Republicans Regressing over Islam.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If you've been reading my blog since the bleak days of the George W. Bush administration you'll know that I find him to be one of the worst presidents in American history. In modern history I'd rank him just barely above Richard Nixon but I do give him credit for a few things: Going after al-Qaeda following 9/11 by attacking them in Afghanistan, (the situation now is different but that's for another post) funding HIV/AIDS prevention programs in Africa, increasing trade to Africa, getting Libya to give up it's WMD program and the Indian Ocean tsunami relief. Like him I also support the right to own and carry guns. However, for the purposes of this post the thing that I agree with him the most was his refusal to pit the war against al-Qaeda as a war against Islam. For example, consider the following two quotes from former President Bush:

• “I’ve made it clear, Madam President, that the war against terrorism is not a war against Muslims, nor is it a war against Arabs. It’s a war against evil people who conduct crimes against innocent people.” — Remarks by President George W. Bush and President Megawati of Indonesia The Oval Office, Washington, D.C. September 19, 2001

• “Islam is a vibrant faith. Millions of our fellow citizens are Muslim. We respect the faith. We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy doesn’t follow the great traditions of Islam. They’ve hijacked a great religion.” – Remarks by President George W. Bush on U.S. Humanitarian Aid to Afghanistan Presidential Hall, Dwight David Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. October 11, 2002

TPJ: In addition, (as I noted in a previous post) Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf heading up the "Ground Zero mosque" worked with Bush administration official Karen Hughes on improving U.S./Islamic relations but that doesn't seem to matter much to reactionaries in the Republican and Tea Parties. Governor George Pataki (N.Y.) threw the context deficient line out on cable news t.v. today that Imam Rauf has not condemned Hezbollah. A terrorist group that has attacked Israel on many occasions. Being a good deceiver the good governor failed to provide the reasons why Rauf does not condemn them. This is the context (the why) of the Imam's lack of condemnation--in his own words I might add:

"I'm not a politician. I try to avoid the issues. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question...I'm a bridge builder. I define my work as a bridge builder. I do not want to be placed, nor do I accept to be placed in a position of being put in a position where I am the target of one side or another...

"The targeting of civilians is wrong. It is a sin in our religion. Whoever does it, targeting civilians is wrong. I am a supporter of the state of Israel. ... I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary."

TPJ: It's kind of hard to be a bridge builder between two waring camps if you condemn one side versus the other. Did president Bush condemn all of the Sunni terrorists in Iraq? No, he worked with some of them to build bridges, which resulted in the successful "Sunni awakening" that helped "the surge" in Iraq be successful. In his book, "The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One (Oxford University Press, 2009), p 179" David Kilcullen argued that the surge was successful in large part because of that "Sunni awakening." The tribal revolt was arguably the most significant change in the Iraqi operating environment in several years. Kilcullen was General David Petraeus's counterinsurgency and troop adviser.

Besides, how could Imam Rauf be a supporter of Hezbollah when he's publicly said that he's a supporter of the state of Israel? Especially since one of the stated missions of Hezbollah is the elimination of the State of Israel!! He was simply stating that he doesn't want to be a pawn for either side because it would damage his credibility as a bridge builder and neutral party. It is illogical to make a claim otherwise simply because of his Islamic faith. Just because someone is Muslim doesn't mean they automatically support Hezbollah; the same is true of a Muslim if he chooses to not comment on Hezbollah at all. It might be a politically safe answer but lots of people take those positions, especially people in a religious position who wish to stay out of politics.

I turned on the Dylan Ratigan news show today (which is great by the way) and heard two interesting points on this matter that I hadn't considered before. While not all Republicans and Conservatives oppose this mosque, the ones who do are from a party that ironically believes strongly in supporting decisions made at the local, neighborhood, city and state level versus control of issues by the federal government. Yet this mosque has been approved by the local government!! They are also from a party that supposedly supports the rights of private property owners, which this Muslim cultural center happens to be!!

It's also telling to me that most local New Yorkers have no problem with this "mosque." Whereas the opposition increases outside the city. This isn't the first Muslim house of worship to exist in New York City either; there are several and one that's not very far from this proposed new one. So, if it's not about politicizing "Ground Zero" then why hasn't anyone said anything about those previous mosques? I think some of the confusion outside of the city stems from people thinking the mosque is directly next to the "Ground Zero" site. It is actually down the street and around a corner about half a block. This hysteria of "Us vs. Them" has got to simmer down in America or we'll end up in another civil war. A large faction within the right-wing parties in this country seem to have increasingly become hate mongers seeking to turn all Americans against Latinos, Muslims, Atheists, homosexuals and seemingly anyone who isn't white, male, Christian and rich. This narrow-mindedness has got to stop. And if they are spurring on these divisions out of political expediency then that's shameful because in the process they are tearing this nation apart at the seems.

---End of Transmission---