This is why Bush welcomes Saudis as our friends, welcomes Pakistanis as our friends, thinks islam is a religion of peace, and has no problem at all with PC islamic indoctrination in our school system, or our press, and won’t even consider anything written by Robert Spencer, Ali Sina or anyone critical of islam. Instead, he has Karen Hughes, muslim apologist, be his advisor.

War on terror? I see no war on terror anywhere. I see a half-assed military effort in Afghanistan, that let the Taliban flee only to come back, and that allowed a sharia-based constitution to almost execute a man for converting to Christianity. I see that. I also see another half-assed military expedition into Iraq to topple a secular dictator who, ironically, used his brutality to suppress the very shiite extremists that we are fighting right now.

Meanwhile, he holds hands with the very evil bastards that takes our gasoline money and use it to fund madrasses and mosques around the world to spread islam terror far and wide. This man is a good friend of his.

War on terror? Bush has no war on terror going. I hope that the next president will finally start one.

The front page NYT story about the German would-be terrorists notes that “dozens” were killed in the London and Madrid bombings…. 191 were killed in Madrid alone…

that’s a lot of dozens, eh?

talk about intentiaonal MSM understatement!

“Mein Kleines Pony” thinks that George Bush’s War on Terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It’s a bumper sticker, not a plan.” Well I think the German authorities and a shit-load of te…

Riehl World View

Poor John Edwards, the German terror bust has grown too big to fit on a bumper sticker!German authorities said Thursday they are pursuing as many as 10 additional suspects in connection with a plot to bomb American interests in the co…

Of the 10 still at large, one is Pakistani, another is Lebanese, and some are, ahem, “stateless.”

“Stateless” in this context means that they are from Bosnia, probably civil war fugitives from the 90s. Germany admitted a few hundred thousand during that time, many of which never returned to Bosnia.

By the way, guess which other prominent jihadi received a passport from Bosnian officials in the 90s …

AZCON on September 6, 2007 at 11:39 AM

You hit the nail on the head in every respect.

Ultimately, we need a little more willingness to nuke Mecca if required, Hot Air policy notwithstanding.

I’m not saying we do it… but we must be willing to do it. Failing that, we must be willing to use all weapons at our disposal when the time comes.

So it’s a recipe for failure.

Christoph on September 6, 2007 at 11:51 AM

I agree 100% with you, but to take the thought process any further (beyond controlling jihadi activity) here will get you banned.

It’s as if we are trying to convince the Nazis that Jews are OK.

Christoph on September 6, 2007 at 11:51 AM

He said, “so far.”

Just like you originally said, “insofar as you quoted him.”

He wasn’t saying it should be our goal.

But it’s only a bumper sticker, right john?

Our goal, so far, is to contain the islamist to their existing footprint and “foil” their “terrorist” plots to kill Westerners

Better than most people would define it, but still a recipe for defeat.

If this is war, our goal should be to undermine state sponsors of terror’s states economically, militarily, and culturally (i.e, a the cold war approach mixed in with hot war from time to time) and diminish their footprint, not “contain”.

Ronald Reagan’s goal wasn’t to contain the Soviets… that’s what everyone else’s was… his goal was to defeat them. And he did.

So while you’re right about what our goal is, that’s not what it should be. We have to win all the time to have success using that strategy and we can’t. The enemy gets to have a victory every time there is a successful attack or new territory held or even cultures undermined a la immigration and intimidation.

So it’s a recipe for failure.

Our goal, so far, is to contain the islamist to their existing footprint and “foil” their “terrorist” plots to kill Westerners

Brilliant sentence. I wonder if the notion that we are in another “active” phase of a millennial conflict will revive the question of just exactly where the borders of the “Umma” should lie. Since the Islamists have opened the issue, perhaps we ought to respond.

I’m just pointing out that one of the first mistakes made was misdefining our enemy and I’m not at all convinced George Bush fully gets this.

I’m with you on that, but that isn’t what Edwards was saying. He’s coming at Bush from the left, not the right, and that makes all the difference in the world when you’re parsing out what he means by what he says. And that’s only dealing with one small part of the quote, the meaning of “war on terror.” Everything else, Edwards just gets factually wrong. It’s not Bush’s war, etc.

Bryan on September 6, 2007 at 11:31 AM

Yeah, definitely.

Bryan on September 6, 2007 at 11:34 AM

Yeah, it would, depending on how you parse the words. How Edwards means them is it’s all George Bush’s war, which is looney. So you’re right.

If, however, he was referring to the terrible name and a lot of resulting misfocusing because of it:

George Bush’s misnamed ‘War on Terror’

… then he’d be right. But he doesn’t mean that so it’s all semantic.

I’m just pointing out that one of the first mistakes made was misdefining our enemy and I’m not at all convinced George Bush fully gets this.

I think he gets it a lot more… but was slow to grasp, just like he was slow to grasp the threat Putin poses, and slow to grasp the threat Mexico poses.

He’s a Christian man I admire and love… but he’s a sitting president who admits to the world he cries, for goodness sakes.

Edwards is just a facile creep who’s either ignorant or in denial.

Bryan on September 6, 2007 at 11:34 AM

Or calculating.

To me he is the perfect example of the Southern Flim Flam Man. Slimeball who will do anything for a buck.

But the quote you picked, taken in isolation not considering who uttered them, would be true.

Christoph on September 6, 2007 at 11:30 AM

No, they wouldn’t. It’s not George Bush’s war and it’s not a bumper sticker that he came up with for political reasons, and “war on terror” isn’t and never was the actual strategic plan — it’s shorthand. And, it’s hasn’t backfired and made things worse — there hasn’t been an attack on US soil since 9-11, for starters. What has backfired and made things worse is Musharraf’s surrender in Waziristan, and that wasn’t Bush’s fault nor was it part of the plan, or even part of the slogan.

Edwards is just a facile creep who’s either ignorant or in denial.

Poor John Edwards, the German terror bust has grown too big to fit on a bumper sticker!German authorities said Thursday they are pursuing as many as 10 additional suspects in connection with a plot to bomb American interests in the…

How simple the world is to soft-racists and self-loathing Westerners.