This is Joe Leiberman, who this morning 'takes a chunk' out of Hussein's 'tucked tail' in this WSJ op ed today, nearly mocking Barry Hussein for not even having the balls to call this enemy of Americans, Jews and the west as a whole what it is...which is the "radical cult of Islam" which, as far as this American is concerned, contains 'no moderates' as defined by western standards.
Perhaps by 'their' standards some moderates exist, where to them a 'moderate' Muslim is one who doesn't actually 'perform' the suicide bombings and beheadings themselves, but agrees wholeheartedly with 'their administration' whenever a westerner or Jew is the intended recipient.
"THAT" is a moderate Muslim my friends and nothing less, don't let them or anyone else tell you otherwise.
In the new National Security Strategy released by the White House last month, the Obama administration rightly reaffirms that America remains a nation at war. Unfortunately, it refuses to identify our enemy in this war as what it is: violent Islamist extremism.
This is more than semantics. As military strategists since Sun Tzu have appreciated, the first rule in war is to know your enemy so you can defeat it. The 2006 National Security Strategy did this: It correctly identified our enemy as "the transnational terrorists [who] exploit the proud religion of Islam to serve a violent political vision." The Obama administration removed those accurate and important words.
One argument administration officials use to defend their avoidance of terms like "violent Islamist extremism" is that they are imprecise and lump together a diverse set of organizations with different goals, motivations, and capabilities. Yet the administration's preferred alternative term—"violent extremism"—is much more vulnerable to such criticism.
To state the obvious, there are many forms of "violent extremism" with which America is not "at war." The strategies and capabilities needed to counter the specific threat of violent Islamist extremism are very different from those needed to deal with white supremacist extremists in the U.S. or genocidal militias in sub-Saharan Africa.
Yet at no point does the 2010 National Security Strategy explain or defend its repeated use of the nebulous euphemism "violent extremism," which also has appeared in other strategy documents over the last year.
The administration has also stated at times—including in its new National Security Strategy— that our enemy in this war can be identified as "al Qaeda," "al Qaeda and its affiliates," or as "al Qaeda-inspired terrorists." While that's a better characterization, it still suffers from a number of serious shortcomings....continue reading this at WSJ.com