Terrorists & Drunk Drivers

Due to an inexcusable breakdown in our internal control process, the Today Show was on the TV in our bedroom after breakfast yesterday. I walked into the room just in time to hear Matt Laurer ask President Bush if he thought the war on terrorism was winnable. As soon the President's reply left his lips, I knew we were in for a long and ugly next few days.

In case you missed it, his reply was pretty simple: no, we can't win the war against terrorism.

JohnSquared didn't waste any time jumping on this apparent lapse in judgment by quickly proclaiming that, by gum, the Democrats will win the war on terrorism, if given the chance.

This, my friends, is why I'm voting again for W. Because he's right, plain and simple, and he won't lie to the American people just to be politically correct.

We'll never "win" the war on terrorism, any more than we'll "win" the war against drunk driving. See, the Democratic candidates still don't get it. This is not a conventional war where, as Bush's campaign spokesman put it, there will be a conventional and formal cessation of hostilities, sealed with a signed declaration that clearly identifies who won and who lost. Terrorism doesn't need armies, well-stocked arsenals or even governments. Terrorism needs only one person intent on doing evil, and how are you going to stop that?

Sure, we need to try to kill or disable as many terrorists as possible before they have a chance to put their plans into action, but to declare victory is to bury your head in the sand...next to a claymore.

Perhaps JohnSquared will garner a few extra votes from the naive and complacent who sleep better at night with the knowledge that if politicians say a thing, then that thing must be. Personally, I'd rather have a leader who tells me up front that the world is now different, and we'll never return to how it used to be, and here's what we need to do in order to cope with it. Give me the straight scoop, recruit me to help, and let's get to work doing what we can.

My only regret about the President's remark is how his own campaign seems defensive about it. Bush is simply doing what he does best: underpromising and overdelivering, and in my book, that's strength, not weakness.

Update: CNN Headline News just aired a sound bite from the President's speech this morning in front of an American Legion convention in which he says that we will win the war on terrorism. That's the problem with sound bites...a lack of context. Bryan over at Arguing With Signposts puts the context issue into, um, context. Still, I wish the spin cycles weren't so strong.

Comments

The media is conveniently forgetting a Democrat president already had the chance to "win the war on terrorism" and blew it.

Does America remember the date February 26, 1993?

We should. That was the FIRST time the World Trade Center got bombed.

There was a Democrat President in the Oval Office. He had his big chance to show the American voter how the Democrats deal with terrorism.

Did he "win" the war on terrorism? That's a yes or no question. That answer should be the same one in deciding whether or not to vote for John Kerry.

Personally, I believe it IS possible to win the war against Islamic terrorism (if not all forms). Entirely and totally. Unfortunately, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will ever take the steps necessary to do so.

Posted by: Mr. Freen at August 31, 2004 05:30 PM

"Personally, I believe it IS possible to win the war against Islamic terrorism (if not all forms). Entirely and totally."

I can't imagine how you think this can be done, short of exterminating a large minority of the world's population, and I know you're not suggesting that. So, please, enlighten us as to how Islamic terrorism can be defeated once and for all.

Posted by: Eric at August 31, 2004 05:38 PM

...by making it very clear to the Islamic world that Mecca will become a smoldering pile of nuclear ash the next time some Muslim terrorist hijacks a plane.

...and if it comes to it, making good on that threat.

Muslim terrorists are, in their own way, deeply religious. They listen to their imams, mullahs, 'alims, ayatollahs, etc. If their preachers and teachers exhort the faithful to behave themselves, they will.

But that's what these holy men DON'T do. Instead, they spend their time whipping up their followers with charming sermons like this one.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31255

There's no reasoning with people like that. There just isn't. Either we frighten them into behaving or we will keep getting attacked.

To be perfectly honest with you, we probably would have to make good on such a threat.

...and it undoubtedly would enrage the Islamic world so badly, the free world would be forced to exterminate them.

I don't believe Islamic terrorism will ever cease until Islam itself does. It's not a religion of peace. It never was. It never will be. The sooner the world recognizes that fact, the better.

The alternative is to remain forever on the defensive, getting hit again and again by an implacable enemy who has no reason ever to stop.

Posted by: Mr. Freen at September 1, 2004 09:21 AM

...by making it very clear to the Islamic world that Mecca will become a smoldering pile of nuclear ash the next time some Muslim terrorist hijacks a plane.

And thereby converting every last non-radical Muslim into the enemy, as well as those non-Muslims who will sympathize with such their plight. For an instructive and entertaining look at how this scenario will play out, go watch "War Games."

Sorry; I just don't buy it. Terrorism grows in the heart, and I'm coming to believe it's just a natural progression of human depravity leading to the End Times. God, and God alone, will put an end to it, but until He decides to do so, we're going to have to adapt to the fact that there's no human-derived solution.

Posted by: Eric at September 1, 2004 09:54 AM

You're not seriously talking about this turkey are you? :D Say it ain't so!!!

The plot is too contrived even for an 80's teen movie.

"After some time it (the computer) comes to the conclusion that nuclear war is a 'strange game, the only way to win is not to play.' "

If it came up with an answer like that, the super dooper computer must have been running Windows 3.0!

The only way to win is to wipe out a threat so it can't hit back. Ever. Like Rome exterminating Carthage, for example.

It works. That was proven a full century before Christ.

...even if those simple Romans didn't have nukes.

Up next? Let's guide America's foreign policy according to this one!

If it comes down to it, let's plan the war on terrorism according to this one!

So much for movie-land.

Terrorism, I believe, is a means to an end. In the case of Islamic terrorists, the end is quite clear. It hasn't changed since Islam became a major world power over a millenium ago: the conversion or "submission" of every living person to Allah and his theocrats.

According to Islam, everything in the Quran is the literal word of God as told to the prophet Mohammed. And what did God tell the followers of Islam through the Prophet?

Sura 5:54: " O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other."

That's the literal word of God believed by about 1.2 billion Muslims today and billions more throughout the last 1000+ years of Muslim history.

They're not our "friends". A Muslim who befriends a Christian or a Jew is violating the teachings of the Quran.

I'm not as fatalistic about the End Times. But you're probably right.

Naturally progressing human depravity does offer one heck of an effective solution to Muslim terrorism.

Oh that reminds me...

Better tack on another update to this post.

Posted by: Mr. Freen at September 1, 2004 12:37 PM

My only reason to point to "War Games" is exactly the conclusion you see. The only possible outcome of a global escalation of indiscriminate murder is mutually assured destruction.

I'm not justifying or ignoring the religious arguments of Islamofascists. But it's a big leap from "Christians and Jews are not our friends" to "God commands us to kill all Christians and Jews." A few Muslims have managed to make that leap and they need to be dealt with as strongly as possible. Millions more haven't and won't, and I see no moral justification for dealing with the latter group in the same fashion as the former.

Posted by: Eric at September 1, 2004 01:15 PM
Post a comment [Take your time...we're in no hurry.]









Remember personal info?