How to win the GWoT

Bill Clinton gave a speech in Aspen over the weekend. Since there's a distinct possibility he'll be our "First Laddy" (or maybe co-President) his feelings about issues deserve scrutiny, such as his solutions to solving terrorism:

Terrorism highlights the problem of identity, Clinton said. The suspects in the Britain bombing plot did not feel like they belonged in the world they were in, he said.

Coming from the preeminent expert surely the house was quiet as a mouse, straining forward in unison to listen like an old EF Hutton commercial.

Let's hope they figured out what he meant because the story leaves everyone else flat. For example, does he think the terrorists felt out of place in Britain or the entire world? If it was Britain perhaps he doesn't understand they were placed in those universities as sleeper agents, awaiting the day they could violate their Hippocratic oaths by popping a cork on the nearest infidel.

If he meant the world itself, then he's right--such people are out of place and should be eliminated with extreme prejudice before they eliminate us, which is basically the current policy. Continuing:

An appropriate foreign policy to address those issues, he said, includes a security policy and a policy "to make more partners and fewer terrorists."

Translating, it's America's fault. Or excuse me, George W. Bush's fault. You might think it impossible for him to generate more chutzpah than he did recently with his comments on pardons but never underestimate Bill Clinton. Too bad Chris Wallace wasn't there. And it's certainly not clear what he meant by "a security policy" unless he's advocating a camera system like they use in London. Although any Bill Clinton version might include a custom up-skirt viewing angle for extra precaution.

As to his comment about making "more partners" that's either some form of Kerryism or perhaps a totally awesome new strategy involving himself, with Hillary tasking him to hopscotch around the globe and engage every woman he meets, spreading American love by creating "partners". Heck, it beats "Welcome to Wal Mart".

In addressing the world's hot spots, he said the U.S. has "no choice but to withdraw a substantial amount of our military forces this year" from Iraq, largely because there aren't enough soldiers to fight more ground battles.

Again, the article doesn't provide enough clarification. Is he expecting more ground battles elsewhere? Would that also include the troops in Afghanistan and Kosovo? By the way, what IS our exit strategy from the Balkans?

He expressed faith in Americans supporting more foreign aid, now less than 1 percent of the budget. "The public is already there. All you've got to do is tell them the truth," Clinton said.

Sure. Liberals always think throwing money at problems will make them go away. But we already pay millions to Arab governments, Israel, Fatah, and even North Korea yet are dealing with suicide bombers and attacks. What makes anyone believe throwing more money would help, especially if radical factions take over some of these governments? By the way, since the left judges Bush's terrorism policies by the letter of the Constitution perhaps Clinton could point to the part in the Constitution that allows confiscating the citizens' wealth and transferring it to foreign governments. Or maybe he's talking about Dhimmi payments.

At the risk of being overly hyperbolic, if this sociopath or his wife gets anywhere near the White House again we're officially doomed. No more Clintons. No more Bushes.