Fighting religious extremism with religious extremism

cruelI had long thought the Bush Administration was one of incompetence.  The more that comes out the more I think it was an administration of madness.

Here’s a slide show of some of “The Crusades Cover Letters” Rumsfeld hand delivered to Bush and which adorned highly classified daily briefings on the war in Iraq called “The Worldwide Intelligence Update.”

A cover from March 2003 showed soldiers praying while holding automatic weapons. A passage from Isaiah surrounds the photo: “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Here I am Lord, Send Me!” Another Isaiah passage adorns a photo of tanks blasting into Baghdad from the same month: “Open the gates that the righteous nation may enter, the nation that keeps faith.”



Filed under Crimes, hate groups, History, Psychological Disorders, Radical Rightwing groups, Religion, Wingnuts!

43 responses to “Fighting religious extremism with religious extremism

  1. Why is it history has shown religion is an excellent vehicle for whipping up enough hate to kill another human? Why have so many acts of war been accomplished in the name of God? What kind of thinking allows one to feel righteous about such evil?

  2. Is there a better argument for separation of church and state than bushco? And no matter who is the current scapegoat, bush the lesser chose all the incompetents who worked under the direction of the head honcho incompetent.

  3. lilacluvr

    Neocons really believe they are on a mission from God. They also believe that when they are successful, then Jesus will come back in the Rapture and they will all get to go to Heaven to be with Him.

    So, what’s the difference between their theory and the Muslims that are suicide bombers? These are generally men who think they will be rewarded with virgins after they are successful in their mission from Allah.

    It just depends on what side of the fence you are talking.

    In all honesty, both of these groups are totally nuts!

    • frigginloon

      Morning all, hmm imagine Bush at the pearly gates and God greets him…”WTF George”

    • tosmarttobegop

      “Neocons really believe they are on a mission from God. They also believe that when they are successful, then Jesus will come back in the Rapture and they will all get to go to Heaven to be with Him“.

      It really depends on who you mean by “Neocons” there are two separate groups.
      The average Neocons is also a fundie but is also an average voter too. They do not have a understand of just what the other who is a Neo-conservative thinks or has as a real plan.

      Both do seem to have a 12 y.o. school yard bully mindset when it comes to foreign policy and fighting terrorism. The difference is that the Neocons are not thinking of controlling the world to them its self defense. The Neo-Conservatives are those who see the United States has the right to control the world. They also do not have religious beliefs as they see them as a weakening force that would limit their actions.

  4. lilacluvr

    The Neocons will argue there is no such thing as separation of church and state. When I suggested in a heated debate with a Neocon that all churches should be taxed since there is no separation – then he yelled like a stuck pig.

    These people want to rule the country but not pay for the privilege. And isn’t that basically what happened under Bushco? The wealthy got wealthier and the middle class was under attack daily.

    Bush left an economy that was in shambles. Bush and Paulson were the ones that bailed out the banks first but yet it’s Obama who is the socialist???

    Neocons love the mantra – do as I say and not as I do.

  5. iggydonnelly

    “Is there a better argument for separation of church and state than bushco?”

    There are many more and much better arguments for the separation of church and state – most of them made by our founding fathers (which flies in the face of the myth that this country was founded on Christian principles – it simply was not, and this falsehood has been one of the biggest ideological victories for people like Bush).

    See this book for an accurate history of our secular roots:,M1

    A question this post caused me to wonder: I did not think that Rumsfeld had any history/record of being particularly religious – was his use of this material a shameless way of influencing president dunce-cap?

    Excellent thread, btw.

    The Matthew Shepherd law passed. This is causing all manner of gnashing of teeth on the blog that shall go unnamed.

  6. “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want.” — D. H. Rumsfeld

    Is bush smart enough to realize he went to the presidency with the Secretary of Defense he chose, not the one he needed?

    bush was easily played, wasn’t he? Maybe one of the reasons the Republican Party has no leaders, no ideas, and no future (at least until they figure out who should lead and what they stand for), is they are still defending bushco. They are now coming out in praise of cheney’s media blitz of justifications for the unjustifiable.

  7. iggydonnelly

    My strategy for Cheney would be: “put up or shut up.” Prove that torture kept us safe.

    What a very unfunny joke that man is.

  8. This is satire.

    Rolling Stone nabbed an “interview” in which Bush came clean:

    Let’s talk about August 6th, 2001. That’s the day you got a memo warning about plans for possible attacks by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. What were you doing that day?

    I’ll be honest with you. I was at the ranch, on vacation. I was watching the Hall of Fame game on TV. First NFL preseason game of the year, hate to miss it, you know?

    I’m the same way. It doesn’t matter what teams are playing, I watch it.

    Exactly. It’s a long off-season, and you start to miss the game. So I’m watching it – I remember it was Miami and St. Louis. First time I ever saw Marc Bulger. He was just a backup to Warner then. I think he threw a touchdown in the fourth quarter. I thought to myself, “This guy looks pretty solid in the pocket. He might have a future in this league.”

    That’s good foresight right there.

    Anyway, it was right around then that they brought me my PDB [Presidential Daily Briefing], and it said something about bin Laden. I mean, we get these warnings about foreign terrorists all the time. How was I supposed to know he was going to attack in the United States?

    Well, the memo was titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack in U.S.”

    It was?

    Yes, sir.

    Well, nobody told me that.

    But they wrote it to you.

    But nobody told me that they wrote it to me.

    Who’s “they”?

    I don’t know. Whoever is in the room. Vice President Cheney. Don Rumsfeld. Rove. Sometimes there’s some other guys. It kind of rotates.

    Do you decide who “they” is?

    No, they usually decide who they is. Or at least one of they does. Usually Cheney.

    Interesting. What did they tell you they wrote to you about why America needed to invade Iraq?

    Sometime in the fall of 2001, pretty soon after 9/11, Rumsfeld and Cheney handed me a piece of paper. I asked them what was in it. Rumsfeld says, “Mr. President, we’ve just written you a memo explaining that we need to invade Iraq.” And I said, “OK. Why?” And Dick says to me, “Because of 9/11, Mr. President.”


    Is that the whole story?

    Yeah. Why?

    George W. Bush
    Interviewed by Matt Taibbi
    For Rolling Stone
    January 2009

  9. GOP gives Dick Cheney green light

    Republican leadership is pointedly not “wincing” at former vice president Dick Cheney’s new love of attention, according to Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. He defended Cheney on Meet The Press, but then he wouldn’t say whether he thinks interrogation techniques used on suspected terrorists amounted to torture. “I have a personal opinion,” said Steele. “That’s not appropriate to share here.” In the meantime, House Minority Leader John Boehner said on CNN’s State of the Union, that Cheney’s new attitude “doesn’t hurt, it helps,” adding that the former VP is a “big member in our party.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell didn’t offer a direct defense of Cheney during his appearance on Fox News Sunday, but did suggest that the former vice president has had an impact in swaying the debate. According to him, the Obama administration “has responded to the critique of the vice president” that the country is moving in the “wrong direction on national security issues.”

  10. lilacluvr

    Let the Republicans continue to put Dick Cheney in front of their circus. What is the latest approval rating for Cheney – 14%?

    As for the separation of church and state issue. Many Conservative Republicans believe the myth all the Founding Fathers were Christians. When I did some research, I found quite a few were Deists. Try telling that fact to these Conservatives and they will go ballistic. I wonder if they even know what a Deist is?

  11. iggydonnelly

    The fake Bush interview that fnord links above is one of the funniest things I have read in a while. Reminds me of National Lampoon when I was in college or Hunter S. Thompson going on about a bull elk on acid raping Nixon.

    It is very junior high type humor, but I laughed until I cried. We did, after all, have a pretty junior high-type president.

  12. iggydonnelly

    After all, Condi Rice fart jokes give ya a clue about how high-brow the humor is… For low-brows like me it was quite entertaining.

    • Did you read all seven pages? I just (finally) finished. If it didn’t seem so real it would be hilarious, it was really funny anyway!

  13. When I read it, it was soooo like bush it’s hard to remember it’s satire. I can hear actual interviews that weren’t different than this made-up one. What a doofus!

  14. Italian newspapers La Repubblica and Il Corriere della Sera have published disturbing photographs depicting prisoner abuse. The papers allege that the pictures show American soldiers torturing terrorism suspects, though it is not clear whether these are among the photos whose release is being challenged by President Obama.

  15. lilacluvr

    In all fairness to George W. Bush, did we really expect any different from him? Anyone with half a working brain cell knew GWB was only the front man for the real president – Cheney.

    This does not in any way excuse GWB, it only somehow explains the dynamics of the Bush Administration.

    It will be interesting to see who turns on who if there are investigations.

  16. If what you say is true, and I think it’s possible, bush doesn’t know for sure what was done, who did it, what wasn’t done, who didn’t do it.

    Is that why he is silent?

    Americans elected this man TWICE. Who is the fool?

    • Well, it wasn’t Americans so much as the Supreme Court that really elected him in 2000.
      Sorry, but I’ll never let that go.

  17. lilacluvr

    If you remember, Cheney recently said that Bush signed off on the torture – so I guess we’ll see.

    Maybe Bush did or maybe he didn’t and this is just Cheney’s way of throwing Bush under the bus for not pardoning Scooter Libby?

    There are so many possibilities and we’ll never really know the truth, in my opinion. But I’d like to see it taken out of the politicians’ hands and given to an independent investigation. Or maybe Bush and/or Cheney will get brave and venture into a foreign country just waiting to snare them into a World Court setting?

    That’s the thing about karma – one never knows when it will come – but it always comes.

  18. lilacluvr

    I’ve heard that George W. is being silent because his dad told him to keep his mouth shut. Who better to know than Daddy Bush – having been a big part of that Iran-Contra scandal, you know.

    • tosmarttobegop

      I also wonder that since being away from the protective bubble of Cheney. Perhaps some reality is getting to G.W. Some reality that sinks into the simple minded thought process that Bush has. There is quite a bit of
      Blame and real guilt to be had by him. Put yourself in his place…. Now have Laura hide all ropes, guns and sharp objects. If not wanted now after the whole delusions become plain and clear you would then have the desire for a way to end it all.

      • frigginloon

        Hmm, doesn’t daddy Bush have shares in every friggin pharmaceutical company? I wouldn’t be surprised if that included the only company with the Swine Flu vaccination. Color me suspicious. I think the silence of the bush pigs is because they are concentrating on filling up their family coffers for Jebs campaign to become the next president.

  19. jammer5

    Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

    Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

    It would seem to me to be the definitive article declaring this country’s government to be secular in nature. Why is it the RR has a problem understanding that? As an aside, I questioned one blogger about Jesse Ventura being called a Navy Seal. The Navy says he can be called one. The blogger said, no, he can’t, and was adamant in his insistence. It’s kinda like saying the earth is flat, and the sun rises in the West.

    You can pile proof after proof in front of these people, and they will still insist you’re wrong. I think their box is so small and tight, they have no way out of it. When you have politicians asking God to build them a pipeline, having a seance to drive out witches and writing religious slogans on top secret papers, we have a problem. That is not what government is supposed to do, nor does it do any good for the country. In fact the opposite is true.

  20. wicked

    Wasn’t Ashcroft the religious nut? Draping covers over statues and all that. Is he the one who stood up and sang about the soaring eagle?

    Face it. They’re kooks.

    Yes, Jammer, the Treaty of Tripoli is solid proof as to the religious nature of the U.S. The Founding Fathers weren’t stupid. They knew what would happen if religion too over a country. If only the right side of the current political spectrum were half as smart, they might have that those 23%.

  21. wicked

    I wonder how many of these Cons have U.S. flags tattooed on their butts?

    Hey, I consider myself patriotic, but not to the extent of thinking we (the U.S.) can do no wrong. In fact, I’m so patriotic that I think the wrongs should be pointed out and attended to.

  22. tosmarttobegop

    Keith had on a Baptist pastor on tonight that gave a golden explanation of “thou shall not take the Lord thy God’s name in vain!”. He said many think it is about cursing but what it really means is that you shall not do something and say it’s in the Lord’s name.

  23. wicked

    If only the right side of the current political spectrum were half as smart, they might have that those 23%.

    Okay, even I don’t know what that meant, and I was the one who typed it!

  24. jammer5

    Posted on the garbage dump by a fundie. If he could both read and comprehend, he would understand just how screwed up and illogical Limburger really is:

    RUSH: As we start with the audio sound bite excerpts of President Obama’s speech at Notre Dame yesterday, I want you to understand what this is. This is an outstanding demonstration of the low art of political seduction as practiced by the master, and that master is Barack Obama. He is good. He excels at the low art of political seduction. Here’s our first sound bite.

    OBAMA: How do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles and fight for what we consider right without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side? And of course nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion. Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision, for any woman, is not made casually. It has both moral and spiritual dimensions. So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions. (applause) Let’s reduce unintended pregnancies.

    RUSH: You see how that got applause? Why? I ask again, why do we want to reduce the number of women seeking abortions if there’s nothing wrong with it? If a position of pro-choice is just as valid as the pro-life position, if we shouldn’t demonize, what’s wrong with it? Why limit it? Why reduce unintended pregnancies? What’s wrong with it? ” Even though the decision to have an abortion may be gut-wrenching…”? What’s wrong with it? I always thought it was a matter of liberty — a matter of liberation, a matter of independence. So why in the world go through the farce here of wanting to reduce the number of pregnancies, unwanted pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions?

    See, this is how good Obama is at the low art of political seduction. ‘Cause, as I mentioned, several years ago he made the case for killing babies born alive and giving legal protection to the doctors that did it, and it did not cost him politically. So Obama, after advancing his case for infanticide and the protection of the doctors, he went on to become United States Senator and then president. He talks about the debate about abortion. What’s the debate? Seriously, what’s the debate? Obama’s position in the debate is that a baby that survives an abortion is fair game to be killed, and the doctor should have legal protection. And his excuse at the time that he advanced this barbaric argument was that it was necessary to protect a woman’s right to choose.

    Okay, so… Now, I want to know, folks. I want to know where it is that we compromise — and I want to know why it is. Why is this “a difficult moral and spiritual decision” for women to make? Why? I don’t understand the left’s reasoning. I don’t understand why we should have to reduce the number of abortions, if there’s nothing wrong with it. I don’t know why we should have to reduce unwanted pregnancy if there’s nothing wrong with it, and I don’t understand why making the decision to go through with abortion is “a moral and spiritual question,” if it’s not a baby. The only thing that can make abortion a tough decision is what’s being aborted, correct? So here’s the low art of political seduction. The low art of political seduction is: “Both sides have legitimacy, and we’re never going to agree. These are irreconcilable differences, but we must not attack personally, and we must try to get along with one another.”

    What do we do in the process? We blur something that’s crucial: the definition of life. We blur morality. Just as Orwell had his Newspeak, immorality is now morality. Death is now freedom! This is one of the foundations of liberal reasoning as a means to advance any of their beliefs which you and I would find to be questionable, unjust, or immoral. This is how they justify it. It’s the low art of political seduction. But we look at Obama, and he’s such a nice man. He’s got a great family, and he wants us all to respect each other the same way he respected secured creditors for Chrysler, the same way that he respects retention contracts. Those are Fifth Amendment rights that Barack Obama stomped on at AIG and at Chrysler, but we need to have an open mind and an open heart about that, too. And by all means we must not open up and be critical. Because, you see, the extreme position here, according to Obama, is the pro-life position — and extreme because liberals do not share it, and anything not liberal, by definition, is extreme.

  25. wicked

    One of these days, Rush is going to have an aneuryism caused by expending all that hot air.

    If Rush were a Liberal (and I use “were” because it’s not a possibility), somebody would have shot him my now.

    Do people who listen to him actually understand everything he says? I ask because the man makes no sense. I bet it’s really, really hard to make up some of that shit and still look semi-intelligent to those who have little. Intelligence, that is. 😉

  26. wicked

    Sorry, but another thought keeps popping into my (empty) head this morning.

    If Obama excels at the low art of political seduction, then Rush excels (highly) at the low art of bullshit.

    And what the hell is a low art?

    Don’t all politicians practice political seduction? Wasn’t Dubya’s “good ol’ boy” stinky political seduction? Let’s face it. Successful politicians all excel at political seduction. That’s what it’s all about. Each has his/her own type, but bottom line, it’s all the same thing.

    And Rush is a frustrated man, who didn’t have the smarts to do well in politics. Or much else, for that matter, except to run his mouth without engaging his brain.

  27. “Now, I want to know, folks. I want to know where it is that we compromise — and I want to know why it is.”

    I saw these exact talking points used. They don’t want or need to understand, just remember the talking points.

    President Obama gave several examples of “compromise,” so the question has been answered. Understanding isn’t the goal, neither is the answer to the question.

    Although I’ve never thought any question was dumb, once answered, either the question must change or a person must acknowledge they don’t accept the answer given. Continuing to ask the exact same question without acknowledgment of the answer given, shows the goal isn’t to get an answer, it is obfuscation, defined as:

    To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand;

    the process of darkening or obscuring so as to hinder ready analysis.

  28. wicked

    the process of darkening or obscuring so as to hinder ready analysis.

    And so, like the little sheeple they are, they will follow. But where are they headed? Do they know? Do they care?

    It’s a form of verbal hypnosis. There’s no need to think. In fact thinking is forbidden! Just listen as the pros twist and turn the words into absolute nothingness when dissected, except soundbytes with no substance or reason.

  29. See wicked, when we evill libaruhls say nonsensical things, or our fingers don’t keep up with our minds, we step back and ask ourselves, “WTF”? Cause we’re quite capable of such, but we also acknowledge same. 😉

    Oh, btw, when you have to ask yourself the question, you already know there is no sensible answer.

  30. wicked

    The acknowledgement of not knowing something is the beginning of learning.

  31. Yeah, well, if you read this statement from a Rumsfeld spokesman, you’ll see that no one knows anything about who did this, in fact it seems the World Intelligence Update didn’t even make it as high as the POTUS!

    Why would we have expected the POTUS to keep up with what was intelligent in the world?

    And, it was still religious extremism being used but it wasn’t Rumsfeld … it was someone else somewhere maybe probably most assuredly.

    It’s all the fault of that clown at GQ!


    “A Response From Donald Rumsfeld

    Keith Urbahn, a spokesman for former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, e-mails a statement denying that Rumsfeld had anything to do with the Christianization of those World Intelligence Update cover slides.

    The slides in the “World Intelligence Update” were prepared on a daily basis by military personnel serving on the Joint Staff, which reported to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, not the Secretary of Defense. The report was briefed regularly to senior military officials in the Pentagon – only occasionally to the Secretary of Defense and not to the President of the United States.

    Rumsfeld was fully aware that words and actions could be harmful and counterproductive to the war effort. It’s safe to say that some of these cover slides could be considered in that category. The suggestion that Rumsfeld would have composed, approved of, or personally shown the slides to President Bush is flat wrong. It did not happen.

    Given that Draper used anonymous sources for this charge as well as for the rest of the innuendo in his piece, one would think he might have at least done a cursory review of the facts. He might then have avoided being taken by people with an axe to grind. When Draper goes back and checks reality against his reporting, he might also check whether GQ is in need of a new gossip columnist.”