If the President 'lied us' into Iraq, then he has a lot of company. The leaders of the Clinton administration (including William himself) all agreed that Saddam had WMD and was a threat. So did the Kurds and Iranians on whom he used them.
That quantities of WMD sufficient to silence the Bush-haters in the liberal media and the Democratic party have not turned up (yet) is likely due to the fact that Saddam had time to hide/sell/send them away for safekeeping while the President tried to appease his opposition by exhausting 'diplomacy.'
That the justifications for war have piled up is not necessarily due to duplicity; rather it is because the President is unable (or unwilling) to face against what we are truly warring: Islam itself (as defined by its own 'sacred' texts).
Allah commanded his faithful to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to make the world Islam. And the false prophet Mohammed--revered as the Ideal Man in traditional, Qur'anic Islam--obeyed.
The President continues to talk about 'extremists,' 'fundamentalists,' 'Islamists,' the 'majority of moderate' Muslims (yes, there are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate), and the 'distortion of a great religion.' Nearly all media, academic, and political elites on both sides of the aisle do the same (while vilifying those who dare point out nearly one and one-half millennia of Muslim rape, slavery, and murder 'in the cause of Allah' against non-Muslims).
Zarqawi's death will cause some temporary disruptions to his group's operations, but it will do nothing to end our War of Self-Defense Against Islam, since Jihad's source and sustenance are the immutable word of Allah (Qur'an) and the example of his apostle (Sunnah).
Since the President cannot (or will not) identify the enemy, how can he possibly define victory?
Victory undefined is unattainable.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Victory is impossible
...unless and until the enemy is defined. Some thoughts on the Global War on Terror: