Have I not been paying enough attention, or is this the first time Bush said we're actually at war with Islamic Fascism?

CNN story, which contains this quote:

President Bush said the arrests are a "stark reminder" that the U.S. is "at war with Islamic fascists."

I think there were previous ones, but I think fairly recent? I remember people blogging that it is about time we had some plain speaking..

You and your feet-of-clay idol have been flogging this foolishness far too long. For instance, during the 2004 campaign, Bush said:

"Kerry said, and I quote, 'The war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation.' (Audience boos.) I disagree. I disagree….. After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. With those attacks, the terrorists and supporters declared war on the United States of America — and war is what they got. (Audience applauds.)

Did anyone notice how this latest plot was foiled? Wasn't a military action, now was it? Just good, plain, careful police work--months of it. Can you point to any terrorist plot foiled by military action? (Deafening silence.) So much for the "war" on terror.

And frankly, I've heard this sort of thing before:

"If my logic is correct, and if we really are in a war, then a "warmonger" is someone who wants the war to end, who longs for peace. And a "pacifist" is someone who wants the war to continue. I'll just sit here and hold my breath waiting for this to be refuted with facts and logic by some pacifist"

Yeah, right. And war is peace, freedom is slavery... Orwell had your number before you were born, John. Shame on you.

Dave! You're back! Since pacifism has come up again, perhaps you'd deign to answer my question from this post from last month (last comment)?

And so, Dave, what would you do today, right now if you were Israel? If your soldiers were attacked from across the border, kidnapped, and held hostage? And rockets were raining down on your cities? I understand war is atrocious, and the history leading to today is long and tragic - but what ought Israel to do today, and with what consequences?

For instance, if they ought to stop fighting and exchange prisoners, and if that leads to Hezballah taking more prisoners now that it's seen how effective a tactic that is - is that an acceptable consequence?

If an international force comes in, and is attacked from civilian areas, and that force uses air assaults to make a ground invasion practical, is that an acceptable consequence?

If Israel chooses to practice complete non-violence, disband their armed forces, and that leads to their slaughter, is that an acceptable consequence?

I'm fascinated by your point of view, but I'm always left wanting a little more...not a prescription for what someone ought to have done generations ago, or years ago, or months ago - not a Bible lecture - but a prescription for what the policy should be today, next month, next year; following those policies through to logical conclusions; and evaluating if those conclusions are acceptable or not.

Dave,

So, is "foiling plots" what you think the war on terror consists of? Is that how YOU define it? Can we quote you? (As usual you are playing "gotcha" with my supposed mistakes, but you don't say what you, personally, believe. If anything.) So, if a country is training thousands of terrorists, teaching them how to hijack planes and make ANFO bombs, giving them money and weapons. it's no concern of ours? Is that what you are saying? If a dictator is paying terrorists $25,000 a head to kill Jews, that's his own business? Treaty of Westphalia, and all that? Is that YOUR position--that there's nothing there to see until--ta dah!--a PLOT is hatched? (Hatched, obviously, in a place where our policemen can go.)

You comment is just silly. It's obvious that Bush did not mean that we should not use law enforcement in the war, since he has bolstered those efforts enormously (and made doubly obvious by the way you lefties have been fighting tooth-and-claw to hinder those efforts.) His point was, and is, that the mainly-police-work model we all had of counter-terrorism before 9/11 was the wrong model, that we have to also attack the roots of the problem.

If you disagree with Bush's position, you should say so honestly, and make a case with facts and logic. For you to write "Can you point to any terrorist plot foiled by military action?" is puerile, since the point of the military action is to remove the support that underlies and nurtures plots.

And the other lines you quote are not in the slightest way Orwellian! Orwell's Newspeak was intended to make logical thought impossible by blurring the language and destroying concepts. My words were a conclusion that followed logically from what I had written before. And to make them even more non-Orwellian, I invited--nay, taunted--anyone who disagreed to respond with logical counter-arguments.

The "holding my breath" part was sarcasm, because I knew damn well that no one would rise to the challenge. So I think we can all safely conclude that I was right.

Dave,

Afghanistan was being used as a training ground for terrorists. That was brought to an end through military action. I have seen estimates that as many as 5,000 al Qaeda members have been killed or captured in 102 countries. Much of that was certainly brought about through military action.

Do you honestly believe that no terrorist plots were foiled through these actions?

Dave, are you still out there? I'm really, really interested to see your answer to my questions, now posed on two occasions...I'm happy to take the discussion over to your blog if you like, or to email, or anywhere you like - I just really want to hear your answers...

"...and answer came there none."

I should add that I happen to be aware that the company Dave works for is in the middle of a big push, and he's been working 12-hour days, and travelling a lot. So he may be manning a booth in one of those ghastly Red States, and have no heart for commenting...