The BBC editor who covered this story wondered why so many people sat through this class and didn't report it to anyone. I don't wonder—I'm going to make a wild guess that these were some of the far-right fundamentalist Christians who are trying to infiltrate and control the military:

America's top military officer has condemned a course taught at a US military college that advocated a "total war" against Muslims.The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen Martin Dempsey, said the course was "totally objectionable" and "against our values".

The voluntary course at the Joint Forces Staff College in Virginia also suggested possible nuclear attacks on holy Muslim cities such as Mecca.The course has now been suspended."It was just totally objectionable, against our values, and it wasn't academically sound," Gen Dempsey said.He added that he had ordered a full investigation when the course was suspended in April after one of the students objected to the material.

The officer in charge of the class, Lt Col Matthew Dooley, has been suspended from teaching but has kept his job at the college in the city of Norfolk.The Pentagon has also confirmed that the course material found on their website is authentic.'Barbaric ideology'The story broke after a copy of the presentation of the course material was posted online byWired.com's Danger Room blog.

"We have now come to understand that there is no such thing as 'moderate Islam'," Lt Col Dooley said in the presentation last July."It is therefore time for the United States to make our true intentions clear. This barbaric ideology will no longer be tolerated. Islam must change or we will facilitate its self-destruction."

He added that international laws protecting civilians in armed conflicts - such as the Geneva Conventions were "no longer relevant".That left open the option, the instructor continued, of applying "the historical precedents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki" to Islam's holiest cities, and bringing about "Mecca and Medina destruction".

Lt Col Dooley has made no public comments on the issue since the story broke.The Pentagon hopes a full report will be out by the end of the month, the BBC's North America editor Mark Mardell reports.

Five years ago, Massachusetts Governor and first-time GOP White House hopeful Mitt Romney declared, "People in this country want a person of faith to lead them as their president." Just not his faith, according to that most Republican of audiences at this week's Values Voters Summit. Hoping to capitalize on polls showing almost a third of white evangelicals would be less likely to vote for a Mormon, Rick Perry's campaign orchestrated an appearance by Texas mega-church pastor Robert Jeffress to denounce Romney's religion as a "cult" which does not qualify "you as a Christian."

The virulent anti-Mormon bigotry on display at the conclave is all the more striking, given Mitt Romney's recent statements against religious intolerance, religious tests for office and the right-wing crusade against the chimera of Sharia law. But during his dalliance with the religious right four years ago, Mitt Romney suggested that Muslims had no place in his Cabinet and atheists no place in the American community. Now, as JFK warned 51 years ago, the shoe is on the other foot.

In his much-hyped "Faith in America" speech in December 2007, Mitt Romney explained that "No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith" and warned:

"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution."

Sadly, Romney during his last presidential bid endorsed precisely that very religious test for followers of Islam or no faith at all.

Years before Herman Cain suggested Muslims appointees must swear a special loyalty oath to serve in his Cabinet, Mitt Romney explained they need not apply period.

In November 2007, the former Massachusetts Governor said as much to Mansoor Ijaz at a fundraiser in Las Vegas. As Ijaz recounted:

I asked Mr. Romney whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters, given his position that "jihadism" is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today. He answered, "...based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration."

Despite Romney's subsequent denials, Greg Sargent and Steve Benen documented other witnesses and other occasions during which Mitt repeated his No Muslims Need Apply policy.

Given his own membership in a small religious minority, one might expect more openness and tolerance from the Mormon Romney. But the next month, Romney doubled-down on his religious test during that "Faith in America" speech. The man who in 2006 declared, "People in this country want a person of faith to lead them as their president" in December 2007 added atheists to his list of those to be excluded from the American community:

"I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims."

Just as long as those frequent prayers aren't heard in President Romney's Cabinet Room.

As Atrios noted at the time, it was altogether fitting that Romney was introduced that day by President George H.W. Bush, who purportedly stated, "No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God." The former Massachusetts Governor made much the same point in his December 2007 appeal to Iowa's evangelical voters, proclaiming simply "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."

That nonbelievers have no place in leading Mitt Romney's America was remarked upon by conservative commentators at the time.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (1310)

PLAYS: (12388)

Embed

Liberals, as the tired conservative slander goes, hate America. This, of course, is nonsense. Liberals simply want to deliver on the national promise of a more perfect union, to shorten the distance, as Bruce Springsteen aptly put it, "between American ideals and American reality."

But if the past three Republican presidential debates are any indicator, it would appear that conservatives hate Americans. Or more precisely, some Americans. As audiences of the faithful booed an active duty U.S. soldier because he is gay and cheered the deaths of executed prisoners and the uninsured alike, the GOP White House hopefuls on stage remained silent. All because, it seems, they had to. Sadly, that complicity is apparently now a requirement to lead a Republican Party in which demonizing gays, minorities, immigrants and Muslims - that is, hating Americans - is increasingly a centerpiece of its politics.

For his part, Weekly Standard editor and conservative strategist Bill Kristol summed up Thursday night's GOP debate debacle in a single word - "Yikes":

Reading the reactions of thoughtful commentators after the stage emptied, talking with conservative policy types and GOP political operatives later last evening and this morning, we know we're not alone. Most won't express publicly just how horrified--or at least how demoralized--they are...

The e-mails flooding into our inbox during the evening were less guarded. Early on, we received this missive from a bright young conservative: "I'm watching my first GOP debate...and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!" As the evening went on, the craziness receded, and the demoralized comments we received stressed the mediocrity of the field rather than its wackiness.

But Kristol's discomfort was with his party's messengers, not its message. And for years, that message has been unchanged. On this Republican Animal Farm, some Americans are more equal than others.

That was clear during the 2008 election. Before Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC) said - and then denied saying - "liberals hate real Americans," the sound bite was firmly established as a GOP talking point. A few days before, McCain spokeswoman Nancy Pfotenhauer explained that northern Virginia was not the "real Virginia." GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin amplified on the point during an event in North Carolina:

"We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation."

To be sure, the Republicans' real Americans aren't Muslims. Long before Mitt Romney and Herman Cain first announced they would not appoint Muslim Americans to their cabinet, Republican leaders and their amen corner were calling for their profiling, internment and worse.

Continue reading »

Sen. Joe Lieberman, who used to be a staunch ally for Medicare and Social Security is now throwing away any pretense that he was once a Democratic politician and would rather help destroy the lives of seniors in America to make sure funds flow to continue endless wars on Pam Geller's favorite target: Radical Islamists. In a new bill that he'll co-sponsor with Conservative Tom Coburn, they plan on helping to weaken one of our most cherished and valued programs, Social Security and send the cash over the the Military. he knows that Social Security is solvent for decades and doesn't add a penny to the deficit which has preoccupied the White House, GOP and the beltway media. It doesn't matter that Americans have said over and over again that they prefer defense spending to be cut, not our social safety nets.
Think Progress:

This past April, right-wing war hawk John Bolton suggested during an interview on Fox News that the United States should cut Social Security and Medicare to finance the defense budget.

During debate over the debt deal today on the Senate floor, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) appeared to endorse this call. Lieberman explained that he is working with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) on a Social Security spending reduction plan and that “we can’t protect these entitlements and also have the national defense…to protect us…with Islamist extremists”:

LIEBERMAN: I want to indicate today to my colleagues that Senator Coburn and I are working again on a bipartisan proposal to secure Social Security over the long term, we hope to have that done in time. To also forward to the special committee for their consideration. So, bottom line, we can’t protect these entitlements and also have the national defense we need to protect us in a dangerous world while we’re at war with Islamist extremists who attacked us on 9/11 and will be for a long time to come.

In a quick search I found a poll done by Reuters/Ipsos back in March which says:
A majority of Americans prefer cutting defense spending to reduce the federal deficit rather than taking money from public retirement and health programs, a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday showed.

The poll found 51 percent of Americans support reducing defense spending, and only 28 percent want to cut Medicare and Medicaid health programs for the elderly and poor. A mere 18 percent back cuts in the Social Security retirement program.

This fearmongering fiend would rather back an out of control war hawk's idea from a nut like John Bolton, (who also is a hero to Pam Geller) than stand up for the Americans that already have been paying 600 billion dollars a year to the military.

As ThinkProgress’s Ben Armbruster notes, the Bolton-Lieberman plan is “is basically a reverse Robin Hood scheme: robbing the poor to pay the rich, or really, the Military Industrial Complex on steroids.”

Lieberman is bringing this to the floor because military spending is one of the triggers that will be activated if no deal is passed by the new Super Cat Food Commission. Congress nor the president seem to care that Americans also don't want Medicare cut to appease the deficit hawks.

Despite growing concerns about the country’s long-term fiscal problems and an intensifying debate in Washington about how to deal with them, Americans strongly oppose some of the major remedies under consideration, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. The survey finds that Americans prefer to keep Medicare just the way it is.

WSJ/NBC:

Less than a quarter of Americans support making significant cuts to Social Security or Medicare to tackle the country's mounting deficit, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, illustrating the challenge facing lawmakers who want voter buy-in to alter entitlement programs. In the poll, Americans across all age groups and ideologies said by large margins that it was "unacceptable'' to make significant cuts in entitlement programs in order to reduce the federal deficit. Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security "unacceptable."

Could Joe have acted any quicker to defend his precious wars?

DOWNLOADS: (2840)

PLAYS: (6549)

Embed

On the eve of the invasion of Iraq, George Bush, famously or infamously, had to be instructed on the existence of and differences between Sunni and Shia Muslims. He had no idea--despite centuries of warfare between the two sects--that there was a difference.

Sadly, that cultural ignorance of most Americans is still being played and preyed upon when fostering fear of Islam here, especially in regards to the Cordoba House. As has been previously reported, the Cordoba House is being built by Sufi Muslims, a mystical sub-sect of the Shia Muslims and considered apostates of Wahabbist Sunni sub-sect of al Qaeda.

Fareed Zakaria highlights further proof of the al Qaeda hatred of the Sufis with the July attack on a Lahore, Pakistan Sufi shrine during prayers, which killed 41 and injured 175 more. What gets lost in the amped-up "fear of the Other" rhetoric of Gingrich and Palin and driven by media like Fox News, is that this is not a battle of Islam vs. the US.

Why would al Qaeda attack a holy place at a time of prayer? Because it is a Sufi shrine, part of a sect that al Qaeda despises and regards as a deadly foe in the real battle it is fighting, the battle within Islam.

The Sufis are a sector of Islam originating in South Asia. They're all about mysticism, love, brotherhood and devotion, with very little attention to dogma. They believe in saints, shrines, music, dance, and follow a very liberal interpretation of the Koran.

Sufi poets routinely extol the virtues of wine and song, both forbidden in the purer versions of Islam. Sufism has always believed in tolerance towards other people and religion, and in peace. You can see why al Qaeda views it as its mortal enemy. The more Muslims accept some version of Sufi Islam, the more dangerous for al Qaeda and its extreme jihadist philosophy.

It can't be said enough, with all the misinformation out there: Islam doesn't hate us. This is a battle between al Qaeda and everyone else that doesn't follow their own narrow vision of Islam, which includes other Muslims. The opposition to the Cordoba House is exactly what al Qaeda wants to see.

And how sad is it that George W. Bush eventually came around to understanding this divide and was more moderate in his statements about the Muslim world than the current crop of Republican leaders?

America has lots of problems, from fighting two wars to high unemployment to anemic economic growth. Our friends on the right, however, seem to think we don't have enough problems and are working like gangbusters to transform more than a billion people around the world into our sworn enemies. As the New York Times reports, the anti-Ground Zero Mosque hysteria has gone nationwide:

In Murfreesboro, Tenn., Republican candidates have denounced plans for a large Muslim center proposed near a subdivision, and hundreds of protesters have turned out for a march and a county meeting.

In late June, in Temecula, Calif., members of a local Tea Party group took dogs and picket signs to Friday prayers at a mosque that is seeking to build a new worship center on a vacant lot nearby.

In Sheboygan, Wis., a few Christian ministers led a noisy fight against a Muslim group that sought permission to open a mosque in a former health food store bought by a Muslim doctor.

Gee, it's funny how quickly the supposedly anti-government Tea Party wants the government to suppress peoples' right to freely express their religion, no? It's almost like they're selective in their outrages against state power! Whoda thunk it!

These local skirmishes make clear that there is now widespread debate about whether the best way to uphold America’s democratic values is to allow Muslims the same religious freedom enjoyed by other Americans, or to pull away the welcome mat from a faith seen as a singular threat.

The cool thing about wingnuttery is that it gets more extreme all the time. Repealing the Fourteenth Amendment is old hat at this point -- now it's time to repeal the First Amendment too! Do you think if more Muslims were gun owners they'd start a campaign to repeal the Second Amendment as well? Now that would be interesting to see!

But they have not gone unanswered. In each community, interfaith groups led by Protestant ministers, Catholic priests, rabbis and clergy members of other faiths have defended the mosques. Often, they have been slower to organize than the mosque opponents, but their numbers have usually been larger.

Well, it's nice to see that we haven't completely succumbed to stupidity in this country. As the Economist notes, one reason America has had fewer home-grown jihad a-holes over the years is because it's significantly more tolerant of immigrants than many European countries. But that could change if more Americans listen to the insane rantings of serial adulterer Newt Gingrich and former half-term governor Moose Eater:

Mr Gingrich also objects to the centre’s name. Imam Feisal says he chose “Cordoba” in recollection of a time when the rest of Europe had sunk into the Dark Ages but Muslims, Jews and Christians created an oasis of art, culture and science. Mr Gingrich sees only a “deliberate insult”, a reminder of a period when Muslim conquerors ruled Spain. Like Mr bin Laden, Mr Gingrich is apparently still relitigating the victories and defeats of religious wars fought in Europe and the Middle East centuries ago. He should rejoin the modern world, before he does real harm.

Newt, for the record, has always been totally insane, especially on matters of foreign policy. I'll never forget Gingrich's 2006 appearance on on Meet the Press, where Tim Russert asked him if having 130,000 of our troops stuck in Iraq had reduced our ability to deal effectively with Iran and North Korea. “Only in our minds,” Gingrich replied. Huzzah, let's invade everyone!

But seriously, of all the bad things the modern GOP stands for, I think its desire to reignite the Crusades may be the worst. I'm not sure what could possibly motivate such a desire, since the Crusades didn't go especially well for either the Europeans nor Muslim nations they invaded. Perhaps Newt thinks invading Iran will bring Jesus back to Earth, thus freeing him to be Raptured away while the rest of the world burns.

But even this doesn't make much sense, since the Bible has had some pretty bad things to say about adulterers. Maybe Newt thinks that the "it's-OK-if-you're-a-Republican" thing applies to the afterlife as well.

Or maybe he's just insane. Allah help us all.

DOWNLOADS: (1557)

PLAYS: (2016)

Embed

Wingnut Extraordinaire Pam Geller of Atlas Wanks has been all over the TV networks the past couple of weeks, telling anyone who'll listen why New York City should deny a moderate Islamic group the right to build a mosque near the site of the 9/11 attacks.

Geller: This is patently untrue. I love Muslims. The Ground Zero mosque is an offensive insult, it's a stab in the eye. I have no problem with mosques across the city. But we're talking about history, and Islamic history, of building triumphal mosques on the cherished sites of conquered lands.

Sooooo ... does Geller actually think that New York City is a land conquered by Muslims?

She continues on with a rant describing the Muslims building the mosque as dangerous, conniving jihadis and "tied to terrorists" -- though of course her evidence for that is wafer-thin.

But really, does Pam Geller "love" Muslims? I suppose -- in the same way a dog loves a rag doll he's chewed to shreds, or a sadist adores the whipping boy chained up down in his dungeon.

After all, we're talking about someone who regularly describes Muslims as "the enemy" of America (particularly when President Obama refuses to go down that road). Someone who believes it's a simple truth that "moderate Islam does not exist".

The other day, another TV anchor -- this time from Russia TV -- asked Geller some far more difficult questions, directly challenging her disingenuous attempts to claim she "loves" Muslims:

DOWNLOADS: (951)

PLAYS: (8439)

Embed

Geller's squirming was well earned ...

The idea of a mosque being built at Ground Zero has the right foaming at the mouth. The very idea! How could Muslims be so insensitive as to try to put their 7th Century religion in view of the greatest American tragedy? Everyone from Newt Gingrich to Sarah Palin to Republican hopefuls are clamoring to denounce the Cordoba House. And late last week, the Anti-Defamation League added their voice too:

We regard freedom of religion as a cornerstone of the American democracy, and that freedom must include the right of all Americans – Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other faiths – to build community centers and houses of worship.

We categorically reject appeals to bigotry on the basis of religion, and condemn those whose opposition to this proposed Islamic Center is a manifestation of such bigotry.

The controversy which has emerged regarding the building of an Islamic Center at this location is counterproductive to the healing process. Therefore, under these unique circumstances, we believe the City of New York would be better served if an alternative location could be found.

But....

There are many emotions and few facts swirling around this argument.

First and foremost, the Cordoba House is not a mosque as Muslims generally use the term. There will be no minarets, no calls to prayer. It is a cultural center, which will include a prayer room. From their website:

This proposed project is about promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture. Cordoba House will provide a place where individuals, regardless of their backgrounds, will find a center of learning, art and culture; and most importantly, a center guided by Islamic values in their truest form - compassion, generosity, and respect for all.

The site will contain tremendous amounts of resources that otherwise would not exist in Lower Manhattan; a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores, restaurants - all these services would form a cultural nexus for a region of New York City that, as it continues to grow, requires the sort of hub that Cordoba House will provide.

That sounds really insensitive, doesn't it? The Cordoba House is planned along the same lines as the nearby 92nd St Y, which offers Jewish cultural events through out the year.

Secondly, it's not at Ground Zero. It's two blocks away and the thirteen story building will be dwarfed by the 105 story Freedom Tower and 9/11 Memorial and Museum that are actually being built at Ground Zero.

Thirdly, and it's embarrassing to see Americans once again championing ignorance, but Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the chairman of the Cordoba House, is a Sufi. Al Qaeda is Sunni (actually, more accurately Wahabi) and consider Sufis apostates. Al Qaeda has less tolerance for Imam Rauf than Sarah Palin, as frightening as that is to consider.

And finally, as much as it pains me to have to point out something so obvious, it was not just Christians and Jews who died on 9/11, any more than it was not just Americans. And the Muslims who live and wish to gather in New York at the Cordoba House are more than likely Americans. You know, with their Constitutionally-protected right to practice the faith of their choice. Do they not deserve a chance to heal from this tragedy as well? They must face the irrational bigotry of people like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich appealing to the lizard brains of their neighbors. The scars they have carried and the burden and suspicion they must face daily because of some fringe extremists in a faith 1.5 billion strong is a little like holding every American Christian as suspect because of the acts of Fred Phelps.

Would that these Republicans remember that.

Stay classy, Jane:

Colorado Senate hopeful Jane Norton (R) has given her campaign website a facelift. And as part of that facelift she's hitting Barack Obama for...not going to war against Islam.

The site.. features a still frame from a new ad, attacking Obama and Washington liberals for abandoning the War on Terrorism.

The ad includes a May 26, 2010 Reuters headline saying "Obama doctrine to make clear no war on Islam."

This is supposed to be a bad thing.

As ColoradoPols put it, it's utterly tasteless:

We got to thinking about it, and it occurred to us that a "war on Islam" would actually be a very bad thing. Somewhere between leading off with that particular headline and the violent interruption of Norton's "never forget" boilerplate by the screeching of jet engines, we begin to realize that a terribly low road has been taken here.

Gee, ya think?

Town Square Political Theory Daily Review

From The Nation, a debate of Labor's Future (including Sweeney, Stern, Wilhelm, McEntee, Cohen, and Hoffa). From In These Times, more on Wobblies!, and the religious right wants to include moral values in the debate over how our taxes are spent? Bring it on. Do Democrats need to get religion? Jim Wallis and Susan Jacoby go at it.

From WSWS, an article on secularism and the American Constitution. Christopher Caldwell on the sacred cow of religious rights. An article on Islam and the institutions of a free society. A review of Occidentalism: A Short History of Anti-Westernism.

From LRB, a review of The Indian Mutiny and the British Imagination, and an article on secularism and the American Constitution. Christopher Caldwell on the sacred cow of religious rights. An article on Islam and the institutions of a free society. A review of Occidentalism: A Short History of Anti-Westernism.

From LRB, a review of The Indian Mutiny and the British Imagination, and an article on.

From NYRB, Peter Galbraith on Iraq: Bush's Islamic Republic. Brendan O'Neill on how a risk-averse West has inflamed the terrorism it fears. What turns a man into a terrorist, and what can be done about it? And from Foreign Affairs, an article on How to Help Poor Countries

THOSE CRAZY MUSLIMS      recovering liberal the London bombs.

From NYRB, Peter Galbraith on Iraq: Bush's Islamic Republic. Brendan O'Neill on how a risk-averse West has inflamed the terrorism it fears. What turns a man into a terrorist, and what can be done about it? And from Foreign Affairs, an article on How to Help Poor Countries