Thursday, July 29, 2010

inception and islam

Inner Wakefulness

This place is a dream
only a sleeper considers it real
then death comes like dawn
and you wake up laughing
at what you thought
was your grief

A man goes to sleep in the town
where he has always lived
and he dreams
he's living in another town
in the dream he doesn't remember
the town he's sleeping in his bed in
he believes the reality
of the dream town
the world is that kind of sleep

Humankind is being led
along an evolving course,
through this migration
of intelligences
and though we seem
to be sleeping
there is an inner wakefulness,
that directs the dream
and that will eventually
startle us back
to the truth of
who we are


'Man is asleep and when he dies he awakens'
-attributed to the prophet Muhammad

And nothing is the life of this world but a play and a passing delight; and the life in the hereafter is by far the better for all who are conscious of God. Will you not, then, use your reason? (Quran 6:32)

I saw the movie Inception this past weekend. It was a pretty enjoyable and thought-provoking film. For those that don't know, Inception is the latest entry in the genre of reality-bending films like Total Recall and the Matrix series. If you have already seen the film, you can follow some of the links below to see more detailed discussions and debates over what is "really" going on. If you haven't seen the film, I don't want to ruin it for you with spoilers. I'll just say that the film plays around with the distinction between dreaming and reality and that one of the more common ways to "wake up" from within the dream is to die.

One of the things which struck me about this film (as is hopefully evident from the various quotes at the start of this blog entry) is the extent to which Inception resonates with Islamic metaphysics. In other words, from the perspective of Islam (or at least, some of the mystics) our world is actually very similar to that of Inception. In fact, there are at least two interesting ways to make this correspondence. As suggested by the above quotes, either we are the dreamers and we wake up when we die. Or if you look at some explanations of wahdat al-wujud, then Allah (swt) is the reality and we are less real (dream-like projections) relative to Him.

On a related side note, one of the characters of the film is actually named Yusuf (played by Dileep Rao) who in the Quran (and the Bible) is known for his ability to interpret dreams.

Goatmilk: “INCEPTION – The Top Stopped Spinning”
The Volokh Conspiracy: Understanding Inception
Cinematical: Dissecting 'Inception': Six Interpretations and Five Plot Holes
Vulture: Inception’s Dileep Rao Answers All Your Questions About Inception

Saturday, July 24, 2010

soy palestino

An Aljazeera documentary by Palestinian filmaker Osama Qashoo, who goes to Cuba and learns that "Palestino" is Havana slang learns that "Palestino" is Havana slang for second-class citizens from the rural east (Oriente Province).

h/t to MT. Akbar

Friday, July 23, 2010

Thursday, July 22, 2010

female imams blaze trail among china's muslims

NPR: Female Imams Blaze Trail Amid China's Muslims by Louisa Lim

I wish that I (and the Muslim community generally) had been more aware of this history back when Amina Wadud was making waves with the whole issue of female-led prayers. Basically, they have had female imams for about 100 years in China (along with female mosques which developed organically from Quranic schools for girls). It might be interesting to compare Amina Wadud's approach to female empowerment with what the Chinese Muslims have done. Wadud's move was arguably more radical and uncompromising but also marginalized as non-orthodox. The Chinese Muslim community, on the other hand, seems to have found spaces within fairly traditional parameters for female leadership in the community.

see also:
quran and woman

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

more than one way to break a fast

Your lips are dark, my love,
and fleshy, like a date
And night is honeyslow
in coming, long to wait

I have fasted, darling,
daylong all Ramadan
but your mouth -- so sweet,
so near -- the hours long!

Grant but one taste -- one kiss!
You know what good reward
feeders of fasters gain
from our clement Lord

See how the fruits are ripe
and ready, O servant of God
Kiss me -- it's time, it's time!
And let us earn reward

By Mohja Kahf

ok, now can we call israel an apartheid state?

Tel Aviv Rabbis: Renting apartments to foreign workers violates Jewish law
(From Haaretz by way of Loonwatch)

Twenty-five rabbis from Tel Aviv have signed an edict forbidding the rental of apartments to “infiltrators” and illegal foreign workers.

In a public announcement, the rabbis said that “in the wake of the severe pressure that the neighborhoods of south Tel Aviv face and their abandonment by the government, that begins with the Israeli-Egyptian border and ends with the lawlessness and violence that is taking over south Tel Aviv, the residents of the neighborhoods have decided that the present situation cannot continue”.

The authors of a petition on the subject added that “they will not let the neighborhoods in which they grew up to turn into Sudanese neighborhoods, something that has already happened to the Neve Sha’anan neighborhood. After many attempts using acceptable legal means, the residents decided to have the rabbis sign an ‘Edict Forbidding the Rental of Apartments to Infiltrators,’ and hope that this will halt the deterioration of the

An announcement that activists intend to post on bulletin boards around the city states that “we, the undersigned, neighborhood rabbis and synagogue rabbis, hereby warn the public of the religious prohibitions and the foreseeable dangers that would result from renting apartments to these people.” The rabbis added that “may the efforts of those that toil to defend the Jewish character of the City of Tel Aviv be strengthened.”

“This is a sad day for the citizens of Israel, when racism receives legitimization,” said Ran Cohen, the Director of the Migrant Refugee & Non-Status Division of the organization Doctors for Human Rights. “We call upon citizens to fiercely reject this petition and courageously stand in opposition to this display of fear and xenophobia that is gaining traction within our society.”

Meretz MK Ilan Gil’on said that “again, we are witness to racist incitement on the part of the rabbis. The same rabbis that should be preaching love of Israel and all of humanity are attempting to incite hatred and arouse fear among Israeli society. The Attorney General must investigate to find out if these rabbis are on the government payroll.”

spilling the beans
the green party supports divestment
churches call for divestment from israel
juan cole on borders, both ancient and modern

Friday, July 16, 2010

oneness of being, oneness of witnessing

I've been in a studious mood lately. Mostly I've been going over some basic fiqh by trying to see how much of Molana Ashraf Ali Thanvi's Bahishti Zewar I can read through before Ramadan comes in. (tick, tock) But I've also been trying to go deeper into some topics in aquidah and in the process I picked up a CD of Nuh Ha Mim Keller discussing what it means to be an Ashari where he mentions wahdat al-wujud. It just moved me to try to see if I could find a clearer exposition of the topic online and I found: Wahdat al-Wujud, Wahdat al-Shuhud and the Safest Position by Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani.

see also:
nothing unreal exists

Thursday, July 08, 2010

muslims against sharia? (part three)

The following is a rehash of an exchange which was originally in the comment section of Planet Grenada under mccain's spiritual advisor hates muslims and islam between myself "A" and someone using the username Muslims Against the Sharia "B". I'm reposting it mainly because the person behind the username apparently disappeared along with their comments (fortunately they were preserved in e-mail). Also, since that initial exchange, I've learned that Pamela Geller is one of the main people behind Muslims Against Sharia and she has also been popping up in the news for various Islamophobic activities (trying to stop Cordoba House, putting anti-Islamic messages on buses in major cities, etc). Another figure behind the site is named Khalim Massoud who serves as president of the organization. I'm not sure who exactly is the person behind the username in this exchange.

see also:
muslims against shariah? (part one)
muslims against sharia? (part two)

A: Isn't Muslims against the Sharia kind of like saying Jews for Pork?

B: No. "Muslims Against Sharia" is more like "Christians Against the Inquisition".

A: I understand that that may be the intention but the term "shariah" basically refers to the commandments of Islam, even when they are not also enforced by the state.

B: And which commandments would they be, Abdul-Halim V.?

A: All of them.

B: Could you be more specific? "All of them" is an answer of the person who has no idea what he is talking about.

A: [online definitions deleted]

So the Shariah includes all the commandments of Islam, dietary restrictions, rules about fasting, prayer, the rest of the pillars, inheritance law, performing dhikr, hygine etc.

So even a "liberal"/"progressive" Muslim who views religion as a fundamentally private affair and prays and fasts on their own is still following part of "the shariah"

So to say you are against the Shariah suggests a rather thorough kind of anti-nomianism.

B: Do those commandments include "kill them [infidels] wherever you find them"?

A: well here's a little bit more of the passage:

[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
[2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

So if you see more of the context, this passage is definitely not telling Muslims to fight against peaceful non-Muslims who are minding their own business. It is talking about fighting back against non-Muslims who have attacked the Muslims and driven them from their homes.

If you check out

You could see more discussion of the verses which Islamophobes typically cite on the issue of violence and Islam.

B: What a bunch of crap! How about 9.5? What context is that in?

A: same thing. In my experience, every single time a non-Muslim points to an isolated verse which seems to command towards violence, all one has to do is read a couple of verses before and a couple of verses after and it becomes clear that the verse is talking about the Muslims protecting themselves from a group which has already attacked the Muslims. There is no Quranic justification for attacking peaceful tax-paying non-Muslims who mind their own business.

9:4 says to keep ones treaties with the pagans who have not attacked the Muslims or helped their enemies.

9:5 says one can attack the other pagans but if they repent the Muslism should leave them alone.

9:6 says: If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

9:13 gives more description of the pagans being described whom the Muslims have permission to fight:
Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

So given the tone of your response I have to wonder if you are even Muslim?

B: I don't know what Koran you have, but 9.5 is the infamous Verse of the Sword: "Once the Sacred Months are past, you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful."

A: Yes, I read that and summarized that previously. But what kind of pagans. Does it talk about pagans who are peacefully living with the Muslims minding their own business. No. That's clarified by the later verse.

Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you?

So is Muslims Against Sharia not really run by Muslims?

B: Again, that's a bunch of crap. Anything non-Muslims do can be interpreted as an attack on Islam. Mere presence of non-Muslims in the Arabian Peninsula is often interpreted as such.
Muslims Against Sharia consists of Muslims, but we let anyone become our blog contributors.

A: So in other words, you are actually a non-Muslim and opposed to Islam per se.

B: That's another one of your idiotic assumptions. Every MASH blogger who has "Muslim" in his/her screen name is a Muslim. Every MASH blogger whose screen name is "Muslims Against Sharia" is a member of Muslims Against Sharia. I hope the explanation is not too complicated for you.

A: So you are actually a Muslim and believe that the Quran is a revelation from God?

B: Yes / Most of it

A: So which passages would you not consider revelation from God?


A: I don't know what it would mean to claim to be Muslim and at the same time reject several whole surahs and other passages from the Quran. What makes you a Muslim and not just some Unitarian.

B: My parents are Muslim, I believe in Five Pillars, and , most importantly, I consider myself Muslim.

A: I would say your parents don't matter. And believing in pillars is nice. But if there are whole sections of the Quran which you don't just question or doubt, but actually kick to the curb that's a more serious issue.

B: The whole point is that we DO question those sections. Perhaps you should read our our Manifesto before continuing this discussion.

A: No, you don't understand. It would be one thing if you believed that the entire Quran were valid as revelation and then struggled to understand it. You've apparently stopped struggling and have decided to reject some of it.

I was raised Christian but when I reached the point of actually rejecting parts of the Bible, I knew it was time to shop for a new religion.

Also, your manifesto is incorrect. There are definitely passages in the Bible which clearly call for genocide of certain ethnic groups and capital punishment for certain religious violations.

B: "I was raised Christian but when I reached the point of actually rejecting parts of the Bible, I knew it was time to shop for a new religion."

So you were smart enough to find inconsistencies in the Bible, but you're too dumb to find inconsistencies in the Koran?

The Bible does not call for murder of people based solely on the infidel status.

Deuteronomy 13
[6] "If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, `Let us go and serve other gods,' which neither you nor your fathers have known,
[7] some of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other,
[8] you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him;
[9] but you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.


[12] "If you hear in one of your cities, which the LORD your God gives you to dwell there,
[13] that certain base fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of the city, saying, `Let us go and serve other gods,' which you have not known,
[14] then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently; and behold, if it be true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done among you,
[15] you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, destroying it utterly, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword.

So I'd invite you to reconsider your claims about the Bible. And also remember that there are some Reconstructionist Christians who actually do consider these old commandments to be valid even though they are in the OT.

To be honest though, this wasn't the worst aspect for me. The most objectionable commands (from my perspective) are the genocidal ones:

Deuteronomy 7

[1] "When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Gir'gashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Per'izzites, the Hivites, and the Jeb'usites, seven nations greater and mightier than yourselves,

[2] and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them.
[3] You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons.
[4] For they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.
[5] But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and hew down their Ashe'rim, and burn their graven images with fire.
[6] "For you are a people holy to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth.

And then you can read about how these commands were implemented later on in the Bible in the historical sections. For example most of the Book of Joshua.

In that last verse note that it says to totally eliminate those particular nations. It doesn't even give them a chance to convert. Whatever else you may say about the Quran, it certainly doesn't justify genocide. Interestingly enough, Jewish rabbis have actually come up with a detailed list of all the commandments in the Torah (the traditional list itemizes 613 commandments) and the genocidal ones are still there.

And again, if you look at the verses in context, the Quran does not justify attacking peaceful tax paying non-Muslims who mind their own business.

For example (4:90) "...if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them."

Your comment regarding the Bible seemed odd. Are you sure you are not Christian?

B: Deuteronomy 13 - my bad. Apparently the Bible also calls for murder of infidels. That must have been the basis for the Inquisition. However, I haven't heard this verse recited by either Jewish or Christian religious figures, while Koran 2.191 or 9.5 are repeated constantly.

"Your comment regarding the Bible seemed odd. Are you sure you are not Christian?"

If I were, wouldn't I know what Deuteronomy 13 says?

A: I make very few assumptions about how well people know the books of their own traditions. And in particular, I've seen a wide variation in how well Christians know the Bible.

So are you going to correct what your Manifesto says about the Bible?

B: Absolutely. "While neither Testament calls for mass murder of unbelievers, the Koran does." will be removed.

A: It's unfortunate (for you) I think. I probably shouldn't even give you advice but your group would have been a lot better off not talking about the Judeo-Christian aspect at all. Instead you went over the top in defending the Bible and you ended up putting things in your manifesto which you've basically acknowledged are not true (which then speaks to the integrity of your organization). It also makes it easier to make the claim that you don't just want Muslims to be better Muslims, but you actually would like for Muslims to convert to believing in the Bible.

B: "you've basically acknowledged are not true (which then speaks to the integrity of your organization)."

It does. If we were assholes like you, we'd never acknowledge to making a mistake. We'd keep pressing on that something like 2.191 or 9.5 or Deuteronomy 13 is an acceptable concept for the Holy Text.

A "hypocrite" rather than an "asshole" would be a better description.

A: [20.44] Then speak to him a gentle word haply he may mind or fear.

in any case, hypocrisy isn't an issue. I'm actually following the Quranic verses in question as I understand them. (i.e. I haven't been subject to violent attacks, I have the right to practice my religion freely, so I have no reason to fight) I just think that you are misinterpreting those verses uncharitably for your own reasons.

In terms of the Biblical verses, I'm not sure why you are being difficult. It seems like an easy fix. *You* as an individual have admitted that the verses are problematic (which is great) but since the manifesto hasn't been changed, your organization still isn't "acknowledging mistakes" (to borrow one of your slogans) If you had said to me "We have to have a Muslims Against Sharia committee meeting before changing the manifesto but we are considering it" that would have been fine, at least for a while.

Also, no need for name calling (I've noticed that, not just here but in other blogs where you or other group members have been posting)

Also I think I've given you explanations for 2:191 and 9:5 by bringing in the surrounding context. If you disagree, just say why. Otherwise just let the matter drop.

B: "We have to have a Muslims Against Sharia committee meeting before changing the manifesto but we are considering it"

As we wrote before, that line will be removed, because it is factually incorrect. There is no reason for considering that. If you can't keep your panties on, there is nothing we can do.

As for 2.191 and 9.5 you can't e more full of shit even if you tried. However, there is a distinct possibility that you're really THAT stupid and don't see anything wrong with them. I that case, we'd see no reason for trying to show you the light either.

"Also, no need for name calling"

Don't flatter yourself. Calling you a "hypocrite" or "full of shit", is an accurate description.

A: For a decent discussion of 4:90 which I already mentioned, and which provides a context for the verses you've been mentioning, we could check out:

If you are really serious about reading the Quran intelligently, a big part of that is to not just cherrypick verses, but to actually read the different verses together.

B: Yeah, that's exactly what we need, to consider an opinion of another degenerate apologist for radical Islam. Let's skip Cole and go straight to al-Zawahiri for interpretations. At least we won't get apologetic bullshit from him.

A: Juan Cole's credentials and experience when it comes to Middle Eastern history and current events are pretty considerable and you can't easily dismiss him.

Also, he's never been a Muslim. In fact, for many years he was a Bahai. And if you knew anything about the Bahai faith you would realize that the Bahai faith, in some respects, is more radical than Muslims Against Shariah in the sense that the Bahais will openly say that the laws of Islam are no longer valid and have already been replaced by other codes of law.

B: "Juan Cole's credentials and experience when it comes to Middle Eastern history and current events are pretty considerable and you can't easily dismiss him."

One dumbshit is prasing another. What a surprise!

"Also, he's never been a Muslim."

So what? Neither has John Esposito. Or Gordon England. Or Jeremiah Wright. Or Noah Feldman. Or Jonathan Powell. Etc. You don't have to be an Islamist to be an apologist for radical Islam. You can be a Christian, a Jew, or anything else. Degenerates come in all shapes and sizes.

If you had enough brains to make judgments based on several articles, rather than a single one, you wouldn't be coming off dumber than you look.

A: articles?!? Sometimes I even read books. And again, you still haven't given an actual counter-argument.

B: "counter-argument"? Arguing with Cole's ideas is like arguing with a person who claims that humans have three legs. It's just a waste of time. Which we have done enough here.

A: Cole was just a convenient reference. The basic argument is clearly there in the Quran. If you just read wholistically instead of taking verses in isolation it is obvious that the Quran puts all sorts of caveats and conditions and constraints on the use of force.

For example (4:90) "...if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them."

That's not a matter of credentials or being an "apologist for radical Islamism". It's just a matter of reading comprehension.

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

reyes de las calles - el mundo va acabarse

Just some amusing Afro-Cuban, Afro-futuristic, anti-racist, apocalyptic hip-hop. If I had more patience I would transcribe the lyrics along with the translation. (And I'm actually surprised and a little disappointed that no one else out there seems to have done it already.) The group's name means "Kings of the Streets" and the song's title means "The world is going to end". The lyrics tell the story of what happens when God (and the Martians) come down to Earth to set things right.

Sunday, July 04, 2010

steele and afghanistan round-up

I have to admit that I like Michael Steele a bit more than I "should". It's not just the entertainment value of his gaffes but I actually think adding his voice to the mix is healthy for the Republican Party and, in the very long term, for the country as a whole. Don't get me wrong... he's Republican, so on average I'm going to not like his positions. But I also wholeheartedly agree with Earl Ofari Hutchinson's observation:
For now though the RNC still needs Steele for the very reason he was plucked for the lead role in the first place. In the wake of Obama's smash White House win, he was the best hope to prevent a battered, beaten, and demoralized GOP had from being shoved to the netherworld of national politics. The GOP is still widely sneered at and dismissed as an insular party of unreconstructed bigots, Deep South, rural and, non-college educated blue collar whites. Steele gives the party an image sheen that is anything but white, rural and Deep South.

I would even say I'm slightly optimistic that the growing prominence of Black (and also Indian-American) conservatives might help turn the image into a reality. In the healthiest case, the Republicans would dump their race-baiting, Southern-Strategy-playing xenophobic elements and morph into an honest pro-business libertarian party.

I would also mention that this episode shows how Ron/Rand Paul style libertarianism is not uniformly scary but is more of a mixed bag. Yeah, they have their reservations about the Civil Rights Act (which is not a trivial problem) but they are also more critical of the US various "adventures" in the Muslim world and elsewhere (which is also not a negligible thing).

Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Steele got it Right about Afghanistan, But for the Wrong Reason
Fareed Zakaria Criticizes 'Disproportionate' Afghanistan War On CNN
Ron Paul Praises Embattled RNC Chief Michael Steele For 'Leadership' On Afghanistan
Jon Fleischman Is Latest GOP Official To Criticize Afghan War
Steele Summoned to Limbaugh's (Extremely) White House
Steele's Resignation Would Be a Catastrophe for Obama
Rethink Afghanistan

danny glover asks "what to the slave is the fourth of july"

I've referenced this speech by Frederick Douglass before (see below) but here is a performance of an abridged version by Danny Glover:

"when in the course of human events..."
"patriotism" is a way of saying "women and children first"

christian book touting manly aggression inspires violent fundamentalist meth trafficking cult

To be fair, John Eldredge, the author of the book Wild At Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man’s Soul is probably not happy that his book has become required reading for a "a ruthless cultic Christian paramilitary fundamentalist crime syndicate that controls most of the Crystal Meth traffic in the US and is fond of tossing severed heads into Mexican discos". Furthermore, it isn't as if the meth gang (La Familia) had been selling Girl Scout cookies before Eldredge's book came out.

On the other hand, the book does say things like:
Aggression is part of the masculine design, we are hardwired for it. If we believe that man is made in the image of God, we would do well to remember that “the LORD is a warrior, the LORD is his name.” (Ex. 15:3)

The kingdom of heaven suffers violence,” Jesus said, and violent men take it by force.” (Matt 11:12 NASB) Is that a good thing or a bad thing ? Hopefully by now you see the deep and holy goodness of masculine aggression and that will help you understand what Christ is saying.

(quoting Tremper Longman, author of God is a Warrior) Virtually every book of the Bible–Old and New Testament–and almost every page tells us of God’s warring activity… what would Miss Manners have to say about taking the promised land ? Does wholesale slaughter fit under “Calling on Your New Neighbors.”

In a lot of ways Eldredge is a fairly mainstream evangelical who happens to be less apologetic than most about the patriarchal and martial aspects of the Bible. In any case, even apart from Eldredge's influence, the cartel also has ties to a Traditionalist Catholic community called New Jerusalem with its own history of latent sectarian violence which bubbles to the surface from time to time.

The Arizona Republic: Government, leader deaths reshape apocalyptic sect in Mexico
NarcoGuerraTimes: More on The Faith-Based Cartel
Alternet: Christian Book Touting Manly Aggression Inspires Violent Fundamentalist Meth Trafficking Cult

see also:
all terrorists are muslims... except the 94% that aren't
on joe (joseph) stack
claim that all terrorists are muslims ignores history
the murder of george tiller
thoughts on the hutaree

Friday, July 02, 2010

maybe michael steele just really likes the princess bride?

Michael Steele on Obama's shifting the focus from Iraq to Afghanistan:
Well, if he is such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that’s the one thing you don’t do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? Alright, because everyone who has tried over a thousand years of history has failed.

Huffington Post: Michael Steele Says Afghanistan Was 'War Of Obama's Choosing,' Not Something The U.S. 'Wanted To Engage In'