WASHINGTON — Janet Napolitano — former Arizona governor, now overmatched secretary of homeland security — will forever be remembered for having said of the attempt to bring down an airliner over Detroit: “The system worked.” The attacker’s concerned father had warned U.S. authorities about his son’s jihadist tendencies. The would-be bomber paid cash and checked no luggage on a transoceanic flight. He was nonetheless allowed to fly, and would have killed 288 people in the air alone, save for a faulty detonator and quick actions by a few passengers.
Heck of a job, Brownie.
The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration’s response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism “man-caused disasters.” Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York — a trifecta of political correctness and image management.
And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term “war on terror.” It’s over — that is, if it ever existed.
Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately al-Qaeda has not. Which gives new meaning to the term “asymmetric warfare.”
[More]
“Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately al-Qaeda has not.”
Charles the Great has been reading Jack’s comments. Jack has said on another thread “Regarding al Qaeda — how do you kill an idea? I don’t know but that is what this organization is. It is not something you can put your finger on and press “Delete”. But Obama deletes what he cannot control. He has no experience with dissent. If he can’t control it, it does not exist for Obama.
This dovetails with the argument that in order to win you have to start with “naming the enemy”. Again Charles the Great says “a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy — jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon — turns laxity into a governing philosophy.”
This also dovetails with argument that Islamists are utopians of the past nomadic tribal age out of which Mohammed the politician formed Islam to fight progress and adaptation. Al Qaeda is one of the operating organizations of that “idea”. Ditto the Taliban and a whole host of other “organizations” wanting to return to their utopian “idea” of the past.
Utopianism will never go away, it just mutates and we always have to fight it.
The al Qaeda idea is a utopian religion of the past just Climate Change is a religion adopted by utopians to change the way we live. Note the beliefs of these religions and the state are not separate, they are one and the same, that’s their whole raison d’etre. Mullahs and Al Gore and Mo Strong have the same agenda…to rule the peasants with their agenda without democratic elections.
The solution is better debate and information (Mac says “those who are susceptible to radicalization need to see that truth behind al Qaeda’s ideology” ) on what these clowns are really up to, then with democratic elections in the ME they can be driven back into their caves.
It certainly seems that G.W. Bush gave up the war on terrorism for the wars in Iraq & Afganistan. ‘Mission Accomplished’
“UV”, I want to draw your attention to something and then I want to note that midway through Bush’s second term he lost both the Senate and the House to Democrats. It is also important to note that shortly after that happy event he was politically forced to start fixing things as he went and “Rummy” retired.
From the very beginning after 911 it was clear to me that Afghanistan was one battle in what would be a long war. Bush told us that and so did “Rummy” — many times.
Here’s my point: Democrats screwed the original war plan and committed US and allied troops to a “fix things as you go” war that cannot be won the way it is being fought now. That wasn’t the original plan but the squeaky wheel always gets the grease and so we find ourselves in a situation where we are embroiled in a huge debacle that should have ended some five years ago and would have if not for politicians taking on the role of soldiers and deciding that they knew best. Had the original plan been permitted to play out we would now be in the post war period rebuilding the countries mentioned in the article in peace and our troops would be home.
If you really want to see how Democrats think follow the health care debate. It’s different but in many ways the same. The inmates have control of the asylum and they are making best use of their power while they still have it.
You need to catch up my friend.
Jack, correct me if I’m wrong but it was Bush/Cheney who sent their troops to Afghanistan and then pulled most of them out before the job was done.
And it was Bush/Cheney who then sent their troops to Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction that were never there as many believed they werent. In doing so over 4,000 american troops and about 100,000 Iraqi civilians lost their lives instead of going after the real enemy Al Qaida.
Nope, Bush/Cheney will both have to wear this one and why isnt Bush defending his war record? Also, I dont think Obama will do any better in Afghanistan than Bush did. The west should never get involved in tribal wars no matter where they are. Have the Americans learned nothing from that other terrible war, Vietnam?
Besides, wasnt it Bush who once said ‘We’re not in the business of nation building.”
Re: #4 — “And it was Bush/Cheney who then sent their troops to Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction that were never there as many believed they werent. “
You’re wrong. Iraq had WMD and used it. A man on death row this very minute (Chemical Ali) is there because he used WMD and killed thousands (WMD includes the use of chemical and biological weapons and Saddam was developing them).
This is a lie being pandered by the left to derail what they consider to be a war that should never have happened. Had Bush pulled a Clinton they would have been clapping but he didn’t did he? Instead (after 911) he did the only thing he could in the circumstances — he went after them.
Ever since the left in America has been trying to lose the war in the same manner they achieved with regard to Vietnam.
I have no use or time for them and if you bother to pick up and read Rick Hillier’s book you will come to understand something Rick terms as the “dark decade”. That would be when Chretien and his weiners were in power. Chretien harmed this country in our ability to defend ourselves and it lasted ten long years.
It’s still going on as we wait for a Harper majority so that he can rid the Canadian civil service of everyone that Chretien appointed to the top spots. It’s a huge problem and you have to read the book to understand why I say all this.
I must say this. The left in many countries are willing to sell their souls to maintain power.
They will tell any lie, they will do whatever they must in any position they still hold control to stop this war and it doesn’t matter that we lose.
The only thing that matters is power and they are wrong.
“Take it to the bank.”
Come on Jack, the Americans went into Iraq based on a lie since they were looking for nuclear weapons, similar to what Iran may have, not chemical ones. Some believe that this war was all about oil. I dont but its a nice side benefit for the states.
However, even Bush admitted they got it wrong.
As for Harper and a majority. I dont see it even with the liberals having weak leaders such as Dion & Ignatieff, all the polls indicate its not in the cards. One of the problems is getting the vote out as many Canadians seem to feel ‘their all the same’ so why bother and they maybe right.
For some, Harper leans too much to the left with deficits, bailouts, HST etc.
Ironically the new discovery in Washington is that Intel lied and in fact Iran does have WMD’s …see Belmont Club.
I’m being facetious with the above “lie” comment but you’ll see my point.
“Intelligence” does not mean people KNOW what is going on
It is just a bunch of smart people doing “what if” analysis
It is not utopia…there is no ANSWER
We need to live with uncertainty. We’ll get more of it and have to take more risk
Re: #6 — “Come on Jack, the Americans went into Iraq based on a lie since they were looking for nuclear weapons, similar to what Iran may have, not chemical ones. “
Wrong — they went looking for biological weapons. That was the fear and they were correct.
The “lady” they caught is still in jail answering hard questions as far as I know.
Jack…Bush said ”It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong’ and ” I’m also respsonsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities.” Seems like their intelligence capabilities have not improved as noticed by the latest attempted bombing of a civilian plane. Also, Iraq Lies http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/iraq_lies.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/bush.iraq/
And Democratic President LBJ may also have taken the states to war in Vietnam based on a lie ‘Tonkin incident might not have happened’
http://www.orwelltoday.com/vietnampretext.shtml
Re: #9 — I give up. Next time you’re in a coffee shop ask yourself if someone has spiked your drink.
Double, double please.
Nom, we also have to live with certainties.
Heres a couple or three:
Saddam Hussein tried to have George Sr. assassinated.
Saddam was threatening the U.S.
Every intelligence agency in the whole dam world thought Hussein had WMD of some sort.
Faced with those certainties you would do exactly what?
UV you are full of it, particularly with your comment that Harper leans too much to the left for you.
I find it remarkable that Bush and the neocons could have pulled off 9/11 as an inside job (according to the left) but yet could not plant a couple of WMDs in the middle of the Iraq desert to pull the plug on the BS narrative that Saddam did not have WMD’s
Jack is right. Saddam had em, and he also was trying to procure yellowcake (Joe Wilson Lied Kids died).
While we may never know exactly what Saddam had (thanks to our friends in France and the UN) until its found, we do know that Saddam and his regime died of Suicide by Cop.
He wanted the world to know/believe he had WMD and the US and the world (except those in bed with him) had to beleive him.
Exactly Lee , to which I think it is a good strategy to just come out and say : yes it is about oil.
It is not as my BDS friends kept saying, i.e. that Bush was going in there with Halliburton to seize the oil and “occupy” Iraq and get rich. Instead, the oil issue has 2 components.
First Oil gave a despotic Saddam funding to buy just in time WMDs of any sort ( Lee and ward tackle the canard that Saddam didn’t have them, in fact every Intel agency on the planet thought he had them. Plus as Jack says, Chemical Ali certainly had them and used them on his own people, 5000 of them. Plus who knows? maybe Saddam gave his guys money to buy lots of yellowcake and they put the money in a Swiss bank … no, no Baghdad Bob wouldn’t fib).
Second, Oil is our low cost energy source for the next few decades. It’s a commodity. To keep the commodity price down we need lots of it flowing all over the world. It is in our self interest to keep the security of supply flowing. We don’t need to own it .just keep lots flowing. Wars should only be fought in our self interest. Iraq met that criteria.