Not at all surprising.
When they smell a chance for power, everything's out the window. Even National Security.
Assholes!!!

It's almost as if the conservatives want America to fail.

I keep waiting for a leading Democratic politician, maybe even Obama himself, to give a prime time speech in which he lays out--with quotes from named GOP leaders, the ACTUAL GOP positions in plain English, which amount to (a) repealing health care reform, including elements like exchanges that they in fact say they are in favor of; (b) privatizing (ie, welshing on) Social Security and Medicare; (c) continuing and expanding the Bush tax cuts for the rich; (d) continuing the long-standing Federal subsidies of Red States such as Alaska and most of the South, who are then free to reduce or zero out their own taxes; (e) expanding the military budget without endl (f) starting a new war with Iraq; (g) increasing endlessly the Federal budget deficit, 70% of whose present value was accumulated under the modern GOP presidents and icons Ronald Reagan, George H W Bush, and George W. Bushl (i) institutionalizing in the law discrimination on the basis of national origin or religion, thus gutting the 1st and 14th amendments; (j) tacit support of extremist threats of secession, violent overthrow of the Federal government, and other "2nd Amendment Remedies." The speech would end with summing up saying that "The Republicans proudly proclaim that theirs is the Party of Abraham Lincoln, rightly considered one of the best of the US Presidents. But the present stated positions of the Republican Party sound more like those of Jefferson Davis than Abraham Lincoln." This would be a longish, dramatic, high exposure, high risk speech. But something along these lines is probably what is needed to keep deluded low information voters from putting these political criminals back in office.

Has anyone out there entertained the thought that stirring up the anti-Muslim hate is being pushed by people high in the extreme right that literally want to have another terror attack here in the US. I mean it will be another thing they will pin on the Obama administration. We already know that the Repugs have not given a rat's ass about trying to help the country with the economic disaster that they have wrought on this country starting with Saint Ronnie Reagan thru both Bushes and even during the Clinton administration where they (along with Bubba's help) tried to bring him down. It is obvious that there are serious right wing powers that want to turn this country into basically a society that is comprised of the rich with all the power and the rest of us as their slaves. Any comments.

Oh Steve, haven't you figured it out yet? this is the foreign policy part of the republican/conservative plan, it goes like this. Whip the base into an anti-Muslim/Islam fury generating the current situation. This activates their extremists, the goal (of the Right) being another attack on the U.S. Whatever the results, even if it's just increased chatter on jihadist websites, the Conservatwits can point and say "Look, the Dems are soft on terror, they've put us in greater danger, vote for us, we'll keep you safe" Look for this to continue into 2012

"Anwar al-Awlaki has tried to promote this notion that the West, and particularly the United States, will turn on its Muslim citizens,"

-And Fox News is lending a hand, 24/7.

An hour ago there was a piece about a muslim girl, working at Disney, and wanting to wear a head scarf. There was the usual snark and fake outrage over the non story.

No big deal- except it quietly re-enforced the Fox meme of Islam/muslims are bad, unAmerican, Not Like Us.

24/7, Fox fans the fires for the faithful. Father Coughlin would be proud.

5-4-3-2-1-theamericanist will issue a novel length diatribe.

Excellent.

$ quote from Rich:

"You’d think that American hawks invested in the Afghanistan “surge” would not act against their own professed interests. But they couldn’t stop themselves from placing cynical domestic politics over country. The ginned-up rage over the “ground zero mosque” was not motivated by a serious desire to protect America from the real threat of terrorists lurking at home and abroad — a threat this furor has in all likelihood exacerbated — but by the potential short-term rewards of winning votes by pandering to fear during an election season."

You "wish they would reconsider." Why should they? It works for them politically -- as will more attacks on America.

Why are Democrats and liberals so weak? Why can't Obama and the Democrats speak up and actually say something about all the national interest issues here?

Well judging from the comments that were posted while I was posting mine I see that there are others thinking the same way I am. It is, even after all that the right has done over these past few years, extremely difficult to believe that extreme conservatives (which seem to be what the GOP is comprised of now) would deliberately sabotage their own country simply for power.

Same dynamic exists between the wingnuts and the Islamists as you see between Hamas and Likud. The nominal polar opposite "enemies" have identical interests--keep the conflict going. If their professed political objectives were ever at one time sincerely held, they have long since become mere pretense disguising the only real end: their nihilistic need for indefinite prolongation of the conflict. Keeping the cycle of hate and fear and violence escalating, always escalating. Their power and position, their identity, and their entire stunted, emotionally crippled understanding of the world and their ability to make sense of it depends upon it. For them, the prospect of peace and coexistence is as horrifying to contemplate the aftermath of a nuclear war is to sane people.

I'm afraid that right-wingers consider people like themselves the only real Americans, and they would rather destroy the country rather than let it be run by people who don't share their views.

Maybe they see the benefits of another "new Pearl Harbor", just as the PNAC did through the 1990s.

Wouldn't it be refreshing in a "take that, you bastards" kind of way if Obama actually, forcefully attacked Republicans on this issue? At the risk of incurring the wrath of folks like cr, I for one would love, LOVE to see some fight from this Administration on this and a host of other issues that liberals are on the correct side of.

People support fighters who fight the good fight, even if they lose. Because unlike some who think that fighting and losing necessarily and in all cases equals losses at the ballot box, I think that fighting the good fight--even if losing at first--instills hope, builds support, and eventually leads to winning.

But instead of fighting the good fight, they cower. In so doing, they support and reinforce the tactics of those who would spread fear and hate instead of strength and love.

Ah, here's for wishing.

As conservatives become more animated in their demands that Muslim American face discrimination

Let's not forget that the unhinged right has been laying the groundwork for this odious little project for years.

I'm not sure what the United States did to offend conservative activists so much

Put a ni**er in the White House, of course.

5-4-3-2-1-theamericanist will issue a novel length diatribe.

He has to fill up his diaper first.

"Why are Democrats and liberals so weak? Why can't Obama and the Democrats speak up and actually say something about all the national interest issues here?"

If he (or they) did speak up it would filtered through the lens of the corporate owned media. THe could make as forceful and impassioned speech as was humanly possible, but it would do more harm than good after being sliced and diced as "out of touch with real Americans". And that's exactly what would happen on every cable news show, every newspaper, every news website 24 hours a day.

Want to know what America did to upset the conservatives? They elected a black man president. It's that simple.

SaintZak,

That's what happens now. The unfathomable thing about the Democrats is that they seem to think if they just cower deep enough in the corner that the Republicans will stop trying to kick them - and the Republicans are just going to kick them no matter what. The Democrats literally have nothing to lose: if they do something, everybody to the right of Gandhi will seek more and more effective ways to fillet them; if they do nothing, everyone to the right of Gandhi will fillet them - at this point, they either need to just go away and let the fascists actively take over and be dome with it, or do actually do something. They are neither coming home with or on their shields but hiding under it as the Republicans bugger them silly. Grayson should be the far lunatic rightist fringe of the Democratic Party - instead he is the only Democrat not actively seeking to find new ways to lick GOP taint

Bin Laden has been targeting America and its interests for well over 15 years. Al-Awlaki sent the underwear bomber in December 2009. It's not like they needed a kerfuffle over a mosque near Ground Zero to energize their efforts to murder innocent civilians.

In other words, trying to placate terrorists is fruitless.

"...trying to placate terrorists is fruitless."

And what does that have to do with the present conversation? Are you suggesting that observing the 1st Amendment is somehow placating terrorists?

One thing on this subject that isn't mentioned often is how the wingnuts try to claim that they aren't trying to infringe on people's religious rights, but are asking the Moslems to respect people's sensitivities. The obvious implications of this position is that Moslems are the grownups while the whiners and pants wetters are children who will never behave in an adult fashion. Somehow my acquaintance with these pants wetters here in Texas is that indeed expecting them to act like grownups is an exercise in futility.

So, if you "fight the good fight" and end up losing, it is a "good loss"?

How about if you "fight the good fight" and end up losing and, because you decided to take on more than you could handle rather than winning what you could for now, more people die as a result, are those "good deaths"?

It's always easy to "lose for a good cause" when you're not the one whose children don't get fed.

And what does that have to do with the present conversation? Are you suggesting that observing the 1st Amendment is somehow placating terrorists?

No. I'm saying you don't further the debate by arguing that opposition to the Cordoba mosque will give Bin Laden or al-Awlaki a reason to attack America. They want to attack America regardless of Americans' position on the Cordoba mosque.

As for the 1st Amendment, yes, they have every right to build the mosque there. It doesn't mean it's the prudent thing to do. There are several prominent Muslims scholars who have spoke out against the Cordoba mosque, and their arguments are not being heard. They, like many opponents, see no reason to build another mosque in NYC so close to Ground Zero and think the costs will outweigh the benefits.

Yes, but all the anti-Muslim hatred being spewed by the right wing is going to make it much more likely that Muslim-Americans will become radicilized and turn to terror.

In case people have forgotten the perpatrators of the London subway bombings were British citizens who had been born and raised in the UK, not foreign terrorists.

Well, as was pointed out in the hilarious yet pathetic Faux thread below, since audi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal owns lots of Faux ("Foxwah") it almost makes sense then, if he's a creepy Jihadi financier, to stimulate Arab anger against the USA in the world.

Badlands: didn't you ever hear of "enhancing" someone's program? It's not like the Cordoba issue (not a "mosque" per se, OK!) would give AQ their casus belli to attack. Yeah they hate us and would cause trouble anyway, but seeing anti-Arab/Muslim attitudes in the US helps their cause, OK? Please avoid the simplistic thinking.

As for prudence, I can accept that's a relevant issue (like it would for lots of construction issues even involving lesser things, like a tacky building in an elegant neighborhood etc. which many here might criticize even with legal right accepted. But I don't know if these people just have somewhere else they can just drop into. Maybe some philanthropist (Trump?) can offer a plot farther away and buy Park51 from them.

Badlands: these guys don't listen farther than to hear who they want to jeer at.

That's why they dance to Rove's tune -- he plays a note that they reject, and then every single step they take follows his beat.

Yes, but all the anti-Muslim hatred being spewed by the right wing is going to make it much more likely that Muslim-Americans will become radicilized and turn to terror.

Actually, your argument is quite simplistic and almost racist. What you're arguing is that opposition to the Cordoba mosque will cause American Muslims to become radicalized and support Al-Qaeda and/or conduct terror attacks against the U.S.

Wow. So you believe the average Muslim has no other recourse than to turn to terror when he/she encounters someone or something they don't like. They can't debate civilly, or even argue vocally - they just turn to violence.

Yeah they hate us and would cause trouble anyway, but seeing anti-Arab/Muslim attitudes in the US helps their cause, OK? Please avoid the simplistic thinking.

Yes. Let's back away from anything that might upset them more. What next? Muslims speak out against homosexuality. Should we placate them and not fight for homosexual rights? We don't want any anti-Arab/Muslim attitudes in the US to help their cause.

Neil, they name is Neville Chamberlain.

Badlands, the point is not that Al Qaeda leadership gains new motivation to attack. The point is more people may be swayed to Al Qaeda's point of view and become motivated to join the cause and/or act.

In other words, trying to placate terrorists is fruitless

Absolutely correct. We must NEVER give in to republican terrorists. They will always hate America.

Bullshit.

Anwar al-Awlaki is as good an example of what the bad guys want, and how they propose to do it, as anybody. You don't fight that guy effectively by accepting his premise -- that opposing ANY Muslim is opposing ALL Islam.

I keep saying it, cuz it's true: if we are not at war with Islam itself, it's necessary to be able to say what is the Islam with which we are not at war.

We're definitely at war with the Islam that al Awlaki preaches.

We're not at war, exactly, with the Islam that Rauf preaches -- but it's not exactly compatible with American values, either.

If you don't know that, you either don't believe in American values, or you don't know much about what Rauf preaches.

So it's not enough to say (falsely) that Rauf has a right to build the Cordoba project. It's false, cuz he doesn't have the money. But it's not enough for another reason -- the way it wasn't enough to support the Skokie knuckleheads' right to a parade permit.

It was also necessary to note that they were knuckleheads, too. If in the end they didn't have the $5 for a parade permit, I dunno as even the ACLU would have given it to 'em.

That's why it's so significant that Rauf doesn;t have the money.

After all the best way to fight evil, is to do good. It is obviously not true what Rauf's book says -- that's what's right with America is what's right with Islam, because what's best about America (religious liberty, free speech, the separation of Church and State, equal rights for women, tolerance, etc.) is NOT compatible with the unreconstructed Islam that he preaches.

He's said so himself: Islam doesn't need a Reformation, it needs to go back to what it was at the beginning -- which, as it happens, is pretty much exactly what al-Awlaki, the Salafi, says.

These are not forward looking people.

That's why I keep noting that the intelligent thing to say about the Cordoba project is simply that, to the extent (which ain't far) it's a First Amendment issue, they can build. But they don't have the dough, so it's not going to be a violation of the First Amendment (much less an attack on Islam itself) that they don't get to build there.

Which is nevertheless the way you guys are framing it. And THAT helps the likes of al Awlaki. Lower the stakes, already.

It's not like we lack experience or data on what motivates Muslims to attack the US -- and no, it's not the facile rationalizations of the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, much less (ye Gods!) what TR's grandson did in 1953.

Al-Awlaki, al-Timmini, Hammani, Abdulmuttalab, Mobely -- it's a pretty long list of dangerous people who spent lots of time in the US and decided to attack America based on Islam.

Perhaps you guys might like to consider what are the reforms in Islam, and who are the folks who advocate 'em, that are UNLIKE what those guys believe.

Hint: you won't find 'em in Rauf's work.

You want to win hearts and minds? Give 'em something to believe IN -- Islam's version of the Americanist heresy.

5-4-3-2-1-theamericanist will issue a novel length diatribe

The putz was late ...

Don't be surprised if someday this all leads to Ground Zero Part II, undertaken by a new Mohammed Atta radicalized by this hatefest.