Tag Archives: Appeasement

News

Terrorist attacks under George W. Bush and Barack Obama

15 Comments

First, let’s review the worldview of the left with the respect to national security.

This post is from Verum Serum. (H/T Neil Simpson’s latest round-up)

Excerpt:

New York’s Mayor Bloomberg:

[Katie] Couric interviewed Bloomberg to discuss the possibility that the failed attack might have been a precursor to something bigger and potentially, more deadly. At one point, the veteran anchor asked the Mayor whether or not he thought the suspect was American.

“A home-grown?” she asked, to which Bloomberg responded, “Home-grown, maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.”

The Nation’s Robert Dreyfuss:

But it seems far more likely to me that the perpetrator of the bungled Times Square bomb plot was either a lone nut job or a member of some squirrely branch of the Tea Party, anti-government far right.

MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer:

“I get frustrated…there was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country.  There are a lot of people who want to use terrorist intent to justify writing people off who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way.  I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry.”

Oooops. As it turns out, the Times Square terrorist was from Pakistan and was trained in explosives in Pakistan. And he also hated George W. Bush, and often said so to his neighbors. Vociferously.

Comparing George W. Bush and Barack Obama on national security

Let’s review:

Since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the number of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil under George W. Bush = ZERO

Since taking office, the number of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil under Barack Obama = FIVE

  • June 2009 – Little Rock, Arkansas – Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, an American Muslim opened fire on a U.S. military recruiting office. Private William Long was killed and Private Quinton Ezeagwula was wounded.
  • September 2009 – New York, New York – Attempt to detonate bombs in NYC subway system by member of al-Qaeda
  • November 2009 – Fort Hood, Texas – Nadal Malik Hassan conducts mass shooting at Fort Hood killing 13 and wounding 30 others.
  • December 2009 – Detroit, Michigan – Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempts to detonate an explosive on an aircraft enroute from Amsterdam to Detroit.
  • May 2010 – New York City, New York – New York’s Times Square was evacuated after the discovery of a car bomb.

Those are the facts.

So, if I am thinking of the safety of my future family and my neighbors, then I should vote Republican. If people vote Democrat, then we get  failure.

There are a lot more good posts in Neil’s round-up.

News

Obama refuses to support Britain over Falklands dispute

1 Comment

Story from the UK Telegraph.

Excerpt:

The Obama administration’s decision to remain neutral in the dispute between Great Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands is a shameful decision that will go down very badly across the Atlantic. As The Times has just reported, Washington has point blank refused to support British sovereignty over the Falklands, and is adopting a strictly neutral approach.

In the words of a State Department spokesman:

“We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality. The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.”

The remarks had echoes of an earlier statement by a senior State Department protocol official who, when asked about the shoddy treatment of the British Prime Minister in March last year, responded:

“There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.”

Even by the relentlessly poor standards of the Obama administration, whose doctrine unfailingly appears to be “kiss your enemies and kick your allies”, this is a new low. The White House’s neutrality in a major dispute between America’s closest friend and the likes of Venezuelan tyrant Hugo Chavez, Argentina’s biggest backer, represents the appalling appeasement of an alliance of anti-Western Latin American regimes, stretching from Caracas to Havana – combined with a callous indifference towards the Anglo-American alliance.

Over the course of the last year, we’ve seen a staggering array of foreign policy follies by this administration, from the throwing under the bus of the Poles and the Czechs over missile defence to siding with Marxists in Honduras. But this latest pronouncement surely takes the biscuit as the most brazen betrayal so far of a US ally.

Alienating our closest allies, and encouraging war.

News

Democrats favor terrorist rights over national security in latest intelligence bill

Leave a comment

Story here from National Review. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

While the country and the Congress have their eyes on today’s dog-and-pony show on socialized medicine, House Democrats last night stashed a new provision in the intelligence bill which is to be voted on today.  It is an attack on the CIA: the enactment of a criminal statute that would ban “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.” (See here, scoll to p. 32.)

The provision is impossibly vague — who knows what “degrading” means? Proponents will say that they have itemized conduct that would trigger the statute (I’ll get to that in a second), but it is not true. The proposal says the conduct reached by the statute “includes but is not limited to” the itemized conduct. (My italics.) That means any interrogation tactic that a prosecutor subjectively believes is “degrading” (e.g., subjecting a Muslim detainee to interrogation by a female CIA officer) could be the basis for indicting a CIA interrogator.

The act goes on to make it a crime to use tactics that have been shown to be effective in obtaining life saving information and that are far removed from torture.

[…]What’s more, the proposed bill is directed at “any officer or employee of the intelligence community” conducting a “covered interrogation.” The definition of “covered interrogation” is sweeping — including any interrogation done outside the U.S., in the course of a person’s official duties on behalf of the government.

[…]Here is the fact: Democrats are saying they would prefer to see tens of thousands of Americans die than to see a KSM subjected to sleep-deprivation or to have his “phobias exploited.” I doubt that this reflects the values of most Americans.

They would rather put us all at risk of a terrorist attack than upset the terrorists. National security, Democrat style.

Related posts