As the presidential primary elections come to a head, the campaigns have reached a fever pitch as the candidates on both sides of the fence make a last-ditch effort to win the nomination. One thing that has struck me most is the language used by candidates in an effort to garnish the vote. Specifically, Republican candidates have chosen to employ language of fear and division rather than language of unity and inclusion.

The tone of a campaign sets the tone of a presidency — put simply; the language used by candidates is reflective of the policies he/she will enact. This is why the language used by Republican candidates in the past months is so disturbing. It reflects more of the same misguided policies currently enacted by the Bush Administration — policies that have jeopardized the basic foundations of the U.S. Constitution, diminished America's influences in the global arena, and economically weakened our country.

The words used by Republican candidates to describe inhuman acts of terrorism wrongly associate those who practice these horrendous acts with the 5 million Americans and 1 billion people throughout the world who practice Islam. This has been in direct contrast to Democrats, who have opted to use language that does not make such an association.

Rudy Giuliani is among the worst culprits. In effort to use scare tactics to keep his numbers up, Giuliani often paints a picture of Muslims as violent radicals and criticizes Democrats who refrain from linking Islam with terrorism, saying they are on the defensive in the war on terror. He has reinforced this association throughout the campaign trail, saying in Milwaukee for instance, "I believe we have to be on offense against Islamic terrorism," and again in New Hampshire, "Islamic terrorists... want to kill us".

It is unfortunate that Giuliani is not alone among the Republican candidates. Other Republican candidates have coined yet additional terms that convey a lack of understanding about Islam. For instance, Mike Huckabee explained that "Islamic jihadists, would strap a bomb to the belly of their own child, march him into a crowded room, set the detonator and kill innocent people."

Mitt Romney's rhetoric suffers from yet a different problem. Romney states on his website that "the defeat of this radical and violent faction of Islam must be achieved through a combination of American resolve, international effort, and the rejection of violence by moderate, modern, mainstream Muslims," completely neglecting that modern mainstream Muslims already do reject terrorism. Perhaps this is why his campaign talked of creating "an effort to help move Islam toward modernity."

The Republican campaign model is problematic in that it links Muslims with a fringe minority who has manipulated the religion so much so that it should cease to be called Islam.

In contrast, the Democratic candidates have not shied away from the issue of terrorism but have opted to leave religious affiliation out when labeling terrorists. Hillary Clinton has described terrorists as "global terrorists" and "a small band of terrorists who are intent upon foisting their way of life and using suicide bombers and suicidal people to carry out their agenda." Barack Obama has called terrorists "genuine enemies [out there] that have to be hunted down, networks have to be dismantled" and Bill Richardson has spoken generally of "international terrorism," thus refraining from creating a religious association. Similarly, Senator Chris Dodd has used the term "stateless terrorism" and John Edwards said there "are dangerous people and dangerous leaders in the world that America must deal with and deal with strongly." In analyzing the rhetoric used by candidates for the upcoming elections it is clear that there is a fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Democratic candidates use language that reflects an understanding of the complex problem of global terrorism and seeks a policy to address this challenge that is inclusive of traditional American values, respects every citizen, and resonates with Muslim communities globally. This type of policy will not only uphold America's values but will make significant contributions in bridging the growing divide between the United States and many of its key Muslim allies.

Republican candidates running for office have thus far followed in the foot steps of the current president by resorting to overt scare tactics in an effort to garnish the vote. This does not serve to the betterment of the political arena, either globally or domestically, and inevitably will continue to widen the gulf between the United States and Muslim states and communities strategically necessary to fight terrorism.

Simply put, Americans deserve a political framework that meshes with the values of this country's policies and that will not continue to jeopardize the basic foundations of the US Constitution, diminish America's influences in the global arena, and weaken our economy. Our national security depends on a president who understands the true nature of the threat and who builds strong coalitions within the United States and between the United States and our allies. We have already seen the results of a tough-talking president who lacks an understanding of the security threat and enacts destructive policies. It has become quite clear early on in the primaries that only one party in the primaries has full comprehension of exactly what that entails. That is the Democratic Party.

I leave you with words from Rudy Giuliani:

"I don't know if you've noticed this about the Democratic debates, but they never use the word 'Islamic terrorist. Ever. They have a very hard time getting those words out of their mouth. I think it's quite clear to me now; having listened to seven or eight of their debates, that they think it's politically incorrect to say the words. I don't know exactly who they think they're offending. I don't know what kind of view of the world they have. I understand when I say 'Islamic terrorism' … I'm offending exactly who I want to offend and making it clear to them that we stand against them."

There ya go. VOTE FOR BUSH. VOTE FOR BUSH. Of goes the cry of the ISNA, PISNA, ICNA, PICNICA, MAS, HOTGAS, and a whole host of other so-called "Islamic Organizations". Whose main job seems to be helping elect officials that can help bombard Muslims abroad.

Idiots. Had the brains of a monkey, by now they could have had a candidate taking on these republican roaches in the newsmedia. But too bad, instead they chose to sleep with the Republicans and Democrats for the whole past decade and a half.

And what do they have now to show for it. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Morally and electorally bankrupt Muslim Vote.

Rudy Giuliani and other politicians insist on using the description of “Islamic” when discussing terrorism, but when it comes to discussing organized crime they don’t insist on describing it as “Italian.”

How come Giuliano has nothing to say about the fact that the United States had funded and recruited Muslim extremists to fight its proxy war In Afghanistan against the Russians? The defeat of the Russians facilitated the collapse of the Soviet Union, making the United States the number one super power in the world. In the meanwhile, millions of Afghans had been killed and the infrastructure of the country had been destroyed. The United States made no effort to help in reconstructing Afghanistan.

See "Today's 'Islamic Fascists' Were Yesterday's Friends " at http://www.antiwar.com/orig/oneill.php?articleid=9615

Perhaps a closer look at Republican candidate Ron Paul will shed some light. The only candidate of any party, he appears to have real concern for Muslims and there rights. Why should American Muslims vote for the Democratic Party that want's to continue the oppressive policies of Israel?

http://www.rense.com/general79/musron.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBXwfygRb9g

Here We Go Again.

===== VOTE FOR BUSH VOTE FOR BUSH =====
===== VOTE FOR THE BILL OF RIGHTS =====

Congress likely to OK Saudi arms deal
By MATTHEW LEE and ANNE FLAHERTY
Associated Press Writers
57 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Democratic-led Congress is unlikely to block U.S. plans to sell $123 million worth of sophisticated precision-guided bomb technology to Saudi Arabia, despite concerns from some members that the systems could be used against Israel.

The Bush administration on Monday notified Congress of its intent to sell the bomb-delivery systems as part of a multibillion-dollar arms package to bolster the defense of U.S. allies in the Gulf.

Timed to coincide with Bush's trip to Saudi Arabia, the notification opens a 30-day window during which lawmakers can object to the sale, which envisions the transfer of 900 Joint Direct Attack Munitions, or JDAMs, to the Saudis, the State Department said.

The proposed deal follows notification on five other packages to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, and brings to $11.5 billion the amount of advanced U.S. weaponry, including Patriot missiles, provided to friendly Arab nations under the Gulf Security Dialogue, spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.

Administration officials say the total amount of sales as part of the dialogue is estimated at $20 billion, but they also have cautioned that the figure is subject to what equipment the receiving countries actually purchase

Mark Regev, a spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said the Israeli government would not comment on the arms deal.

Previously, Israel has indicated it does not oppose the deal and Washington plans to counterbalance the sales to Arab nations with $30 billion in military assistance to the Jewish state — a more than 25 percent increase over the next 10 years.

Notifications to Congress of specific transactions are made in "piecemeal" fashion, McCormack said. He added that the 30-day deadline for lawmakers to raise opposition to the previous five sales had passed.

The five earlier agreements included two sales to the United Arab Emirates for a Patriot missile system and support for an airborne early warning system; one to Kuwait for Patriot missile system upgrades and two to Saudi Arabia for "targeting pods" and upgrades to AWACs airborne warning and control aircraft.

Here we go again.

====== VOTE FOR BUSH VOTE FOR BUSH ========
========= VOTE FOR DEMOCRACY =============

US 2008 Presidential Race to be Most Expensive Ever
by Alain Jean-Robert
Tue Jan 15, 10:01 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The outcome of the 2008 White House election remains up in the air, but one thing is certain -- the bid to succeed President George W. Bush will be the most expensive race in history.

The cost of the last presidential campaign in 2004, considered a peak for its time, was 693 million dollars.

Common estimates of this year's total outlay have tended to come in at around one billion dollars, and Fortune magazine recently upped its overall cost projection to three billion dollars.

As a historical comparison, the campaign two decades ago that saw Republican George H.W. Bush succeed Ronald Reagan at the White House cost 59 million dollars.

Historians believe that the nation's 16th president, Abraham Lincoln, spent 100,000 dollars in his bid to take the executive office in 1860.

In the countdown to "Super Tuesday" on February 5, when 22 states including New York and California hold their primary elections, White House hopefuls are furiously bolstering their campaign war chests.

The former first lady and current New York senator's campaign said she raised a total of 115 million dollars in 2007, of which 24 million was raised during the last few months of the year.

Illinois Senator Obama has said his drive raised 103 million dollars in 2007 of which 22.5 million came in during the last part of the year.

GOP presidential candidate John McCain said recently that he "admired" Islam but would prefer a president with "a solid grounding" in the Christian faith."

and huckabee stated the other day he wanted to 'exclude those who come from countries where terrorism is prevalent from immigrating tomaericna in the futre"
(read muslim)
also he said that marriage needs to be defined as one man one woman- not
1 man 1 man
1 woman 1 woamn
1 man 2 wives (muslims)
1 man 3 wives (read mormon)

mormons have tradtionally been very supportive of muslims in america- (because of their own outsider status and persecution by the government)

The brutal truth muslims have to face is that if a protector of international human values ever is voted into the presidency ... there are no Muslim leaders/nations who will support his/her vision of a better United States and a better International Community. With so many muslim countries deriving support for their military and economy directly from the USA ... who the hell in Muslim countries will support a better more humanistic vision?

While labelling the terrorism as Islamic is wrong, we need to get something straight ... the Muslims world is the Islamic world to the west. If the Muslim world can oppress and be oppressed than that is the case of the Islamic world. Might isn't right. But its alot safer than being right and being kicked in the groin. Republicans are doing nothing but acting on a culture of fear and suspicion that is the bedrock of the muslim worlds relationship with outsiders.

Sure .. there are some civil society groups that go beyond the stereotype, but the bedrock of our political movements isn't really any better than your average republican lynching mob. How can we get upset when they do what we do?

Ghulam,

You wrote, "The brutal truth muslims have to face is that if a protector of international human values ever is voted into the presidency ... there are no Muslim leaders/nations who will support his/her vision of a better United States and a better International Community. With so many muslim countries deriving support for their military and economy directly from the USA ... who the hell in Muslim countries will support a better more humanistic vision?"

Saddam Hussein is a lessen to political leaders in the Muslim world of what happens if you accept support and military aid from the United States, then change your ways and decide to do what's best for your country.

Can you explain why Americans are not electing a President who has a humanistic vision? http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/e_paul/

The question of a "more humanistic president" being voted into office in the United States is ofcourse an exercise in theory. Because the humungous military-industrial complex and the giant gambling casino known as the "futures market" cannot survive on the policies of a "humanistic vision."

As fat, jolly, and fair as the Americans may be, they are waaaaay over their head, things are well beyond their control, they are stuck with an economy and capitalist system that if slowed by even 20%, would result in a cyclical shrinking collapse with a resultant economy a mere 40% of current size.

Their economy is made up of mostly FORNICATING (Hollywood, porn, Miss America pagent, Women's sports etc), PROSPECTING (gambling casinos, Las Vegas, the entire stock market), REAL ESTATE (because it cannot be made offshore ;-)) and WEAPONS MANUFACTURE (self explanantory).

So, if they were to become more "humanistic", their economy would collapse. 65% of women would end up being laid off, since most soft unneeded jobs are held by them. And then what. What will the Americans do with all these spare unemployed American women??? Not much, because the Russian women already control the entire porn and dating industry, there is really no room for more labor there.

They can't turn into housewives, that would be going culturally backwards. It would be a social disaster of unmentionable magnitude. America could well become like a third world Muslim country. Without the ninja headgear of course.

the entire population of women in america would probably bristle a bit at your analysis that 65% of us are doing 'soft and unnecessary jobs"

it seems like you got your statistics and information from a cartoon hajibaba

Who cares? American elections are rigged anyway.

>> it seems like you got your statistics and information from a cartoon hajibaba <<

Well, well, well. Shivering in their pants are'nt they, the Mrs.As and the peace4alls of America. The head strong, big mouth, 'disobedient' American females. Eh? At the thought of having to become a housewife. Eh? Being dependent on a 'husband' for rent and food. Having to be subservient to a man. I am sure y'all are shivering in your skins at the very thought. And where will y'all find a Muslim man in America to marry. Boooo. The only guys who will put up with y'all are some immiigrant Muslim types, thats the only extra supply that is available on the market there. The type you routinely scorn at and make fun of on this web-site, for their cultural baggage and what not.

Ho ho ho. You guys will be having nightmares at the economy collapsing. Jesus. Lord have mercy.

Cartoon eh? You think this is all a joke. Well, well, well. If you look up the Grott-Eskely study of female labor in the United States by Carlton University Graduate School of Business, they inform us that if all non-sex trade related American women workers were to cover their private parts properly, there would be an immediate unemployment of 35% of the entire non-sex trade related female American workforce.

What this means is as follows. Take the entire American female labor, remove the following employees from their ranks. i.e. women dirtectly involved in the sex trade.

- call girls, porn stars, phone sex workers
- female actors and singers
- cheerleaders & female athletes
- models and bimbos on the TV Channel
- so-called 'news reporters'
- females working in sports stores and car part stores. Really.

that leaves you with so-called respectable female workers. Now cover them up properly. And what will happen? 1/3rd of them will be fired within 6 months. Secretaries, news anchors, waitresses, all kind of female workers will become redundant to their employers. If you know what i mean.

hajibaba- do not be so disrepsectful to your muslim sisters in america.

Comments for this article have been archived and no further comments are allowed.