How about defeat and destroy!
Will he utterly defeat it...or will he eliminate it by coddling and pacifying and satifying the enemy?
Yes, one has to parse that phrase carefully.
It’s no accident that he uses a bet-hedging
ambiguity like that: not eliminating terrorism by
an all-out attack on it, its sources of funding, its
allies, its enablers——no, just eliminating “the threat”
of terrorism. This can and could mean any number of
things: what it most likely WILL mean is a conscious policy of accommodating terrorism so there IS no “threat” of terrorism/ In other words, give in to terrorism and the ineradicable designs Islamic Jihadists have on infidels:
this will be done through the good cop/bad cop paradigm, and terrorism will no longer wear the face it wore on 9-11, and in Mumbai, this past week: it will be accomodated by American culture, to the degree that we no longer see REAL terrorism as a “threat”. CAIR will open more offices, more Keith Ellisons will run for Congress. We will be sold out at the UN by Susan Rice, and in ways we probably even now can’t imagine, our sovereignty will be weakened, splintered, threatened, challenged.