corporatist features, but while certainly embracing a strong nationalist stance, didn't embrace the kind of aggressive militarism or clash of civilizations rhetoric that would lead it to be generally labelled fascist.

Posted by: cmdicely on August 31, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

North Korea is not fascist, for example.

Only rhetoric divides DPRK "communism" from "fascism"; the two certainly are not equivalent, but the North Korean version of the latter (and aggressively expansionistic Communism in general) has little to distinguish it from Fascism in substance; both feature authoritarian militaristic nationalism, and both feature totalitarianism in economic and social matters; now, the aggressive "Communist" regime justifies its totalitarianism as a way of defending the working class from the predations of capitalist class, and the original "fascist" regimes defend justify theirs largely as a way to protect against the evils of the Communists, but other than that even the rhetoric is largely the same.

Posted by: cmdicely on August 31, 2006 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

If you call someone a fascist, by inference, you're not a fascist-perhaps they are preparing us for the new regime.

Posted by: neal on August 31, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK
Why not revel in who and what you are?

Chuck the freedom diatribe, you are all for authoritarian institutions that exist to support hierarchy, which is the very anti-thesis of democracy and freedome.

The "freedom diatribe" is in the finest fascist tradition, though; fascists, while establishing repressive police states, talked about enhancing and protecting freedom, presented their regimes as the antithesis of the "police-ridden state", and waved around the specter of the repressive nature of competing ideologies (particular Communism) as a reason to adopt fascism.


Posted by: cmdicely on August 31, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

ARE YOUR EYES OPEN YET??? (Meow)

Posted by: Dancer on August 31, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

It speaks volumes that all the paid wingnut trolls on here claim to be ex-Dems in order to give themselves credibility.

Posted by: Disputo on August 31, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

mhr wrote: "The truth is that we ex-Democrats are not buying the snake oil that modern Democrats are hawking."

The truth is that you are not an "ex-Democrat".

What you are is a liar.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on August 31, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

The truth is that we ex-Democrats are not buying the snake oil that modern Democrats are hawking. In the meantime you liberal intellectuals keep on telling us how utterly backward we are.
Posted by: mhr

It's code ... when bush says "islamofascism," he's essentially affirming his redneck bases' racism and bigotry, since it's so clearly interchangeable with "raghead" or any equivalent slur.

similarly, when a little bitch like mhr talks about how dems began to lose influence in the 60s, it's simply code for his disapproval of dem support for women and minority rights.

The same racist tendancies that resulted in the southern strategy (itself a blatant pander to redneck america) are evident in the use of "islamofascism" as acceptable lingo.

Posted by: Nads on August 31, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

daCascadian quoted Giovanni Gentile's definition of "fascism" which is commonly attributed to Benito Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

Red State Mike replied: Be careful in your conclusions. What Gentile meant by "corporate" is not the same as the modern day corporations. Corporate was meant in the sense of "corpus".

No.

Mussolini was quite straightforward about all this. In a 1923 pamphlet titled "The Doctrine of Fascism" he wrote, "If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government." But not a government of, by, and for We The People - instead, it would be a government of, by, and for the most powerful corporate interests in the nation.

In 1938, Mussolini brought his vision of fascism into full reality when he dissolved Parliament and replaced it with the "Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni" - the Chamber of the Fascist Corporations. Corporations were still privately owned, but now instead of having to sneak their money to folks like John Boehner and covertly write legislation, they were openly in charge of the government.

The above two paragraphs are excerpted from Thom Hartmann's excellent article:

Reclaiming The Issues: Islamic Or Republican Fascism?
by Thom Hartmann
August 28, 2006
CommonDreams.org

Hartmann also quotes Vice President of the United States Henry Wallace, who wrote an article published by The New York Times in 1944 on fascism in America -- an article that is more important today than it was even then:

Vice President of the United States Henry Wallace was the first to clearly and accurately point out who the real American fascists are, and what they're up to.

In early 1944 the New York Times asked Vice President Wallace to, as Wallace noted, "write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous are they?"

Vice President Wallace's answers to those questions were published in The New York Times on April 9, 1944, at the height of the war against the Axis powers of Germany and Japan:

"The really dangerous American fascists," Wallace wrote, "are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."

[...]

"If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. ... They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead."

Nonetheless, at that time there were few corporate heads who had run for political office, and, in Wallace's view, most politicians still felt it was their obligation to represent We The People instead of corporate cartels. The real problem would come, he believed, when the media was concentrated in only a few hands:

"American fascism will not be really dangerous," he added in the next paragraph, "until there is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information.."

Noting that, "Fascism is a worldwide disease," Wallace further suggested that fascism's "greatest threat to the United States will come after the war" and will manifest "within the United States itself."

"Deliberate poisoners of public information" who "put money and power ahead of human beings" and "who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful" perfectly describes the Republian Fascist Party of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush today.

A frighteningly prophetic article.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on August 31, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

We have far, far more reason to be concerned about the threat of Republomonarchism than about anything characterizable as "Islamofascism," an ideology with no real world adherents.

"There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution."--Anna Diggs Taylor

"Caesar had his Brutus; Charles the First his Cromwell; and George the Second" [Cries of "Treason! Treason!"] "George the Second may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it."--Patrick Henry [with slight modification by rea; I doubt Mr. Henry would object].

Posted by: rea on August 31, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

"The Democrat War on Poverty spent trillions of dollars and the result was crime in the streets . . ."

Try a Google search on the phrase "post hoc ergo propter hoc," dude . . .

Posted by: rea on August 31, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

We have far, far more reason to be concerned about the threat of Republomonarchism than about anything characterizable as "Islamofascism," an ideology with no real world adherents.

Sounds like your platform for the 2008 elections. Good luck with it.

Posted by: Red State Mike on August 31, 2006 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

President Bush on Thursday predicted victory in the war on terror at a time of increasing public anxiety at home, likening the struggle against Islamic fundamentalism with the fight against Nazis and communists.

The Hitler Nazi power was first and foremost a fascist movement which means that it was highly nationalistic, secular and extremely connected to corporatism. Most Islamic terrorists do not swear loyalty to a certain state and they are not secular by any stretch. Their loyalty is to the religion of Islam. Yes, Islamic terrorists are anti-semitic as was Nazism, however, Hitler would have hated Muslims as much as the Jews as they would not fit the Aryan definition. You would never see Hitler hanging out with an Osama bin Laden. Islamic terrorists are not looking to place the corporate state above all else as fascism does but rather to place Allah, the clerics and sharia law above all else.

The "fight against communists" argument is even more problematic. Communists despise religion and as stated before, Islamic terrorists adore and revere their religion above all else. Karl Marx, (the father of communism) famously said that religion was the "opiate of the masses."

The closest ideology that we can pin on the Islamic terrorists is totalitarianism. There is fascist totalitarianism, communist totalitarianism, and Islamic Extremist totalitarianism.

Unfortunately for the Bushies these definitions do not fit on a bumper sticker. They assume that people are stupid and will believe anything they say rather then research the political science, history and geography behind their claims for themselves.

Posted by: James on August 31, 2006 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

I love how liberals always love to throw around the "fascist" label at anyone they disagree with (ie, Coulter, Limbaugh, the neighborhood police man) but call an evil, America-hating terrorist a fascist -- WHOA!! You can't call them that!

You guys are pathetic America haters. That's why you keep losing elecitions.

Posted by: egbert on August 31, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK
The Democrat War on Poverty spent trillions of dollars and the result was crime in the streets of every urban center in the country.

Three points:

The adjective is "Democratic".

The "War on Poverty" didn't spend trillions of dollars, since it was largely abandoned in its infancy in favor of the rather less metaphorical War in Vietnam.

You present no reason to believe that any increase in crime was related to the "War on Poverty".

Posted by: cmdicely on August 31, 2006 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist >"...A frighteningly prophetic article."

True & thanks for posting that; I see a couple of real juicy quotes to save out of it

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Posted by: daCascadian on August 31, 2006 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

egbert="I love how liberal's get so mad when they get tazered in the taint for expressing their opinion.I myself love it,but I can only come up with an obedient party line.

Posted by: vbrans on August 31, 2006 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

"You guys are pathetic America haters. That's why you keep losing elecitions."

Well, who wants 'elecitions' anyway? Thanks, Egbert, for bringing such a high level of argument to the discussion. Too bad they didn't have you at the Algonquin Round Table. Dorothy Parker had nothing on you.

Posted by: Kenji on August 31, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK
...but call an evil, America-hating terrorist a fascist -- WHOA!! You can't call them that!

egbert, I'm sure you're a troll, but what the hell, I'm feeling generous tonight.

Yes, we reserve the word "fascist" to people to whom it applies. Look up the definition. I think you'll find it significantly different from the definition for "terrorist," which should be a clue to you. Heck, even you used the word "terrorist" in your comment...

Posted by: Adam on August 31, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

That's why you keep losing elecitions."

I keep losing my keys.

Posted by: Disputo on August 31, 2006 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely

The inner city is a liberal disaster. It's hard to imagine that a political party starting with the goal of destroying the inner city, especially the african-american community, could have done more destruction than liberal policies have managed to accomplish.

Further, I am certain you are well aware of the tradegy. Liberals of your generation will be assigned blame for this debacle and it's well earned. It's far, far worse than Monyihan predicted so long ago.

A couple years ago I looked up the public HS stats for two schools in West Philadephia where I grew up. More than 60% of entering Freshman drop out of school BEFORE Senior year. I could not find out how many graduate but I'm certain it's less than 30%. of that 30% I'd be shocked of more than 20% were capable of 12th grade math and reading.

That works out to 6%. Within that population the female to male ratio is probably 5 to 1. This is educational genocide.

Just as bad as the educational system is the justice system. The only places in America where there is still a call for gun control is in the big cities in blue states now in their 5th decade of one party control and they're pure liberals. These are also the only places in America where the crime rate is rising. West and SouthWest Philly used to be safe for big cities. They're shooting galleries today.

African-Americans born in big cities run by liberals are absolutely screwed. Especially males. At no time since the end of slavery 140 years ago has any group been in such dire straights. This is a liberal tradegy due entirely to liberal policies.

Posted by: rdw on August 31, 2006 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Please, please, please keep these quotes coming. Religious voters love to be insulted by sanctimonious lib. This is the stuff that ensures they get to the polls.

Posted by: rdw on August 31, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

The rdw troll-bot needs a new spell checker.

Posted by: Disputo on August 31, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

Adam >"...Look up the definition..."

Here ya go :

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48:

fascism \fasc"ism\ (f[a^]sh"[i^]z'm) n.
1. a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government; -- opposed to democracy and liberalism.
[WordNet 1.5]

2. an authoritarian system of government under absolute control of a single dictator, allowing no political opposition, forcibly suppressing dissent, and rigidly controlling most industrial and economic activities. Such regimes usually try to achieve popularity by a strongly nationalistic appeal, often mixed with racism.
[PJC]

3. Specifically, the Fascist movement led by Benito Mussolini in Italy from 1922 to 1943.
[PJC]

4. broadly, a tendency toward or support of a strongly authoritarian or dictatorial control of government or other organizations; -- often used pejoratively in this sense.
[PJC]

and...

Terrorism \Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.]
1. The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson.
[1913 Webster]

2. The practise of coercing governments to accede to political demands by committing violence on civilian targets; any similar use of violence to achieve goals.
[PJC]

-----------------

From WordNet (r) 2.0:

terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear
[syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]

(OK OK, so I used "ism" instead of "ist", blah, blah, blah; do your own search then... : >)

"...With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power..." - Henry Wallace

Posted by: daCascadian on August 31, 2006 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK

They assume that people are stupid and will believe anything they say rather then research the political science, history and geography behind their claims for themselves.

Now James I am certain you are a bright guy, quite possible brillaint. So how many voters do you think will research the political science, history and geography behind 'fascism'.

If we leave out all dorks the number will be less than 3. Fascism is a great term which is why libs use it so often. Islamo-fascism is brillaint PR. The immediate image is Adolph Hitler in Muslim robes. The reason why Karl Rove is the most accomplished political advisor in the world is because he understands images and ignores politicla science dictionaries.

One of the more interesting ironies of this 'debate' is that liberals, in showing they're anger, made the term far more likely to catch on. The bottom line is it's effective communications. If it also drives liberals up a wall so much the better.

Posted by: rdw on August 31, 2006 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK

egbert:

> You guys are pathetic America haters.

Yeah, but at least we're not named "egbert."

My sister had a kitten named egbert once. It was brain damaged. It used to walk into walls.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 31, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

I have a big man-crush on Sean Hannity.

Posted by: rdw on August 31, 2006 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

Of course I am a small minded twit and couldn`t spell my way out of a shredded paper bag but I get paid well by Unka Rove. At least enough for my Astroglide supply down here in this dark basement with the sticky floors.

Posted by: rdw on August 31, 2006 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK

I am a shameless propagandist working out of the Josef Goebbels playbook.

Truth matter naught -- only effective agitprop.

Posted by: rdw on August 31, 2006 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

Sometimes, after an evening of watching Fox and Sean and Bill just nail it *so hard* (ooooh), I take a newspaper into the bathroom for an hour or two.

My wife thinks I have a digestive disorder.

Posted by: rdw on August 31, 2006 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, there's already a perfectly good descriptive label for our terrorist foes: Radical Islamic Theocrats. This has the advantage of only describing what they are, with no questionable allusions to historical political movements.

Posted by: Phil on August 31, 2006 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINK

" In the meantime you liberal intellectuals keep on telling us how utterly backward we are."

That would just be stating the obvious.

Posted by: Ex - Republican Yankee on August 31, 2006 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINK

Phil:

I think Islamist extremist is a better term than radical Islamic theocrat.

First, because it's two words instead of three. Secondly, because "Islamic" merely means "pertaining to Islam." IslamISM is the specific ideology of political Islam, and is dead-precise.

"Theocrat" is not a term I'd use, because we wouldn't necessarily have an objection to conservative (theocratic) Islamic states. For instance, we give Saudi Arabia no grief for practicing Shariah law, nor should we; it's their culture and their business.

Furthermore Muslims understand the term Islamism to encompass the kind of threatening offshoots of Islam that give the West genuine concern. They wouldn't be offended by it the way "Islamic terrorism" is offensive, because it implies that there's something intrinsic to Islam itself which links the entire religion it to terrorism. "Islamic terrorism" strictly speaking doesn't parse, because suicide is haram (forbidden) in Islam. It's radical offshoots of Islam, basing docrine on Hadiths (sayings of the Prophet, some of which are thought to be apocryphal) that have revived that crap from the period after Muhammad where Islam was bent on world conquest.

The quasi-theocracy of Saudi Arabia, however, totally rejects it.

So the problem isn't Islamic theocracy -- it's Islamism.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 31, 2006 at 10:06 PM | PERMALINK

and ignores politicla science dictionaries.

What nonsense. Rove amasses comprehensive data on the cultural and political preferences of every single person in an electoral district, finds out what sports team they follow, what late-night TV they watch, what they eat for breakfast and where they go to church, how likely they are to vote and for whom. This is not "political science"? The problem is that there is a fundamental and irremediable divide between the kind of political science one does to win an election, and the kind of political science one does to build effective policies - in any sphere of endeavor. Which is why the GOP keeps winning, and the country keeps augering into the shitpile.

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 31, 2006 at 10:25 PM | PERMALINK

brooksfoe:

"auguring into the shitpile."

Nicely put. Mazel Tov :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 31, 2006 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINK

I know. Given that some of the Islamist want to impose a global caliphate I cannot understand how that would be fascist.

Now, George W. Bush wanting to tap foreign terrorists' phone calls to the U.S..... that is fascist.

Damn that crazy GWB and Allah praise those fantabulist Moslems.

Posted by: Birkel on August 31, 2006 at 10:37 PM | PERMALINK
Corporate was meant in the sense of "corpus". Red State Mike at 2:54 PM
In Mussolini's regime, it was corporation.

From 1922 to 1925, Mussolini's regime pursued a laissez-faire economic policy under the liberal finance minister Alberto De Stefani. De Stefani reduced taxes, regulations, and trade restrictions and allowed businesses to compete with one another. But his opposition to protectionism and business subsidies alienated some industrial leaders...After Mussolini consolidated his dictatorship in 1925, Italy entered a new phase. Mussolini, like many leaders at this time, believed that economies did not operate constructively without supervision by the government. Foreshadowing events in Nazi Germany, and to some extent in New Deal America, Mussolini began a program of massive deficit spending, public works, and eventually, militarism.

There were other actions that Mussolini undertook that are different than the your current Republican orthodoxy, but there is more that is similar.
In the current theology, it is not necessary to combine government with corporate entities, it is sufficient that corporate interests are served by the government they support financially. Relatively small contributions lead to relatively large tax and subsidy rewards. We have the best government money can buy, but only the rich can buy in.

The truth is that we ex-Democrats are not buying the snake oil that modern Democrats are hawking mhr at 5:15 PM

One certainly can't argue with revisionist history on this level because it is so absurd. Two points, it is a majority of the country that is not buying this Republican's Iraq spin, and the War on Poverty reduced America's poverty rate rapidly from 19 percent in 1964 to 12.6 percent in 1970. Throughout the seventies, the average poverty rate was about 11.8 percent. That is lower than the current 12.6% under Bush II.
Sounds like your platform for the 2008 elections. Good luck with it. Red State Mike at 6:43 PM

Thanks for your tender concern. Advise from authoritarians is always welcome.
Here is Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME) again. Before the 1948 election she declared that she did not want to see the Republican Party "ride to victory on the four horsemen of calumny ---- fear, ignorance, bigotry, and smear."
Today, calumnies are the entire Republican agenda.

African-Americans born in big cities run by liberals are absolutely screwed. rdw at 7:57 PM
Here is a Republican showing tender concern for African-Americans. How believable is that?
Fascism is a great term which is why libs use it so often. rdw 8:09 PM
Liberals like Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush. Dang those smear&lie liberals. It is clear that like in past elections, it will be the threat of mushroom clouds from Iran that will be the driving fear-mongering from the Republicans in 2006. Posted by: Mike on August 31, 2006 at 10:37 PM | PERMALINK

I have a big hemhorroid (I had to look the word up to spell it correctly). It's very sore. Sometimes it leaves bloody stains on my underwear. Pus-y, too -- but you could hardly tell that from all the barely dried jizz stains, even if it's on the back instead of the front, if you know what I mean :)

Posted by: Birkel on August 31, 2006 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

It *is* kind of interesting that you quoted that entire post, you know, being so offended by it and all :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 31, 2006 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter rdw: Them librels dun made tha eddycayshun sistem so badz tha nigra peopel caint spel right. Not like meeee

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 31, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

In all seriousness for a second, did you see Birkel when he was on the Irate Moderates thread?

Shortstop called him a Tourette's Syndrome dingo on crack -- and he was. He was reduced to blithering schoolyard insults in a this really unhinged and persistent manner.

So, as immature or non-witty as it might be (and I'm not one to endorse spoofing as people know), you can't really blame anybody who just wants to run the guy off the thread on a rail. We had all this serious discussion deconstructing "Islamofascism" and the guy immediately pops in here with "Some Muslims want to establish a global Caliphate." You'd figure the guy'd at least read the thread first.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 31, 2006 at 11:10 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: I don't get it, why are you so ashamed of who you are?

You are anti-liberal, you are anti-democrat, you are anti-UN, you are anti-science, you are anti-rationalism....

you are a fascist.

Be proud of who you are, not ashamed.

Look, either you believe your beliefs, or your a liberal democrat.

So climb to the mountain top and yell it out loud "I'm a fascist, and I'm proud of it!"

Nothing to be ashamed of, rdw.

Look Fascism failed in Germany and Italy, but it succeeded in Spain for many years. Fascism didn't succeed in Spain by being ashamed of who they were.

It's kind of like saying you like men, you like to perform fellatio, but yet you don't think your homosexual.

Be proud baby. And pass the Guckert.

Posted by: Bubbles on August 31, 2006 at 11:12 PM | PERMALINK

Bubbles:

And the Sean Hannity pics!

ROTFLMAO !

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 31, 2006 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

Bob,

Here's a Republican war vet who agrees with you:

Published: Thursday August 31, 2006

The Republican advisor to a political action committee founded by veterans is blasting the Bush Administration for using "fascist" language in some recent speeches and interviews, and for its "unwillingness to devise a victory plan" to end the war in Iraq.

"I am a proud Republican, who ran for my party's nomination for Congress in Indiana, because I believe in traditional values," said Sam Schultz, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan with the Indiana Army National Guard and acts as the Republican Senior Advisor to VoteVets.org, in a press release received by RAW STORY.

"I also believe we need to be vigilant in defending America," Schultz continued. "That is why I feel I must speak out about the Administration's recent contention that the war in Iraq is part of the fight against 'Islamic fascism.'"
Schultz explained why he thinks "fascism" is an inappropriate word for the Bush Administration to use.

"First, we are not fighting an enemy that fits the definition of fascist, nor does Iraq resemble anything close to Hitler's Germany or Mussolini's Italy," Schultz said. "Second,I do not believe the war in Iraq has furthered our battle against radical Islamism."

"I can attest to the fact that after my time in Iraq, when I served in Afghanistan, we did not have enough people on the ground there to secure the border with Pakistan, and as a result, many terrorists slipped through our grasp, most likely including Osama bin Laden," Schultz added.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Iraq_veterans_group_blasts_Bush_Administration_0831.html

Posted by: Windhorse on August 31, 2006 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINK

Windhorse:

And he calls it by the correct name: radical Islamism.

I've been suggesting Islamist extremism, but that's truly a six-of-one, half-dozen-of-the-other kinda pointless debate. Either one works.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 1, 2006 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINK

Jack Reed eventually got around to putting it perfectly. It is ironic that he and you maintain your just proper and honorable disdain for sloganating in spite of the fact that each of you is a master sloganator. Many have understood this fundamental fault of the Bush administration but Reed is the first to put it perfectly.

On the other hand, he seems to have been caught off balance by the question, to have been backfooted, to have stalled for time. The words "And again, I think it goes to the point of that" are hideous and were clearly uttered because he needed to stall a few seconds (I bet my butt that Reed was speaking to someone not writing or giving a speach). The words "you know" happen to be absolutely accurate and to the point, since many people know about this aspect of the utter incompetence of the Bush administration. However they are a pause to catch breath.

The thing I don't get is why you quoted him so ruthlessly. Why didn't you quote "their first response is, you know, come up with a catchy slogan, and then they forget to do the hard work of digging into the facts and coming up with a strategy and resources that will counter the actual threats we face." or even "their first response is ... come up with a catchy slogan, and then they forget to do the hard work of digging into the facts and coming up with a strategy and resources that will counter the actual threats we face." ?

Why did you include the first stumbling words when praising Reed's eloquence ? Does your sense of honesty require you to quote whole sentences when praising the last 2 clauses ?

Actually while I'm nitpicking brilliant prose why did you use the aweful word "tropes" when the correct word is "slogans". Were you unwilling to quote a word used by Reed when parapraising him ? (Effort at wit not typo call it a halfwitto.) I hate hate hate the rule of style that priveledges gack aweful words if necessary to avoid repetition. God damn all thyrants ! God damn Thesaurus Rexxon !

Also why do you say "culture war." That would have something to do with the pelvic issues. Sad to say the Republicans have "campaign tropes" for issues which have nothing to do with genetalia such as War and Peace, Crime and Punishment, PAGO, and various other long Russian novels (ahh to be Russian so I could write a thousand page novel entitled PAGO -- Not).

Posted by: Robert Waldmann on September 1, 2006 at 12:17 AM | PERMALINK

This administration still has no grasp of the reality with which they are actually dealing. Hence the lack of any relevant strategy to Iraq or any of the myriad problems facing the US overseas (or at home).

Their choice to simplify to sound bites is not only convenient in terms of propaganda promulgation, but also to their unrealistic and simplified approach to complex problems; presumably all as a sop to GW's attention span and mental capabilities.

My vote is "religio-terrorists". Here's why.

Muslim people resent the attachment of of "islamo-" to groups of people who do not truly represent their Islamic belief; rather like calling the KKK "Christian terrorists" -- accurate but not helpful. There have been, recently, Christian terrorists (abortion clinic shootings, bombings, arsons). There are Hindi terrorists, and there might some day be a Buddhist-based resistance in Tibet!!

"Radical" doesn't work as historically that is also associated with respectable political participation. Some radical but peaceful politics might actually go down a treat in the Middle East right now . . . or the US!

"Religio-terrorists" covers the main motivation and their main action. They may or may not be fundamentalist; they might be cultist, etc.

cmdicely (August 31, 2006 at 2:15 PM) fleshed out an extended dictionary definition of Fascism. Clearly these diverse terrorist groups fail as Fascists on multiple levels.

Follow the right-wing arguments above and they totally fail to grasp the diversity of these groups and their aspirations. They are all against the US and fighting for its destruction. Ego-centric and wrong, but perfectly reflects the administrations lack of discernment.

World terrorism is a serious problem requiring more deftness and intelligence than fighting conventional war. But that is exactly what this administration is trying to fight.

This time around, both the US and the UK have failed to throw up a suitably equipped leader with vision. Unfortunately neither leader has a realistic grasp of their own shortcomings, which are many and severe.

Posted by: notthere on September 1, 2006 at 2:06 AM | PERMALINK

notthere:

I'd have to disagree with your definition of "religio-terrorist," simply because the West is menaced by Islamists in a qualitatively different way than by extremists of other religions.

There's no getting around the fact that there's a much looser boundary between religion and state in Islam than there is in nearly all other religions. Sure, we have mad cultist hate-group types who wrap themselves up in quasi-religious doctrine, like Aryan Nations and Christian Identity groups, and yes, they've done terroristic things like bomb abortion clinics and the Atlanta Olympics (though not the Murrah Building; McVeigh wasn't religiously motivated) -- but it's a manifestly different sort of threat.

I agree though, with the general idea implicit in your label that these groups should be more judged by their actions than their ideologies. And I'm certainly not attempting to ignore or minimize the danger that we face from homegrown hate groups, whatever their ideologies.

I just do agree that targeting extremists of the Islamic faith is not merely demonizing a convenient out-group. Radical flavors of Islam do sanction violence against innocents in a vastly more categorical way than do extremists of other faiths.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 1, 2006 at 2:34 AM | PERMALINK

I think one of Merriam-Webster's definitons for "neologism" is apt here: "a meaningless word coined by a psychotic."

Posted by: tome_tart on September 1, 2006 at 2:37 AM | PERMALINK

Bob, rmck1 --

I guess I would answer that I don't see this general Islamic threat, particularly if I back-track to immediately post 11th September, 2001.

Hamas and Hizbullah have concerns that do not include the US as the primary target. Taliban was concerned with maintaining its own powerbase in Afghanistan. al-Qaeda was a relatively limited group that has gained recognition not only by their "success" of 11th Sept, '01 but by the US's signal failure to decapitate it even when given a clear chance; maybe Clinton but definitely GW. Explain that catastrophic mis-decision to me.

If we are going to have a "war-on-terror" we had better define the targets and our objectives. I haven't heard that yet! I don't see singling out Islamic terrorists as helpful.

If you want a war specifically against Islamic-type terrorists only, I guess you just came out and said so. No?

Posted by: notthere on September 1, 2006 at 2:57 AM | PERMALINK

notthere:

Well, first of all, you should have read enough of my posts by now to know that you and I agree fundamentally on the so-called GWoT. I think it's as overblown as you do, so I needn't you know, be prodded into trying to defend GWB's failure in capturing Osama when he had the chance, etc. None of the policy or tactical stuff's an issue.

It's just that I don't know of any other extremist group that uses religion as part of its fundamental motivation other than Islamist extremists. Hindu partisans fighting with Pakistan over Kashmir?

As far as I know, other militant movements around the world have primarily secular causes. And while I'd call a lot of Israeli settlers religious fanatics who embrace a lot of the same odious righteous malice that I'd condem in Muslim extremists, they don't represent Israel as a whole. There are no splinter groups of fanatic Israelis who are doing the incursions into Lebanon and Gaza, but rather the IDF.

I'm all for being even-handed, and I'm dead-set against demonizing Muslims as an entire group, as if Islam inevitably leads to support for terrorism. But I do think there's something about Islamic doctrine that lends itself to forms of resistance that push beyond what Western resistance groups have pursused, like the IRA or the ETA.

Is the cause primarily doctrinal, is it cultural, a mixture of both -- I can't say. But it is qualitatively different. Communist guerrillas never practiced mass-scale suicide tactics.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 1, 2006 at 3:34 AM | PERMALINK

Bob, rmck1 --

I agree that mostly I have little disagreement with what you say. This time I do.

The cause is cultural, doctrinal, religious and racist on both sides.

We've seen Turkey-Armenia, Soviet and any number of racial and political classes, Japan in Mongolia (or China generally), German-Jew (or gay), Romanian-Romany, Pol Pot, Serb-Croat-Christian-Muslim, Rwanda, Turkey and Iran and Iraq vs. Kurd, Shia-Sunni, Jew-Arab, all killing that shows little restraint and not based on nation versus nation. Japan showed a major ability for suicidal warfare and all countries have had soldiers willing to perform the "suicide mission" for the "right" cause.

I really think that singling out Islam serves no purpose except to harden, ally and combine the resistance/terrorism and their justification for doing so.

If in Iraq we do not yet have a civil war, we surely have terrorism. Under our watch.

Justice has to be fair and seen to be served.

Understand your enemy.

Posted by: notthere on September 1, 2006 at 4:04 AM | PERMALINK

"Sounds like your platform for the 2008 elections. Good luck with it."

Red State Mike, are you aware that when there is no substance to your arguments (as in, most of the time), you and Roving buddies always, and I mean always, retreat into the "How come you guys are losers?" posture. Ever think your guys are "winners" because they are lying, cheating sons of bitches.

Posted by: Kenji on September 1, 2006 at 6:20 AM | PERMALINK

notthere:

Well I think you're shadowboxing, looking for a disagreement that really isn't there. My principles on this are pretty firm, and pretty simple.

When we analyze our enemies, we can either be lumpers or splitters. And just as I object to Rumsfeld putting all the variously directed and variously caused Islamist struggles around the world under one one-size-fits-all rubric, so would I object to you expanding the definition even further to include all forms of religious terrorism. What purpose of understanding could that possibly serve?

What other group would fly commercial jets into buildings?

Can you honestly imagine the IRA or ETA or Tamil Tigers or Shining Path or any other rebellious group with a hardcore ideology doing such a thing?

Personally, I can't. I frankly can't imagine who might -- despite how much they wish to understand and unpack all the various motivations of the world's Islamist struggles. And I think it's pointless to try to create an equivalency where one doesn't exist.

Knowing your enemy also entails facing the hard truth about them.

There is something unique about Islamist ideology coupled with tribal culture that creates this new generation of warriors who commit civilian atrocities for the sole sake of provoking a wider war.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 1, 2006 at 6:20 AM | PERMALINK

and ignores political science dictionaries.

What nonsense. Rove amasses comprehensive data on the cultural and political preferences of every single person in an electoral district, finds out what sports team they follow, what late-night TV they watch, what they eat for breakfast and where they go to church, how likely they are to vote and for whom. This is not "political science"? The problem is that there is a fundamental and irremediable divide between the kind of political science one does to win an election, and the kind of political science one does to build effective policies - in any sphere of endeavor. Which is why the GOP keeps winning, and the country keeps augering into the shitpile.

This really isn't hard.

No one said Karl ignores political science. I said Political science dictionaries. The psuedo-intellectual dorks on this post have their panties bunched up over the dictionary definition of fascism. It's not a factor.

The fact GWB and a small army of conservative intellectuals and other influencial people are using it is because it's highly effective as political communication.

99% of the county has zero interest in political science. They are interested in understanding the threat we face and Islamofascism is an extremely useful term. It summaries Osama, Saddam, The Mad Mullahs in Iran, etc. all in the same school with the most evil person the world has known, Adolph Hitler. When people think of Hitler they think of mass murder. That's what much of Islam is all about.

By all means continue to piss into the wind as you've been doing for 6 years and will do for 2 more. What Rove understands is this term brings a much better understanding at to how evil much of Islam is and thus how important it is to put people in office who will fight back.

The 2nd image of Fascism which is almost as important to communicate is that of the fascists with those in the west then who felt and acted as you do know. You are the Neville Chamberlains of the 21st Century. It could hardly be clearer. Hitler is the perfect example of why your weakness is so dangerous.

You know this is coming. GWB also mentioned a US Senator who in 1939 lamented the fact in 1939 he didn't have the chance to talk to Hilter before one of his Invasions. "All of this could have been avoided." When most Americans hear that story, true story by the way, the are amazed one could be so stupid. Isn't it funy every Democrat talks just like him?

This is the image Rove is forming in the American mind. We are at war with a large part of Islam and you think we can talk to these nutjobs.

Are you sure that's a good idea heading into an election?

Posted by: rdw on September 1, 2006 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

So, to paraphrase Stalin's quote about the power of the Pope, I'll ask our Republican friends--if you think the Islamowannabefacists are so powerful, then tell us how many divisions they have.

When you are dumb you are really dumb. THe entire point you moron is they don't wear uniforms and they don't have divisions. They strap bombs to their bodies and hunt for little girls to blow up. These are not people armies can easily fight because they hide from armies and mingle with little girls either to kill them or in the hope a weapon aimed at them will hit the little girls.

That is what Southern Lebanon was all about. Actually in Southern Lebanon many muslims did wear uniforms. They wore Israeli uniforms. Good thing we have the Geneva convention. This is why Europe is so defenseless. They cannot win against this enemy. Iran is just waiting and investing in nuclear and missle technology and for the demographics in Europe work their magic.

It is inevitable that Iran will have nuclear weapons.

It is inevitable that Iran will have advanced missle technology as well as amazingly destructive IEDs.

It is inevitable that the Islamic population in Europe will double rather quickly and will remain loyal to Islam maintaining the contempt a majority have for their country of birth.

Posted by: rdw on September 1, 2006 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

windhorse, bob,


Are you serious? It's over. Islamo-fascism is here to stay. Rush, Sean, Laura, Bill Bennett, Charles K, and an army of conservative image makers are now using this term regularly. It's part of the language. By all means use what term you see fit but never forget this is America. We have the same freedom of speech as you and there isn't anything you can do about it.

Posted by: rdw on September 1, 2006 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

"Sounds like your platform for the 2008 elections. Good luck with it."

Red State Mike, are you aware that when there is no substance to your arguments (as in, most of the time), you and Roving buddies always, and I mean always, retreat into the "How come you guys are losers?" posture. Ever think your guys are "winners" because they are lying, cheating sons of bitches.
Posted by: Kenji

Are you aware that this whole "islamofascism" topic was beaten to death in another thread the other day? Want argument...see my posts there.

As for the post I responded to, which said,

"We have far, far more reason to be concerned about the threat of Republomonarchism than about anything characterizable as "Islamofascism," an ideology with no real world adherents."

I see stuff like that I wonder whether the author shoots himself in the foot before or after he puts it in his mouth. Stuff like that sends people *fleeing* to the republican party. Run, don't walk, and all that.

Posted by: Red State Mike on September 1, 2006 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

In his NRO column this morning, Victor Davis Hanson writes:

Hezbollahs black-clad legions goose-step and stiff-arm salute in parade, apparently eager to convey both the zeal and militarism of their religious fascism. Meanwhile, consider Hezbollahs spiritual head, Hassan Nasrallah the current celebrity of an unhinged Western media that tried to reinvent the mans own self-confessed defeat as a victory. Long before he hid in the Iranian embassy Nasrallah was on record boasting: The Jews love life, so that is what we shall take away from them. We are going to win because they love life and we love death.

Irans Mahmoud Ahmadinejad trumps that Hitlerian nihilism by reassuring the poor, maltreated Germans that there was no real Holocaust. Perhaps he is concerned that greater credit might still go to Hitler for Round One than to the mullahs for their hoped-for Round Two, in which the promise is to wipe Israel off the map.

The only surprise about the edition of Hitlers Mein Kampf that has become a best seller in Middle Eastern bookstores is its emboldened title translated as Jihadi as in My Jihad confirming in ironic fashion the moderate Islamic claim that Jihad just means struggle, as in an inner struggle as in a Kampf perhaps.
******************************************

Bob, Windhorse,

Victor's audience is slightly larger than yours. Even worse is that his audience includes virtually every conservative image maker.

Posted by: rdw on September 1, 2006 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

You might want to get yourself a couple of packages of ExLax...fear will bind an old man up.

You've obviously never been around someone who was really, really, REALLY consumed with fear. :)

Posted by: Red State Mike on September 1, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

Neo-Nazi David Myatt, founder of the National Socialist Movement of Britain and who converted to Islam,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2149297,00.html

The NSM considered the creation of a revolutionary situation in this country as necessary since it wished to build an entirely new society, based upon personal honour, and believed this could only be done by destroying the dishonourable and corrupt society of the present.

However, the NSM neither preached, nor sought to incite, what is called racial hatred. Instead, it strove to propagate the warrior values of honour, loyalty and duty, and make the British people aware of, and come to value, their ancestral warrior culture and warrior heritage.

Which are the same values he finds in Islam, primitive and tribal and, despite his protestation, intolerant.

Posted by: cld on September 1, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Especially if our friends in Pakistan and North Korea give them one. Funny how you're not MORE afraid of a successful coup in Pakistan or a little more desperation in North Korea.

Pakistan has never, to my knowledge, created or funded or armed terror armies such as Hamas and Hexbollah which exist for the sole purpose of killing jews and other infidels. No Pakistani President has promised to wipe another country off the map.

North Korea serves our long term political purposed in Aisa rather neatly.

It is critical that USA stop being the worlds policemen because what happens is the rest of the world stops meeting their responsibilities and, like a drug addict, becomes dependent and bitchy.

In South Korea and Japan we have two economic powers with mature democracies which became dependent on the USA for their security each for different reasons. Each came to resent the dependency and the time was long past for the USA to withdrawal and all them to assume the responsibiity, and expense, for their own security.

The result is our troop counts in Korea have been dramatically reduced and shifted out of the DMZ toward the Southern Tip of the penisula. The South Korean govt now manages it's own policies with the sobering knowledge that if they err it is their sons the North Koreans will slaughter. The bitching has stopped. It's their policies, their soldiers and their dime.

The exact same event is occuring in Japan with far more important implications for global diplomcay. Japan is the 2nd largest economy and a technological power with a long tradition of military excellence. Libs are still hung up on WWII but they have to get over their bigotry. Japan is a modern, mature Democracy and is perfectly positions to assist the USA in countering any threats from China, Russia and NK as well as join the worlds Great Democarcies in a UN ourside the UN.

Japan has committed over $1B to star wars and is actively working to advance the technology. a recent ship-based sustem was successfully tested off a Japanese Cruiser. It would seem regarding the nut in NK Japan won't be relying on soft power and definitely not the UN. They will be upgrading their defense minister to full cabinet statys and are debating eliminating chapter 9 of their constitution removing all restrictions on their military.

Japan is ready to join the USA as a major military power. They will be our strongest ally.

So no I don't worry about NK. NK is what conservaties have needed to convince Japan to shake-off the post WWII slumber which has long outlives it's usefulness. This is a great victory for Democracies. The USA doesn't need to counter China or Russia militarily in Asia. Japan will be far more powerful.

Posted by: rdw on September 1, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

See, if you give people an incentive to live a better life, they're less likely to go little girl hunting. You might want to think about that for a while...

Liberals have an amazing ability to ignore the obvious. Going to stick with the 'poverty causes terrorism' theme aren't you? That's called stuck on stupid. You are in an extreme minority even among libs.

Your problem here is that terrorists are rarely poor. They are more likely to be middle class and higher than poor. They are more likely to be college educated than not and are more likely to have been employed. The profile of the 9/11 highjackers an all pf thsoe in the various cells in Europe and the USA tell the exact same story.

In fact Europes problem isn't it's new immigrants. It's their 2nd and 3rd generations. It's their native sons. They've been raised in Europe where they've been well fed and have received the best medicare in the entire world for free as well as free education.

And they're the worst of the worst.

Europe is defenseless.

Posted by: rdw on September 1, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

My point was that we need to focus our efforts on hunting down and killing the terrorists. A recent series of speeches has attempted to equate the nazis with the terrorists--this is completely wrong. This is a sickening analogy--as sick as your infatuation with 'little girls'--and the American people aren't going to fall for it.

And you are totally wrong. Terrorists are nothing more than cockroaches. There are unlimited quantities, they breed rapidly and they can get anywhere. Sharon perfected the model. You must kill their leaders and major supporters. As long as they are alive and they can find appeasers there will be terrorists. once they understand they will die they will change behaviors.

Sharon proved it.

By the way you have itbackwards. They're not trying to equate the nazi's with the terrorists. You have that reversed and it's still wrong. The idea is to equate the leaders of Hezbollah, Hamas, PLO, Iran, etc., with Hitler, specifically his butchery.

The comparison is relevent, accurate and politically shrewd.

Posted by: rdw on September 1, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

With up to six nuclear weapons. Man, strategy like that will get you all kinds of neat little Freedom medals.

And what do you think they'll do with them?

Better yet what do the folks in SK think he'll do with them. A few weeks back the NK regulars started shooting ar SK regulars across the border. In my opinion the MKs are nuts and if I were SK I'd be thinking I should have a lot of troops on the border so if they attack they don't get to Seoul too quickly. Don't you think they would at least replace all of the American troops who have completely evacuated the DMZ?

I do wonder what the citizens of SK now think. 6 years ago they were blaming everything on the US while we were paying to put our troops between them and the NK army. Now they only have their boys between Seoul and the SK and they have their own independent negotiating table. They have total control of their own destiny and will reap the benefits, or consequences.

I do know one thing. The anti-American rhetoric has dropped considerably and they're a lot less comfortable with diplomacy.

Of course the effect in Japan is far more dramatic. The Japanese people will not accept the lmitations in their constitution on their military with a nuclear armed NK.

The Japanese Imperial Navy will once again dominate the seas.

Posted by: rdw on September 1, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK
There is something unique about Islamist ideology coupled with tribal culture that creates this new generation of warriors who commit civilian atrocities for the sole sake of provoking a wider war.

I don't think there is much unique about it; plenty of movements in history have convinced themselves that what we would consider civilians are legitimate targets, and plenty of movements in history have launched deadly attacks either in the hope of provoking a larger war, or in the hope of demonstrating that a larger war whose present existence was the basis of their current propaganda really existed and was really present and significant.

Neither of these elements is in any way unique to the present radical Islamist movement.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 1, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK
Pakistan has never, to my knowledge, created or funded or armed terror armies such as Hamas and Hexbollah which exist for the sole purpose of killing jews and other infidels.

Your knowledge seems defective.

Pakistan, with the assistance of the CIA, largely created the Afghan mujahedeen, a terror army which existed for the sole purpose of killing godless Communist infidels.

They also have sponsor numerous terrorist groups (many also linked to al-Qaeda) operating in India, particularly the Indian-controlled portion of Kashmir, whose purpose is to do non-Muslims in Kashmir (or who might influence policy around it) just what Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad seek to do to Jews in the former mandate of Palestine.

Pakistan was also a major sponsor of the Taliban while the Taliban sheltered al-Qaeda (and its intelligence service, which provided the major base of the current dictators support, was intimiately tied in with the Taliban and al-Qaeda) through al-Qaeda's campaign against the US up until, at least, the formal renunciation of such ties after al-Qaeda's attacks in the US on 9/11.


Posted by: cmdicely on September 1, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

A very good article by Jim Lobe explains how the right-wing extremist media created the bogus "Islamofascism" frame, which rdw proudly gloats will enable the Republicans to deceive the American people, who rdw, like all Republicans, regards as stupid gullible idiots.

"Fascism" Frame Set Up by Right-Wing Press
by Jim Lobe
September 1, 2006
Inter Press Service

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 1, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

That's the horror of it, even paranoids have real enemies.

They've managed to make it look like they're faking up a problem that actually is a problem, as if with a half-conscious intention of discreditting the idea of fascism as a societal force with a certain group, Democrats and leftists.

In the west fascism certainly seems remote, but, in all but name, it's a living part of Middle Eastern societies.

Posted by: cld on September 1, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

The taliban and the mujahadeen were not terror groups nor did they use terror techniques to kill innocent civilians nor were they directed at Jews.

The Taliban fought other muslims while enforcing their brand of Islam while the Mujahadeen fought the Russian army.

The terrorists we are talking about are the ones who finance 9/11, London, Spain, and everything toward Israel. We are speaking of the suicide bombers who's preference is to get as many of the most innocent as possible. The kind who would walk into a mall and look for the jew with the baby carriage.

That's not Pakistan. That's Iran

I am well aware of the terrorism exchanged between India and Pakistan but it is not planned and arranged and finance by either government nor has the Pakistani govt provided anyone with nuclear material or soldiers or training or weapons.

The Pakistani governments have been nothing like this Irani govt. That's not to suggest Pakistan isn't dangerous. They are but for vastly different reasons. It isn't because of the govt but the lack of govt control over the various islamic whackjobs living there.

Regardng Al Qaeda, the received tactical support from the Taliban in the sense they could operate in country however almost all reports are that the Taliban was completely in the dark about 9/11 and then furious when it occured. They correctly realized it was the beginning of the end for them. They had control of a country of 25M and a seat at the UN. Today they have caves in Western Pakistan. Not because they have the support of the Pakistni government but because the area is still tribal.

My knowledge isn't defective. You are back to nitpicking.

Posted by: rdw on September 1, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

They had control of a country of 25M and a seat at the UN. Today they have caves in Western Pakistan.

Heh. To quote Joni Mitchell, "Dont it always seem to go, that you dont know what youve got till its gone."

Posted by: Red State Mike on September 1, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Delusional neo-brownshirt Bush-bootlicking mental slave rdw wrote: My knowledge isn't defective.

Your comments about the Taliban, Pakistan and the mujahadeen are entirely, screamingly wrong. Not only is your knowledge "defective" but your thinking ability is also defective as a result of self-inflicted brain damage from years of watching Fox News, Fox News, Fox News and nothing but Fox News.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 1, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

Neither of these elements is in any way unique to the present radical Islamist movement.

21st century Islam is absolutely unique in it's level of bloodlust and it's desire to find the youngest and most innocent. The dream of a suicide bomber is a kindergarden school bus filled with jewish girls. These are the worst of the worst. Also unique is their desire to die, which in many cases, is a key element of their cause. They live to die.

There's nothing in history which mirrors Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon where the only uniform Hezbollah would wear was Isaeli uniforms and where they aggressively forced innocent Shites to stay to force them to act as shields.

Posted by: rdw on September 1, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

21st century Islam isn't unique in its level of bloodlust. Its level of bloodlust is normal for Islam. What's unique is the interconnectedness of the world, the size of populations involved and the scale of difference between the cultural evolution of the Islamic world and everyone else.

Posted by: cld on September 1, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

21st century Islam isn't unique in its level of bloodlust. Its level of bloodlust is normal for Islam.


It might be normal of Islam but Islam is still unique. I probably should not have used the term 21st Century. To the extent it appears to differenciate from 20th century that is wrong. Islam has been exceptionally cruel toward innocents for a very, very long time.

My intention was to limit the comparison to the current era for no other reason than to avoid pointless historical comparisons.

Posted by: rdw on September 1, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK
The taliban and the mujahadeen were not terror groups nor did they use terror techniques to kill innocent civilians nor were they directed at Jews.

Yes, they were.

But, less debatably, the al-Qaeda and its linked groups in India (particularly focussed on Kashmir, though they operate outside of it as well), both of which have been supported by Pakistan, are terror groups that have targetted civilians in terrorist attacks (including, notably, the attacks of 9/11/2001).

It's true that al-Qaeda and its linked groups in India haven't been particulary focussed on killing jews, but I don't see how that makes Pakistan any better. Are civilian Jews as a class somehow more worthy of protection than, say, civilian Indians or civilian Americans, the targets of terror groups that Pakistan has supported under Musharraf, up until (at least) after 9/11?

I am well aware of the terrorism exchanged between India and Pakistan

There is no exchange.

but it is not planned and arranged and finance by either government

That's exceptionally delusional.

nor has the Pakistani govt provided anyone with nuclear material or soldiers or training or weapons.

Your kidding, right? Pakistan was one of the biggest proliferators of nuclear weapons technology and delivery systems technology in the world, and has pretty clearly worked together with both Iran and North Korea both on weapons and delivery technology.

As to training or weapons, Pakistan has provided both to Islamist terrorists, including those linked to al-Qaeda, principally through the offices of the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, though formally the operations most involved with doing that were closed after 9/11.

You know the "Axis of Evil": 3 terrorist-sponsoring, nuclear-proliferating, cooperating rogue states that George W. Bush talked about? It wasn't a complete fantasy, something like it actually existed. Its just that Iraq was never part of it, it was Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran.


The Pakistani governments have been nothing like this Irani govt.

That's true; Pakistan has supported terrorists that pose far more direct of a threat to the United States than anyone Iran has supported, for one thing. Plus, the Iranian government is a lot more democratic than the military dictatorship in Pakistan.

My knowledge isn't defective.

Still seems that way to me.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 1, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK
21st century Islam is absolutely unique in it's level of bloodlust and it's desire to find the youngest and most innocent.

No, it isn't.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 1, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

The taliban and the mujahadeen were not terror groups nor did they use terror techniques to kill innocent civilians nor were they directed at Jews.

The Taliban killed innocent Muslims all the time in Afghanistan. That's how they came to power. Remember the public executions? The beheadings and severed limbs for being too lax or Western? Don't tell me you've already forgotten because it no longer suits your propaganda campaign.

Is someone only a terrorist if they kill whites and Jews?

And Taliban are attacking our troops, blowing up markets, and burning down police stations as we speak.

That's not terrorism?

Wait - let me guess. Unlike the "terrorists" in Iraq the Taliban are "freedom fighters."

I am well aware of the terrorism exchanged between India and Pakistan but it is not planned and arranged and finance by either government nor has the Pakistani govt provided anyone with nuclear material or soldiers or training or weapons.

In point of fact, the Pakistani ISI armed and trained the Taliban, who in turn used violence and terror to subdue much of the population of Afghanistan. The fact that they eventually became the de facto governing power doesn't change that fact.

There's nothing in history which mirrors Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon where the only uniform Hezbollah would wear was Isaeli uniforms and where they aggressively forced innocent Shites to stay to force them to act as shields.

Except maybe the brutality of the Mongols, the Vikings, the Romans, the Conquistadors in South America and on and on and on.

The reality is that you are constantly spinning the facts to defend the indefensible and explain why Iraq and not Pakistan. Why Iran and not Kazakhstan. Why Turkey shouldn't shell Kurdistan but Israel should devastate the entire country of Lebanon.

The truth is there is no truth or justice underlying your ever-shifting rhetoric, just political expediency and the lust for consolidation of power.

You may be a part of an army of conservative image-makers but at the expense of and in opposition to the truth. Your entire philosophy boils down to might makes right and the ends justify the means. And if that means selling lies to the American people, so be it.

Posted by: Windhorse on September 1, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

I would add that since rdw advocated in a comment posted last week that the US should use nuclear weapons to "wipe out" entire cities in Middle Eastern countries that he doesn't like, that I view him as not only a delusional crank but as subhuman scum. Not to mention that in the context of his personal enthusiasm for murdering millions of innocent civilians with nuclear weapons, his incoherent ravings about the allegedly uniquely violent nature of Islam are garbage.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 1, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

It's true that al-Qaeda and its linked groups in India haven't been particulary focussed on killing jews, but I don't see how that makes Pakistan any better. Are civilian Jews as a class somehow more worthy of protection than, say, civilian Indians or civilian Americans, the targets of terror groups that Pakistan has supported under Musharraf, up until (at least) after 9/11?


The President of Iran has made repeated threats to Israel. I am not aware of a single Palistani President making any threat of this kind ever. Pakistan and India have been locked in a battle over territory on their borders since that had borders. Iran has no border issues. This is pure ethnic cleansing.

Another comparison between the governments of Iran and Pakistan is that Iran has much greater control of the terror units within it's borders and it openly acknowledges funding and supporting them. The vast majority of bombings against India are done by rogue terror groups without the support or knowledge of the Pakistan Government. Pakistan is still more of a tribal culture with many parts of the government backstabbing other parts. Like our State dept.

it's also true that Pakistan does not and has never tried to fund terror groups in other parts of the world. Iran is deep in Iraq, Lebanon and Israel.

Posted by: rdw on September 1, 2006 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINK

You know the "Axis of Evil": 3 terrorist-sponsoring, nuclear-proliferating, cooperating rogue states that George W. Bush talked about? It wasn't a complete fantasy, something like it actually existed. Its just that Iraq was never part of it, it was Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran.

Cmdicely,

You can do much, much better than this. You have it exactly wrong. Pakistan was NEVER part of it. It was Iraq, Iran and NK.

Posted by: rdw on September 1, 2006 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

That's true; Pakistan has supported terrorists that pose far more direct of a threat to the United States than anyone Iran has supported, for one thing. Plus, the Iranian government is a lot more democratic than the military dictatorship in Pakistan

The Iranian government is not democratic.

Pakistan never funded Al Qaeda and had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11. From that point on Al Qaeda has been persona no grata within Pakistan and the govt has been very cooperative in the war against them.

The relationships between the govts of Pakistan and India and the USA are dramatically better under GWB than any other President.

I'd love to know what your obsession with Pakistan is about. Are you saying we should be preparing a coalition to work against Pakistan? If your logic is that Iran isn't so bad because Pakistan is worse that's just brain dead. Iran is without question the primary menance in the Middle East. It is Iran who is going to challenge Europe. It is Iran with the record of supplying terror groups with 13,000 missles and countless other bombs. It is Iran promising to erase some people off the map.

Posted by: rdw on September 1, 2006 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK

that a billion members of the Muslim faith have bloodlust as their reason for being

No one said that, suggested that, or hinted at that in any way. The term islamo-fascists refers to the muslims who are fascists not all muslims.

Posted by: rdw on September 1, 2006 at 9:57 PM | PERMALINK

Except maybe the brutality of the Mongols, the Vikings, the Romans, the Conquistadors in South America and on and on and on.

Let's keep it to the last 300 years.


The reality is that you are constantly spinning the facts to defend the indefensible and explain why Iraq and not Pakistan. Why Iran and not Kazakhstan. Why Turkey shouldn't shell Kurdistan but Israel should devastate the entire country of Lebanon.

A fact can't be spun. A fact stands on it's own.

Turkey and Lebanon are not comparable. kurdistan does not support the PPPK in anyway and is in fact working hard to build good relations with the Turkish govt. This is a fact which turkey has acknowledged. No PPK member is in the Kurdish govt. The Kurdish govt didn't supply the PPPK wih 13,000 missles and training and the Kurdish govt didn't give the order to the PPPK to sneak across the border to kill 3 soldiers and kidnap 2 more.

BTW: We may have talked about what a fantastic success the Kurdish North has been. It's even better than I reported. They are booming and may have absorbed as much as 1M more kurdish 'refugees' than projected. The Kurds finally have their nation and they're making the most of it.

Posted by: rdw on September 1, 2006 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

The Taliban killed innocent Muslims all the time in Afghanistan. That's how they came to power. Remember the public executions? The beheadings and severed limbs for being too lax or Western? Don't tell me you've already forgotten because it no longer suits your propaganda campaign.

The taliban fought the classic 3rd world insurgency. They were not a terror group in the sense of Hezbollah, Hamas and the PLO who's primary goal is to find a moron to load with a bomb belt and go find a baby carriage.

I do remember the public executions. That was after they had control. That how these people live. That's not terrorism. That's Islamic law enforcement under Sharia law.


Is someone only a terrorist if they kill whites and Jews?

No. The muslim terrorists kill more muslims than whites and jews. Even if they didn't kill any whites or jews they'd by just as evil.

Posted by: rdw on September 1, 2006 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINK

You may be a part of an army of conservative image-makers but at the expense of and in opposition to the truth

I am not an image maker but I am conservative. I like politics and I like the debate. I believe everything I say and I stick to the facts. This is a great time to be a conservative. The world is changing and the USA is leading the way. One of the great things about being Conservative is I can repeat statements like this one used by Michael Medved, "The Greatest Nation on God's Green Earth" and mean every single word but best of all, take great pride and joy in the fact.

I have an 18 foot flagpole in the front of my house and I beam everytime I look at it. I am American and I could not be any prouder.

Posted by: rdw on September 1, 2006 at 10:29 PM | PERMALINK

I know this is the fear-driven war porn scenario you crave--solely because it makes great TV--but it just ain't happening

Jason,

These threads are braindead. 1st no one here gives a crap about what someone else thinks of them. We don't knew each other. We'll never meet. This is junior high silliness.

As far as fear I don't think we have much to fear. I know I don't. Like most conservatives I live well outside the city. I'm near working farms and horse farms. My region will not be a target. All of the targets are cities and all are very. very blue. If any group s/b be fearful, and I don't think they are, it's the libs.

The reason we've been so successful with national security is because we fight. Liberals have a reputation for being like the French. That is, pussy's. You will try to appease. It's who you are. This gives Americans clear choices. Those who fight or thoe who appease. This is why lebanon won't help you. The terrorists are getting missles from Iran and it's only a matter of time before Iran provides them nuclear arms.

The best the libs can offer in response is to talk them to death.

Posted by: rdw on September 1, 2006 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINK

Wait-I thought we won WWII under two liberal presidents.

I thought we went to Korea under a liberal president.

Vietnam--I thought you guys blamed that on a liberal president.

Kosovo, Bosnia--that was a liberal president.


Sorry my friend but 1968 marks a sharp demarkation for the term Liberal. FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ are a dramatically different bunch. In 1968 liberals became appeasers and have remained so.

Kosovo was not a war. It was a video came. There were no soldiers and no casualties.

Posted by: rdw on September 1, 2006 at 11:42 PM | PERMALINK

We read about people like you, rdw, all the time--you're the guy who shoots someone by accident, thinking they were a prowler or a burglar when they were really just your next door neighbor mowing the lawn.

Not me. Don't own a gun and don't much care for them. I do of course fully support can carry laws because they reduce crime but they're not for me.

I also support mandatory sentencing including the stiff add ons for those who use a gun in a crime. I've alreasy decided that if I am burglarized I'll help them to whatever they want (not much here) and hope to get a good description so I can help the police find them and testify later. Armed robbery in a home should be good for life.

Posted by: rdw on September 1, 2006 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINK

Jason --

Is it worth the candle? You're talking to a delusional who only accepts "facts" as are convenient to his own belief. He redefines terrorism, fascism, liberalism -- everything he needs to redefine -- to make whole his imaginary world. There is no basis of actual fact, no reason, no perception of contradiction or inaccuracy in his own statements.

rdw is the perfect example of the the same people who march alongside any delusional ideology -- Moon, Mahesh Yogi, Hitler. He can look in the mirror but fails to see he reflects the same delusional, intransigent, misdirected, non-debatable believers he says endangers the world.

He is right but he is part of the same.

Posted by: notthere on September 2, 2006 at 12:44 AM | PERMALINK

Hi, very interesting site. I really like it.
http://newestringtones.awardspace.com/cingular_free_from_ringtone/ cingular free from ringtone http://newestringtones.awardspace.com/cingular_music_real_ringtone/ cingular music real ringtone http://newestringtones.awardspace.com/cingular_real_ringtone/ cingular real ringtone http://newestringtones.awardspace.com/cingular_free_motorola_ringtone/ cingular free motorola ringtone http://newestringtones.awardspace.com/cingular_mp3_ringtone/ cingular mp3 ringtone http://newestringtones.awardspace.com/cingular_customer_free_ringtone/ cingular customer free ringtone http://newestringtones.awardspace.com/cingular_free_ringtone_totally/ cingular free ringtone totally http://newestringtones.awardspace.com/cingular_ringtone_shop/ cingular ringtone shop http://newestringtones.awardspace.com/cingular_free_go_phone_ringtone/ cingular free go phone ringtone http://newestringtones.awardspace.com/cingular_free_phone_real_ringtone/ cingular free phone real ringtone http://newestringtones.awardspace.com/8125_cingular_ringtone/ 8125 cingular ringtone http://newestringtones.awardspace.com/buy_cingular_ringtone/ buy cingular ringtone http://newestringtones.awardspace.com/cingular_free_lg_ringtone/ cingular free lg ringtone http://newestringtones.awardspace.com/absolutely_cingular_free_ringtone/ absolutely cingular free ringtone http://newestringtones.awardspace.com/cingular_free_get_ringtone/ cingular free get ringtone http://newestringtones.awardspace.com/cingular_free_ringtone_wallpaper/ cingular free ringtone wallpaper http://newestringtones.awardspace.com/american_cingular_idol_ringtone/ american cingular idol ringtone http://newestringtones.awardspace.com/cingular_motorola_ringtone/ cingular motorola ringtone http://newestringtones.awardspace.com/cingular_nokia_ringtone/ cingular nokia ringtone http://newestringtones.awardspace.com/cheap_cingular_ringtone/ cheap cingular ringtone

Posted by: free ringtones on September 2, 2006 at 8:02 AM | PERMALINK

Jason
Right, and FDR didn't give us Social Security and LBJ didn't give us Medicare, two of the most liberal pieces of legislation ever. Oh, and Voting Rights, Civil Rights, the WPA--those aren't liberal at all.

You have reading comprehension issues, Jason. to refresh, here's what rdw said...

Sorry my friend but 1968 marks a sharp demarkation for the term Liberal. FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ are a dramatically different bunch.

He said liberals before 1968 are different from liberals after 1968. Not that they weren't liberals.

He hands it to you every time you get into it with him. Far more knowledgeable than you.

You should leave the real debating to cmdicely and his ilk.

Posted by: Red State Mike on September 2, 2006 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

This is a phony demarcation line, used by conservatives to separate the programs that the American people don't want them to mess around with--Social Security and Medicare--and the modern Democratic Party.

You're the one bringing in medicare and social security into an argument about liberals' approach to the nation's defense. That's the point of this discussion, whether liberals are now like the French (pussies, as rdw put it). LBJ and FDR and Truman certainly weren't.

So stop floating your strawmen arguments about social security and stay on topic.

If you truly believe rdw is 'knowledgeable' than the collision of his head and your head up his ass will make a lovely coconut sound.

Ad hominem. An argument technique for the weak-minded.

Posted by: Red State Mike on September 2, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

RSM,

Thanks, Couldn't have said it better. The libs hate talk of 1968 because it's a reminder of how far they've fallen. It's also marks such a sharp turning point toward appeasement as the basis of all foreign policy.

1968 is just a horrible year for them and they're not yet able to recover.

Posted by: rdw on September 2, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike:

What a *ringing endorsement* to have a shameless partisan hack like rdw in your corner, eh? :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 2, 2006 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

Jason,

The events of 1968 are part of History. They are real. There's no denying the past. FDR, Turman, JFK and LBJ would be embarrased as the weak foreign policy of their party today.

French cowardice is also part of history. While French soldiers are as brave as any the goverment has been defined by appeasement for almost 100 years. The French didn't defend France in WWII. Churchill had to sink their navy and Patton claimed, "I'd rather have a German division in front of me than a French division behind me". But this isn't about France.

If you explained soft power to JFK he'd laugh at you and if I am not mistaken the vast majority of liberals are embarrased at Truman and LBJ. Well it was pretty rude of Harry to drop those bombs. I don't doub that JFK, faced with a Saddam Hussein or a group of Mad Mullahs would have issued the assassination order with little haste.

You should also note Jason that credibiity is hard to gain and easy to lose. NO one advocated nuking cities. If Iran were to Nuke Israel it's a very safe bet Israel would nuke the top 40 Islamic cities in the middle east and that's in fact why most of the rest of the Middle East is more than a tad pissed at Iran. They are well aware Israel will not go quietly.

It's also true if a US city were nuked there would be massive retaliation. That's why Iran isn't a threat to the USA but they are a threat to Europe. The French will appease. It's what they do. As it stands now they are defenseless.

Posted by: rdw on September 2, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

shall we drudge up all of RSM's uses of the F-word and whatever else when he got caught losing a debate?

I'll take that as acknowledgment from you that I've won this one.

Posted by: Red State Mike on September 2, 2006 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

bob, jason,

this is a bit off-track but so very cool. I told you GWBs management of NK has been brilliant and a debacle for China Russia and the NKs because he's getting Japan to re-arm and take it's place as the worlds 2nd greatest superpower. The USA will have no need to fund a military presence in Asia soon.

This is a clip from Captians Quarters:

*******************************

Japan, meanwhile, is also discussing an end to official pacifism in the face of North Korean threats:

Shinzo Abe, the nationalist politician who is expected to become Japans next prime minister, said Friday that Japan should revise the pacifist Constitution imposed on it by the United States.
He made the statement as he formally declared his candidacy for the presidency of the governing Liberal Democratic Party, a post that would give him the prime ministership. Mr. Abe, the chief cabinet secretary, also said Japan should seek a larger role in the world and further strengthen its alliance with the United States.

As the next L.D.P. president, Id like to take the lead to put revision of the Constitution on the political agenda, Mr. Abe said at a regional party convention in Hiroshima.

Id like to draft a new Constitution with my own hands, he added.

The current war-renouncing Constitution, which was drafted by Americans during their occupation of the country after World War II, does not allow Japan to possess a real military.


This represents the real threat to Kim in the region: a re-armed Japan. It's one of two ace cards held by the West in dealing with Kim Jong-Il, the other being Taiwan, which is more of a pressure point for China. Neither wants to see Japan off its American leash, and China will be forced to exert its influence over its intransigent ally.

Posted by: rdw on September 2, 2006 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

shall we drudge up all of RSM's uses of the F-word and whatever else when he got caught losing a debate?

I'll take that as acknowledgment from you that I've won this one.

If you need to say that to make yourself feel better, go for it.

As for your points, you've made none. As for your boy rdw, his words can speak for themselves.

Neither of you acknowledged the debt we owe the French for the very existence of this nation and the sacrifices made by our allies overseas.

Pathetic. Hitch your wagon to the current regime and enjoy oblivion.

Posted by: Kevin "The Hammer" Drum on September 2, 2006 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK

Auto and Trucks articles Auto and trucks articles

Boats articles boats articles

Cars articles cars articles

Motorcycles articles motorcycles articles

RVs articles RVs articles

Trucks articles trucks articles

Business articles business articles

Advertising articles advertising articles

Careers articles careers articles

Customer Service articles customer service articles

Entrepreneurs articles entrepreneurs articles

Ethics articles ethics articles

Home Based Business articles home based business articles

Management articles management articles

Marketing articles marketing articles

Networking articles networking articles

Public Relations articles public relations articles

Small Business articles small business articles

Computers and Internet articles computers and internet articles

Computer Certification articles computer certification articles

Data Recovery articles data recovery articles

Games articles games articles

Hardware articles hardware articles

Networks articles networks articles

Software articles software articles

Education articles education articles

College articles college articles

K-12 Education articles K-12 education articles

Language articles language articles

Philosophy articles philosophy articles

Psychology articles psychology articles

Science articles science articles

Sociology articles sociology articles

Family articles family articles

Pets and Animals articles pets and animals articles

Babies articles babies articles

Elderly Care articles elderly care articles

Holidays articles holidays articles

Parenting articles parenting articles

Pregnancy articles pregnancy articles

Food and Drink articles food and drink articles

Coffee articles coffee articles

Cooking articles cooking articles

Gourmet articles gourmet articles

Recipes articles recipes articles

Wine articles wine articles

Health articles health articles

Acne articles acne articles

Alternative Medicine articles alternative medicine articles

Beauty articles beauty articles

Cardio articles cardio articles

Depression articles depression articles

Diabettes articles diabettes articles

Exercise articles exercise articles

Fitness articles fitness articles

Hair Loss articles hair loss articles

Medicine articles medicine articles

Meditation articles meditation articles

Men Issues articles men issues articles

Muscle Building articles muscle building articles

Nutrition articles nutrition articles

Weight Loss articles weight loss articles

Women Issues articles women issues articles

Yoga articles yoga articles

Hobbies articles hobbies articles

Home Improvemenr articles home improvement articles

Home Security articles home security articles

Interior Design articles interior design articles

Landscaping articles landscaping articles

Gardening articles gardening articles

Science articles science articles

Astronomy articles astronomy articles

Biology articles biology articles

Environment articles environment articles

Physics articles physics articles

Technology articles technology articles

Kids and Teens articles kids and teens articles

Legal articles legal articles

Family Law articles family law articles

Immigration articles immigration articles

Personal Injury articles personal injury articles

Finance articles finance articles

Credit articles credit articles

Currency Trading articles currency trading articles

Debt Consolidation articles debt consolidation articles

Fundraising articles fundraising articles

Insurance articles insurance articles

Investing articles investing articles

Leasing articles leasing articles

Loans articles loans articles

Mortgage articles mortgage articles

Mutual Funds articles mutual funds articles

Personal Finance articles personal finance articles

Real Estate articles real estate articles

Stock Market articles stock market articles

Taxes articles taxes articles

Online Business articles online business articles

Affiliate Programs articles affiliate programs articles

Auctions articles auctions articles

Audio-Video Streaming articles audio-video streaming articles

Blogging articles blogging articles

Domains articles domains articles

Ebooks articles ebooks articles

Ecommerce articles ecommerce articles

Email Marketing articles email marketing articles

Ezine Marketing articles ezine marketing articles

Ezine Publishing articles ezine publishing articles

Internet Marketing articles internet marketing articles

SEO articles SEO articles

Internet Advertising articles internet advertising articles

Web Design articles web design articles

Web Hosting articles web hosting articles

Politics and Government articles politics and government articles

Commentary articles commentary articles

Current Events articles current events articles

History articles history articles

Recreation and Sports articles recreation and sports articles

Fishing articles fishing articles

Extreme articles extreme articles

Biking articles biking articles

Golf articles golf articles

Gambling and Casinos articles gambling and casinos articles

Hunting articles hunting articles

Martial Arts articles martial arts articles

Running articles running articles

Relationships articles relationship articles

Dating articles dating articles

Divorce articles divorse articles

Marriage articles marriage articles

Sexuality articles sexuality articles

Self Improvement articles self improvement articles

Attraction articles attraction articles

Coaching articles coaching articles

Creativity articles creativity articles

Goal Setting articles goal setting articles

Grief articles Grief articles

Happiness articles happiness articles

Innovation articles innovation articles

Inspirational articles inspirational articles

Leadership articles leadership articles

Motivation articles motivation articles

Organizing articles organizing articles

Spirituality articles spirituality articles

Stress Management articles stress management articles

Success articles success articles

Time Management articles time management articles

Travel and Leisure articles travel and leisure articles

Aviation articles avation articles

Boating articles boating articles

Cruises articles cruises articles

Destinations articles destinations articles

Outdoors articles outdoors articles

Travel Tips articles travel tips articles

Vacations articles Vacations articles

Article Writing articles article writing articles

Book Marketing articles book marketing articles

Copywriting articles copyrighting articles

Communications articles communications articles

Broadband Internet articles broadband internet articles

GPS articles GPS articles

Mobile Phones articles Modile phones articles

Satellite Radio articles Satellite radioarticles

Satellite TV articles Satellite TV articles

Video Conferencing video conferencing articles

VOIP articles VOIP articles
Arts and Entertainment articles art and entertainment articles
Celebrities articles Celebrities articles
Humanities articles humanities articles
Humor articles Humor articles
Movies articles movies articles
Music articles music articles

Poetry articles poetry articles

Product Reviews articles product reviews articles

Book Reviews articles book reviews articles

Consumer Electronics articles consumer electronics articles

Digital Products articles Digital products articles

Movie Reviews articles movie reviews articles

Music Reviews articles music reviews articles


To qualify for a credit card you must be at least 18 years old and have a regular
source of income. Despite invitations from credit
card issuers
, you will still have to demonstrate that you are a good risk
before they grant you credit.
The proof is in your credit report. Before you submit a credit
card application
, you may want to obtain a copy of your credit
report
to make sure it is accurate. Credit
cards by type
could be following:

0% Intro Low APR credit cards
- 0% Intro Low APR credit cards
,

Rewards credit cards
- Rewards credit cards ,

Instant Approval credit cards
- Instant Approval credit cards,

Airline Miles Cards
- Airline Miles Cards,

Business Credit Cards
- Business Credit Cards,

Gas Credit Cards
- Gas Credit Cards,

Student Credit Cards
- Student Credit Cards ,

Low Interest Credit Cards
- Low Interest Credit Cards, ,

American Express credit cards
,

Bank Of America credit cards
- Bank Of America credit cards,

Chase credit cards
- Chase Manhattan credit cards,

CitiBank credit cards
- Citibank credit cards

Columbus Bank credit cards
- Columbus Bank credit cards,

Discover credit cards
- discover credit cards

HSBC Bank credit cards
,

New Millennium Bank credit cards
- Millennium Bank credit cards, and

U.S. Bank credit cards

Calculator
Mortgage
- calculator free mortgage, calculator mortgage rate

Mortgage
Calculator
calculator interest mortgage, mortgage interest calculator, calculator
mortgage
.

Read more about personal
finance
, earnings,
stock
markets
and economy
at online business news. More offers
can be found at credit cards
offers
.

Credit card offers, compare credit cards - Credit card offers, compare credit cards.
Visa credit cards visa credit
cards

Visa gift cards
visa gift card

Visa platinum
visa platinum

Chase visa chase
visa

Aspire visa
Aspire visa

Aspire visa
Card
Aspire visa Card

Visa Master
card
Visa Master card

Royal bank visa
Royal bank visa

Capital One
Visa
Capital One Visa

Prepaid Visa
Prepaid Visa

Bank of America
Visa
Bank of America Visa

Visa Gold Visa
Gold

MBNA visa MBNA
visa

Visa
student credit card
Visa student credit card

Secured visa
Secured visa

Visa
credit card application
Visa credit card application

Bank One Visa
Bank One Visa

Prepaid
visa credit card
Prepaid visa credit card

Chase Visa card
Chase Visa card

Worldperks Visa
Worldperks Visa

Bad credit
visa card
Bad credit visa card

Visa debit card
Visa debit card


Master card

Master Cards and Mastercards best offers

Chase master card

Chase master cards offers

Master Card gift
card


Master card gif cards listings

Platinum Master
Card


Platinum master card listings

Prepaid Master
Card


prepaid master card offers

Citibank master
card


Citibank master card offers

Master Card credit cards

Master Card credit cards top offers

Citi master card

Citi master card offers

Shell Master Card

Shell master card best offer!

Orchard bank
master card


Orchard bank master card - get here!

Gold Master Card

Gold Master Card best offers

Bad Credit Master
Card


Bad Credit Master Card offers

HSBC master card

HSBC master card listings

Master credit card

Master credit card listings


You can search, compare and apply for
a credit card online
- and in some cases even get a credit
decision
within 60 seconds!


Low Interest
Credit cards
low interest credit cards

Cash Back Credit
Cards
cash back credit cards

Fixed APR Credit
Cards
fixed APR credit cards

Balance Transfer
Cards
balance transfer credit cards

Reward credit cards
reward credit cards

Gas Rebate Cards gas
rebate cards

Shopping Rebate
Cards
shopping rebate cards

Travel Rebate Cards
travel rebate credit cards

Airline Credit
Cards
airline miles credit cards

Business Credit
Cards
business credit cards

Student Credit
Cards
student credit cards

Pre-paid Debit
Cards
prepaid debit cards

Bad Credit
Credit Cards
bad credit credit cards

Catalog Credit
Cards
catalog credit cards

Advanta credit
cards
advanta credit cards

Amex credit cards
amex credit cards

Chase credit cards
chase credit cards

Citibank credit
cards
citibank credit cards

Aspire visa card
aspire visa card

Discover credit
cards
discover credit cards

HSBC Bank credit
cards
HSBC bank credit cards

New Millennium
Bank credit cards
New Millenium Bank credit cards

Pulaski Bank credit
cards
Pulaski bank credit cards

Worlperks visa
credit card
Worldperks visa credit card


bad credit repair bad credit repair

bad credit report repair bad credit report repair

bad credit mortgages bad credit mortgages

bad credit loans bad credit loans

bad credit auto loans bad credit auto loans

bad credit home loans bad credit home loans

bad credit personal loans bad credit personal loans

bad credit home improvement loans bad credit home improvement loans

bad credit refinance bad credit refinance

bad credit debt consolidation bad credit debt consolidation

bad credit motorcycle loans bad credit motorcycle loans

bad credit boat loans boat loans

bad credit military loans bad credit military loans

bad credit signature loans bad credit signature loans

bad credit mortgage loans bad credit mortgage loans

bad credit repair bad credit repair

bad credit visa cards bad credit visa cards

bad credit california mortgage bad credit california mortgage

bad credit help bad credit help

bad credit second mortgage bad credit second mortgage


Online insurance quotes Online insurance quotes

Online insurance rates Online insurance rates

Online insurance quote Online insurance quote

car insurance car insurance

health insurance health insurance

home insurance home insurance

life insurance life insurance

business insurance business insurance

auto insurance quote auto insurance quote

home owner insurance home owner insurance

travel insurance travel insurance

dental insurance dental insurance

medical insurance medical insurance

renters insurance renters insurance

motorcycle insurance motorcycle insurance

boat insurance boat insurance

pet insurance pet insurance

family health insurance family insurance

disability insurance disability insurance

liability insurance liability insurance

flood insurance flood insurance

property insurance property insurance

car insurance rate car insurance rate

insurance broker insurance broker

online insurance quote online insurance quote


Credit Reports credit
reports

Mortgage Loans mortgage
loans refinance

Credit card application Credit card
application

Credit card online application Credit
card online application

apply for a credit card online - apply for a credit card online

Affiliate programs are the best way to make your web site profitable. There's a huge range of href="http://www.affiliateprogramswanted.net">web affiliate programs available
now, so each webmaster could find

href="http://www.affiliateprogramswanted.com">affiliate program

suitable to
his/her web site category. Check out web

href="http://www.affiliateprogramswanted.com/affiliate-resources.html">affiliate
resources

section for the best information on affiliate events and how to
set up your own affiliate program
or tools to help affiliates.

Affiliate
networks
Affiliate networks

Top affiliate program Top
affiliate program

Free affiliate program
Free affiliate program

Best affiliate program
Best affiliate program

Pay
per click affiliate program
Pay per click affiliate program

Casino
affiliate program
Casino affiliate program

Online affiliate program
Online affiliate program

Affiliate
software
Affiliate software

Affiliate
program software
Affiliate program software

Affiliate
sales program
Affiliate sales program

Web
master affiliate program
Web master affiliate program

Mp4 player Mp4 player

Mp4 video player Mp4 video player

Digital mp4 player Digital mp4 player

Mp3 player Mp3 player

Mp3 players Mp3 players

Portable mp3 players Portable mp3 players

Cheap mp3 players Cheap mp3 players

Best mp3 players Best mp3 players

iPod mp3 players iPod mp3 players

Flash mp3 players Flash mp3 players

Top mp3 players Top mp3 players

Mp3 video player Mp3 video player

Digital mp3 player Digital mp3 player

Buy mp3 player Buy mp3 player

Mp3 players for sale Mp3 players for
sale

Cheap portable mp3 players Cheap portable
mp3 players

Wholesale mp3 players Wholesale mp3
players


home security home security

x10 x10

home
security system
home security system

barking
dog alarm
barking dog alarm

voice
dialer
voice dialer

x10 home automation x10 home automation

home automation software home automation
software

assisted
living
assisted living

wireless
camera
wireless camera

xray vision
xray vision

x10 cameras x10 cameras

entertainment
entertainment

wireless cameras wireless cameras

home automation home automation

nanny cam
nanny cam

nanny camera
nanny camera

home
security system
home security system

home automation kits home automation kits

wireless
camera systems
wireless camera systems

universal
remotes
universal remotes

camera
systems
camera systems

home
automation
home automation

home
security systems
home security systems

Posted by: best choice on September 3, 2006 at 3:27 AM | PERMALINK

Neither of you acknowledged the debt we owe the French for the very existence of this nation and the sacrifices made by our allies overseas.

That would be because we paid back the French a long, long time ago and it has nothing to do with current events in the least.

The sacrifices of our allies were not germaine to the topic either although the examples of Canada and Germany are very comparable to the Conservative / Liberal split in the USA. Gerhard Schroeder and Paul Martin would fit comfortably at a table with Howard Dean and Michael Moore. While Harper and Merkel are not directly comparable to American conservatives they do not share the liberal view of dealing with terrorists via appeasement.

It's going to be very interesting watching Europe face the pressures of the 21st Century when for the 1st time in 60 years they stand alone with the USA defense umbrella. The realization of which is just starting to sink in.

Europe now faces a demographic crises which continues to worsen as well as a home grown Islamic crises which continues to worsen at an even faster pace. The march toward an integrated EU is now stopped and is likely over with deep splits between Eastern and Western Europe. Chirac's mouth has been poison.

Islam will rule parts of Europe because it can. Many in Europe are committed to multi-culturalism on the notion all cultures are equal and all deserve the support of the government. They will believe this even after the point muslims gain political power and decide on a single culture for all.

The good news is multi-culturalism never quite caught on in Eastern Europe or Italy or much of Germany. The French will not surrender their culture as easily as the Swedes, Dutch and as in Belguim but they will continually cede lands to muslims who refuse to assimilate to French culture. In all cases it's a demographic death march. Ethnic Europe is shrinking and every year for the next 40 it will shrink at a more rapid pace.

Posted by: rdw on September 3, 2006 at 9:38 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly