Posted on Thursday, 7th January 2010 by Roland_Melnick
A must read article in today’s Wall Street Journal was written by former US Attorney General Michael Mukasey, entitled What Does the Detroit Bomber Know?
The preeminent danger to the Obama-Way of designating guys like Abdulmutallab, the Detroit underpants bomber, as civilian violators of criminal law is that certain rights attach to the violator. With Obama and his Leftist enablers, rather than treat Abdulmutallab as a valuable source of intelligence to be used to go after his co-conspirators, prevent future attacks and damage their terror network…it’s more important to get the terrorist a lawyer. The lawyer tells his client to shut up. Two weeks later…any actionable intelligence Abdulmutallab had is now a stale loaf of bread we can’t use. Sure, such intel may help build a criminal case on some co-actors sometime in the future…but it will do nothing to prevent future attacks…assuming Abdulmutallab ever does give a statement. Mike Mukasey is a true professional who hits the nail square on the head.
The initial reaction to the attempted bombing on the Detroit-bound flight that we got from the Obama Administration was a combination of denying we are at war, denying that this guy was connected to a larger terror network, denial as to whether we had enough info to take preventative action, stupid pronouncements that “the system worked” , downplaying the action itself and other words and actions geared toward minimizing the threat to American life and American lives. Obama is now struggling to look competent and look like he’s doing something about it.
If you surf around the web, you’ll see blatant tidbits mocking the terror threat like this parody of the Department of Homeland Security’s advisory system:
When that’s the mentality of Obama’s base of support, it’s easy to understand why Obama doesn’t take it seriously and why a guy who has no clue how to handle the situation or even how to surround himself with those who do could make it to the White House. After all, this “post-partisan” President has done nothing but turn his back on at least half of this country.
Posted in Barack Obama, Loony Lefties, War on Terror | Comments (21) |
21 Responses to “What’s Wrong With Obama’s Approach to National Security?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
January 7th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
The mistake alot of politicians make is in not appointing people to head up these agencies who have a demonstrated history of getting the job done. Lefties are afraid (or often too damn arrogant) to admit they don’t know what they’re doing when it comes to national defense (or even law enforcement for that matter), so they tend to appoint puppets to head up their agencies rather than strong leaders. Management by committee, or a “Captain may I” system, just doesn’t cut it.
January 7th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
You’re right, Glenn. It’s a bipartisan problem because the Republicrats aren’t perfect either. We had 8 years of unabated radical Islamist growth while Slick Willie played golf and charmed obese women, which set the stage for the then-new President Bush to be asleep at the switch on 9/11. At least Bush woke up from the slumber. Obama appears to be hitting the snooze button.
January 7th, 2010 at 11:07 pm
The mistake alot of politicians make is in not appointing people to head up these agencies who have a demonstrated history of getting the job done.
Okay, then. So who would you recommend? Who’s “got the job done” before?
January 7th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
Based on the story I quoted above, former US AG Mike Mukasey would make a good candidate…or at least someone with the same point of view on this issue.
The real question is whether Obama has the stomach to fight the war. (Did you notice that even Obama called it a “war” in his televised statement today?) I don’t think he does. How can you confidently defend yourself in a fight that you believe you brought upon yourself, which has left you guilt-ridden over your own history?
January 7th, 2010 at 11:50 pm
Obama still doesn’t seem to want to understand what, or who, we are at war with, and thus his declaration that we are at war is no more insightful than, “war on poverty”, or “war on drugs”, or “war on cancer,” etc. Just meaningless words. He refuses to understand (which means he does but can’t permit himself to acknowledge what he intellectually gets) that our enemy is radical islam, not just Al Queda, which is only the most visible of its manifestations. This is far more of a struggle than preventing the blowing up of airplanes, no? So the answer to the question of whether Obama has the stomach for a fight depends on what he understands the fight is about…
January 8th, 2010 at 1:14 am
“Okay, then. So who would you recommend? Who’s “got the job done” before?”
Dick Cheney
January 8th, 2010 at 1:29 am
Sure, Dan…but let’s be real. If Obama called up Cheney and asked him to take over as his NSA, he’d probably tell Obama: “go f-k yourself.”
January 8th, 2010 at 1:46 am
Well folkbum, considering we’re at war with Al Qaeda and have porous borders, I’d approach Generals Colin Powell and H. Norman Schwarzkopf for the job of Secretary of Homeland Security and CIA Director. They did a pretty good job in the first Gulf War. And if they didn’t want the job I’d ask them for recommendations. The military has been pretty good at turning out some great leaders. Then there’s retired LAPD Police Chief Bill Bratton and Miami Police Chief John Timoney who have been very successful at their jobs. Of course a real leader, secure in his own personality, is not threatened by strong, competent people and is willing to delegate authority and responsibility to them.
January 8th, 2010 at 7:52 am
(Did you notice that even Obama called it a “war” in his televised statement today?)
Do people really believe he meant it in anything other than the metaphorical sense (“war on poverty”, “war on obesity”, etc)? War-mentality is a way for leftists to mobilize the populace and impose new behaviorial controls on them.
January 8th, 2010 at 9:28 am
Glenn: I understand your recommendations, but in the final analysis I believe understanding the mission is more important than the individual personnel charged with executing it. By that I mean, for example, Powell could have easily ended the entire Sadam Hussein (sp?) story in ’91 - but 41 decided that wasn’t the mission - and so… Now, with this administration, we have a top-down failure to understand the mission that no degree of middle command competence can overcome…
January 8th, 2010 at 9:30 am
Where’s the shocking report Americans were supposed to hear yesterday?
January 8th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Can’t argue with that mouse, but folkbum asked and I answered. Better guys like that in charge of these agencies than civilians with no leadership qualities. Fact is there always seems to be a limp wristed and/or arrogant intellectual “I know better than anybody else” politician who obstructs those charged with getting the job done.
(Actually, Barry McCaffrey understood well what you are saying about ending the Saddam regime once and for all and got in a jam for his actions too, but he survived the scrutiny. In my opinion, he was right - and I’ll bet Schwarzkopf and Powell thought so too but couldn’t say so publicly. All real warriors know.)
January 8th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Heather…to be accurate, Obama did say we are “at war against al Qaida”…as opposed to a more generalized statement. Don’t misunderstand, I’m not suggesting he’ll do anything remotely competent in light of said revelation. While I like the change in terms, he also drew too fine a point since al Qaida is not the only terrorist threat we face.
I just pointed it out since his base of support has always scoffed at the “war on terror” viewpoint of GWB. Obama has avoided using those words…until now.
January 8th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Rudy Giuliani would be good for the job, too.
January 8th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Rudy Giuliani. Dick Cheney. Mike Mukasey. All good choices.
But then CONTROL and Maxwell Smart, Agent 86, would be an improvement over the crew entitled with our safety now.
Missed it by that much.
January 8th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Giuliani was good at cleaning up times square.. thats about it.
Other than that.. you can have him.
[IMG]http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o190/turd_ferguson_photos/rudyndrag.jpg[/IMG]
January 8th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Zach Wussniewski did a hit piece on Giuliani along with a tasteless Twin Towers cartoon. Yesterday, it was a repost bashing a Badger Blogger regular.
I guess that’s how the testicularly challenged operate.
January 8th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
So Paul,
Tell me, what NATIONAL policies of Rudy would you go for… tick tock tick tock.
As I intimated, he was good at cleaning up New York city , but he went very weird afterwards.
January 8th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
“at war against al Qaida”
OK. How about Hamas, Hezbollah, Wahhabi-ism, etc?
I’m just not convinced he’s taking it seriously, or at least any more seriously than he has to avoid Deval Patrick-esque approval ratings.
January 9th, 2010 at 8:20 am
I wouldn’t put Powell in charge. He’s the one who argued to stop the first Gulf War before Iraq was truly defanged.
How about Sheriff Joe Arpaio? That would be justice to have him replace Janet Neopolitan Ice Cream. Notice that Italy has trouble with their President who has the same name as our dysfunctional Janet?
January 9th, 2010 at 11:04 am
Yep, Sheriff Joe in charge of homeland security, and tell him to get it done. Same for Schwarzkopf, only as SecDef. Powell sold out years ago - let him enjoy his retirement.