Picture is kiss of death for George Bush prejudice

Herald Sun ^ | 17th April 2009 | Andrew Bolt

[naturalman1975]

SEE this picture? That's odd, because the Sunday Age's editor can't. Unimaginable, she calls it.

Last weekend, her paper began yet another editorial praising new US President Barack Obama like this:

"Imagine if, only a year ago, the President of the United States had visited Turkey, addressed its parliament, then kissed the Prime Minister on both cheeks.

"That might have been considered far-fetched, but so, too, would have been the President's affirmation that his country was not at war with Islam and that being Muslim in the US is part of the fabric of life.

"It is indeed unimaginable that George Bush would have embraced such thoughts, words and deeds."

Pardon? "Unimaginable?" Only to the spectacularly uninformed.

True, Bush as US President never kissed the blokey Prime Minister of Turkey, preferring a happy two-handed handshake when they met.

But check again the photograph. Will this kiss do? It shows Bush bussing the then Prince Abdullah, now King of Saudi Arabia.

So how did the Sunday Age editor come to write this fantasy:

"(Bush's) arms-length policy, bred out of a certain conservative caution and suspicion, certainly applied to being seen to be in too close a contact with Islamic nations, let alone within kissing distance of their leaders."

And how is it also "unimaginable" that Bush could have said that his country was "not at war with Islam"?

Here he is in 2002 doing just that:

"Because this great nation of many religions understands, our war is not against Islam, or against faith practised by the Muslim people."

How is it "unimaginable" that Bush could have insisted Islam was part of American life? Here, again, is Bush:

[PA Engineer]

It is a religion largely trapped in the past and ruled by autocrats who’ve kept their people ignorant, desperate and poor. Once they’ve tasted freedom they rarely go back.

Sounds like liberalism.

[1010RD]

You are wise.

[culpeper]

hit it

[Big_Monkey]

"Once they’ve tasted freedom they rarely go back.

Yeah. I have to agree. There are instances win they do revert to something, but it's rarely if ever of their own free will. Usually, it's an economic collapse followed by a strong-man takeover.

I think Iraq will emerge as a fairly secular country with religious underpinning that are based on Islamic principles. Nothing wrong with that. We're a secular country with religious underpinnings based on a Judeo-Christian principles.

Ultimately, I believe Iraq will set an example that other Islamic countries can follow - they can have countries with Islamic principles, but will be democratic in operation. This will mark the end of the Islamic terrorist threat.

[sausageseller]

If we were at war with Islam you’d know it. We are at war with a radical, extremist faction of Islam, not all of it. It is a religion largely trapped in the past and ruled by autocrats who’ve kept their people ignorant, desperate and poor. Once they’ve tasted freedom they rarely go back. A religion with billions of adherents will get some percentage of radical nuts and ignorant fools, but if all billion of them were at war with civilization you’d be on the front lines yourself.

Just not true.

You think of "war" as all out conventional warfare. Islams war is for total domination with little exchange of gunfire. Turkey is becoming more radicalized so is Pakistan and Africa as a whole.

Enclaves of Muslims are growing in every democracy in the world.

[1010RD]

You pretend that Islam is united. It is not and hasn’t truly been so in centuries. Read history.

Is it my ideal religion? No, but it is not a worldwide threat that you are painting it as.

I don’t want sharia, but I don’t want socialism either. I’ll fight against both, but right now socialism/fascism at home is worrying me more than Islam.

[eazdzit]

You asked: “So how did the Sunday Age editor come to write this fantasy?”

My Comment: She obviously thinks Obama is Muslim and being uninformed thinks only a Muslim would behave the way he has.

In my opinion they (Bush and Obama) are both NWO politicians and that explains the behavior of both.

Cheers

Easy Does It

[sausageseller]

You pretend that Islam is united. It is not and hasn’t truly been so in centuries. Read history.

It is united in the sense that the different sects goals are domination. Each sect has their own radical element that the sect as a whole produces and funds.

Is it my ideal religion? No, but it is not a worldwide threat that you are painting it as.

I have no idea what your "ideal" religion is or really care. Islam as a worldwide threat is well documented and anyone that believes otherwise is dishonest or naive at best.

I don’t want sharia, but I don’t want socialism either. I’ll fight against both, but right now socialism/fascism at home is worrying me more than Islam.

Sharia is a form of socialism . It is top down rules and regulation. It is not freedom.