A presidential candidate actually utters the words "global jihad"

Re: "His comments came a day after he likened Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler in a speech to Jewish students at New York's Yeshiva University".

In the 1930's there were only a few public figures who correctly gauged Hitler's intentions, one of them was Churchill. Not even Stalin saw that Hitler was so intent on genocide that Hitler would use war as a cover for his real purposes, to do what was in his heart for many years. Romney is right re the Psychotic in Iran being like Hitler. It's surprising that only a few people in the public square see it.

..... Mr. Spencer, you fooled me.

I thought this would be a Democratic candidate saying that.

I haven't been reading / watching much in the last few months. But I should have known better. I'm also quite sure that Democrats and liberals country-wide are now denouncing Mr. Romney's language. Can't anger their future masters now, can we?

That's amazing Romney actually said "global jihad!" Kudos to him!

Jihad Watchers are the ones who have no problem seeing what's going on with Muslims and who have no problem saying it. We are the Truth-Tellers. We are the ones who say, "Hey, the Emperor's not wearing any clothes!" And, like the kid who shouts those words in "The Emperor's New Clothes," we get mauled by the blind or in-denial PC crowd that cannot stand the truth.

"The Truth-Teller must always have one foot in the stirrup." - Armenian proverb.

And, the very well-known and famous, "Kill the Messenger" (and I don't mean Mo here!)

Romney, however, does still believe -- or appears to believe -- in the usefulness, rather than the counter-usefulness, of the war in Iraq. Perhaps it is time for him to begin suggesting, little by little, that "war on terror" does not make sense as a phrase, time to note that the war in Iraq is not contributing in any way to the "problem of Jihad" and "its many instruments" -- the money weapon, well-financed carefully-targetted campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest.

And then, being careful to insert the covering semi-bomfoggery about how it is "up to the Iraqis" to "construct the country they want or don't want" and "up to the Iraqis" to "be forced, with the American troops no longer taking casualties for them, no longer doing all the work of nation-building, in every sense, as it has been so thanklessly doing, for so long, only to see both "Iraqi leaders and people avoid the hard task of coming to terms with each other" announcing, after the comical conference to be held the first week in May, that he, Romney (or any other candidate -- Thompson, Fred? -- who understands that if they do not distance themselves from this war, and for the right reasons, they will have no chance, none, to win the election and furthermore, if they demonstrate loyalty to a failed and silly policy, they will not deserve to win.

....the threat of global jihad

This is good, very good that he recognizes this and is willing to state it publicly.

Let "global jihad" be the number one topic of debate between Romney and Hitlery. It was in the opening statement of Mitt's entering the race. The dollars flowing in to Romneys campaign is also evidence that there are many fed up with the facade of the American political system. The fact that the press is doing everything it can to debase Romney shows that the Leftist enablers are a bit worried too. I thpugh the most impressive move on Romney's part as governor of Massachusetts was when he refused to send the state police to guard former Iranian thug, Khatami, when he came to speak at Harvard labellinmg him a terrorist.

The first step in the journey to acknowledging the true threat is the hardest.

Romney and Guiliani have both taken it.

The Democrats are still doing the 'ropa-dopa' on the subject of Islamofascism and the global jihad. (Or, as the Three Stooges called it "Duck, Dodge and Hide".)

Journalists need to press Romney on:

"What do you think the sources of the violent global jihad are?"

Then things might get interesting.

(But do any reporters even know why to ask that question?)

It might involve the Koran and the Saudis and Iran.

This is great news that Romney understands the threat but I'm still wondering if he has the testies to back up what he is touting. I think Guiliani would, but I am tired of backing these spineless Republicans.

Hugh, as usual, is correct to say that no Republican candidiate will win in '08 if the US is still stuck in Iraq.

It will be an uphill battle to convince any republican candidiate that the issue is bigger than just Iraq and withdrawal there is the correct thing to do. The scheduled debaters have already dug in to defending the war. That leaves hope in 2 potentials that have not yet announced- Newt and Fred T.

Weeks ago I started a thread on DraftThompson.com website trying to arouse discussion on developing a Conservative position on withdrawing from Iraq. It got quite heated, but after 2 days the thread was yanked by the moderator becuase the posts were to incendiary (not mine I assure you).

The site is run by a past campaign manager of Thompson and I suppose he was helping test the waters by soliciting feedback. He did not care for this topic in the discussions while every other current issue had a thread.

It tells me republican candidiates don't or can't concieve there are good reasons to get out of Iraq other than those offered by the cut & run deniers on the left.

I for one would be willing to spend some very good money to have Fred Thompson (or Newt) take 2 hours of time to look at this issue closer. For hour #1 I would ask him to read from the many articles on this site, for the 2nd hour I would ask he sit and listen to the opiniones of Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald.

FT or Newt need to distinquish themselves from the others in some manner. Having either pick up on global jihad as the theme of their campaigns would give them the distinction needed.

Romney get's it, and so does Giuliani and a few others.

Hugh-

You've earned my respect--something that is not freely given.

I asked you about this on a previous thread that quickly devolved into quite a bit of blue sky from other commenters but I'm going to try once again and hope for your reasoned response.

IMHO a bugout from Iraq has a high probability of disrupting the flow of oil from the Gulf.

As we enter the northern hemisphere's growing season such a disruption would seriously curtail the distribution of food. Food riots could be a consequence. Even martial law if it gets bad enough.

On a global scale I can hardly imagine what actions the Chinese juggernaut might take or India.

Frankly, I don't see the US failing to do whatever it takes to likewise secure the flow of oil. Overall military commitment in the region could increase from where it is today.

Newt Gingrich has used the term as well:

"Because secular post-modern analysts refuse to take religion seriously, we describe "suicide bombers" while our opponents describe "martyrs." We see them as psychologically deranged where they see themselves as dedicated to God. We focus on body counts while our opponents see their dead as symbols for recruitment. We focus on weeks and months while our opponents patiently focus on decades and generations. We think of trouble spots while they think of global jihad. We are in a total mismatch of planning and understanding."
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9781596980075&displayonly=CHP&z=y

So Romney talks a good game. He gives us good sound bites. What's next?

Is he willing to confront the issue or will we hear that terrorism can be reduced by "investing" in the Islamic people, giving them something else to live for, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Will the American taxpayer be expected to pony up another trillion dollars to do for Muslims that which they are fully capable of doing for themselves?

His labeling Khatami a terrorist and refusing to treat him as a visiting dignitary is promising, but how many candidates in just the last twenty years have run against American action in the world only to do a 180 the instant they take the oath?

Romney is a questionable candidate, to say the least. Token actions, like with Khatami, are not enough. The man needs to do a lot more to convince people that he is on our side and not on the investment bankers' side.

Huckabee said it is a conflict born out of religious convictions

Politics is about expediency. I find it difficult to believe that President Bush, with his myriad advisors and confidantes (although one of them is/was that idiot David Forte), doesn't at least have some sense of the fact that Islam is the prime motivator for today's jihadists, and that, at the very least, these jihadist adhere to an extreme but correct interpretation of the faith (Muhammad's example shows it is the correct and fundamentally exclusive way to practice it).

The problem is, anyone in today's political climate who comes out and says Islam is a 7th-century bedouin warrior's code, a savage and hateful creed, will be destroyed by the LMSM, pundits, talking heads, and special interest groups, some who have direct terrorist ties yet **cough** sit at Iftar feasts at the White House.

Once it ceases to be expedient for politicians to kiss the jihadists' asses, and becomes expedient for them to destroy them, lest they get get thrown out of office by their consituencies, we will have arrived. Don't expect politicians to be our mouthpiece. They're not going to do it.

Yet.

That job is ours and ours alone for the time being. A general concensus must be reached before politicians will risk their careers by sticking their necks out for us. We know what has to be done.

Reobert:

LOL...more like a rip in the fabric of the space-time continuum!
The same ones who refuse to acknowledge a war on terror also, along with their unholy alliance allies, refuse to call terrorists terrorirts... they prefer "insurgents", and even (get this) "freedom fighters!".

Absolutely hilarious!

Gnosis syas:

I find it difficult to believe that President Bush, with his myriad advisors and confidantes (although one of them is/was that idiot David Forte), doesn't at least have some sense of the fact that Islam is the prime motivator for today's jihadists, and that, at the very least, these jihadist adhere to an extreme but correct interpretation of the faith (Muhammad's example shows it is the correct and fundamentally exclusive way to practice it)."

Bush may be so informed, but he has yet to provide any understanding of "it".

He has yet to retract, or hint at all to dispute, his prior pronouncements about Islam being a "Religion of Peace", "hijacked by extremists" and so on...

If he gets it, why does he insist on trying to bring democracy to a country that shows little conviction to fight for what is being offered to them. ( What have Iraqi's done to show that they really want democracy other then going to the polls to vote for whomever their local tribal leader tell them to vote for?).

If he gets it why does he still try to install a democracy in a country that has adopted in their very consitution , Sharia law? Democracy and Sharia law cannot co-exist and as soon as the US leaves Iraq and Afhganistan, with or without democratic government in place, we will see how these muslims choose Sharia over democratic principles such as freedom of religion, speech, and equal protection of the law.

Hugh and others, seems to know more assuredly who advises the President and what that advice is, and therefore what the president knows and doesn't know.

I for one, don't need such proof. It just makes sense. Yes he knows that the Koran drives these "evildoers". But he must continue to believe these "evildoers" are just on the fringe.

I am not saying every Iraqi is an insurgent or a member of Al-Qeada. But I do beleive that a large portion of them, much more than a majority, if forced to decide between allegiance to Allah and his laws, or to real democratic principles, Allah wins all the time.

A re-post:

“I think many of us still fail to comprehend the extent of the threat posed by radical Islam, by Jihad. Understandably, we focus on Afghanistan and Iraq. Our men and women are dying there. We think in terms of countries, because we faced countries in last century’s conflicts. But the Jihad is much broader than any one nation or nations. For radical Islam, there is one conflict and one goal — replacing all modern Islamic states with a caliphate, destroying America and conquering the world.”
-Romney
http://article.nationalreview.com/?

Romney’s pretty sharp. He is a Republican Mormon that got the electorate that put Kerry and Kennedy in the Senate to elect him Governor.

Mitt's on our side, he has had the first section listed below posted on his website since he announced his run for president. Also, don't forget when that Iranian criminal visited Harvard, Mitt refused to allow the Mass. state police to escort him.

The defeat of this radical and violent faction of Islam must be achieved through a combination of American resolve, international effort, and the rejection of violence by moderate, modern, mainstream Muslims. An effective strategy will involve both military and diplomatic actions to support modern Muslim nations. America must help lead a broad-based international coalition that promotes secular education, modern financial and economic policies, international trade, and human rights.

"Romney wants the public to know that Jihadists are not an 'armed group of crazed maniacs in the hills of Afghanistan.' Rather, Romney says the United States is facing a 'far more sinister and broad-based extremist faction' with a 'very 8th century view of the world.'"

(ABC News, April 30, 2006)

Governor Romney: "The jihadists are waging a global war against the United States and Western governments generally with the ambition of replacing legitimate governments with a caliphate, with a theocracy."
(Omaha World Herald, January 23, 2006)

Iran:

There are few more urgent priorities for our nation than confronting Iran's dangerous nuclear program and support of terrorist groups targeting Americans. Governor Romney has led efforts to stand up to an Iranian regime that threatens America, Israel, and ultimately the world. At the 2007 Herzliya Conference in Israel, Governor Romney laid out a comprehensive, five point strategy for dealing with Iran.

Specifically, we must:

- First, continue to tighten economic sanctions.

- Second, impose diplomatic isolation on Iran's Government.

- Third, have Arab states join this effort to prevent a nuclear Iran.

- Fourth, make it clear that while nuclear capabilities may be a source of pride, it can also be a source of peril. The military option remains on the table.

- Fifth, integrate our strategy into a broader approach to the broader Muslim world--including working with our NATO allies and with progressive Muslim communities and leaders to build a partnership for prosperity.

Governor Romney has taken concrete action to confront this threat. As Governor, he denied state police security for former Iranian President Khatami's visit to Harvard. He has personally and repeatedly led efforts and called on numerous private sector and state officials to strategically divest from Iran and cut off the resources Iran uses to fuel terror. No state could have a bigger impact on this effort than New York - the world's financial center, site of the tragic attacks on 9/11, and home of some of America's largest pension funds. After a new state comptroller responsible for New York pension funds was named in February 2007, Governor Romney wrote New York's Comptroller, Senators Clinton and Schumer, and Governor Spitzer calling on them to join this effort and terminate investments that support the Iranian regime and its nuclear and terrorist activities.

Governor Romney Discusses Iran:

Governor Romney: "In the previous global wars, there were many ways to lose, and victory was far from guaranteed. In the current conflict, there is only one way to lose, and that is if we as a civilization decide not to lift a finger to defend ourselves, our values, and our way of life."

"The Iranian regime threatens not only Israel, but also every other nation in the region, and ultimately the world. And that threat would take on an entirely new dimension if Iran were allowed to become a nuclear power. And just think of the signal a nuclear Iran would send to other rogue regimes with nuclear ambitions – this could be a tipping point in the development and proliferation of nuclear regimes. . . It is time for the world to plainly speak three truths: One, Iran must be stopped. Two, Iran can be stopped. And three, Iran will be stopped."
(Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks at the Seventh Annual Herzliya Conference; Herzliya, Israel, January 23, 2007)

Governor Romney: "Today, as we stare at the face of radical violent Jihad and at the prospect of nuclear epidemic, our military might should not be subject to the whims of ever-changing political agendas. The best ally of peace is a strong America."
(Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At Presidential Announcement, Dearborn, MI, 2/13/07)

Despite some misgivings by others, I don't think his sect of christianity (let's call it what it is, not "religion", as if it's "buddhist" or "taoism") has anything to do with his judgement calls...

...after all, another mormon the MSM fawns over (yet says nothing about his mormonism) is Harry Reid, the current senate majority leader.

Romney's no dummy, and that last comment in the previous thread is based on good influence (i.e.- "strong America" comment) stemming from ancient times:

Si(c) Vis Pacem Parabellum
"If you want peace, prepare for war"

Fantastic.

This critical distinction has been one of my vote qualifiers for some time now. It is rather sad that there are no other Republicans doing as Mitt has.

It is good to have 'jihad' out there. You id jihad, next step you id who supporst jihad and then debates can focus on things like US security and its realtionship with Saudi Arabia and the S.A. money/lobby which stands in te way of our own safety.

I also have to applaud Tom Tancredo. I heard Tancredo explain his alleged "nuke Mecca" comment and what he had to say made perfect sense to me. I.e., hold the threat of destroying Islamic sacred sites up as a threat to the Jihadists because it is the only thing they 'possess' in common.

So theres at least two out there.

I heard the "reaganites" (their term not mine) have brought up Sen. Fred Thompson, former senator from TN.

Although I think he'd make a good Prez (he's a rational thinker), I have doubts...mainly, he simply doesn't have that much under his belt, so to speak. Who knows.

Good part is, he's also a good listener (to both parties) as well as good at speaking off the cuff without script (thats' a huge plus) and he does it well.