The real message was conveyed by Fouad Ajami, discussing the new administration’s foreign policy in the Wall Street Journal: “No despot fears Mr. Obama, and no blogger in Cairo or Damascus or Tehran, no demonstrator in those cruel Iranian streets, expects Mr. Obama to ride to the rescue.” True. Another Iranian deadline passed on New Year’s Eve, but the United States will set a new one for Groundhog Day or whenever.
And, just as the thug states understand they now have the run of the planet, so do the terror cells. A thwarted terror attack at Christmas is bad enough. Spending the following week making yourself a global joke is worse. Every A-list despot and dimestore jihadist got that message loud and clear — and so did American allies already feeling semi-abandoned by this most parochial of presidents. Expect a bumpy twelve months ahead. Happy New Year.
Cut it out, you meanies!
It speaks eloquently to the Obama administration’s priorities that it took the White House four days to acknowledge the “catastrophic breach of security” that led to the failed bombing of a US-bound jet on Christmas Day — but a scant four hours to accuse Dick Cheney of coddling terrorists.
The former vice president Wednesday harshly criticized the administration’s efforts — or non-efforts — against terrorism. Whereupon, Team Obama went ballistic.
It's so mean. It's so wrong. Just knock it off.
5 comments:
didnt the O folks just spend how many yrs telling us cheney was brutal to suspects, and thirsted for blood yadda...
now they want to claim he is softer in terrorism?
sorry, whether its true or not, the P R was so good, the public will never buy the new line.
didnt the O folks just spend how many yrs telling us cheney was brutal to suspects, and thirsted for blood yadda...
Why yes, Gino. Yes they did. The whole thing is pretty risible.
And a very different take from John Brennan:
"I'm very disappointed in the vice president's comments. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat. I've worked for the past five administrations. And either the vice president is willfully mischaracterizing this president's position, both in terms of the language he uses and the actions he taken--he's taken, or he's ignorant of the facts. And in either case, it doesn't speak well of what the vice president's doing. The clear evidence is that this president has been very, very strong. In his inaugural address, he said, "We're at war with this international network of terrorists." We continue to say that we're at war with al-Qaeda. We're trying to give it some clarity. And we have taken the fight to them. We've continued, in fact, many of the, of the activities of the previous administration. I would not have come back into this government if I felt that this president was not committed to prosecuting this war against al-Qaeda. And every day I see it in the president's face, I see it in the actions he's taken, and so I'm confident that this country is, in fact, protected by this president's position on al-Qaeda and against terrorist activities. We're going to continue to do this, we're going to do it hard, we're going to do it constantly."
You can view the link here:
http://thepage.time.com/2010/01/03/brennan-takes-on-cheney/
Rich
So John Brennan is praising his boss? Yawn.
Obama hasn't done everything wrong. I've heard reports of Predator drones taking nasty folks out. He's recommitted to Afghanistan and done nothing foolish in Iraq.
But it seems like he wants to have it both ways. That is, he wants to do what will keep America secure, and at the same time he wants to score some points with his own base, which is passionately opposed to many of these things. And so he offers them little victories here and there, things that he might not consider particularly important. Trying KSM in civilian court, giving Pantybomber his Miranda rights, trying to transfer Gitmo detainees to stateside prison, changing language (man-caused disaster) etc...
Perhaps this reveals more to us about the Democrat base than it does Obama? I think there is at least a significant minority in the party which is reflexively and passionately opposed to fighting the war on terror in any form. I'll stop short of calling them anti-American, but I think they believe in a much different America than most people would recognize.
Rich, does this strike you as at all fair?
Post a Comment