Has it ever happened before, in the history of the world, that almost six years into a major conflict, half of the intelligentsia of a nation fighting the war was not convinced that there was even a war on? Such was the implication of a moment during Thursdays Democratic presidential candidates debate. When asked, Do you believe there is such a thing as a Global War On Terror, candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, and Christopher Dodd raised their hands. John Edwards, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel kept their hands down.
...
One of those tools would be to identify the enemy properly. Republican candidate Mitt Romney did so when commenting on the Democrats debate: I wish theyd have spent more time as a Democratic field talking about the threat of global jihad, talking about what specifically they would do to prevent the nuclear armament of Iran.
The global jihad -- that is what those who would conquer and subjugate us call their activity. For what we are fighting today is not precisely a war on terror. Terror is a tactic, not an opponent. To wage a war on terror is like waging a war on bombs: it focuses on a tool of the enemy rather than the enemy himself. A refusal to identify the enemy is extremely dangerous, as it leaves those who refuse vulnerable to being blindsided by attacks coming from quarters they did not think could possibly be threatening as the White House access granted by both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush to now-jailed jihadists such as Abdurrahman Alamoudi and Sami Al-Arian abundantly attests.
A forthright acknowledgement that we are facing a renewed jihad would go a long way to preventing that sort of diplomatic and intelligence embarrassment. This is not really as far-fetched as it may seem. Jihad terrorists have declared war on the United States and other non-Muslim nations; all the U.S. and Western European countries need to do is identify the enemy as they have identified themselves. Rest at link
Posted by: ed ||
05/01/2007 11:22 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
E-Mail||
[11142 views]
Top|| File under:
David Broder said he wouldn't change anything in his April 26 column, which angered many readers and caused 50 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus to write a letter criticizing Broder in Friday's Washington Post.
In that Thursday piece, Broder criticized Harry Reid for saying the Iraq War is lost militarily, compared Reid to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and concluded: "The Democrats deserve better, and the country needs more, than Harry Reid has offered as Senate majority leader."
Broder was "astonished and delighted" that 50 Democratic senators "spontaneously" came up with the letter.
"I still think the Democrats can do better, and should do better," said Broder, when reached today by E&P. . . . Broder told E&P that he was "astonished and delighted" that 50 Democratic senators and their PR consultants "spontaneously" came up with the letter (adding that he was being "tongue-in-cheek"). The columnist also said he was "not surprised" that his Thursday piece drew such a negative reaction from the 50 senators and most of the many mind-numbed robots readers who flooded washingtonpost.com with comments because Kos ordered them to . . . .
UPDATE: Reader James Somers emails: 'If, in 2005, 50 Republican senators had written a letter to the New York Times excoriating Paul Krugman for criticizing Bill Frist, and conservative blogs had incited their readers to bombard the Times with angry e-mails complaining about Krugman, wouldn't this have just been one more example of the RethugliKKKans' crushing of dissent?"
Well, yeah.
This article starring:
David Broder
Harry Reid
Posted by: Mike ||
05/01/2007 06:11 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
E-Mail||
[11133 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Broder stated the truth: "The Democrats deserve better, and the country needs more, than Harry Reid has offered as Senate majority leader."
In addition he should have said that Harry Reid should STFU and focus on cleaning up the ethics of his land deals.
#4
Speaking truth to power. Oh, wait, that's the left's demagoguery. Remember, its not about principle, its about POWER. Self justifying, self rationalizing. Therefore, one set of rules for me, another set of rules for thee.
AFAICT, the controversy boils down to a determination by upper management that journos of Armenian descent are too biased to write stories referencing the Armenian genocide. This internal memo seems to specify that the LAT is reversing its previous policy regarding Armenia, and that this is a very recent phenomena.
Reading between the lines, the enemies of the West have worked their way into upper management and are actively attempting to rewrite history.
#3
Once again, the focus ought to be slaughter of Christian Armenians by Muslim Turks. Same trouble, different time. And, the wrong message was transmitted.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
