Imagine what would happen if this happened on the first day of a Mike Huckabee, Barack Obama, Ron Paul or a Mitt Romney presidency, from the New York Times:
"An attack on a political rally killed the Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto near the capital, Islamabad, Thursday. Witnesses said Ms. Bhutto was fired upon at close range before the blast, and an official from her party said Ms. Bhutto was further injured by the explosion, which was apparently caused by a suicide attacker."
Because of today, the last week before the Iowa caucuses, voters will be taking a serious look at which candidate represents the most plausible commander-in-chief.
A week ago, citizens may had cast His or Her vote for a “fresh face” or an “agent of change,” but when they face a fateful decision on caucus night or primary day they generally prefer a president who’s ready to lead the ongoing war on Islamo-Nazi terror from day one.
What We really need is LEADERSHIP ready to be Commander-in-Chief on day one !
3 comments:
OC,
Respectfully, your use of the term "Islamo-Nazi" doesn't capture the nature of the problem. Islam is the problem. It is incompatible with reason and western civilization and has been since the Moors ruled Spain in the middle ages, since Muslims lay siege to Vienna in the 1500s, since the Battle of Vienna in 1683, since the Barbary Pirates attacked US marine interests beginning in the 1780s... well, let's say that there's a long history which predates the United States and even Nazi Germany. My critique of the term is no defense of the crimes of the Germans (like most Americans, my relatives fought the Axis), but rather an attempt to foster understanding about the threat we face from Islam.
After all, we didn't fight a war against blitzkreig.
-MT
Michael, perhaps you would prefer the term "Islamo-fascists" which is more technically accurate. I think Okie was using the term Islamo-Nazi's in a general sense and as an insult... to both nazi's and Islamo-headchoppers errr I mean throatcutters...errr gut splatterers... suiciders....
The point I got from the post was that we cannot afford to have a President in the White House that has no idea how to handle the threat. we need a MAN that has experience in the military, has a son that has fought in both Afghanistan and Iraq and has served as chairman of the Armed Services Committee... has a plan for taking on China, has a plan for Iraq and has the respect of the troops before ever being elected their commander in Chief...
We need Duncan Hunter.
GoHunter08
Hey Red,
I'd be tickled if Hunter was the Man, for the record; short of actual executive experience, I think his positions are closest in line with mine. Or, rather, mine are with his, but you get my point.
But no, I don't care for the term "Islamo-fascist" either. It also fails to accurately describe Islam for what it really is. Part of my problem with "Islamo-fascism" is that it falsely implies that global domination under a new caliphate is somehow an odd deviation from the core of Islam. It's not. It's as fundamental to Islamic teaching as their belief that Gabriel shared all of God's revelation with Mohammed. I'd prefer simply, "Muslim" or "Muslims." Or, my favorite, "Mohammedans."
But to the end of complete understanding, I thank you for commenting and welcome discussion on the topic, which I think is one of the most critical threats to Americans, probably second only to liberalism.
Not to mention that the inconsistencies between Judeo-Christian beliefs and the teachings of Islam mean either Islam is false, or both Judiasm and Christianity are false... but you can probably guess where I stand on that point.
-MT
Post a Comment