The United States has apologized to terrorist-harboring dictator Muammar Gaddafi of Libya for criticizing his calls for Jihad against Switzerland.
Go ahead and click on that link. Read the story. This is one of the most humiliating and embarassing diplomatic blunders that Obama's White House has yet committed. Gaddafi's government has openly assisted terrorist groups that have killed American citizens in the past. And we are apologizing to him because we were critical of his calls for more terrorism?
If President Obama does not immediately rectify this situation, than he will cement his place the weakest, most impotent American president since Carter, as far as international relations are concerned.
Showing posts with label War on Terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War on Terror. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
President Obama's State of the Union Address
As the President of the United States prepares to deliver the annual State of the Union address, I can only ask one question: what can he say? What has he done during the first year of his presidency to alter the union's prospects for the better? What can he point to as he stands before the entire country and attempts to justify his first year as our leader?
In light of diving poll numbers, State Senator Scott Brown's bill-killing victory in the Massachusetts senate race, and the basic failure of "Obamaism" in terms of claiming legislative victories, there is not much material to draw from.
The massive spending/stimulus packages? Utterly ineffective.
Obama's decision to send reinforcements to Afghanistan? Right, perhaps, but late.
Obama's healthcare bill? Dead in the water.
Obama's attempts to campaign for Democratic candidates around the country? 0 for 3.
Unemployment? Higher than it was a year ago.
Lay-offs? Steadily streaming.
Hence, there is not much good news to share. Most are expecting a fundamentally reactive presentation. Now is not the time for Obama to jog onstage and arrogantly reassert the failed healthcare reform initiative that he pushed in 2009. Now is not the time for him to set his chin angrily and raise his voice into that telltale shout that he uses when he wants to "talk tough" about his agenda. When you're being hammered by your constituents, and when your cheerleaders in the press can barely conceal the public's anger, you must give an inch or two. Is it not a bad sign for Obama that he's already publicly mulling over the ramifications of losing in 2012?
Look for Obama to reach for some middle ground, hawking his policy goals with renewed rhetorical vigor while simultaneously acknowledging the brick walls.
In light of diving poll numbers, State Senator Scott Brown's bill-killing victory in the Massachusetts senate race, and the basic failure of "Obamaism" in terms of claiming legislative victories, there is not much material to draw from.
The massive spending/stimulus packages? Utterly ineffective.
Obama's decision to send reinforcements to Afghanistan? Right, perhaps, but late.
Obama's healthcare bill? Dead in the water.
Obama's attempts to campaign for Democratic candidates around the country? 0 for 3.
Unemployment? Higher than it was a year ago.
Lay-offs? Steadily streaming.
Hence, there is not much good news to share. Most are expecting a fundamentally reactive presentation. Now is not the time for Obama to jog onstage and arrogantly reassert the failed healthcare reform initiative that he pushed in 2009. Now is not the time for him to set his chin angrily and raise his voice into that telltale shout that he uses when he wants to "talk tough" about his agenda. When you're being hammered by your constituents, and when your cheerleaders in the press can barely conceal the public's anger, you must give an inch or two. Is it not a bad sign for Obama that he's already publicly mulling over the ramifications of losing in 2012?
Look for Obama to reach for some middle ground, hawking his policy goals with renewed rhetorical vigor while simultaneously acknowledging the brick walls.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Who's Afraid of the "T" Word?
SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?- Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, March 2009 interview with Der Spiegel
Janet Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.
In light of the gaping security breaches that became evident during the failed Christmas Day bombing plot, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano's above statement has become a major subject of debate and ire across the U.S. Coupled with her initial pronouncement that "the system worked" on Christmas Day (ignoring the fact that a disaster was averted only by terrorist stupidity), Napolitano's past statement is causing major concerns about her efficacy as one of the nation's top security officials.
Some are calling for her head. Some are coming to her defense. Predictably, Obama has made it clear that (barring mass public opposition) he will not be swayed by Napolitano's detractors.
Napolitano's demure attitude towards the word "terrorism" is far more troublesome than the left is willing to admit. Mind you that for me, the recent controversy is merely so much more icing on the cake. From the beginning, I never liked her. A great piece from American Thinker briefly and rightfully reminds us that Napolitano branded pro-life individuals and returning military veterans as domestic security threats. This nakedly partisan approach to national security suggests a lack of focus on the real danger. For all their whining about Bush and Cheney's "totalitarian" ways, lefties seem awfully willing to use homeland security powers against those whom they find distasteful.
Perhaps we should merely expect Obama's DHS secretary to target those who disagree with him, on political principle. But for a sitting DHS Secretary to openly deride the term "terrorism" as part and parcel of "the politics of fear"? It's ridiculous. By cloaking the reality of today's terrorist threat in politically-correct language so as not to scare people, Napolitano and company seem to be the ones who are most afraid. They are afraid of the truth. Terrorism is a real, potent, and unpredictable threat that we face. There is no point in calling it anything other than what it is. Semantics can't change the facts.
P.S.- Obama's nomination of Erroll Southers for the long-vacant Transit Security Administration leadership position is running into some fresh snags. Looks like he was censured by the FBI in the past, and GOP senators are none too happy. How many more senate confirmation woes can Obama afford before his political capital is effected?
Good Riddance
This morning, Publius smugly smiles at the idiocy of these Afghan terrorists who undertook a suicide bombing mission and ended up being its only casualties. As Winston Wolfe said: "Better you than me, gentlemen."
Doubtless similar situations have arisen between 2001 and now, but this is the first time I have actually heard of such a thing occuring in Iraq or Afghanistan. Be thankful that the terrorists involved were only able to bring harm to themselves, and not to the battered population of Afghanistan nor the American and Afghan security forces that protect it.
Should we rejoice in occasions such as these? Philosophically, I don't know. I feel guilty for finding the story funny, yet I cannot muster one iota of sympathy for a pack of murderers who blew themselves up while targeting innocent people.
One of warfare's cruel ironies is that there is the occasional macabre slapstick to be found on the battlefield. I've heard more than a few veterans relate stories that are, in their eyes, both horrifying and darkly humorous.
Does how we react to these stories say something about our nation's character? Is there such thing as an appropriate response? Am I thinking way too much about this? Post your comments. I'm interested in what you might say.
Doubtless similar situations have arisen between 2001 and now, but this is the first time I have actually heard of such a thing occuring in Iraq or Afghanistan. Be thankful that the terrorists involved were only able to bring harm to themselves, and not to the battered population of Afghanistan nor the American and Afghan security forces that protect it.
Should we rejoice in occasions such as these? Philosophically, I don't know. I feel guilty for finding the story funny, yet I cannot muster one iota of sympathy for a pack of murderers who blew themselves up while targeting innocent people.
One of warfare's cruel ironies is that there is the occasional macabre slapstick to be found on the battlefield. I've heard more than a few veterans relate stories that are, in their eyes, both horrifying and darkly humorous.
Does how we react to these stories say something about our nation's character? Is there such thing as an appropriate response? Am I thinking way too much about this? Post your comments. I'm interested in what you might say.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Happy 2010, Plus Recommended Reading
This is my inaugural post of 2010. I suppose it would have had more impact had I authored it a couple days ago, but I have been busy. A belated "Happy New Years" to all.
I can only hope that 2010 will be better than 2009. Last year that saw countless economic woes and employee lay-offs, infuriating failures of national leadership, mounting terrorism both at home and abroad, and protracted warfare involving U.S. troops across the Middle East. It doesn't get much worse than that. However, there can be improvement if America is willing to pull itself up by its boot straps and demand more of its leaders and institutions. This year, we will have the opportunity to toss the bums out of Congress and start afresh. This strikes me as one of the most crucial things that the American people can do this year.
So keep your hopes high and your expectations low, as you peruse some recommended reading for the week:
-Heather McDonald at the Wall Street Journal brilliantly demolishes the "crime-as-a-symptom-of-social-injustice" theory.
-Joe Carter at First Thoughts airs an infuriating New York City Health Department pamphlet that helps people learn how to "safely" shoot heroin.
-George Weigel, writing for The National Review, explicates just war theory in regards to Obama the Afghanistan situation. This brilliant article appeared in December, and I forgot to link to it sooner.
I can only hope that 2010 will be better than 2009. Last year that saw countless economic woes and employee lay-offs, infuriating failures of national leadership, mounting terrorism both at home and abroad, and protracted warfare involving U.S. troops across the Middle East. It doesn't get much worse than that. However, there can be improvement if America is willing to pull itself up by its boot straps and demand more of its leaders and institutions. This year, we will have the opportunity to toss the bums out of Congress and start afresh. This strikes me as one of the most crucial things that the American people can do this year.
So keep your hopes high and your expectations low, as you peruse some recommended reading for the week:
-Heather McDonald at the Wall Street Journal brilliantly demolishes the "crime-as-a-symptom-of-social-injustice" theory.
-Joe Carter at First Thoughts airs an infuriating New York City Health Department pamphlet that helps people learn how to "safely" shoot heroin.
-George Weigel, writing for The National Review, explicates just war theory in regards to Obama the Afghanistan situation. This brilliant article appeared in December, and I forgot to link to it sooner.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
The Fallout from Detroit
Since the attempted Christmas Day terror plot was foiled, there has been a plethora of commentary, and I have been playing catch-up. I was late to the game, having found out about the attempted attack two days after it occured (I took a break from TV and online news sources during my four day Christmas vacation; go figure, I missed out on something huge).
I personally find the plot's timing to be eerie. Just a few weeks ago, I discussed terrorism with my family and opined that an attack carried out over the holidays could be devastating. American morale is not at its highest, and the respite provided by the holidays is key to a stable national mood. It would not surprise me if terrorists symbolically used a western, Christian holiday as an opportunity to remind us that they want to bring our society to its knees.
I must say, I find it unforunate that the AFP and other media outlets are referring to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's "averted" terror plot. The plot was not "averted". To say it was averted is to imply that direct action was taken that derailed the scheme. Nothing could be further than the truth: it was a happy accident that the plane was not destroyed, and nothing more.
It is sad that the terrorist's own incompetence was all that stood in the way of innocent lives being lost. This incident has shaken the country's confidence in its federal government severely; bureucratic snafus and a lack of vigilance on our government's part are completely unacceptable. We know how real the danger is, and we ought to be past the point of making stupid mistakes.
There has been much scrambling on both sides of the aisle to either minimize or maximize the political effects of the plot, and the ensuing public ire. Some are blaming the Obama administration, while the administration's supporters are pointing to (who else?) George W. Bush, saying that he was never given any grief for presiding over faulty airline security regulations. I guess it's true that you can't let a crisis go to waste. For my part, though the partisanship on display in light of a serious terror plot is somewhat nauseating, I believe that the questioning of the Obama administration's handling of the incident is legitimate (just read Tony Harnden's compelling Telegraph piece on the subject).
Obama's initial dismissal of Abdulmutallad as an "isolated extremist" is particularly troubling, as it has become clear in recent days that the terrorist has clear ties to Al-Qaeda. Was Obama downplaying the scale of the plot? Was he misinformed? Was he lying? None of those three possibilities inspires confidence. Nor do the words and deeds of Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, who had to retool her initial assertion that "the system worked" in regards to U.S. security efforts to stop the attack.
Blame games aside, this incident is proof positive that the federal government needs to drastically reduce the bureaucratic lollygagging betwixt its intelligence, law enforcement, and security agencies if it is going to successfully protect U.S. citizens. After the Fort Hood massacre earlier this year, this need became obvious. Now we've been given a harrowing second reminder. There should not be a third.
I personally find the plot's timing to be eerie. Just a few weeks ago, I discussed terrorism with my family and opined that an attack carried out over the holidays could be devastating. American morale is not at its highest, and the respite provided by the holidays is key to a stable national mood. It would not surprise me if terrorists symbolically used a western, Christian holiday as an opportunity to remind us that they want to bring our society to its knees.
I must say, I find it unforunate that the AFP and other media outlets are referring to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's "averted" terror plot. The plot was not "averted". To say it was averted is to imply that direct action was taken that derailed the scheme. Nothing could be further than the truth: it was a happy accident that the plane was not destroyed, and nothing more.
It is sad that the terrorist's own incompetence was all that stood in the way of innocent lives being lost. This incident has shaken the country's confidence in its federal government severely; bureucratic snafus and a lack of vigilance on our government's part are completely unacceptable. We know how real the danger is, and we ought to be past the point of making stupid mistakes.
There has been much scrambling on both sides of the aisle to either minimize or maximize the political effects of the plot, and the ensuing public ire. Some are blaming the Obama administration, while the administration's supporters are pointing to (who else?) George W. Bush, saying that he was never given any grief for presiding over faulty airline security regulations. I guess it's true that you can't let a crisis go to waste. For my part, though the partisanship on display in light of a serious terror plot is somewhat nauseating, I believe that the questioning of the Obama administration's handling of the incident is legitimate (just read Tony Harnden's compelling Telegraph piece on the subject).
Obama's initial dismissal of Abdulmutallad as an "isolated extremist" is particularly troubling, as it has become clear in recent days that the terrorist has clear ties to Al-Qaeda. Was Obama downplaying the scale of the plot? Was he misinformed? Was he lying? None of those three possibilities inspires confidence. Nor do the words and deeds of Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, who had to retool her initial assertion that "the system worked" in regards to U.S. security efforts to stop the attack.
Blame games aside, this incident is proof positive that the federal government needs to drastically reduce the bureaucratic lollygagging betwixt its intelligence, law enforcement, and security agencies if it is going to successfully protect U.S. citizens. After the Fort Hood massacre earlier this year, this need became obvious. Now we've been given a harrowing second reminder. There should not be a third.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
