Community Blogs
Is there a war going on or not?
President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are going ahead with their misguided plans to treat terrorists as criminals. Recently, it was announced that the mastermind behind 9/11 - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and four other accomplices will be tried in a courthouse in Manhattan. Brought from Guantanamo Bay prison into civilian federal court. On U.S. soil - not far from the where the World Trade Center once stood. With taxpayers footing the bill for their well-being, including: transportation, protection, shelter, food, and who knows what else....
Have we forgotten that in August of 1996, Osama bin Laden had declared war on the United States?
On September 11, 2001, terrorists carried out horrific acts of war on our country. They attacked the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and were aiming for the White House before their plans were thwarted and the plane they had hijacked ended up crashing in a field in Pennsylvania. Over 3,000 innocent Americans and others died on that terrible day.
After 9/11, President Bush set up military commissions that were to designed to specifically prosecute the war criminals who committed such heinous acts. Bush also brought down the walls of communication between federal agencies that Bill Clinton had put in place, thus allowing federal agencies to share information when dealing with terrorism. Bush and the government enacted "The Patriot Act" to ensure the safety of Americans. President Bush took the fight to the terrorists with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He treated the terrorist attacks of 9/11 for what they were: acts of war. Bush realized our country had been attacked, by an enemy that had declared war on us. And the United States went to war. This was called: The War on Terror.
What has happened?
Since the start of 2009, Obama and his Administration are bringing America back to the Clinton years. Pre-9/11. Refusing to admit that we are at war. Just look at how the Obama Administration does not want to acknowledge that we have an internal radical Muslim problem -within our own military, no less - in America. Recently Major Nidal Malik Hasan - a radical Muslim terrorist - gunned down innocent soldiers at Fort Hood. And how does the President and his Administration react? They bend over backwards not to utter the words "terrorist" or "terrorism." Even though all the facts point to such a conclusion.
With Obama, the war on terror has disappeared. It has been replaced with a kinder, gentler name: "Overseas Contingency Operation." Afghanistan, under Obama's leadership (or lack thereof) has seen more U.S. soldiers die in previous months than when the war started in 2001. And Obama continues to leave our troops twisting in the wind - waiting for his decision on when and if he will ever send more troops to help. How many months does it take for the Commander-In-Chief to act? to listen to his own appointed generals and follow their advice? Does Obama even realize the damage he is doing to our country, the troops, and those who are watching his floundering? Obama called Afghanistan "the necessary war." Well, if it is "necessary," why won't Obama do all he can to help our troops and try to win? From the Atlantic, October 12, 2009: The Afghan people are now "watching a young and inexperienced American president appear to waiver on his committment to their country, they are deciding, at the level of both the individual and the mass, whether to make their peace with the Taliban - even as the Taliban itself can only take solace and encouragement from Obama's public agonizing." (Does Obama even want to try to defeat the Taliban? Fight against terrorists? Or does he want to appease the enemy? It is hard to tell.)
And now as a country, we are headed back to the pre-Bush years, when threats of terrorism were ignored and acts of terrorism were treated as criminal matters. Look where that got us. 9/11. The following acts of terror occurred under Bill Clinton's watch, when terrorism was dealt with the same way common crimes were:
1993 - The first World Trade Center bombing
1995 - Attempted crashing of plane on White House
1995 - Oklahoma City bombing
1996 - Khobar Towers bombing - Saudi Arabia
1998 - U.S. Embassy bombings Kenya/Tanzania
2000 - USS Cole Bombing - Yemen
And Clinton's lack of seriousness when dealing with terrorists and terrorist threats set the stage for 9/11. Clinton had several opportunities to take out Osama bin Laden, and each time he refused to give the order. And because of the fire walls Clinton had put up between the FBI and CIA, as well as other law enforcement agencies, important information regarding terrorists was never shared, leaving terrorism unchecked. Clinton also refused to go after the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks listed above. All the American people got were platitudes. Nice speeches that talked tough, but no action. (Hmmmm...sounds like Barack Obama is following in Clinton's footsteps...in more ways than one.)
In the early '90's, when Clinton was elected president, our government chose to ignore terrorists and ignore terrorism. We had to pretend that radical Islamic Muslims didn't want to kill us. Obama is now doing the same thing, although he has taken it a step further. Obama somehow feels that if the United States takes every opportunity to appease our enemies, apologizes for every perceived wrong in the world, and is critical of our own way of life at every opportunity, we'll be safe! That's the way to go! There IS no war!!!...
U.S. Representative Thaddeus G. McCotter said it best when he condemned the decision of Obama to try the terrorists on U.S. soil in civilian court:
“The War for Freedom against terrorism is a martial matter, not a criminal matter. It is wrong for this administration to care more about the A.C.L.U.’S radical ideology than about Americans’ national security.”
Bravo! John McCain also expressed harsh criticism of what Obama is doing:
"I am extremely disappointed with the Obama administration’s decision to try in U.S. civilian courts the al-Qaida terrorists who planned, supported, and conducted the September 11th attacks. These terrorists are not common criminals. They are war criminals, who committed acts of war against our citizens and those of dozens of other nations."
Exactly. These vicious terrorists, whose goal is to kill non-believers, have declared war on our country. They are war criminals. They should not be afforded the same rights and protections as common criminals who are United States citizens. And now we are giving them a platform to present their views - for all the world to see and hear - in New York city. What an accomplishment for terrorists everywhere! Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be center stage. Hey, maybe he can even appear on "The View" or Katie Couric can score an exclusive interview....they can bash Bush together! Couric would probably treat Mohammed better than Sarah Palin!
Rush Limbaugh expressed the following thought that sums up this unbelievable situation with the following: Where, oh where, will these terrorists find a "jury of their peers?" Who will sit on it? The only people Limbaugh could come up to make up a logical "jury of peers" were Keith Olbermann, Harry "the war is lost" Reid, Cindy Sheehan, Ward Churchill, and Chris Matthews. I'd like to throw in other terrorist sympathizers like Rosie O'Donnell, Chrissie Hynde, and Jeanne Garafalo. Maybe Michael Moore could be an alternate.
President Obama is leading this country right towards disaster. And this insane stunt of trying terrorists in civilian court is just one more step in that direction. Since Obama has become president, our national security has been weakened. The war on terror - is gone! Don't call it that anymore! Economically, job losses are now at 10.2% nationwide (even though the Obama Administration claimed that with the Stimulus Act, we'd save and create thousands upon thousands of jobs! Unemployment would never go above 8%!) Our country is being led by a man who has no clue how to lead or what he is doing. He plays at being President. He's been a good actor - he can read the teleprompter like no other. Yet, when it comes to making the right decisions, keeping America strong, and touting what a great country America is....he falls flat. Obama cannot muster the words to praise his own country...or as we are witnessing right now... protect it.
Wouldn't it be nice if the President of the United States put as much though and effort into protecting the rights and lives of American citizens and soldiers as he does those of terrorists?
"Since the start of 2009, Obama and his Administration are bringing America back to the Clinton years. Pre-9/11. Refusing to admit that we are at war."
"Obama called Afghanistan "the necessary war."
You're contradicting yourself. Considering the highly charged emotional state you're in, I'll cut you some slack.
"when threats of terrorism were ignored Clinton had several opportunities to take out Osama bin Laden, and each time he refused to give the order."
The NEWSMAX article you source contradicts you: "On Aug. 20, 1998, Clinton ordered cruise missile attacks on suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan.Clinton said at the time."
How many cruise missile attacks did George Bush order after receiving the "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US" presidential daily brief he received one month prior to 9/11? Oh, never mind, I just remembered Bush was on vacation. Busy clearing brush.
AND THIS JUST IN!
Former President To Blame For Fort Hood Massacre
It has been discovered that just 51 days following 9/11, President Bush orders the disarmament of U.S. soldiers on military bases.
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/521056p.pdf
Scratch the "Clinton said at the time" sentence in my previous post. A copy and paste error.
"Our target was terror. Our mission was clear: to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Osama bin Laden, perhaps the pre-eminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today," Clinton said at the time.
jmark...one huge problem with your rhetoric. Obama, the man you voted for, talked to more than 5,500 veterans in Phoenix about his renewed commitment to dismantling Al Qaeda in Afghanistan -- a struggle he said was "fundamental to the defense of our people. This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity," Obama told the annual Veterans of Foreign Wars conference -- cautioning that the insurgency would not be defeated overnight. "Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans."
How soon you forget!!
jmark: I am not contradicting myself. Obama said several months ago that Afghanistan was "the necessary war." How that tune has changed. He is ignoring the threats of terrorism, and what is going on in Afghanistan right now. He doesn't have a clue of what to do. Send more troops and he risks losing the support of some Dems for Obamacare (and who is talking about "politicizing" the Hasan incident? The President - who is politicizing Afghanistan - and creating an even more dangerous situation for our troops in the meantime while he dithers around.) Don't send more troops and America may as well call it quits. The terrorists will have a victory.
As for soldiers being unarmed at military bases, Clinton ordered that early on in his term. I have pointed that out numerous times on my other post - to you, jmark. Just can't face the truth, I guess. The directive (5210.56) that was issued to the military, not allowing soldiers to carry firearms on army bases, came under Clinton's watch.
Amy: We use the term "war" very loosely in this country, There has been the war on poverty, a war on drugs and now the war on terror. They are very intriguing catch phases that focus the attention of the people on a specific goal. I believe that the attacks on Iraq and the Taliban government in Afghanistan were the result of an Authorization for the use of Force, but not a Declaration of War. As such, the prisoners that are about to be tried, are criminals, rather than representatives of any sovereign nation we have placed a formal declaration of war against.
referee33: When it comes to the battlefield, and defending America from it's enemies, I do not think the word "war" is used very loosely.
Maybe American's need to be reminded of President George W. Bush's speech declaring a "War on terror" immediately after 9/11:
http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/bush-war-on-terror-speech_3.htm
Especially moving is the following:
"We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism and Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends, in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies."
Immediately, the United States was in Afghanistan, at war.
And remember, terrorists are not representatives of any sovereign nation. They are not allowed the protection of the Geneva Convention - even though the United States granted themsuch. No terrorist group is a party to the Geneva Conventions. They have not agreed to any of the treaties found within the Geneva Convention. Terrorists do not represent a country. They do not wear a uniform. They are enemy combatants.
How soon many have forgotten - including the current occupant in the White House.
And Bush declared war on Iraq in March, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/19/sprj.irq.int.bush.transcript/
Here's a bit more on Slick Willy taking away guns from our soldiers on military bases:
"A Clinton Administration revision to Department of Defense Directive 5210.56 — Army Regulation 190-14, dated 12 March 1993 — permits the Secretary of the Army to authorize military personnel to carry firearms “on a case by case basis” for personal protection within the continental United States, but forbids military personnel to carry their own personal firearms and both requires “a credible and specific threat” before firearms be issued for military personnel to protect themselves. It further directs that firearms “not be issued indiscriminately for that purpose.”
Thus did President Bill Clinton — Commander-in-Chief of the United States Army — apply to American military personnel under his command the same anti-gun policies his administration and a Democratic-controlled Congress applied to American civilians in the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons ban of 1994."
Posted in Current Events, November 11th, 2009.
If Clinton took away the right of soldiers to carry firearms, why didn't Bush reinstate that right in Directive 5210.56 that was reissued just 51 days after 9/11?
Why can't you answer that question?
Is it because you don't know WTF you're talking about?
I think the communication break down between us is a result of my inability to understand your language. Therefore I've decided to take a course in Tea Bag.
http://www.markfiore.com/
ref33...don't forget that terrorism (bin Laden) officially declared war on the US. Should we have thown shoes back at them?
jmark: I cannot answer that question because I do not know all the particulars about why Bush didn't address Directive 5210.56. I don't know what Bush did or did not do anything and why.
However, I do know that Clinton gave the orginal directive that required our soldiers on military bases in the US not be be armed. However, in the minds of liberals, Bush will be blamed because he did not rescind Clinton's act. Maybe he was concerned that the lefties would say he didn't care about "gun free zones" and would stomp their feet about that - remember, Bush could do nothing right in the eyes of Democrats and libs.
So you're saying Bush was less concerned for the safety of our soldiers than he was about offending foot stomping lefties. Makes sense to me.
From the Wall Street Journal (11/14/09) :
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703683804574533622533459520.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
On Eric Holder bringing Club Gitmo terrorists to U.S. soil to be tried as common criminals:
“Please spare us talk of the ‘rule of law.’ If that was the primary consideration, the U.S. already has a judicial process in place. The current special military tribunals were created by the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which was adopted with bipartisan Congressional support after the Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision obliged the executive and legislative branches to approve a detailed plan to prosecute the illegal ‘enemy combatants’ captured since 9/11.
“Contrary to liberal myth, military tribunals aren’t a break with 200-plus years of American jurisprudence. Eight Nazis who snuck into the U.S. in June 1942 were tried by a similar court and most were hanged within two months. Before the Obama Administration stopped all proceedings earlier this year pending yesterday’s decision, the tribunals at Gitmo had earned a reputation for fairness and independence…
“Most Americans, we suspect, can overlook the legal niceties and see this episode through the lens of common sense. Foreign terrorists who wage war on America and everything it stands for have no place sitting in a court of law born of the values they so detest. Mr. Holder has honored mass murder by treating it like any other crime.”
Right on!
And jmark, no, I am not saying that Bush was less concerned about the safety of our soldiers than he was about offending lefties. I don't know his rational for not rescinding Clinton's order to disarm our soldiers on military bases. Yet, that doesn't alter the fact that Clinton left our soldiers unarmed to begin with.
Okay, this is the last time.
We all know that Clinton weakened the military. That's what democrats do, they're known for being soft on security. Clinton did what was expected of him.
We all know that Republicans are strong on security, they're known for strengthening our military. So, when Bush came into office he strengthened that which was weakened by his wimpy democratic predecessor. Bush did what was expected of him.
Oops! Bush f**ked up!
Soldiers died.
Now do you understand?
Wow - I knew somehow, some way, the shootings at Fort Hood would eventually be blamed on George W. Bush! Way to go, jmark! Your logic is.....amazing!
For yet another perspective on Obama's foolish decision to try terrorists as civilians, please see the following (by Peter Wehrner, 11/16/09):
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/169371
Just a sampling:
"Every month the Obama administration seems to outdo itself in terms of making terribly unwise decisions. This one ranks high among them. It will add another damaging brushstroke to the Obama canvas. The current administration is revealing itself one act at a time; the curtain is being pulled back on it one decision at a time. The liberal, and in some cases the radical, actions of the Obama administration are piling up like cars in a rush-hour traffic accident. But a day of reckoning will come, I suspect; first to Mr. Obama’s party, and then to Mr. Obama himself."
My logic is based on your assumptions. If your assumptions are correct, it would follow that my conclusion is valid. Which means your icon (Bush) is incompetent. But we've known that for some time, haven't we?
Welcome back to reality.
advertisement
- Super protest over super ad during the Super Bowl
- Let Wisconsin voters decide if we want a light rail choo-choo!
- The Barack Obama Variety Special
- The generosity of the United States
- U.S. Supreme Court votes to protect and uphold the Constitution.
- Ya gotta love those compassionate, open-minded libs!
- The Scott heard around the world...
- January 19th special election in Massachusetts - a sign of things to come?
- Laughing at the Left: How liberalism has become a joke.
- Read my lips...
Permalink | Email This Blog