There has been a lot of drift on this thread since I was here last. I suppose I contributed to that when I acknowledged the merit of Senator's contrast regarding "patience," but what, pray tell, does the purity of Arab country's practice of "Shari'a" have to do with Anniefey's original topic? Should we start a new thread in the Religion forum, perhaps?
I would like to limit my influence and response to this: As in the United States, where radical social conservatives have had an enormous influence on policy through the Republican party, including direct violations of the Constitution itself, so in Arab countries, many of which are at least nominally based upon adherence to Shari'a, religious fundamentalists have had enormous influence on their country's governance far in excess of their numbers, so much so that they are taking over some governments.
In both cases, there are elements in these factions (whether they adhere to a particular "label" or not) that are willing to use any force available - government, social, or just plain tyranny - to push their agenda, in a non-democratic, despotic way, to include using assassination or suicide bombers to kill as many civilians as possible simply to "discredit" the current government. So to in this country we are saddled with influential so-called "conservatives" who will use any force available to them to force us to accept their warped world view, to include bombing abortion clinics and assassinating obstetricians. In both cases these individuals are on the extreme fringe of a radically-focused wing of a larger "conservative" social movement. Unfortunately, unlike most Arab countries, the radical fringe is in control of the levers and authority of our own government.
Annifey's original point, and the focus of this thread, is the monotonous litany of the President's repeated call to "patience" in pursuing a radical, tyrannical policy choice (the invasion and occupation of Iraq) in support of his larger agenda to marginalize every other part of society and government that does not toe his radical, tyrannical line. We have let him do so, as a nation, indeed (allegedly) reelecting him to office despite these abuses and the utter depravity of his policies. In many ways some of us, at least, deserve him. Should we not hold him and his government accountable for their repeated failures? Should we simply accept this call for "patience" despite the apparent lack of substance beneath it? Or, should we say, "enough" and focus, instead, on the real threat to the nation?
