Crotch Bombers, Obama, Blair, Brown, and War
Clarity is not only good but unusual. It is also good that President Obama did not refer to the Christmas Day unpleasantness as an alleged and isolated criminal attempt to cause a man-made disaster, and that he pledged to do “whatever it takes.” It seems possible that the lessons left unlearned following the Fort Hood incident more than two months ago may now have been learned, albeit tardily.
But what did President Obama actually mean on January 7? As observed at Powerline: “The prospect of losing a reelection race concentrates the mind wonderfully.”
Well yes, but the loss of Massachusetts came too late to concentrate President Obama’s mind before his January 7 address.
What did “at war” mean on January 7 and how does the United States conduct a war with al-Qaeda terrorists bent upon causing death and destruction in the United States? “War” is a strange word; once upon a time, it had an understandable meaning. We were at war with Germany and Japan following the December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor, for example. Later, we got into wars with poverty, AIDS, hunger, obesity, acne, and a bunch of other quite different enemies. Those wars seem not to have been won, use of the word “war” in those contexts had little meaning, and even some Code Pink members probably supported some of those heroic efforts.
Nevertheless, the words must have had some meaning in the present al-Qaeda context.
Being “at war” with al-Qaeda evidently did not mean that we are at war with Islam; that would be politically incorrect beyond belief, and it would indeed be both shocking and surprising if that was what President Obama meant. He has substantial roots in Islam, for which he apparently has high regard. Islam, as we have been told repeatedly and have even memorized, is the religion of peace and enlightenment — there are only a few “isolated” Islamic extremists, and since they are not peaceful they are not really and truly Islamic. We are at war only with card-carrying members of al-Qaeda.
It seemed from President Obama’s January 7 address that being at war with al-Qaeda did not mean that, should we happen to capture one, we would treat him with disrespect or otherwise be unpleasant. That’s the job of the Transportation Safety Administration, and they don’t seem to understand there’s a war on (they just do it routinely). In dealing with al-Qaeda terrorists, we are said to be bound not only by the United States Constitution and statutes but apparently by international law as well, so any extra protections afforded by the latter will also be provided.
The sense I got from President Obama’s January 7 address — unlike the sense I got from Mr. Blair’s “misconstrued” January 20 testimony — was that we must continue to demonstrate to the world, much of it populated by Islamists, that we are fair and transparent. Hence, after the appropriate Miranda warning and provision of counsel (if accepted), it appeared that we would confine the criminal suspect in a reasonably pleasant place to await a speedy trial, provide more physical comforts than he is likely to be accustomed to, cater to his religious sensibilities, and provide food and other amenities consistent with those sensibilities.
We would not “torture” a criminal suspect to get information useful in preventing jihadist attacks, nor jump to hasty conclusions — as President Obama warned us not to do in addressing Major Hasan’s escapade at Fort Hood. We would not punish the victim of our society’s wicked ways inappropriately. Indeed, Abdulmutallab would be deemed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at a full trial, preferably in a civilian criminal proceeding in the United States, at which he would enjoy bountiful rights — none of which are enjoyed under sharia law or off-with-his-head justice.
We did the same in the case of Zacharias Moussaoui, and will do so with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Mr. Abdulmutallab, whose escapade on Christmas Day caused President Obama finally to proclaim that we are “at war.” As was the case in the recent trial of Blackwater guards, any “fruit” of the poison tree of a coerced statement will be scornfully rejected.
What else did the presidential proclamation that we are “at war” mean and what can it reasonably be expected to accomplish?
The poorly read and intellectually shallow Barack Obama is existentially convinced that America is responsible for the rage of radical Muslims. In his heart of hearts, he perceives no logical reason to focus on fighting their terrorist activities. Our country allegedly screwed over the darker skinned people of the Middle East. That means the anger is somewhat justified. It is probably best to limit any violent responses. This will only increase their anger. Sadly, Obama fails completely to realize that providing criminal trials for the terrorists—is considered a sign of weakness. Our overly nice guy approach only entices them to further outrages. We are therefore far better off, according to the Progressive left, to instead concentrate our energies fighting a so-called war against poverty, climate change, or obese children. Conquering these goals will persuade our enemies to give up their arms and became members in the utopian world community. I wish that I was speaking in a tongue in cheek in manner, but I am not. Obama’s worldview is most assuredly that childishly naïve.
Dan Miller graduated from Yale in 1963. All hell broke loose only a few years later. The Ivy League schools instituted their affirmative action policies in the mid to late 1960s. Blacks and other minorities were the first to take advantage of the lowered standards—but by 1975 the white students inevitably also jumped aboard the gravy train. The softer disciplines have never been the same since. Only a hard science credential is usually earned. The affirmative actions students don’t take those courses. A liberal arts degree is often something to ridicule. Obama entered Columbia University in 1981. Enough said.
Here is a request from Republican members of congress that Attorney General Holder respond to specific questions and testify before the appropriate congressional committees. I don’t plan to hold my breath while waiting for him to do so.
Perhaps Holder and crew are missing a great opportunity. If they claim to have extracted all necessary informatiion from the crotch bomber in 15 minutes then : Just switch from waterboarding and polite conversation etc. to explosives in the shorts. What amazing speedy results ! Although most of us would rather have the explosives in Holder’s shorts while he is sitting on Obama’s lap.
‘War’ is nothing but a word to the President, another phrase used to make a point.
“I don’t plan to hold my breath while waiting for him to do so.”
It would also behoove one not to wait to see if Eric Holder has the intellectual ability to answer any hard questions. He graduated from Columbia Law in 1976. It is obvious that Holder took advantage of the affirmative action policies instituted a few years earlier.
Our current U.S. Attorney General lacks the education necessary to carry out his responsibilities. Lindsey Graham made mincemeat of Eric Holder. All Americans should watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG7lm8Sfbo4
Our nation is paying an awful price for the lowered academic standards of the Ivy League universities. Their students are often so ridiculously mediocre. Still, they are the “best!” It only gets worse at the second and third tier schools.
Pressure on the Obama Administration continues to build to modify its decision to hold the KSM and other terror trials in New York City. Although other places are being considered, Obama remains firm that the trials must be held in civilian courts.
White House spokesman Bill Burton said Thursday that President Obama is committed to seeing Mohammed and his alleged accomplices brought to justice in a federal court. The president believes that can be done successfully and securely.
“Currently our federal jails hold hundreds of convicted terrorists, and the president’s opinion has not changed on that,” Burton said.
Sometimes, I wonder whether they understand the world.
I don’t know whether to characterize this testimony by Attorney General Holder as muddled, stumbling, evasive or incompetent. Maybe all four apply. In fairness, I guess it should be noted that most of the talking was done by Lindsey Graham who was questioning him.
Now playing at a courtroom near you in New York, and there is lots more to come.
Now, the savvy “Terror Mom” of three is pulling out all the stops to win a mistrial. Among her Cirque du Jihad antics:
— Demanding that jurors be genetically tested for a “Zionist or Israeli background” to ensure a fair and impartial jury of her Jew-hating peers.
— Ranting about 9/11 Israel conspiracies during voir dire.
— Screaming out loud during the testimony of U.S. Army Capt. Robert Snyder, who was in the room in Ghazni when Siddiqui allegedly grabbed an M-4 rifle and proclaimed, “Allahu Akbar!” and “I hate Americans! Death to America!” Before being ejected from the courtroom, Siddiqui shouted to Snyder, “You’re lying!” She also babbled about torture at a secret prison.
#8 DAN MILLER—You said it all. No reason to post on this story.
Thanks, Keyboard555. However, this does seem worth noting: Next year’s budget will included $200,000,000 to “help defray the security costs resulting from the criminal trials of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow 9/11 terrorists.” The author continues,
Aren’t Khalid and his pals ordinary criminals? Even trying John Gotti didn’t shut down Manhattan. The reason why such extraordinary security will be necessary is that the 9/11 plotters are not merely criminals. They are combatants in a war against the United States; it is their fellow combatants who are still in the field who pose such a risk that extraordinary measures are necessary.
Worth thinking about.
War ? It is of little use to ask about a single three letter word . He did not mean anything he said .
The Crotch Bomber has started talking again, apparently under a plea deal and has provided “valuable intelligence.” That’s probably a good thing, but it suggests that the powers that be were puffing smoke when they announced that he had said all that he was going to say before being given a Miranda warning and counsel.
Word that Mr. Abdulmutallab has resumed cooperating with authorities isn’t likely to end the controversy. “There’s no changing the fact that Mirandizing Abdulmutallab gave terrorists a six-week head start to cover their tracks,” said Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri, the top Republican on the Senate intelligence committee. “We will never know what life-saving information on co-conspirators and future plots we missed out on.”