Feingold is of course right. Using the term "Islamic Fascists" implies that all Islamists are part of one movement, which in turn binds them all together and guarantees that they will work together.

A serious anti-terrorism policy starts with trying to divide those terror groups by emphasizing their differences, and trying to pit them against each other and prevent them from working together.

When the Bush followers use the term "Islamic fascists," they are encouraging Islamists to stick together and guaranteeing a loss in any war against terrorism.

Obviously Feingold's statement is further proof that he is serious on national security; those who embrace the term "Islamic fascists," like Santorum and Bush, are not serious on national security because they do not share Feingold's understanding of how to deal with threats.

By that same tortured reasoning, any description that uses the term Islam or Islamic is inappropriate.

Militant Islam? (Nope)

Islamic terrorism? (Nope)

Of course, the left does not have a problem with one term "Islamic Fundamentalism" - because then they get to equally group Christian fundamentalists as evil.

In other words, fundamentalism becomes evil - and wanting to outlaw the death of the innocent through abortion is somehow equated with CAUSING the death of the innocent by blowing up the roadside cafe.

One thing about the left - it is CRUCIAL to keep the masses as ignorant as possible, and redefining terms is key to winning that battle.

In other words, fundamentalism becomes evil - and wanting to outlaw the death of the innocent through abortion is somehow equated with CAUSING the death of the innocent by blowing up the roadside cafe.

I have no problem in saying that Christian fundamentalists are not as bad as Islamic fundamentalists. Your particular point is not so good, though, since your abortion position involves forcing women to bear children -- with all the attendant health risks -- against their will, and therefore involves the killing and maiming of women who are innocent of any crime (unless you consider sex to be a crime). So while that's not as bad as a terrorist act, outlawing abortion certainly displays a lack of concern for innocent life: the lives of innocent women (as opposed to the life of a fetus, which no serious person believes to be the same thing as a full-fledged human).

Of course it is nonsense. For example, Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were all fascists. Italy fought with Germany as an independent ally, while Spain remained neutral. They were all still "fascists."

Touting Feingold as "serious on national security" is an absolute howler! He scores 100% from SANE, the far-left unilateralist peaceniks. He was for the nuclear freeze, and the only Senator to speak against our formal withdrawal from the ABM treaty - an agreement with a country which NO LONGER EXISTED.

Feingold's grand national security strategy would be "bend over and spread 'em," but he would have to run even that by the UN first.

Of course it is nonsense. For example, Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were all fascists. Italy fought with Germany as an independent ally, while Spain remained neutral. They were all still "fascists."

Well, yes. But sensible governments didn't usually talk about them as all being "fascists," precisely for fear of binding them together.

You know who did talk about "fascists" a lot and lump those dictators together as "fascists?" Communists, that's who. They loved talking about "fascism" and "our fascist enemy." If you want to emulate the Commies, go ahead.

Touting Feingold as "serious on national security" is an absolute howler!

Well, he opposed the Iraq war, a war that was not in America's interests, so by definition he is more serious on national security than those who supported it (like some of his fellow Democrats), let alone those who continue to support it (like most Republicans). The Iraq war is the defining national security issue of our time; it makes sense to say that someone who opposed it is someone who has shown strength on defending America's interests.

Put Feingold in the same catagory as most of the leaders in the U.E. They coddled the terrorists, released those arrested while comitting terrorists act, and now they are the targer of the same terrorists. The terrorists (aka Islamofascist) have only one target for death, anyone that doesn't practice the cult of hatred and murder, aka Islam. Feingold's friends the Islamofascists would remove his head and play football with it as fast as they do anyone else's. Feingold is just an accomplished liar that will and does say anything to get the retarded and anti-american vote.

TRSB,

The problem is your underlying assumptions are, I believe, wrong. Iraq is/was/will be in America's interests. That has been explained many times by many people much more eloquent than I. If we disagree on that, than I fear we shall not agree on much.

Islamic Fascist is a totally appropriate description. They are Islamic and Fascist. I don't see the problem with calling it the way it is. You know what, if the rest of the Muslim community doesn't want to be associated with the terrorist organizations, they need to do a better job of articulating their differences and policing their own communities. But when I don't hear moderate Muslim communities condemning terrorist acts, I really don't care if their feelings are hurt and if it "makes them stick together". Because if they aren't condemning the terrorists they, by their omission, are condoning them.

Feingold may be serious on national security. But he's also wrong on on national security. Anyone who fails to realize that the use of military force is a valid and sometimes required action is not qualified to make decisions on national security policy. And I've never seen Feingold ever make any comment that he understands this.

ke_future

"The Iraq war is the defining national security issue of our time."

No, the war on terrorism (which Iraq is part of) is the defining issue. that's what you liberals don't understand and why the GOP will maintain control this fall.

Feingold = Islamic fascist apologist and stooge. Good to see Copperhead 'Rats alive and well in the 21st Century.

since your abortion position involves forcing women to bear children -- with all the attendant health risks -- against their will,
----------------------------
Obviously, I am not about to start debating abortion with someone like Baron...

But to duly note - he is a good example of someone who has bought into the propoganda from the abortion money making machine.

Because apparently, he thinks the natural birth process is more dangerous than an abortion procedure.

Thousands and thousands of women could testify otherwise of course..

Not to mention the psychological health risks to having an abortion - to which millions could easily tesify as well.