Bolton: ‘War on terror’? – we should have been more specific that it’s about Islamic fundamentalism
foxnews ^ | April 4, 2009
‘The Journal Editorial Report,’ April 4, 2009 […] GIGOT: John, let me ask you — let me take up another subject here, a little more light hearted, but serious in its way. We have the Obama administration changing the rhetoric. No longer the global war on terror, Secretary of State Clinton said this week they’re not going to use that. It’ now an overseas contingency operation according to the Pentagon. What’s going on here?
BOLTON: Again, this would be laughable if it weren’t serious. I think they’re trying to distract attention from the war on terror. I don’t think that was necessarily the best name myself. I thought we should have been more specific that it was about Islamic fundamentalism. We weren’t concerned about dealing with the Baath’s or the IRA in Northern Ireland.
But when you remove the whole threat of terrorism out of your rhetoric, what you’re trying is get it out of the center of American foreign policy. I think that’s a mistake. I think people read that as a sign of weakness and will cause us problems down the road trying to rally other countries to our side for what overseas contingency?
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com …
Tags: Afghanistan, Ahmadinejad, Al Qaeda, Arabs, Bin Laden, Caliphate, CNN, Conflict, Hezbollah, History, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Jews, Jihad, Mehdi, Muhammad, Muslims, Obama, Pakistan, Palestinians, Politics, Religion, Saudi Arabia, Taliban, US, violence, war, war on terror, West, wiping off map, World Domination