Democrats And National Security
by Big Dog on Dec 30, 2009 at 18:10 Political
The Democrats are quick to point out that 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch and therefore he is responsible for it. Fair enough though it is just as true that the policies of the Clinton Administration led to the attacks of that day. Bush was tagged with it but Clinton made it happen.
The failed terrorist attack of Christmas Day took place on Obama’s watch and he is responsible for it. Democrats believe that it is our belligerence that causes us to be attacked and that their methods of diplomacy are the correct ones. I think it is safe to put that myth to rest. Despite the Obama view that he will usher in a new world and that people will like us if we extend an open hand the attacks continue. The people who want to do us harm do not care much about the nice talk. They have a goal and that goal is to destroy us.
No external force can defeat us. Our defeat, if we suffer one, will come from forces within and those forces are manifested in the Obama Administration and the Democrat Congress. Their policies and their positions make us weaker and will get Americans killed.
David Horowitz has a piece out at FrontPageMag.com which is entitled; “Who Will Be Responsible for the American Dead?” He answers the title’s question as follows:
The answer to the question posed above is that liberals will be responsible when the next bomber actually succeeds in killing Americans. Liberals have fought the very idea that we are at war (and should use security measures appropriate in wartime) although our enemies have declared war on us. Liberals have fought to close the Guantanamo Bay holding center and to release its terrorists back onto the battlefield.
Liberals have fought the idea that we are at war. This is a true statement and is reflected by the replacement of the phrase “War on Terror” with the phrase “Overseas Contingency Operations” and “Terrorism” with “Man Made Disaster.” This is a mindset that will get people killed and is a mindset that demonstrates weakness. The Christmas Day bomber felt no love for America or Obama and his open hand. This person felt a hatred for us and everything we believe in and felt so strongly that he was willing to take his own life in order to murder a bunch of innocent people.
Dick Cheney says that Obama is pretending that this does not exist but that pretending will not make it go away. Politico reports these words from the former Vice President:
“As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.
“He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency – social transformation—the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war.”
This is a very astute observation by Mr. Cheney. He has Obama completely pegged and his assessment is spot on. Obama pretends that things do not exist because they do not fit into the view he has of the world. Obama is like a child who believes that if something is not seen (or in his case acknowledged) then it does not exist. The saying that what you can’t see can’t harm you is a dangerous one indeed. While Obama pretends that there are no enemies and that we are not at war we are being targeted by those who are at war with us.
Recently, Obama gave himself a B+ grade for his work so far. Toby Harnden of the Telegraph UK has a post up indicating that Obama gets an F for protecting Americans. Mr. Harnden states:
There is no more solemn duty for an American commander-in-chief than the martialling of “all elements of American power” – the phrase Obama himself used on Monday – to protect the people of the United States. In that key respect, Obama failed on Christmas Day, just as President George W. Bush failed on September 11th (though he succeeded in the seven years after that).
Yes, the buck stops in the Oval Office. Obama may have rather smugly given himself a “B+” for his 2008 performance but he gets an F for the events that led to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarding a Detroit-bound plane in Amsterdam with a PETN bomb sewn into his underpants. He said today that a “systemic failure has occurred”. Well, he’s in charge of that system.
Yes, Obama is in charge of the system that failed and he is in charge of securing this country. Unfortunately, while he pretends that all is well the wolves are at the door.
The sad truth is that the door leads to a house made of straw.
Related:
History News Network; SYSTEM WORKED; OBAMASPHERICS FAILED
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: cheney, harnden, horowitz, national security, Obama, terror
“I would remind the American public that the apparent leaders of the al Qaeda cell in Yemen were 2 terrorists who were released by Vice President Cheney in secret. I think there’s a level of accountability that has to be levied personally on the vice president,… He is personally responsible for that. –Eric Massa (D-NY)
Link.
D.
—————–
Top Ten Worst Things about the Bush Decade.
Blame Bush.
They were released to the custody of another country, not let free. If Cheney had his choice he would keep them all locked up but liberals want them all released.
All of the liberals chickens are coming home to roost. They demanded that the people be released and downplayed the recidivism. Now they are seeing the results of their acts.
Hey Darrel- what about the six Yemenis who were released in the dead of night over the Holidays? I think we can pin them on Barry, not Bush- and while we are at it- what is more cruel to a desert- dwelling people- Gitmo, where the average winter temps are 78- or Ill. , where the average winter temp is 13?
Who’s gonna raise hell then? the ACLU, claiming cruel and inhumane treatment?
It confounds logic to move these wastes of space from Gitmo, a perfectly good prison, to the US, costing multi- millions, and satisfying no one.
It will satisfy Adam, even if they are let out and they kill his family. He said that would be worth it.
BLK: “what about the six Yemenis who were released in the dead of night over the Holidays?”>>
DAR
Get back to me when they blow something up. If it’s bad when Obama does it (and nothing has happened), why isn’t it bad when your Bush did it (and something bad happened)?
Bigd: “They were released…>>
DAR
Yes they were. Turns out that was a bad idea. Who’s fault? Bush & Cheney. With power comes responsibility.
Bigd: If Cheney had his choice he would keep them all locked up>>
DAR
How did Cheney not have a choice? You’re hilarious. They got the power, they get the blame. He chose to exercise his power to release them. Poor choice Cheney.
Bigd: but liberals want them all released.>>
DAR
False. Sensible people want the innocent released and the guilty punished. Such a notion used to be a long standing tradition in this country. This may not be possible thanks to the complete kibosh and legal quagmire Bush created with Gitmo.
Bigd: the liberals chickens are coming home to roost.>>
DAR
You are confusing your chickens. These chickens were released by your Bush/Cheney and now they are coming back to roost, and they have bombs strapped under their wings. Feathers soon to fly.
D.
I would remind the American public that Democrats like Massa have been working with their butt buddies in the ACLU to get these people released despite objections by the right.
Now that they have been released and sent to the custody of other countries Democrats want to ignore their role in all of this and try to act as if they were not told about the repeat offenders which they downplayed.
This is like the housing bubble. Democrats propped it up, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and others swore that it was OK and made sure their buddies at Fannie and Freddie got rich and these people kept saying the MACS were in great shape.
Then when they collapsed they all acted like they never said anything and that it was all Bush’s fault. Rewriting history.
The Donks are the ones who want them let go. They got what they wanted and it is biting them in their asses.
The bad part for them is they have to admit that Bush was right.
You all can try pointing fingers but this will not work. Happened on Obama’s watch and Obama owns it.
And if Massa does not like that he can call me so I can tell him to get in line behind all the other people in line…
to kiss my ass.
I hate to say it but the shoe bomber happened on Bush’s watch. He’s in Supermax now where people rot from the inside out and I hope he’s joined soon by the ding-a-ling bomber. Never the less, folks are spot on when they accuse Barry of avoiding the problem. The killing will continue, that’s the point, this is just the begining. Just as Barry can be content with 10% unemployment he will be content with minimal civillian casualties.
The shoe bomber is an American citizen who is entitled to Constitutionally protected rights though I would submit he could have been tried for treason and executed.
Yes, it happened on Bush’s watch and he was responsible.
Interesting. The left cried about keeping them locked up and now they cry about them being released.
So Darrel and others, please let me know how you feel about Obama releasing four more to Yemin on Christmas Ever or how you feel about him releasing, TODAY, one of the guys responsible for killing American soldiers.
Now I won’t hold my breath waiting for this. I have already concluded that some folks have little ability to see things as they are and will twist all the facts to fit their preconceived notions.
Cheney was at fault for releasing people to the custody of another country.
Does this mean that if a convict is transferred from a prison in state A to a prison in state B then, sometime later, state B releases him and he murders someone that the governor of state A is responsible?
Are judges who release child sex offenders responsible for the sexual offenses they commit if the judge followed the sentencing guidelines?
Bush and Cheney are responsible for all the ills in the world. If they were old enough Darrel and his ilk would blame them for Jesus being nailed to the cross. I get it, I don’t agree but I get it.
Some folks are a little blind by their image of self importance and inflated image of ability.
Bigd: “The left cried about keeping them locked up”>>
DAR
Without due process, yes. That’s immoral.
Bigd: “…and now they cry about them being released.”>>
DAR
When they go on to be terrorists, yes. That’s when we know Bush made a boo. We can judge the action to be bad by it’s consequences. That’s how morality works (don’t tell Blake).
Bigd: please let me know how you feel about Obama releasing four more>>
DAR
Don’t know the circumstances, don’t care. Let us know when something bad happens as a result. Then you can begin to build the case we already have right in front of us, against Bush.
Bigd: one of the guys responsible for killing American soldiers.>>
DAR
Dealt with below. Don’t know the circumstances of his case or the evidence against him or penalties already applied. Let us know if he does something bad. Then we will know it was a mistake to release him (this is also weighed with the benefit of our hostage released).
Bigd: Cheney was at fault for releasing people to the custody of another country.>>
DAR
Yes. Stop making excuses.
George W. Bush Let Terrorists Behind Christmas Bombing Out Of Gitmo
Note: “Both the families of al-Awfi and Shari attribute their radicalization to their years in detention at Guantanamo Bay.”
Bigd: Does this mean that if a convict is transferred from a prison in state A to a prison in state B then,…>>
DAR
Very possibly. They is no need to use an analogy and change the circumstances. Bush/Cheney had them and released them for an “art program” in another country. If they had been good boys this would not be seen as a bad thing. They weren’t good boys, so Bush/Cheney get the blame for having them and letting them go. It’s called “responsibility.”
Bigd: Are judges who release child sex offenders responsible for the sexual offenses they commit if the judge followed the sentencing guidelines?>>
DAR
I don’t think so. However, there are a couple instances of Gov. Mike Huckabee stepping in and releasing prisoners convicted of heinous crimes who have now gone on and committed even worse ones.
This we can judge to be a bad thing.
D.
If the judge followed sentencing guidelines then no, the law is wrong not the judge. If Bush did not have anything to charge people with and was forced to let them go then he is not to blame. You can blame the ACLU and the left for gumming up the works with useless lawsuits. You can blame the SCOTUS for the opinion that grants something not contained in the Constitution but you cannot blame Bush if he let them go because of these rulings.
I know you have trouble with this concept but that is the case.
They came back on you guy’s watch so it is his problem and he is responsible.
You judge an action by its consequences is how morality works. So If I do something immoral and nothing bad happens (like I don’t get caught and no one knows) it was OK. Just so long as I do not get caught.
What happens if we let an innocent man go and he goes on to do something immoral, should we be blamed for that as well since the action/consequence thing you cited. And if so then should we just keep people in jail forever because if we let them go and they do something bad it will never be their fault?
That is the problem with you liberals, you don’t understand personal responsibility.
Bigd: “If the judge followed sentencing guidelines then no, the law is wrong not the judge.>>
DAR
No, the law is not necessary wrong either. That doesn’t follow. Human beings are free moral agents and sometimes go on to do bad things. These cannot always be foreseen, obviously. THEY are responsible for their actions (and note: the 9/11 bombers are responsible for the events on 9/11, not Bush. Although I think a strong case for some negligence on his part can be made).
Bigd: If Bush did not have anything to charge people with and was forced to let them go then he is not to blame.>>
DAR
Right. Bush is not necessarily to blame. He made countless decisions about such things over time and of course some of them are going to work out bad. This is one of them.
Regarding him not having anything to charge them with, some of that is his fault and it is a really big deal. Note:
“This “scandalous” policy [Mirandizing] actually began during the Bush administration. One of the worst mistakes the Bush administration made was paying absolutely no attention in the early days to building cases against the people it detained. Evidence was improperly collected or not collected at all. Statements were elicited through torture and other coercive means. So when the Bush administration later decided that it wanted to try its high-value detainees, it had virtually no evidence to work with.”
Link.
Bigd: “you cannot blame Bush if he let them go because of these rulings.”>>
DAR
Just did, see above.
Bigd: [morality] So If I do something immoral and nothing bad happens (like I don’t get caught and no one knows) it was OK.>>
DAR
I guess you would need to give an example. If “nothing bad happens” it’s not clear why “something immoral” happened. But it’s certainly possible.
Your next moral question is just silly, so I’ll skip it.
D.
I never said it was bad. If the government decides to release them to some other country then that is the government’s business. If they get back into the fight then they were bad people, as we said all along.
The release is not an admission that they were good, only that we did not have enough to keep them, at least according to the liberals and the ACLU.
And Obama has already released someone that has committed acts of war against our soldiers. That was bad. I wonder if this was a payoff to get a hostage released…
Bigd: “Obama has already released someone that has committed acts of war against our soldiers.”>>
DAR
Let us know when he does something AFTER being released.
Bigd: I wonder if this was a payoff to get a hostage released…>>
DAR
If you had read even the SECOND sentence of your own article you would know the answer to this question:
“Qais Qazali, the leader of the Asaib al Haq or the League of the Righteous, was set free by the US military and transferred to Iraqi custody in exchange for the release of British hostage Peter Moore…”
D.
It was a rhetorical question.
Not silly, follows your line.
If a law allows a child molester to get out and he molests again then the law was bad.
If it were my family member the guy would never make it to trial…
And if the judge did not give the max he could he might have some trouble as well. I am not above people taking things in their own hands if the people we put in place to do it will not.
We might just need to throw all of them out by force and start over. Don’t know, hope not. But if so then I will have to join the resistance.
Bigd: “If a law allows a child molester to get out and he molests again then the law was bad.”>>
DAR
No, the person may just be bad. In making laws we have to balance the bad of those particular possible instances with the benefit of not locking up offenders forever.
We have a real life instance of this in Gov. Huckabee. This was in the Arkansas Times in an (amazing) list of best and worst of the year:
***
“Worst tapdance
A habitual criminal might’ve been harmlessly rotting away in the Arkansas state penitentiary in November, instead of out in Washington State murdering [four] policemen by the bunch, if in 2000 then-Gov. Mike Huckabee hadn’t commuted his 108-year prison term, cutting it by more than half and making him eligible for immediate parole. Huck response to questions of why was the old Wayne Dumond softshoe all over again. Presidential prospects dimmed noticeably.”
Regarding Dumond, he is a rapist, molester, murderer Huckabee got out:
“Huckabee, addressing DuMond as “Dear Wayne,” wrote to DuMond in January 1997: “My desire is that you be released from prison.”[17]
On June 22, 2001, DuMond was arrested and charged with the September 20, 2000, rape and murder of Carol Sue Shields.[22]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_DuMond
Who is responsible for these actions? The fellows who did the acts. Most people now think Huckabee used poor judgment. Being a minister, he probably prayed about it a lot.
D.
I know what Huckabee did and do not agree with it. But mention Dukakis as well.
There was a case here recently where a child molester was in jail for a minimum amount of time and was released. There are a lot of particulars but he murdered an 11 year old girl who was found on Christmas Day.
He should have never been out. The recidivism rate for child molesters is near 100%. They cannot be cured.
Any person who rapes a child should be in jail for LIFE. There is no balancing that out.
If he gets out then the person who kills him should get a medal. Like I said, if a molester was released and did that to a person in my family they would never find him and they guy who let him out would meet a terrible end as well.
There are consequences for doing this. We will only see action when a judge’s daughter or a politician’s daughter is raped and murdered.
Probably prayed about it is speculation. I guess, by your definition, Huck is not wrong because the law allowed him to commute a sentence. He followed the law so he has no blame in the matter just like a judge who ignores the child molester’s history and gives a light sentence, no guilt.
That is how you define it. According to you Huckabee is not to blame because he followed the system and it was the guy who was bad.
Bigd: “According to you Huckabee is not to blame because he followed the system and it was the guy who was bad.”>>
DAR
I don’t blame Huckabee for the actions of someone else. But I think he showed poor judgment.
I agree with that.