When the previous administration pitched our war as a “war against terrorism,” I implored President Bush to define our enemy by name, not by tactic. When we don’t tell the truth about who the enemy is in the hope of pacifying those who might be offended, it becomes ever more difficult for the American people to rally, support, and sacrifice to win.In other words when Bush said we weren't at war with Islam, Santorum was dissappointed. Possibly Santorum would prefer that Bush say we are at war with radical Islam, but, tellingly, he doesn't clarify. And in fairness, most of his readers probably know what he means.
Radical Islam is the problem and until we make the price too high for them to pay it will not stop. Islam teaches at all levels that everyone on earth must be either converted to Islam or killed. Until we get it and vow to put an end to it, the trouble will continue.Yeah, I think they picked up on it. A little later in the article, Santorum says this.
One cannot serve two masters, the muslims do what their book tells them to do and that book is diametrically opposite to the constitution.
The list of atrocities perpetrated in the name of that 'religion" is appallingly long and you know it, it has NO place in this country whatsoever IMO, should be declared a cult and given no weight whatsoever.
In the last year Western European leaders have had to face up to the devastation caused by socialism and multiculturalism. Yet our president continues to champion these policies.I've said this before; the most frusterating thing about guys like Obama and Clinton before is defending him against the ridiculous charge that he's a socialist while watching him sell out the base at every occasion. Obama is working for Wall Street, plain and simple. He is more liberal than McCain or Bush; but he's no socialist.