Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
John, in Denial [Andy McCarthy]
John, perhaps you ought to read what the President says before you embarrass yourself with a hysterical diatribe. Here's more yesterday from the president who supposedly doesn't call Lebanon a democracy (this is just yesterday, mind you I won't belabor this with the numerous times other administration officials have said the same things about Lebanon ... and Iraq ... and the Palestinian territories which the President and the Secretary of State have recently taken to calling "Palestine," just like the Organization of the Islamic Conference does).
... Syria supports Hezbollah because it wants to undermine Lebanon's democratic government and regain its position of dominance in the country. That would be a great tragedy for the Lebanese people and for the cause of peace in the Middle East. ... So we've launched a forward strategy of freedom in the broader Middle East. And that strategy has helped bring hope to millions and fostered the birth of young democracies from Baghdad to Beirut. Forces of terror see the changes that are taking place in their midst. They understand that the advance of liberty, the freedom to worship, the freedom to dissent, and the protection of human rights would be a defeat for their hateful ideology. But they also know that young democracies are fragile and that this may be their last and best opportunity to stop freedom's advance and steer newly free nation to the path of radical extremism. So the terrorists are striking back with all of the destructive power that they can muster. It's no coincidence that two nations that are building free societies in the heart of the Middle East, Lebanon and Iraq, are also the scenes of the most violent terrorist activity. ...There is something disturbingly Leftist about your penchant for shrill, uninformed criticism that scorns the interlocutor rather than dealing in a mature way with the substance of his arguments. I am not mocking the President. I believe he is wrong, that the mistake he is making has tragic implications for our security, and I am saying so. His remarks yesterday were not forthright. We just spent several weeks watching what he calls "Lebanon's democratic government" aid and abet Hezbollah. Yet, yesterday, he gave Siniora & Co. a complete pass only Iran and Syria, according to the President, are sponsoring Hezbollah. It was not Iran and Syria that objected to an international force under rules of engagement that would allow the dismantling of Hezbollah. That was Lebanon. But Lebanon which chooses to support Hezbollah is somehow immune from criticism ... because it is a "democracy" and, according to what passes for logic here, by definition it cannot be facilitating terrorism.
The basic thing you and those who agree with you insist on as an article of faith namely, that "of course terrorism and democracy are irreconcilable" is demonstrably wrong. Whether you like it or not, terrorists have great popular support in Lebanon. It may not be majority popular support, but it is at least substantial popular support. The same is true in the other "young democracies" in the Middle East. As long as the administration continues to confound popular elections with democracy which is exactly what it is doing, whether you admit it or not we are going to see this.
The gross irresponsibility here is staggering. While insisting on that which is contrary to the overwhelming evidence, the champions of the Democracy Project have hurled us into this experiment at a great cost of lives and money with absolutely no analysis (in fact, with juvenile attacks on anyone with the temerity to suggest that there should be an analysis) of the core question: are Islam and anything we would recognize as democracy reconcilable? You don't want to go there, but you want the rest of us to close our eyes, cross our fingers and hope while you pretend the problem is "terrorism" and "tyranny."
Meanwhile, apostates are sentenced to death in the new Afghan democracy (completely consistently with the Constitution we helped draft, which maintained Islam as a pillar), homosexuals are under assault in Iraq (ditto), and the emerging democracies in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories bide their time for the next challenge to the "Zionist entity's" existence.
Imagine if the United States refused to allow Muslims to enter New York and Washington. That would be so unfathomable in a real democracy i.e., one based on liberty and equality that it is virtually impossible to imagine. Yet, non-Muslims are not permitted to enter Mecca and Medina. That's not because some tyrannical government has capriciously imposed its will. It is because Saudi Arabia has given in to the will of its Wahhabist population, which would revolt if non-Muslims, whom they view as lesser beings, were given access. This is a position that enjoys overwhelming support in the Islamic world.
Now, you claim that this culture which believes that non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims; that women are not equal to men; that man has no authority to make law inconsistent with the dictates of Islamic law (which, by the way, is not merely a religious corpus but purports to be an all-purpose social system); that apostates, homosexuals and adulterers (among others) should be (brutally) killed; etc. will democratize. I say you have not done a single thing to prove that this is the case. In place of analysis and evidence, you offer slogans and you frame those who differ with you as if they were all realpolitic lackies.
What is variously called "radical Islam," "militant Islam," "political Islam," "fundamentalist Islam," "Islamo-fascism," etc., is not a fringe cult. It is a highly developed system the history of which traces back centuries and which counts among its adherents many highly educated, highly intelligent people. It rejects fundamental premises of Western democracy indeed, it blames Western democracy for the ills of the world.
Now, here's what you don't seem to get: it's not just terrorists who believe this. The terrorists are the ones willing to fight over it, but there are tens of millions who agree with their beliefs and aims even if they are not willing to kill to see them actualized. That is why terrorism is not irreconcilable with democracy, but Islam may well be.
You can keep pretending, if you'd like, that the problem here is "tyranny" and "terrorism" and that things would turn around if only we injected a little freedom into the equation. But that is not going to deal with the "root cause," and it is not going to make Muslims like you better (as we are seeing in Iraq on a daily basis). You insult these millions of Muslims profoundly because the logic of your argument is that no one who was truly free would choose the life they sincerely believe God has commanded. You are stuck in a pre-1979 mindset which refuses to acknowledge that a religion-based revolution is possible, and that the millions of people are freely choosing a belief system that opposes Western democracy.
I'm not going along. I've spent lots of time with our enemies and I respect them. That's why I know they have to be defeated, not courted.
Posted at 7:38 AM
Democracy does not equate to morality. It sickens me every time when a lib defends the actions of other countries(but not our own) because they were 'democratically elected'. Democracy is by no means perfect, and it doesn't mean there will be worldwide peace if democracy is acheived throughout the world, but it is the best system of government to represent people. To a certain extent Bush is right when he says democracy is the best chance to lead to peace and freedom. But just because democracy allows that chance, doesn't mean it is taken advantage of. In the case of Islamic countries, that chance is often squandered by their hatred and ignorance....spurred on of course by their religion.
Its not that democracy and Islam aren't "compatible", its just that a democratic Islamic country probably isn't going to act like we want them to - peacefully. If the majority sympathize with terrorism, then it will support terrorism. If the majority of the people want to destroy America, then its democratically elected government would reflect that. We shouldn't hold back on waging war against such a country just because its their "people's will". The fact that their government more accurately reflects the people is even more reason we should wage a war against them if they seek to destroy us.
Well I definately agree that Islam is not compatible with our version of democracy and the freedoms that go with it. But democracy in the generic sense of majority vote elects officials could definately "work". A republic like ours, no. Ignorant mass mob rule....now that is right up Islam's alley.
Free from or for what? They do NOT wish to be free of their religion, let go of that. So? The religion is not compatible with democracy. So, what should they have?I think the only reason that democracy and Islam arent compatible is because the arabic nations rule by religion.
Not 'Arabic, but Muslim', Iran is no different. The laws are made by the Koran, the Rulers rule by the Koran. The only thing people are taught is the Koran. People haven't been offered a chance to see the potential of themselves acting as a part of the world around them. They only know what they are told by the Imams- who happen to be anti-semetic, anti-democratic, anti-wester/modernization.... and anti-anything good that we have made of this world. The people are taught from a young age only about hatred of those who hold them back in society (they are told it is: Americans, jews...)- when in reality, it is the religious leaders and dictators of these nations that are holding the people back so that they themselves can gain more power and money. For those inculated into this, what you are offering is jibberish. They would never fault their leadership, especially the religious.
I think Islam and Democracy WOULD be more compatible if we modernize all of these nations and teach people to think of their religion as a second or third class identifier... Right. Denial is a river. Hello? I can't hear you? Hello? For example: I see myself as (1) an american (2) a republican (3) jewish by heritage, athiest by preference.
These people see themselves in this order: (1) a muslim (2) follower of the words of the Imam/Allah/nation's leader (3) a member of their family/clan
See the last, above.
In today's world: Islam and Democracy will be tough to get together in the same room- but hopefully enough will be done to modernize and bring forth from the depths of economic and social peril, those who don't even know it yet, but wish to be free.
:crutch: 
