Hello Friends,
It appears that B Hussein finally came out and disagreed with Napolitano and said the system didn't work. He had a meeting with all the heads of security and demands changes be made. They had all the information at their fingertips and simply failed to act in the proper manner. I just wonder if he finally realizes that there is a war on terror going on and he and his lackeys will finally join in that war.
What I found interesting was B Hussein's tie less appearance at the press conference he gave. The first thought that came to mind was that he's trying to give the impression of the overworked President that didn't even have time to put on a tie for the press conference. But then it hit me that he's trying to copy and emulate the maniac Ahmadinejad. I guess he's so impressed and in awe of him that he has to copy his dress code.
Below is an article by Charles Krauthammer who explains the present state of affairs in regard to terrorism and the B Hussein administration.
Shalom,
Peter
Friday, January 1, 2010
President Obama makes a statement
Monday on the attempted bombing
of Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas
Day.(Kent Nishimura/getty Images)Janet Napolitano -- former Arizona governor, now overmatched secretaryof homeland security -- will forever be remembered for having said ofthe attempt to bring down an airliner over Detroit: "The systemworked." The attacker's concerned father had warned U.S. authoritiesabout his son's jihadist tendencies. The would-be bomber paid cash andchecked no luggage on a transoceanic flight. He was nonetheless allowedto fly, and would have killed 288 people in the air alone, save for afaulty detonator and quick actions by a few passengers.
Heck of a job, Brownie.
The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration'sresponse to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetencebut incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama hasrelentlessly tried to play down and deny the nature of the terroristthreat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism "man-caused disasters."Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogatorswill face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask ina civilian trial in New York -- a trifecta of political correctness andimage management.
And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishesthe term "war on terror." It's over -- that is, if it ever existed.
Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda has not. Which gives new meaning to the term "asymmetric warfare."
And produces linguistic -- and logical -- oddities that litteredObama's public pronouncements following the Christmas Day attack. Inhis first statement, Obama referred to Umar Farouk
More jarring still were Obama's references to the terrorist as a"suspect" who "allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device." You canhear the echo of FDR: "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which willlive in infamy -- Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedlybombed Pearl Harbor."
Obama reassured the nation that this "suspect" had been charged.Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemycombatant -- an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform,direct attack on civilians -- and now to prevent future attacks, he isbeing interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaeda inYemen.
Abdulmutallab as "an isolated extremist." This is the same president who, after the Fort Hood, Tex., shooting, warned us "against jumping to conclusions"-- code for daring to associate the mass murder there with NidalHasan's Islamist ideology. Yet, with Abdulmutallab, Obama jumpedimmediately to the conclusion, against all existing evidence, that thewould-be bomber acted alone.
Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail andimmediately lawyered up. At which point -- surprise! -- he stopstalking.
This absurdity renders hollow Obama's declaration that "we will notrest until we find all who were involved." Once we've givenAbdulmutallab the right to remain silent, we have gratuitouslyforfeited our right to find out from him precisely who else wasinvolved, namely those who trained, instructed, armed and sent him.
This is all quite mad even in Obama's terms. He sends 30,000 troopsto fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into defendant.
The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparingfor a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator -- no judge, nojury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the veryact of mass murder, he instantly acquires protection not just fromexecution by drone but even from interrogation.
The president said that this incident highlights "the nature ofthose who threaten our homeland." But the president is constantlydenying the nature of those who threaten our homeland. On Tuesday, hereferred five times to Abdulmutallab (and his terrorist ilk) as"extremist[s]."
A man who shoots abortion doctors is an extremist. An eco-fanaticwho torches logging sites is an extremist. Abdulmutallab is not one ofthese. He is a jihadist. And unlike the guys who shoot abortiondoctors, jihadists have cells all over the world; they blow up trainsin London, nightclubs in Bali and airplanes over Detroit (if they can);and are openly pledged to war on America.
Any government can through laxity let someone slip through thecracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war,indeed, refuses even to name the enemy -- jihadist is a word banishedfrom the Obama lexicon -- turns laxity into a governing philosophy.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com