Tom Davis's blog

There's some vitriol spreading via the email rumor mill about how Muslims believe that if they kill an infidel (non-Muslim) they get automatic entry into Heaven. It's from an unidentified author who supposedly attended an unspecified meeting and asked an Imam questions about Islam.

Well - I've know quite a few Muslims and none of them ever tried to kill me so I'm sure the story is BS. And millions of non-Muslims have lived for Centuries in Islamic countries without being killed.

I'm sure there are statements in the Koran or other Islamic religious documents that can be, and have been, misrepresented as a mandate to kill by the Osamas or Bushies of the World to serve political, war-making objectives. That's one of the unwritten rules of war. But that's certainly no more a widespread belief among Muslims than a widespread belief by a majority of Christians and Jews that some of the hateful interpretations of passages in the Old and New Testaments are mandates. By the way - I've read both.

There's not much doubt that on issues related to the Mideast and Israel the Ds are as bad as the Rs. OK - maybe they're a shade better, but not by much. Clinton had a lot of Neocons too, but they didn't get us into the Iraq debacle and give Israel unconditional support for a slaughter.

The balance of power in the Mideast may be leveling out some though with our incompetence and the World's reaction to Israel's arrogance, brutality and military ED. Hopefully this will dilute our arrogance of perceived power and help restart the 21st Century.

The Democrats' Lebanon Failure
Stephen Zunes / Aug. 15, 2006;

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/08/15/the_democrats_lebanon_failur...

Stephen Zunes is Middle East editor for Foreign Policy in Focus. He is a professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco and the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003.)

As open warfare grinds to a slow and bloody halt in Lebanon, the Bush administration’s unconditional support for Israeli attacks on Lebanon is emblematic of the profound tragedy of U.S. policy in the region over the past five years.

The administration has relied largely on force rather than diplomacy. It has shown a willingness to violate international legal norms, a callousness regarding massive civilian casualties, a dismissive attitude toward our closest allies whose security interests we share, and blatant double standards on U.N. Security Council resolutions, nonproliferation issues and human rights.

The topic of this article from AP probably results from incompetence. They probably just haven't had time to do a quality job on R&D for protecting airliners coming from foreign countries to the US. (hypothesis #1)

I mean they had Swift Boat Goon type organizations to nurture, and covering their butts on little inconveniences like the corruption and (particularly) the exposure of crooks like DeLay, Abramoff and their ilk. And it takes a lot of time to invent cute little phrases like Islamic Fascists (which, by definition doesn't fit Al Qaeda) to keep the fear factor politically alive. So let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they're just incompetent - and it was mostly due to limited time.

Granted, that with more time their involvement in such "minor" issues might have resulted in even greater incompetence and really screwed things up (hypothesis #2). Maybe that's why that even though the Brits knew about the "plot" many months ago, they only recently informed "Shrubba's Bubbas".

David Broder of the Washington Post, called the Dean of Op-Ed writers by many, had a "poor Bush" Op-Ed about our leaders worries as he went to the G8 conference. That must be why Boy George "massaged" the German Chancellor. Broder's message was that our poor President had so many worries, but had only caused one of the reasons for his worry, i.e. the Viet.. oops, Iraq invasion. Well, enough BS is too much so I wrote Broder. I know he won't read it, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do. Here's my letter followed by a link to Broder's article.

___________________________

Hi Mr Broder -

The only disagreement I have with your analysis in "For Bush, A World Of Worry" is that Bush's administration is at least partially responsible for most of the problems you mentioned.

Colbert may be passing Jon Stewart.

"Colbert, who spoke in the guise of his talk show character, who ostensibly supports the president strongly, urged the Bush to ignore his low approval ratings, saying they were based on reality, “and reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

"Also lampooning the press, Colbert complained that he was “surrounded by the liberal media who are destroying this country, except for Fox News. Fox believes in presenting both sides of the story — the president’s side and the vice president’s side." He also reflected on the alleged good old days, when the media was still swallowing the WMD story."

This is excellent. Reality may not be able to expose him, but humor and gas prices may.

My personal view of the Hamas issue is that Hamas' election offers the first real ray of hope for Palestine. And for Israel too. The Fatah party was as corrupt as our Republican Party - maybe more so. I know - I know. That's a high bar.

Arafat was an exceptionally poor spokesman for a people whose story, if presented well by a credible spokesperson, would resonate well with at least 90% of the World's population. Sound like anything you're familiar with? The Likud and Sharonistas were essentially a mirror image of Fatah, but with high tech killing weapons, many of which we supplied.

Both sides should disengage from their hatred of each other and put the long term interests of their people as the #1 goal long enough to work out mutually beneficial agreements. Fatah exploited that hatred for greed and power while Hamas worked for the education and care of an occupied people who have had their land confiscated for the sake of a religious quest. Hamas' military acts were a secondary, albeit bloody, pursuit.

What about Hamas' stated desire to see Israel destroyed. So what? That's the political rhetoric of hatred and is primarily a way of venting anger. They don't have as much capability as Israel to bomb residential neighborhoods, imprison without a trial, assassinate opponents and spy on their only "friend", so such venting is probably a better way of expressing what they think of the other side. What about the suicide bombers? Last time I counted the Palestinian deaths were at least 3 times the Israeli deaths. Eye for an eye, or tit for tat, is a game for fools. Just like 19th Century military occupations and colonization in the 21st Century.

This is an opportunity, but the US and Israel will screw it up before our comeuppance and World competition for the Mideast level the playing field and straighten things out.

Stay tuned.

With all the bs and duplicity regarding our goal of democracy for the Mideast, i.e. it's OK as long as they vote the way the Bushies want, this is a particularly interesting and articulate Op-Ed.

___________________________________________

What Hamas Is Seeking

By Mousa Abu Marzook, Tuesday, January 31, 2006; A17, Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR200601...

DAMASCUS, Syria -- A new era in the struggle for Palestinian liberation is upon us. Through historic fair and free elections, the Palestinian people have spoken.

Accordingly, America's long-standing tradition of supporting the oppressed's rights to self-determination should not waver. The United States, the European Union and the rest of the world should welcome the unfolding of the democratic process, and the commitment to aid should not falter. Last week's victory of the Change and Reform Party in the Palestinian legislative elections signals a new hope for an occupied people.