Romney vs. Obama: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, One Step Back, One Step Forward = Progress!

A recent review published on Jihad Watch today of the third debate between Romney and Obama seems a bit too enthusiastic about the small "jihadist" crumb Romney let fall from his PC MC table on high for us famished Counter-Jihadists cringing on the floor among the table legs below:

"Romney tags jihadists as enemy, marking shift from Obama, Bush," announces the headline.

While Romney's J-word is a shift away from Obama, it doesn't sound like a shift away from Bush at all.  Romney's description sounds pretty much exactly like Bush's Doctrine of the TMOE (Tiny Minority of Extremists):

“We’re going to have to put in place a very comprehensive and robust strategy to help the — the world of Islam and other parts of the world, reject this radical violent extremism,” Romney said, highlighting the link between Islam and terrorism.

Notice the reporter's exegesis there.  There was nothing in Romney's words other than one word -- "jihadist" -- which only implied a link between Islam and terrorism; it certainly did not "highlight" it.  If it had, he wouldn't be grandly proclaiming that we must "help Islam" and "help the Muslim world".  That link between terrorism and Islam needs to be brought out into the light and explained by our political representatives and mainstream news media -- that should be their job, which they have been shirking for over a decade now.  Romney is not only not doing his job in explaining it, he's actually obfuscating it by incoherently connecting it -- just as Bush did incessantly -- to "helping Islam" and "helping the Muslim world".

The reporter goes on to quote Romney basically iterating, again, the Bush Doctrine of the TMOE (Tiny Minority of Extremists):

"The right course for us is to make sure that we go after the — the people who are leaders of these various anti-American groups and these — these jihadists, but also help the Muslim world," Romney said.

While this is certainly better than Obama, let's stop kidding ourselves and stop leaping for the crumbs that fall from the table of the PC MCs (and Romney is a solid PC MC about Islam; even while Obama, as a radical Leftist, at best, is worse).

I.e., Romney's willingness to use the one word "jihadist" (while immediately contextualizing it in order to save all of Islam and the vast majority of Muslims from the condemnation of that one word) represents basically One Step Forward from the One Step Back Obama took from the One Step Forward Two Steps Back Bush took -- landing Romney not on the progressive position we should be at by now, over 10 years after 911 and countless other atrocities by Muslims -- but simply back to where Bush was 4 years ago. 

If a candidate for President is going to proclaim that we have to "help Islam" and "help the Muslim world" and that this "help" is going to take on the dimensions of a "very comprehensive and robust strategy" -- this is a potent recipe for more of the Bushish neo-Wilsonianism that has resulted in our wasting trillions of dollars (and too many lives and blown-up limbs and genitalia of our men and women more precious than money) in the grandiose projects and spectacular failures of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars -- which, incidentally, Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch have condemned every which way but loose for years.

In the tragicomic real world we must continue to endure, we have to leap for joy at the choice of a solid Politically Correct Multi-Culturalist over against a radical Leftist Marxist revolutionary with deep affinities for Islam -- and this is supposed to represent "progress" for us!  

I suppose it is progress, in the sense that landing in a pile of shit and breaking both your legs is progress, when at least you had saved yourself by jumping out of a burning building where you would have died from the fire.