On the foreign policy front, the Obama administration has gone through pains to ingratiate itself with its enemies, including the likes of Iran, which actively sponsors terror and is directly responsible for killing American troops in Iraq. Meanwhile, our allies have been disenfranchised or even insulted outright in many cases. The total lack of American leadership, or at a minimum vocal support, for the burgeoning revolution in Iran was a hit on democracy and human rights, and boosted the proponents of tyranny and oppression across the globe. Our silence also directly hurt our interests in Iran, which incidentally continues its pursuit of nukes (and has now started rubbing it in our face).
On Afghanistan, the supposed "good war": after taking months to respond to his appointed general's pleas for more troops (this after already claiming to make the decision to fight in the spring), Obama begrudgingly agreed to send some, but not all, of the troops requested, along with an expiration date. This was the good war, the war we must fight. But only for about 18 months, of course.
Repeating the mistakes of 9/11, our government has gone back to treating terrorism primarily as a criminal matter. Note Obama's decision to move terrorists to U.S. prisons, complete with (inexplicably), constitutional rights, at least in some situations. Also note his decision to try the main perpetrators of 9/11 in federal criminal courts in New York City as if these terrorists merely broke federal law, as opposed to attacking the country in an act of war. All the while, political correctness rather than concern for our nation colors the very lens through which the Obama administration sees the world, as we saw with their steadfast denial that the shootings at Ft Hood and other "lone wolf" attacks by sympathizers of Al Qaeda in the name of Islam were terrorism, and were instead just cases of individual mental illness. I suppose that Napolitano would have taken these attacks a bit more seriously had one of the dead in Ft. Hood been a practicing abortion doctor instead of mere military personnel enroute to fight our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Further demoralizing those heroic Americans who risk their lives every day so we can go about our day in ignorant safety, Obama's AG Holder continues his investigation into the CIA's methods used on captured terrorists in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. This, even though the methods were already investigated once before, used sparingly, and in spite of the fact that agents were operating under the counsel of government attorneys at the time, and in the best interests of the country. Rubbing salt into this gaping wound are the courts martial this year of three Navy Seals for punching in the stomach a captured terrorist described by CNN as an "alleged mastermind of one of the most notorious crimes against Americans in Iraq."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dr Dreadful
Welcome back, Obnox, although I must say I'd like a map of whichever twisted version of reality you seem to have wandered into during your absence.
I don't think instantly putting the entire country on lockdown and then bombing some things (as was the wont of the previous Administration) is an appropriate response to what was, after all, a botched terrorist attack. Since terrorists are basically just trying to get attention, an effective strategy is to acknowledge their pathetic antics as little as practically possible. Re-christening the 'War on Terror' seems to me to be one good way of doing that.
A determined terrorist is going to, eventually, find some way round whatever security measures you put in place and the ones we have at the moment seem to be working fairly well. You make it sound as if Napolitano's directive to law enforcement agencies was that they should ONLY be looking at right-wing extremists, which you know perfectly well was not the case: she was merely advising that they should take note of a particular new threat.
Your main thesis, that Obama's approach has led more or less directly to this incident, just won't wash. It's as spurious as the charge that Bush's approach somehow caused 9/11.
2 - roger nowosielski
As good Doc say, Obnox, it's time to grow up. How long are you going to persist in displaying the same ole stale thinking?
I wouldn't be saying this, friend, if I didn't think you were capable of reaching greater heights than spewing out the propaganda that originates more often than not on the conservative talk-shows. I do know you have greater originality and intelligence to be simply parroting the lines of such imbeciles as Limbaugh, Hannity or Glenn Beck. So please surprise me, will you? Or rather, why don't you live up once in a while to the faith I have in you?
3 - Dan(Miller)
Obnoxious,
nearly 300 people could have died on Christmas day.
Since the flight was on approach to landing at the Detroit airport, there could have been far more casualties on the ground. You know, airplane parts, people falling out of the sky, and whatever.
Still, we must congratulate the Obama administration because no elderly Episcopalian bishops or three year old toddlers have been able to cause such a disaster. Obviously, the system is working and all we need to do is to search such folks with greater diligence.
Not only that, but there has been not one CAIR complaint about discrimination. What more do you want?
Dan(Miller)
4 - roger nowosielski
Typical Dan Miller.
Some things never change.
5 - Dan(Miller)
Roger,
Truer words were never written.
Dan(Miller)
6 - FitzBoodle
Wow! 300 people! And even more on the ground!
Yet, every month 4000 Americans die from being denied healthcare because they don't have the right insurance. What should we do about THOSE terrorists?
7 - roger nowosielski
Doesn't mean, Dan, I don't appreciate your usual pointed sarcasm. I just don't want you to be corrupting the minds of the innocent, like the good old Obnoxious.
8 - The Obnoxious American
Doc, is that a strawman in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?
Roger, I always appreciate your friendship and please don't take this the wrong way but try reading the actual article beyond the byline. I've made quite a simple connect-the-dots, cause and effect type case here. If I'm wrong, it should be pretty easy to disprove.
Dan, you've got a point.
FitzBoodle, To loosely paraphrase Doc (who incidentally was doing a cheap impression of Barney Frank's summertime townhall appearance) how is the weather on your planet?
9 - Dan(Miller)
Obnoxious,
I am terribly sorry if I corrupted you. Mea culpa, mea culpa mea maxima culpa. But, you can take it!
However, unfortunate though it may be, there are others trying the same thing.
Dan(Miller)
10 - Dan(Miller)
Good grief!
I neglected to post this link.
Dan(Miller)
11 - The Obnoxious American
Thanks Dan, and I am glad to hear it. The more people talking about this important point the better.
That fact that there are lost souls (as evidenced in this very thread) who can't connect the dots between our wearing weakness on our sleeves and beating down the very people who protect us, and the very real fact that once again we were attacked and would have lost many lives if not for sheer luck and imcompetence is proof that yes, this can happen again and again. We have to speak out about it.
Some folks might never understand the direct cause and effect link of taking your eye off the ball such as this administration did, and the resulting lowering of defenses (and loss of will to defend by our military and intel community). That's ok. As long as a majority of people get it (and polls seem to show that they are starting to), that's all we need.
12 - Clavos
Yet, every month 4000 Americans die from being denied healthcare because they don't have the right insurance.
According to whom? Got a link?
13 - Dan(Miller)
Clav,
If there is no response to your #12, maybe you can find the information here.
Dan(Miller)
14 - Glenn Contrarian
OA -
So if this "brief bomber" is a symptom of the Obama Administrations incompetence or carelessness or whatever...
...then what would you call 9/11, the anthrax mailings, and the shoe bomber?
...AND what would you call the Iraq war, which was waged on false pretenses?
Come to think of it, what would you call Iran-Contra?
15 - Cobra
Right wingers. I luv 'em. They only read what they WANT to read about any story.
"Sources tell the Chronicle that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is believed to have traveled to Houston in 2008 and stayed here for about two weeks. FBI agents have visited the Sheraton Houston Brookhollow Hotel at 3000 North Loop West where it is believed he stayed.
A spokesperson for the hotel said they have no comment except to say they are cooperating with federal authorities.
Federal agents are making these kinds of checks in many cities around the country where they are relatives, associates and others and some cities may have a major role in the investigation. It’s unclear yet whether Houston will be one of those major role cities, sources said.
A U.S. government official confirms that Abdulmutallab was issued a two-year visa in June 2008 from the U.S. Embassy in London. The official said it was mostly likely either a student or visitor visa."
But...But...Obama wasn't President in 2008, and Janet Napolitano wasn't Head of Homeland Security. How did this guy get on a plane last year, fly to Houston (a city in the United States) and stay two weeks undetected?
How did this guy get a visa from the U.S. Embassy in London in June 2008?
Please, right wingers...fill us all in on this...or do you believe the narrative that Umar was a swell, great guy who was safe to fly here up untill Obama's Inauguration Day...
Harvard Study Finds 45,000 Die a Year Due to Lack of Health Coverage
--Cobra
16 - The Obnoxious American
Glenn,
I'm here and ready to debate the points in the article. Anyone care to do that with me? First Doc comes out putting words in my mouth, then arguing with those words. Now you're asking me if this concept can be applied throughout history. This isn't about Bush, Glenn. And more over, at least with Bush at the helm I'd know there was an ideological desire to actually see America prevail in this war on terror. And given that the CURRENT president can't even call this a war makes Bush look real good right now. But back to the points in the article:
Are you really debating with me that the Obama admin's endless attack on the CIA hasn't hurt morale, and thus our ability to learn of threats and deal with them in advance? That the treatment of those seals hasn't de-spirited many of the rest of the military that is out there fighting on our behalf and keeping us safe?
On the flipside, are you really going to argue that the incompetence and weakness displayed by Obama (specific examples in the article) has not embolded our enemies, both large and small?
See in real life, there are consequences to our actions. What we've been seeing since January 20th is a consequence of our actions on November 4th, and at least PART of the consequences of the many boneheaded actions of the Obama administration is that we've seen terror attempts such as the one on Christmas, which despite plenty of red flags and early warnings, was allowed to happen anyway and was only not deadly because the terrorist himself screwed up. Not an acceptable situation 9 years after 9/11.
Here is the article's premise in mathematical form, hopefully this helps make it clear exactly the point I am making:
(Show Weakness to Enemies + Abuse Military and CIA) = Experience Terror Attacks
17 - STM
So, using the same argument, was 9/11 a symptom of the Bush administration's (lax) handling of both internal security and (misguided) foreign policy?
Big price to pay if so.
18 - Cobra
STM,
You notice Obnoxious hasn't explained to us how Umar can get on a plane and fly to Houston, Texas in 2008, or how he could get a visa from the US Embassy in London June 2008.
--Cobra
19 - The Obnoxious American
Cobra,
Having a visa is irrelevant, and there is no reason why he could not also be on the "selectee" list or the no fly list, which he should have been when his father warned of his increasing militance MONTHS ago. That said, I find it absurdly comedic that you'd try to lay this on the Bush administration. It's getting old. And has nothing to do with the article which I'd urge you to actually read.
20 - The Obnoxious American
STM,
I think that Bush absolutely can be blamed for that, as can the rest of us. There's actually a term for it, "The Pre 9-11 Mindset."
21 - Dr Dreadful
Putting words in your mouth, was I?
"Napolitano's own DHS warned law enforcement organizations throughout the country that they should be on the lookout for terrorists " not Islamic terrorists working in cahoots with, or in the spirit of, Al Qaeda, but rather terrorists following the supposed fatwah of radio personality Rush Limbaugh."
Those words?
22 - Dr Dreadful
...Show Weakness to Enemies
Such as by highlighting Napolitano's directive out of context, as many right-wing pundits did, to make it look as if...?
Abuse Military and CIA
I can't, offhand, think of any instances where Obama or members of his Administration have done this.
All of which together makes your math rather wonky.
23 - The Obnoxious American
Doc
Here are some examples of what I am talking about:
"I don't think instantly putting the entire country on lockdown and then bombing some things (as was the wont of the previous Administration) is an appropriate response to what was, after all, a botched terrorist attack. "
This wasn't what I was perscribing as a solution.
"You make it sound as if Napolitano's directive to law enforcement agencies was that they should ONLY be looking at right-wing extremists"
Not at all what I was making it look like.
"Your main thesis, that Obama's approach has led more or less directly to this incident, just won't wash. "
That's NOT the main thesis at all. The thesis is Obama has had a two pronged approach of demoralizing the people who protect us and showing weakness or enabling our enemies. Plenty of people even in the mainstream media have commented on it. This terror attack wasn't directly caused by Obama but he certainly hasn't helped much to prevent it either. Shouldn't that be Job #1? How many manhours spent looking at Right Wing terrorists could have maybe been spent actually "connecting the dots"
24 - El Bicho
Speaking of terrible math, Bush stopped fighting the Bush War on Terror before he left office and they also changed the name to “struggle against global extremism.” Did you throw a hissy fit then?
"they should be on the lookout for terrorists " not Islamic terrorists"
which was soon followed by the terrorist who killed Dr. Tiller of Kansas. Turns out she was right on that score.
I get you disagree with Obama and his team's tactics, but your ignorance of the facts makes it difficult for me to think you are well informed on the subject and keep me from moving past pg 1.
Why is the right so concerned about the CIA now when it was okay to go after the organization and our military when Bush was in charge?
"loss of will to defend by our military and intel community"
I have a friend currently serving and if you made a comment like that about his will to defend and protect this country to his face, I guarantee you wouldn't do it again after you woke up. It's not your place to speak for anyone else.
25 - STM
As for showing weakness to enemies, the US isn't doing that, which is why it is currently with its allies fighting a protracted war in Afghanistan ... that it can win if it does so in the right way.
Ie, not just blowing the sh.t out of everything in a vague attempt to "bring democracy".
I'd say the last thing the US is doing at the moment is showing weakness, although it has in the post-Vietnam era been too quick to run because of fears that it won't sit well with the voting public at home.
Unpalatable it may be in many cases, but the truth is, there are some places that need a whack with a big stick because that's the only way they learn a lesson.
My simple advice to the US would be to make sure they are whacking the right people.