Posted by Tina
The Obama administration vowed in 2008 to fundamentally transform America. In many ways, including national security, he seems to be right on track. We have experienced several incidents that suggest security policy that isn’t working and represents a major change from the years prior to his taking office. The biggest change is in how this administration views the enemy that has sworn to destroy America through violence and through infiltration.
Let’s review findings from reports that suggest the trans-formative security policies this administration has adopted have severely weakened national security and the safety of the American people in the face of a dangerous, murderous enemy.
Five separate House investigations into events surrounding the Benghazi attack and the failures by our government to adequately provide security and defense for the Ambassador and his staff have been completed. The executive summary concludes in part the following:
Reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton. This fact contradicts her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 23, 2013.
In the days following the attacks, White House and senior State Department officials altered accurate talking points drafted by the Intelligence Community in order to protect the State Department.
Contrary to Administration rhetoric, the talking points were not edited to protect classified information. Concern for classified information is never mentioned in email traffic among senior administration officials.
This report highlights the administrations careless disregard for American security. It reveals a concerted effort to deceive the American people on security measures. It provides a window into the “see no evil” position the administration has taken regarding the enemy. The President’s redistribution and transformation ambitions have taken precedence over security concerns as well as other issues that matter most to Americans.
Each of the five House committees investigating Benghazi will continue to investigate. The House summary on Benghazi concludes:
In sum, the events in Benghazi thus reflect this Administration’s lack of a comprehensive national security strategy or effective defense posture in the region. This singular event will be repeated unless the United States recognizes and responds to the threats faced around the world, and properly positions resources and security assets to reflect those threats. Until that time, the United States will remain in a reactionary mode and should expect many more situations like Benghazi, where those on the ground act bravely, but the United States simply fails to provide the resources for an adequate response. Ultimately, those opposed to U.S. interests will continue to take advantage of perceived U.S. weakness, the United States will continue to lose credibility with our allies, and we will face the worst of all possible outcomes in strategically important locations around the world.
Long before Boston, the Fort Hood case should have been instructive. It should have set off warning bells that caused the administration to rethink its security policy. But the administration’s weak analysis and response in Fort Hood is not inconsistent with the Obama position on terrorism and Islam. The President is unwilling to acknowledge that Islam has a direct role in the terrorism being inflicted around the world. He has a vested interest (what is it?) to downplay the role the Muslim religion plays. His propensity is to create moral equivalence with other religions. The message is that Islam is no more and no less relevant than other religions (or no religion) to the violent attacks on citizens in countries around the world.
George Neumayer reflects on the problem for The American Spectator:
The Obama administration tries to leave the public with the impression that its security failures are due to “incomprehensible” forces. But most of them are easy enough to comprehend, as they follow upon repeated and ignored warnings.
The father of the jihadist who tried to blow up a plane over Detroit in 2009 went to a CIA office in Africa and announced to anyone who cared to listen that his son was a threat to the U.S. No one did.
Major Nidal Hasan, the jihadist who shot up Fort Hood, spared American intelligence even that minor step of dot-connecting. He held public presentations on his hatred of America and sympathy for suicide bombers. The soldiers in the audience politely listened, not wanting to risk demotion or open themselves up to scoldings from their PC overlords. Some of Hasan’s colleagues even thought he had the makings of a thoughtful adviser to the government on Islamic affairs.
Short of a bombing or shooting, it is hard for Islamic warriors to get the attention of an administration that insists it is not at “war with Islam,” and even then no lessons are learned. The horror just becomes an occasion for more “diversity” and “understanding.”
I hope you will read the Spectator piece which states this case much better than I have.
The Presidents fundamental transformation of America includes stripping certain language from the lexicon to protect a religion that has been deemed “not responsible” for the brand of radicalism that is terrorizing people all over the world, including within American cities and military compounds. This is simply unacceptable. Unfortunately Obama’s new Secretary of State, John Kerry, doesn’t appear to be an improvement over Hillary Clinton:
I think the world has had enough of people who have no belief system, no policy for jobs, no policy for education, no policy for rule of law, but who just want to kill people because they don’t like what they see. There’s not room for that. That’s what we’ve been fighting against after all of the wars of the 20th century. Now we’re in the 21st century, and it’s time for a different organizational principle. And we need to, all of us, do a better job of communicating to people what the options of life are. And we’re open. Democracies are open to people participating in the democracy, not killing people. And so I hope that we can all figure out how we translate these better opportunities more effectively in our politics.
See how easy it is to dismiss the radical teachings that inspire murder and mayhem in the name of Islam? You just say (pretend) those bombers don’t believe in anything!
The next step in the Benghazi hearings will include the testimony of whistle blowers. Let’s hope that their revelations will get the attention of the American people. Our cities and our military serving around the world deserve much better than they are getting from this Commander-in-Chief and his sorry national security staff.
Yes, Hillary. It DOES matter!
And what, exactly, do you propose that would have prevented all this?
I mean, if you are proposing we lock up the terrorists before they are known to be terrorists … well … that is not rational, let along constitutional.
Here is more info. on how this administrationhas hurt the programs that could have kept us safer from terrorist attacks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSzu6GmvWV8&feature=player_detailpage
Controversial Surveillance Program Launched After 9/11 Ends:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704187604576289682985267902.html
Re Libby “And what, exactly, do you propose that would have prevented all this?”
What do you propose, Libby?
I have one proposal — security should not be based on some silly politically correct procedures or guidelines or a double-talking jackass like Kerry.
Number of terrorists that reached their target under Bush after 911, zero. Number of terrorists that reached their target under Obama, five.
I think we can safely conclude that changing the national security protocols, eliminating defining words and activities, firing national security and terror expert trainers, announcing to the world that we are no longer waging a counter war against the enemy, pretending that the religion that is used to justify evil acts is not relevant, naming an obvious act of terror “workplace violence”, referring to military operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere to fight terrorists as “overseas contingency operations”, and continuing the political tactic of claiming that republicans blame all Muslims have all played a part in making Americans less safe. I think these things, and a lot more, have made the threat from radical Islamic terrorist/extremists greater. I think it is safe to conclude that this administrations approach has made America appear weak. Our allies have been insulted. Israel is in a much more dangerous position…it’s a mess!
A return to the previous administrations security policy would make a huge difference. It won’t happen as long as these guys (radical progressives) are in charge. The agenda (UN treaties, power and control) takes precedence.
Well said Tina. It never ceases to amaze me how quick the far left is to raise the bar of political correctness and hyper-sensitivity, as if that will somehow buy us some friends in the world. Then they show more concern for what we could have done to cause the killers to hit than, than anger that we were hit. In terms of that political correctness it really bugs them that we would dare assign any responsibility to the Muslim religion, because in their so-called [open] minds that had absolutely nothing to do with their motives.
Good example Peggy.
It’s as if this President and members of his administration arrogantly believe that the magic of their personalities alone will make the world a peaceful happy place…absurd yes, but the truth isn’t too far afield.
Back when airline hijackings were frequent, LAPD Chief Ed Davis suggested any hijackers caught would be tried immediately at the airport & executed immediately if found guilty.
About that time, hijackings sorta fizzled out. Always wondered if Ed’s idea had anything to do with that . . .
Rather than the circus we are seeing in Boston, a SWIFT justice could possibly work wonders. The victims of the Ft. Hood killings have waited WAY too long for their justice.
Did Napolitano lie about the Boston bomber suspect when she said he was “never a subject?” Sure looks like she did. See the actual document that says he was a terrorist with an event status of “212a3B.” She even said before congress that he was being deported because his visa had expired when it’s good until 2016.
“Napolitano could serve “jail time for perjury…
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano even said yesterday that Alharbi was just “in the wrong place at the wrong time” and was “never a subject,” after ridiculing inquiries into the matter last week.
“A 212, 3B [is] the biggest warning we can put on anybody,”
Subject,
ALHARBI, ABDULRAHMAN ALI E
DOB 03/12/1993
COC SAUDI ARABIA
Subject is an exact match to NO FLY TPN# 1037506192. Derogatory information reviewed by W/C Mayfield and CW/C Maimbourg was found to be sufficient to request Visa revocation. NTC-P is requesting revocation of Foil# e3139541. Subject is inadmissible to the U.S. under INA 212(a)(3)(B)(i)(II). SAO was not completed prior to Visa issuance. Subject is currently in the United States, admitted F1 student, at Boston POE on 08/28/2012. Subject is a student at THE UNIVERSITY OF FINDLAY, 1000 NORTH MAIN STREET FINDLAY, OHIO 45840-3695. Subject has One (1) prior event #1648067, Fins promoted, NT record in place, No scheduled found at this time. “
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/24/armed-and-dangerous-becks-latest-revelations-on-saudi-national-once-considered-person-of-interest-in-boston-bombings/
Napolitano has shown herself to be incompetent repatedly, why she is still there is a security concern.
Hillary really went on the offensive when she testified before Congress and now we see why. She took this what’s done is done attitude, let’s move on. She knew if they discovered her complicity in the Benghazi murders her political career was over. What a witch. (b) -Jack
Tina: “Number of terrorists that reached their target under Bush after 911, zero.”
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?
Oh, and your statement that there were no successful terrorist attacks under Bush after 9/11 isn’t even true.
“I have one proposal — security should not be based on some silly politically correct procedures or guidelines or a double-talking jackass like Kerry.”
You are not explicit. What would you do, that Kerry won’t. Spit it out.
The Anthrax scare was considered at the time to be possibly connected to 9/11…we barely had our act together. Our government was in the process of investigating to determine the depth and breadth of our enemy. A “scare” isn’t exactly the same as a terrorist attack on par with 9/11 or Boston or Fort Hood.
The Shoe Bomber was a fizzled attempt…we got lucky on that one.
The sniper case was a “capitol murder” case and classified as actions driven by “psychopathy” with “serial killer” attributes. The elder boy converted to Islam but the murders were not tied to radical terrorist activities.
The LAX incident was considered an “act of international terrorism” but it’s not clear that it was tied to the radical Islamic enemy…the lone shooter was killed and no evidence was found to indicate his motivation.
You’re stretching to make a ridiculous point Chris…you should feel pretty silly.
Most of the time when this claim has been made people have said that Bush kept America safe and we hadn’t had a major terror attack on his watch. The people were referring to attacks made by Islamic terrorists…the enemy that declared war on us and not terror acts in general.
To be fair our government has foiled 50 terror attacks from 911 through last April. Heritage has a good article followed by a list. Plots have been stopped under Obama but it still cannot be denied that Fort Hood and Boston are major terror hits from the enemy that declared war on America on 9/11 (actually before but we’ll let that one go). It cannot be denied that Benghazi was a major failure of security for our diplomat and his staff in a fast deteriorating and dangerous environment. That too is a major hit. It also cannot be denied that polices that were working and were changed under Obama have, unfortunately, contributed to the events in Fort Hood and Boston…and in Benghazi.
Libby you’ve said it so well and with such amazing brevity:
No s*#t, Shirlock, that’s EXACTLY what Ive been saying.
Also, Gotta not be afraid to name the enemy and tell the truth about what he is up to.