If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

- former Republican presidential candidate, Willard Mitt Romney

Hillary = Obama = Surrender to terror?

This was the kind of stuff I was referencing yesterday when I said Romney gave a "divisive, hateful speech." The whole "vote for the liberals and die at the hands of the terrorists" card hasn't been played for a long time. I've been reassured recently by the level of maturity exhibited by the kids in the D.C. sandbox over the last year. I almost believed that the rancor had bled out to the edges of the political fabric, leaving everyone else to have a relatively civil conversation about where we go next.

For the most part, everyone believes that Iraq is a catastrophe -- the war on terror in general has had its fair share of mishaps -- and, while we all believe passionately in what we see as the necessary responses to the issues that face us with the war on terror -- staying in Iraq, diverting troops elsewhere (Afghanistan, maybe?), pulling out of the Middle East more or less completely, etc. -- we've been able to have a fairly civil conversation about it for some time.

I said fairly civil. The low blows of recent months have been nothing compared to those of the six years preceding.

Well, all that went out the window once Romney decided to take a load off. The above statement is just the beginning of the ludicrous drivel that passed for political discourse. He even pulled out the ole' they hate us for our freedoms and democracy:

And finally, let’s consider the greatest challenge facing America—and facing the entire civilized world: the threat of violent, radical Jihad. In one wing of the world of Islam, there is a conviction that all governments should be destroyed and replaced by a religious caliphate. These Jihadists will battle any form of democracy—to them, democracy is blasphemous for it says that citizens, not God shape the law. They find the idea of human equality to be offensive. They hate everything we believe about freedom just as we hate everything they believe about radical Jihad.

I was actually kind of suprised to President Bush whip this one out during his State of the Union Address:

The advance of liberty is opposed by terrorists and extremists -- evil men who despise freedom, despise America, and aim to subject millions to their violent rule.

I'm not surprised because he's never used this one before, but just because I, again, was getting the impression that no one believed it anymore. Of course, as I've mentioned before, most everyone in the field roundly rejects this, especially former chief of the CIA's bin Laden Unit Mike Scheuer:

[al-Qaeda's] goal is not to wipe out our secualr democracy, but to deter us by military means from attacking the things they love. Bin Laden et al. are not eternal warriors; there is no evidence they are fighting for fighting's sake, or that they would be lost for things to do without a war to wage. There is evidence to the contrary, in fact, showing bin Laden and other Islamist leaders would like to end the war, get back to their families, and live a less martial lifestyle. They share the attitude of the Afghan mujahideen during the Afghan-Soviet war: They are weary of war, but not war weary in a way making them ready to compromise or fight less enthusiastically. In both cases, participating in a defensive jihad was a duty to God and therefore had to be pursued until victory or martyrdom.

Luckily, Jason Jones came by to clear things up, explaining that the only reason Romney got so far is thanks to the "douchebag vote."