In the War on Terrorism, the Enemy is Evil

I haven't always agreed with everything George Bush has done; in fact, there's a lot I disagree with him on. But in the war on terrorism, I think that for the most part he gets it. When I say "he gets it," I mean he understands the nature of the enemy, and that they are not just underprivileged or misguided, but evil.

Breitbart.com has two stories out that illustrate this sad reality.

al-Qaida apparently used two women who had Downs Syndrome as suicide bombers to kill 73 people at a couple of markets in Baghdad. The bombings were coordinated about 20 minutes apart in different parts of the city.

It's despicable enough to deliberately target civilians for death, and brings the whole proposition to a new low when they use mentally impaired women.

Aside from the fact that a woman and even a mentally handicapped woman is less likely to arouse suspicion, the act is especially heinous because while most suicide bombers go to their deaths willingly, these women, having Downs Syndrome, certainly didn't understand that they were being used as human missiles.

This Islamofacist enemy has no regard for human dignity, and values human life not in the least. It only knows hate, rage and violence.

The case could probably be made that President Bush did not deal decisively enough with terrorism in Iraq until the surge. But there several in the current field of presidential candidates, both Democrat and Republican, who fundamentally lack even Bush's former understanding of the nature of the enemy we face there...and it's not just one candidate on either side of the political aisle.

We cannot afford to handle terrorism or national security threats with kid gloves. We cannot afford to appease evil; every time it's been tried in the past 100 years, millions have died (just ask Neville Chamberlain).

If we elect a president who is unable or unwilling to deal firmly with the evil that threatens the United States and our allies, 911 may end up looking like a warm up.