IT'S A WAR (Hallelujah, President Bush named our enemy! It's not a tactic.)

NEW YORK POST ^ | August 11, 2006 | Masthead Editorial

[neverdem]

This time, it seems, it was the real deal: Terrorists reportedly came thisclose to launching another major attack against Americans.

Thank goodness it was snagged in time.

The plot was to simultaneously explode bombs aboard 10 flights headed for the United States from Britain. Police say it would have resulted in "mass murder on an unimaginable scale."

Indeed, even with 24 plotters arrested, some cause for concern remains. Yesterday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff warned, "We cannot be sure that the threat has been entirely eliminated or the plot completely thwarted."

Scary stuff.

And it comes at a time when the nation is deeply divided over whether to stand down from the War on Terror - or to stand tough.

Those who want to cut and run - to lie down and surrender to terror - made Ned Lamont the Democratic Party's candidate for U.S. senator in Connecticut on Tuesday.

Do they see the threat now?

If Lamont gets traction in the general election, it'll signal an alarming backslide in America's efforts to fight this war.

That would be horrific - giving terrorists the encouragement they seek.

We know where we stand: This is a war that must be fought.

Like it or not.

At home and abroad.

And with every tool available.

The news yesterday drove home a painful truth: As President Bush said (as he has before), America "is safer than it was prior to 9/11" - but "not completely safe. It is a mistake to believe that there is no threat to the United States."

As Bush said, America "is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those who love freedom [and] to hurt our nation."

[armymarinemom]

ANSWER has already begun the spun trying to suggest that the whole thing was over played just because of their schedualed protest.
from ANSWER mass email asking for donations

We know the drill. Red Alerts, Orange Alerts, dramatic “we are at war” press conferences, the invoking (again) of September 11, as an act of cynical political manipulation. We are experiencing again the only tactic that the Bush White House and their buddies in the so-called free press believe might, might work at momentarily distracting or paralyzing the people from mass action against their criminal acts. Mr. Bush is trying to change the subject but it won’t work!

[Jet Jaguar]

Big Bump!

[logic101.net]

What I find interesting is that the UK didn't want to share this info early with the US for fear that the CIA would leak it to the NY Times and blow the operation. I'm willing to bet they used something like our NSA wire tap program to connect the dots; a program we can no longer use since it has been exposed.

And the libs (such as those in the press) say they are not soft on terrorism? I used to call them terrorist sympathizers, but came to realize that they are actually "political terrorists" - the similarities on their goals and tactics are really amazing.

[garbageseeker]

I am very happy he said it.

[Graymatter]

In his State of the Union speech this year the President referred to "radical Islam" as such. But Islamic fascism is a good term too!

[Graymatter]

I believe our president knows this, and that he will more than likely take care of that nasty business before leaving office rather than leave it to some unknown successor.

All right, then...what do you think he's waiting for? Why not take care of nasty business when it arises?

[onyx eyes]

Pres Bush has been telling it like it is, from day one. If, I counted all the rocks he has turned over and brought to light the things underneath....

[karnage]

He said it in his Veteran's Day speech 11/11/05 also. Hasn't been babling much about the ROP lately.

[blam]

Good post. They get it!

[BohDaThone]

Bush used the term "islamic fascists" in a presser with Blair around May 25. I also was told by a person who heard him use it in an informal talk to a fairly large conference group at a White House visit around March, and my ears pricked up at the time, as it was the first time I had heard it used by him.

[bitt]

good one, thelastvirgil...

thanks, neverdem!

[ladyinred]

Yes, we are at war, and this enemy is the worst we have ever faced. We need to be more aggressive, not less, and I pray it won't take another attack to wake up the country. The left has tried for 5 years now to tell us we are not at war, yesterday shows we are.

[Valin]

He's done it several times before.

[Valin]

to wake up the country

I keep hearing some on talk radio and here say this.
Question: Do you know anyone who doesn't think we are at war?

[lmr]

I tried listening to Savage not too long ago. During a good part of his show he was talking about the benefits of cabbage. Had to change the station. Perhaps he was just trying to kill time on a slow day, but it was awful. I don't know how he can hold an audience when he does that.

[RedRover]

Hate the Times.

Love the Post.

[Republic]

Interesting. Out there, really out there, but certainly a possibility in our hearts...it's our minds that get in the way.

[Doc91678]

This war is not going to sink into the heads of the Liberal left until there is another attack.
We've been lucky so far. But all they have to do is beat the odds once and we will know it.
Until then the Left will keep its heads in the sand as usual.
Once an attack is successful they will all be shouting and screaming about why weren't we better prepared. If it is Bush's successor they'll try to tar and feather him just like they did to Bush. I doubt very mush if the next president will be a Democrat.

[Richard Kimball]

Despite what Time magazine reported, hopefully Cowboy diplomacy is back:

I always thought he looked like a gunslinger in this shot.

[yldstrk]

I love President Bush. He has the intesstinal fortitude of ten men.