No, wait, it will strictly be in terms of slurring President Bush, as well as Hillary (which is proven later in this post)
With the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks looming, John Edwards will present a stark assessment of the country’s struggle against terrorism Friday, saying the nation is less safe than it was six years ago and calling for a new worldwide organization to combat the threat.
In a speech at Pace University in Lower Manhattan, and with an introduction from a Sept. 11 widow and activist Kristen Breitweiser, the former North Carolina senator and Democratic presidential candidate is planning to propose creating a "Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization." This would serve as a kind of modern-day NATO, giving member countries a way to better track terrorists’ communications, recruiting and financing, on the theory that breaking up plots requires cross-border cooperation, as shown in Germany’s foiling of an alleged plot this week.
Sounds more like another focus group. Also, like a cute soundbite. And will also include countries where terrorists operate, and are probably given aid by the government.
In today’s speech, Edwards is expected to sound a less-explicit warning, saying, "if the Pakistani government fails to take care of the problem of al-Qaeda, we will." He is also expected to sharply criticize those that say, as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) did in one debate, that the country is safer than it was prior to before 2001. And he will once again call into question Bush’s framing of the struggle against terrorism as a "war," saying that this overly emphasizes military rather than investigative tactics and plays into terrorists’ hands — an argument that has already won him ridicule from Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani.
So now Silky wants to take military action in Pakistan? Doesn’t quite jibe with
"Islamic extremists wanted to frame the conflict with the U.S. as a war of civilizations, and the Bush administration, stuck in a Cold War mentality, happily complied," Edwards plans to say.
Interoffice memo for Silky: Islamic extremists do not want to frame the conflict as a war of civilizations: they believe it is a war of civilizations. Figures a democrat would look at this in terms of politics, rather then as reality.
Furthermore, isn’t it Democrats, including Breck Girl, who have screwed up our investigative tactics, such as the terrorist surveillence program?
I’ll give him manbag points for even saying the phrase "Islamic extremists," though.
Other measures in Edwards’ strategy will include providing 1,000 scholarships to promote better language skills in the diplomatic and intelligence corps, greater emphasis on "human intelligence" generally, and more focus on staving off radicalism in Muslim communities within America.
Yeah, that should stop it. Expect the plan to be pretty much soundbites, with no real detail.
Now, I never did get around to posting this on Friday. Silky did make his little speech. Let’s see if there is anything of importance, anything concrete and detailed:
Reading, reading, reading, blaming Bush, blaming Bush, current American intelligence agencies suck, blame Bush and Republicans, takes shots at Rudy, Mitt, and McCain, there’s a shot at Hillary (without naming her, of course. He is ascared).
"We need a bold new approach—one that is smart, tough, and targeted." Sounds like Kerry’s "sensitive" idiocy. Mentions the Counterterrorism and Intell Treaty Org. Doesn’t say how he will get allies and rogue nations to join. Maybe like with health care, he will force them. Anyhow, the CITO sounds very sensitive. Yammer, yammer, yammer, pandering to the non nukes crowd, he will solve it all through talk. Bush is responsible for watered down security measures for chemical plans, proving he does not understand how government works. Of course, since he rarely showed up for the Senate, that is not too surprising.
Respect diversity with Muslims, don’t profile the exact people that are the cause of most terrorist acts, spend money on mosques. Um, isn’t that, as the ACLU would say, un-Constitutional? I agree with the ACLU in that the fed gov’t should not spend any money on churches, per the 1st.
Energy independence (wopping 1 sentence), global warming, yammer. Ah, here is a good excerpt
Yet we also should have a broader, deeper goal—to prevent terrorism from taking root in the first place. Millions of people around the world are sitting on the fence. On the one side are bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and on the other side is America. The question is which way they will go. If they perceive America as a bully, it will drive them in the other direction. If, on the other hand, they see us as the light, the country they want to be like, the country that’s creating hope and opportunity, it will pull them to us like a magnet.
We have to be that light again. We need to do everything we can to prevent this generation of potential friends from becoming a generation of enemies.
Be nice and sensitive to extremists, plus, some good old fashioned "America sucks."
Iraq is causing terrorism, our troops are targets, he will create Quick Reaction Forces outside Iraq, no mention of where they will be stationed. I wonder if Silky understands that would pissed off Osama was American Forces in Saudi Arabia after Desert Storm? What countries does Silky think he can just send those forces into? Wouldn’t that be like "invading a sovereign nation?"
Blame Bush, he is a divider, Edwards will bring everyong together, patronizing yammer, a quote from Robert F. Kennedy, God Bless America if it wasn’t so damn bad because of Bush.
I hope that was detailed enough for you. Not there really was anything but soundbites. That should scare the Muslims, eh?
Silky barely has any sort of detail, or even new and viable plans, on his website (go to the issues tab.) But, hey, would you really expect detail from Democrats?
Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, The Populist, The Uncooperative Radio Show! Aug. 07, 08 and 09, 2007, Shadowscope, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, 4 Time Father?, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Random Yak, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, Nuke’s News & Views, Webloggin, Cao’s Blog, Phastidio.net, The Bullwinkle Blog, , Conservative Cat, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, OTB Sports, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Edwards is such a loser…
“Islamic extremists,” is just another way of saying, “honest Muslims” (although even that seems to smack of self-contradiction). Islamic terrorists and their enablers are simply those who honestly seek to follow the Butcher of Medina, true disciples of his example in word and deed of hatred, mass murder, rape, slavery and mutilation.
Come to think of it, those who claim to be “moderate Muslims” but who are not actively engaged in attempts to wipe out jihad are simply liars, practicing “holy deception” on gullible Westerners, and so just as much terrorists (aiding and abetting the active thuggery by their lies) as those tho strap on bombs or set traps for non-combatant men, women and children in their attempt top make everyone submit to their sixth century barbarity.
Edwards has one advantage in his race to supply the world with yet another ineffective bandaid against the threat of typical, genuine Muslims: accepting dhimmitude and applying for a job as a harem guard wouldn’t even require him to sacrifice his gonads, since he seems to have removed them himself.
Butch, let’s hope he continues be a loser, and takes “Stinky” Obama and Shillary down with him.
David, I know what you mean. I actually wrote a post about that in the way back machine, saying that the extremists were actually the mainstream Islamics, just doing what the Koran tells them to do.