re: #3 Obdicut

He is very, very, very slightly marginally right— one of the reasons we’re seeing more anti-Muslim rhetoric now is because of the absence of Bush. Bush, his other faults aside, made sure to repeatedly state that we were not at war with Islam, not at war with Muslims, and that, in fact, we were fighting radical Muslims for the sake of other Muslims. Sure, Bush tried to connect Iraq and Al-Queda, which made no sense, but that was to shore up support for his desire to invade Iraq; it wasn’t an attack on all Muslims.

Since Bush has left, the GOP and the right-wing in general have slipped quickly down into pure anti-Islamic rhetoric of the nastiest sort. Sort of like how the GOP, post-Bush, has turned on Hispanics with a vengeance. And has become much more comfortable with antisemitism, as well.

So, sorry, Glenn, you got within ten miles of an actual true point but then sailed as quickly as possible in the opposite direction.

Your point about Bush’s calls for tolerance is right — but that’s not what Reynolds is saying at all. He’s referring to the “bull-horn” speech, which was a threat and a promise to attack Al Qaeda. There was nothing about tolerance in that speech.

Reynolds thinks threatening, violent rhetoric is what kept Americans from attacking Muslims after 9/11, and Obama isn’t doing enough of that. It’s so fucking sick and twisted I almost don’t believe it.