Griper Blade: Clinton and the 'War on Terror'

At the Democratic presidential debates in New Hampshire last night, Iraq was the centerpiece. It's difficult for dems to run against each other when the party platform is 'George W. Bush sucks -- a lot!' In order to win, the dem nominee will run against Bush, not whatever uninspiring boob a scrambling and disunified GOP finally settles on. Predictably, there were few differences in message. One standout was Hillary Clinton. And not in a good way.

Responding to John Edwards' assertion that the term 'war on terror' is a 'political slogan, a bumper sticker,' she said, "I have seen first hand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists."

"I believe we are safer than we were."

Dang, that's Bush's line. Didn't she get the memo? Bush sucks. And, of course, Clinton is wrong. 'War on terror' is a bumper sticker slogan -- a meaningless string of Republican PR BS on the lines of 'family values.' Problem number one; it doesn't make a damned bit of sense. Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology -- it's not even a goal.

And how well has this war been going? Not very. Iraq's in the loss column, no matter how the Bush administration spins it or what crazy-assed BS they believe. Islamist ideology is probably more popular now than it's ever been. So far, so bad.

But the real measure is how well our terror warriors are doing in the field of the terror war. Over the weekend, a bunch of terrorists were busted for a 'major terrorist plot' that was pretty much in the notional stage...

[Permalink]