This is no Easter bonnet story.
Turns out, there is more to the controversy surrounding Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi’s shameful donning of an Islamic headscarf than meets the eye.
China Confidential has learned that the left-leaning Speaker of the House was actually advised to adopt the ugly symbol of submission to backwardness and terrorism during her visit to Syria by our own State Department, despite the Bush administration’s public criticism of her outrageous “fact-finding” mission.
Reason: in the name of democracy, ascendant appeasement advocates at State wanted to signal a supposed faction of so-called moderate Syrian Islamists that the United States is sympathetic to their struggle against the secular Syrian regime.
An Islamist revival is sweeping Syria and threatening Baath Party rule, and the US, incredibly, seems to think that this is a good thing. More than five-and-a-half years after the Islamist attacks of 9/11, America’s dumbbell diplomats–led by the duplicitous Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice–still believe they can ride the Islamist tiger, in keeping with decades of covert and overt backing for rightwing political Islam dating to US support for the Muslim Brothers of Egypt during the time of Nasser.
The cynical bipartisan policy, which blew back in our faces on 9/11, has not been discredited; rather, it has been revamped. The old Cold War rationale of supporting Islamism to counter Soviet expansion and influence and suspect Arab nationalism and pseudo-socialism has been replaced with the cockeyed concept that the only realistic alternative to clerical-fascist Islamism is “democratic Islamism”–an oxymoron only an intellectual, or US diplomat, could concoct and embrace.
Back to Syria. The Islamist threat to decades of secular dictatorship is largely a result of the regime’s unsuccessful efforts to accommodate Islam itself. After crushing the Muslim Brothers in the early 1980s with great ferocity, the Baathists built hundreds of mosques throughout the country and encouraged people to practice pious but non-militant Islam. The policy backfired: Islamist preachers took over the mosques, and banned Islamist books were published and distributed widely.
Another military solution seems unlikely. Instead, the regime continues to promote moderate Islam, while aligning itself with Islamist Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas. CONTINUE
I’m so disgusted by the actions of our government which continues to betray us to our sworn enemies.
There has been a huge rift between the State Dept and the Dept of Defense and they often clash head on. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that the US Government is monolithic, it is not. This is especially true now with with a GW Bush Administration because he avoids any conflict or political turbulence that he can. He only fights back as a last resort; at times that is admirable, but at other times that is one of his biggest faults.
People try to put Bush in a bag but they end up distorting who he is because he is a mixed bag.
Ted,
The question is, is the State Department part of America? If so, is it not under the jurisdiction of the President, Congress, etc. Or is it a law unto itself, doing exactly as it pleases even if what it does runs contrary to defined policies?
I think we know the answer.
Look, if you are going on a mission of appeasement a headscarf of submission is appropriate attire. Why not, it is only representative of the act you are committing and the frame of mind you have taken on.
If the scarf fits, wear it.
This is further evidence to support the thesis of Francisco Gil-White that the State Department is in league with Islamists.
…“democratic Islamismâ€â€“an oxymoron only an intellectual, or US diplomat, could concoct and embrace…
I don’t know the exact words, but it’s something like, “Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad…”