Obamination: Wasting More Blood and Treasure in Afghanistan

In remarks at West Point, President Barack Hussein Obama laid out his plan for the surge in Afghanistan. As is my usual practice, I will present excerpts in block quote format interspersed with my comments.

To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

In this paragraph, President Obama begins to set up his pretext, one shared by his predecessor. Any sentient American more than 17 years old must be very sheltered to be unaware of the fact that the abomination was planned by Muslims in Afghanistan. Sure, we needed to retaliate. But the next paragraph contains egregious deceptions which must be refuted in detail.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Al-Qaeda means "the base", it is equivalent to Ummah al Islamiyya: the set whose members are Muslims. Taliban means "students of the Qur'an". Those are Muslims. There is nothing special about them except the fact that they are believers who obey Allah and emulate Moe. They are normal, not exceptional. They have not "distorted and defiled Islam". Islam remains what it was when Moe died in 632, a damnable war cult, not a religion of peace. There is nothing great about Islam. It conquered half the known world. Is that greatness? In the process, it murdered 270*10⁶, what is great about that? Great slaughter, is desired by Allah, Islam's demon, who established it as a prerequisite for releasing hostages for ransom. That is genocide; if genocide defines greatness, then morality has been inverted.

Islam does not recognize "innocents" outside Ummah al;-Islamiyya. Only Muslims can be innocent, all others are rebels against Allah, who must be defeated and gathered together into Hell. Jihad against disbelievers is not an optional extra added by extremists; it is not bida, it is standard Islamic doctrine laid down in Surah Al-Anfal & Surah At-Taubah. 8:39 contains Allah's command to fight pagans until all resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped on a global scale. 9:29 contains Allah's command to fight Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians until they are subjugated and extorted. Moe confirmed the command to Jihad, which continues until the last day. Islamic law requires a minimum of one military expedition against kufar in every year, failing only when there is insufficient strength. Doubters & dissenters should open Reliance of the Traveller to O9.0 and continue reading through O9.9. O9.1 is explicit about the communal obligation to attack disbelievers in their own countries in every year. O9.8 & 9.9 reveal what the caliph does as a regular practice, aggressively, not defensively: he makes war upon Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians until they become Muslims or pay extortion, he fights all other people until they become Muslim or dead. How is it possible that a religion has such a law in its canon?

America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security.

The terrorist network is Islam. It consists of every Mosque, Madrassa & Muslim wheresoever dispersed over the face of the earth. Destroying al-Qaeda is not possible without destroying Islam! No effort is being made to accomplish that necessary objective. Both President G.W. Bush and President Obama deny the fact that Islam is at war against us. Our elected leaders will not acknowledge the fact that Islam is intrinsically inimical to life, liberty & representative government.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

You can not scatter what is dispersed globally: Islam. President Bush lacked the courage to attack Tora Bora with sufficient force to eliminate bin Laden. Even eliminating him would not end the Jihad.

Neither were Taliban driven from power. Taliban are only Muslims who study the Qur'an. Afghanistan's new constitution makes the Qur'an the source of its law. Umdat as-Salik O9.8, which requires warfare against us, is part of Afghanistan's law. This nation and the world are being misled by morons and traitors. It is not possible to bring peace to a nation whose culture is war. The only peace Afghanistan can have is the peace of the grave, when the graveyard is full and the surface is empty.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform.

There is no responsible end to the war in Iraq while it remains populated by Muslims, our sworn enemies. When our troops leave, Iraq will revert to war between Shiia & Sunni, when that warfare ends, it will resume status quo ante as a sponsor of terrorism. No other outcome is possible while its population remains Islamic. The pull out on a set timetable is a testimony to the stupidity and treachery of our elected leaders.

But while we've achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.

No legitimate government can be composed of Muslims! Islam requires theocracy, one man rule by the Qur'an, not man made legislation. While Afghanistan remains Islamic and tribal, it will be corrupt and violent, neither well governed, peaceful nor stable. The problems listed by President Obama are not members of the set of soluble problems. Even if they could be solved, Afghanistan would revert to status quo ante: a state sponsor of terrorism.

I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.

The "extremist allies" are every Muslim on the face of the earth. Will you kill them all? Will you convert them to a peaceful religion? No, you will do neither, and the terrorism will continue because you are a cowardly fool.

And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population.

"Afghan security forces" is an oxymoron. Those forces are composed of Muslims. Muslims are warriors, not security forces. To Muslims, peace is the condition of the world after they have completed their conquest of it. No matter how much you train them, they will shoot you in the back when given the opportunity, and they will betray your plans to the mujihideen.

I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy.

Any strategy that leaves live Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq is a total waste of blood and treasure, a fool's errand of the worst sort. No good outcome is possible.

After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

When will our forces leave Bosnia? When will our forces leave Germany? When will our forces leave Japan? You have presented our enemy with a time line telling them how long they must wait before they can seize power and restore the status quo ante. I call it treason.

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions.

How do you win a war with restraint? How do you win a war without identifying and killing the enemy? What are the long term consequences of allowing Islam to continue to exist on the face of the earth, accruing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons which it will not long hesitate to use? What were the consequences of ignoring Hitler's military buildup, substituting appeasement for preemption?

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you -- a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens.

You are asking them to die for a lie. You are sending them to defeat, wasting their blood and the taxpayer's treasure.

If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

Our security is at stake wherever Islam exists; wherever Zakat is collected and sent to Hamas, Hizbollah & al-Qaeda; wherever Muslim satrapies are stockpiling missiles and rushing to construct nuclear warheads.

So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

Strike al-Qaeda, insert Islam. The danger will grow no matter what, unless you eliminate Islam from the region. Then, the danger will come from another region where Allah's writ runs and his slaves reside.

No Muslim is our partner! Muslims who claim to be our partners are practicing al-taqeyya and kitman; they are deceiving you. Allah explicitly forbids Muslims to be friends or partners of kuffar. Muslims must be in a dominant, not equal or subordinate relationship with kuffar.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.

Islam has bases in Iran, Syria & Lebanon. There are Islamic bases and training camps right here in America. What will you do about them? You say "al-Qaeda" when the correct word is Islam. Why can't you name the enemy? How do you hope to defeat an enemy you can not identify? Weak or strong, Afghanistan's government, like that of Pakistan, is in the hands of Muslims, our enemies. In the end, they will attack us and our allies. There is no benefit in strengthening them.

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.

To win, you must seize and hold territory 24/7/365. You must kill enemy combatants. No more catch and release. You must deny sanctuary, both in Pakistan and Afghanistan. You must deny human shields. Your rules of engagement are costing our soldiers their lives. The word is treason. Like Lindon Johnson, you are murdering our service members for political gain. More troops is not a strategy, it is feeding the meat grinder, filling coffins.

They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Afghans are the enemy, idiot. They are not our allies nor partners, they are Muslims. You are training them to fight against us, just like Arafat's "security forces".

We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens.

.Stupid statements like that make my blood boil! Muslims do not abandon violence without abandoning Islam! Muslims do not respect human rights! They never did and never will!! Allah does not, Moe did not and they will not. Being a Muslim, President Obama knows that. There is only one possibility: treason.

We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

Strike cancer, insert Islam. Otherwise the statement must remain false. No strategy can work unless it causes Islam to be eliminated from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Any outcome that leaves them Islamic is a defeat.

And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

Islam is the enemy of all mankind. Pakistan is our enemy. Is Obama too stupid to comprehend objective factual reality or a traitor. I don't believe its stupidity.

Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear.

Imbecility, maundery & treachery; what a combination! We have no mutual interest with Muslims. They do not respect us. We can not trust them. They support those groups, they do not combat them. Pakistan was, is now and will continue to be a safe haven for terrorists. Muslim and terrorist are synonymous terms.

To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

A single drop of truth in a river of lies. It stands out like a carp swimming upstream in a sewer.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.

The same is true of Obama's strategy.

Now, let me be clear: None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.

Shrub failed the test. Obamination is failing the test. We need leaders who can measure up, men like Churchill, McArthur & Truman.

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them -- because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them.

Nukes are in the world. There is no possibility of ensuring that our enemies have eliminated their inventories and won't make more. The dream of a nuke free world is impossible. Continuing to harbor it is evidence of insanity, or is it treason?

Like Shrub, Obamination refuses to identify and accurately describe the enemy. He falsely ascribes to the enemy objectives that it does not have. He falsely characterizes our relationship with certain enemy powers as an alliance or partnership. He postulates a non-existent dichotomy between the enemy, which he calls a partner, and a subset of the enemy, which he mislabels as the enemy. Obamination's strategy is a house of cards founded on a lie. It can not stand in the storm of reality.

Sphere: Related Content

Uncommon Sense Applied to Islamic Insurgency

I was reminded of this excellent article by the current issue of the Gathering Storm newsletter. The link in the newsletter led me to Right Side News. Below you will find several excerpts from that article.[My comments are between the quotes.] You will also find links to more of the author's works.

How to Defeat Shari'a-driven Islam's Army for Jihad

By Colonel Thomas Snodgrass (USAF, ret.)

Aug 15, 2007

Today a debate rages. Part of the debate - certainly the most immediate component of the debate - is what to do with Iraq. To cut-and-run seems unthinkable when one considers the consequences. To stay and pursue existing strategies seems almost as unthinkable given the corrosive effects domestically and the lack of American will for another long drawn out war with no real end in sight.

How can anyone disagree with that analysis? A pullout will be followed by an internecine blood bath. No matter who comes out on top, it will be one of our enemies. In any case, Iraq will revert to status quo ante: a state sponsor of terrorism. Terrorists the world over will be empowered and emboldened to launch new attacks against us and our allies.

I have demonstrated, as have many other war analysts, that there is no such thing as a war against terror. The Global War on Terror does not exist. "Terror" is a tactic (see, e.g., What are the military options in Iraq? and Iraq and the War: A Military Reader's Digest). The war we are fighting is against men, cells, networks, regimes and peoples who embrace a hegemonic political ideology driven by traditional and authoritative Islamic law, or what is termed Shari'a. In our war against the Sharia-faithful, the strategic level encompasses all theaters of conflict and the interactions between them - Middle East, Africa, Europe, Pacific, Homeland, etc. Within the Middle East Theater, Iraq and Afghanistan constitute operational levels of war, while Baghdad, Fallujah, Kabul, and Kandahar are examples of areas of operation (AO) at the tactical level.

Why not come right out and write the truth: the enemy making war against us is Islam? To learn what Shari'a rules about Jihad, read Book O, Chapter 9 of Reliance of the Traveller.

It almost goes without saying that, if a belligerent is on the strategic defensive not attacking his enemy's center of gravity to end the war, but is nevertheless on the operational/tactical offensive actively seeking combat within a limited AO, a high number of friendly casualties are going to result. But friendly casualties in a drawn out limited war environment brings us back to the fundamental formula of war and the MOTIVATION factor. If a belligerent's domestic support base, especially in representative polities, will not tolerate significant, continuing casualties inherent in strategic defensive limited war, that belligerent cannot afford to undertake a drawn out limited war. Vietnam, and now Iraq, leaves no doubt about the veracity of that statement.

Got a clue yet? They are bleeding us to death, at least in our own perception and that of our media and politicians. Withdrawing from active defensive action, allowing Islam to inflict more casualties at home, without effective resistance is not the answer.

In Vietnam, the enemy's center of gravity was North Vietnam, and in Iraq it is in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. U.S. counterinsurgent operations in Vietnam were no more effective in their day than the surge will prove to be in Iraq. The lesson of Vietnam, and now Iraq, is that the strategic defensive or limited war, even when waged on the operational and tactical offensive, will only end if and when the enemy's motivation is impaired because its strategic CAPABILITY is unimpaired.

Trimming around the trees won't produce satisfaction, we must mow the lawn. Cut off their supply lines and interdict their reinforcements. No sanctuaries!!!

After 9/11, the U.S. went to war in the same wrongheaded way we have gone to war in every instance since World War II. In spite of the president's ringing rhetoric about permitting our enemy no sanctuary, even to the point of engaging the enemy preemptively, the U.S. again donned the national security straitjacket of strategic defensive limited war (Limited War Doctrine: A Fatal Flaw). The operative assumption underlying limited war postulates that even the most ardent ideological fanatics will accept stalemate or defeat before employing every means of warfare available to them and will not continue the war notwithstanding the continued capability to wage war. History has not borne out this sanguine assumption.

The idea that the U.S. wouldn't employ its ultimate means (i.e., nuclear weapons) has come to also limit the U.S. ends sought in the conflict. In other words, our refusal to use the ultimate weapon must mean we are not committed to ultimate victory in the form of the decisive defeat of our enemy. Instead, we seek "regime change" and "democracy-building" rather than unconditional surrender of all combatants. Indeed, counterinsurgency is the effort to maintain and build a civil society in and around limited kinetic battles with an enemy we don't seek to destroy. Rather than setting our strategic goal as the destruction of the enemy's CAPABILITY to wage war, we seek to contain, co-opt, integrate, re-integrate, and engage politically all in an effort to reduce the enemy's MOTIVATION to continue the war.

All of the parties in the Iraq conflict know that the CAPABILITY of both stateless Jihadi groups and state-sponsored Jihadi groups is sustained by the logistical centers of gravity located in surrounding states. But the U.S. strategic end of fighting a limited, defensive war confines operations within the border of Iraq. (See, e.g., This is No Way to Win a War!)

We must jettison our Cold War national security thinking featuring limited war and instead realistically reassume our World War II strategic offensive posture.

We should have nuked Tora Bora while Usama was still holed up there.

Insurgencies can be fought indefinitely if the re-supply lines remain open. This means that Coalition forces and their airborne assets are better utilized to prevent cross-border re-supply by striking depots in Iran than engaging in urban warfare at close quarters.

This implies cutting off communication between Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq so that the men, material and money can no longer cross the border at will and unimpeded. This implies an aerial campaign against the training camps and supply staging areas in Iran & Syria.

The U.S. must ruthlessly use our technologically superior ground firepower and airpower to fight an asymmetrical war that plays to our strength -- technology, rather than being lured into close urban combat which capitalizes on the suicide commitment of the Shari'a-driven Jihadists.

Whether in conjunction with the current combat in Iraq or at some later date, the Jihadi-sponsoring states of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and possibly Pakistan will have to be confronted militarily and the Jihadi centers of gravity destroyed.

U.S. gun camera film showing Jihadists being vaporized by Western weapons and emphasizing Islamic impotence should flood the Internet and the TV airwaves.

Rigid control of our borders and immigration policy is a must to stave off the inevitable attempts to attack us from within.

Click this link to read the entire article.
Other Articles by Colonel Thomas Snodgrass (USAF Ret.)...
How to Defeat Shari'a-driven Islam's Army for Jihad Colonel Thomas Snodgrass (USAF, ret.)
Strategy, Tactics and Winning Wars (Part Two of Two) Col. Thomas Snodgrass (USAF, ret.)
Strategy, Tactics, and Winning Wars (Part One of Two) Col. Thomas Snodgrass (USAF, ret.)
Is there a viable military strategy for disarming Iran? Part Two - What is 'Air Control?' Colonel Thomas Snodgrass (USAF, ret.)
Is There a Viable Military Strategy for Disarming Iran? Conclusion of Part 1
Is There A Viable Military Strategy For Disarming Iran? Part One (of Two)
This Is No Way to Win a War! Part One (of Two)

Colonel Snodgrass published his article at Family Security Matters. That organization publishes many excellent articles, visit their site and sign up to receive their newsletter.

Sphere: Related Content

BUSH: GRAND STRATEGIST

This was passed on to me by my friend Solo at The Victory Caucus (www.VictoryCaucus.com)


BUSH: GRAND STRATEGIST
By Tony Blankley

The Boston Globe -- the respected, liberal newspaper owned by the New York Times -- ran an article last week that Bush critics may wish to read carefully. It is a report on a new book that argues that President Bush has developed and is ably implementing only the third American grand strategy in our history. The author of this book, Surprise, Security, and the American Experience (Harvard Press) to be released in March, is John Lewis Gaddis, the Robert A. Lovett professor of military and naval history at Yale University .

The Boston Globe describes Mr. Gaddis as "the dean of Cold War studies and one of the nation's most eminent diplomatic historians." In other words, this is not some put-up job by an obscure right-wing author. This comes from the pinnacle of the liberal Ivy League academic establishment. If you hate George W. Bush, you will hate this Boston Globe story because it makes a strong case that Mr. Bush stands in a select category with presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and James Monroe (as guided by his secretary of state, John Q. Adams) in implementing one of only three grand strategies of American foreign policy in our two-century history.

As the Globe article describes in an interview with Mr. Gaddis: "Grand strategy is the blueprint from which policy follows. It envisions a country's mission, defines its interests, and sets its priorities. Part of grand strategy's grandeur lies in its durability: A single grand strategy can shape decades, even centuries of policy."

According to this analysis, the first grand strategy by Monroe/Adams followed the British invasion of Washington and the burning of the White House in 1814. They responded to that threat by developing a policy of gaining future security through territorial expansion -- filling power vacuums with American pioneers before hostile powers could get in. That strategy lasted throughout the 19th and the early 20th centuries, and accounts for our continental size and historic security.

FDR's plans for the post-World War II period were the second grand strategy and gained American security by establishing free markets and self-determination in Europe as a safeguard against future European wars, while creating the United Nations and related agencies to help us manage the rest of the world and contain the Soviets. The end of the Cold War changed that and led, according to Mr. Gaddis, to President Clinton's assumption that a new grand strategy was not needed because globalization and democratization were inevitable. " Clinton said as much at one point. I think that was shallow. I think they were asleep at the switch," Mr. Gaddis observed.

That brings the professor to George W. Bush, who he describes as undergoing "one of the most surprising transformations of an underrated national leader since Prince Hal became Henry V. " Clearly, Mr. Gaddis has not been a long-time admirer of Mr. Bush. But he is now.

He observes that Mr. Bush "undertook a decisive and courageous reassessment of American grand strategy following the shock of the 9/11 attacks. At his doctrine's center, Bush placed the democratization of the Middle East and the urgent need to prevent terrorists and rogue states from getting nuclear weapons. Bush also boldly rejected the constraints of an outmoded international system that was really nothing more that a snapshot of the configuration of power that existed in 1945. "

It is worth noting that John Kerry and the other Democrats' central criticism of Mr. Bush -- the prosaic argument that he should have taken no action without UN approval -- is rejected by Mr. Gaddis as being a proposed policy that would be constrained by an "outmoded international system."

In assessing Mr. Bush's progress to date, the Boston Globe quotes Mr. Gaddis: "So far the military action in Iraq has produced a modest improvement in American and global economic conditions; an intensified dialogue within the Arab world about political reform; a withdrawal of American forces from Saudi Arabia; and an increasing nervousness on the part of the Syrian and Iranian governments as they contemplated the consequences of being surrounded by American clients or surrogates. The United States has emerged as a more powerful and purposeful actor within the international system than it had been on September 11, 2001."

In another recent article, written before the Iraqi war, Mr. Gaddis wrote: "[Bush's] grand strategy is actually looking toward the culmination of the Wilsonian project of a world safe for Democracy, even in the Middle East . And this long-term dimension of it, it seems to me, goes beyond what we've seen in the thinking of more recent administrations. It is more characteristic of the kind of thinking, say, that the Truman administration was doing at the beginning of the Cold War."

Is Mr. Bush becoming an historic world leader in the same category as FDR, as the eminent Ivy League professor argues? Or is he just a lying nitwit, as the eminent former Democratic Party Chairman and Clinton fund-raiser Terry McAuliffe argues?


You can put me on the side of the professor.

Sphere: Related Content