Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Growing All Nostalgic For Bush

The Christmas day terrorist attack on the Delta Airliner headed for a Detroit landing from Amsterdam, and the administration's response and reaction, has me feeling all nostalgic for former president George W. Bush. President Obama waited  72 hours before interrupting his golf game and Hawaiian vacation to make a statement regarding the attack. I don't have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with marching out Janet Napolitano, or as Mark Steyn calls her, "Incompetano," and Robert Gibbs, to downplay the incident and try to reassure the public by stating,  in Napolitano's words, "The system worked," which after criticism was retracted. In president Obama's statement he said, "a passenger allegedly," and called him "the suspect," and through verbal torture seemed unwilling to call him a terrorist. The word "incident" kept popping up instead of terrorist attack. Just as the Fort Hood "terrorist attack" was downplayed and described as a "lone wolf incident," the same seems to be taking place here. 

There seems to be a clear attempt to change the  whole definition of a war on terror to a law enforcement endeavor. His word "allegedly," implies the obvious lawyer like verbiage used in criminal cases rather than the clear spoken pronouncements of former president Bush's terrorism fight. The fact that the "alleged Suspect" was given Miranda rights, and is already lawyered up, is in sharp contrast to Bush's military tribunal approach, that would have resulted in an intense interrogation. Even though the"suspect" has already bragged to the FBI that more attacks are on the way, he of course cannot be "enhanced" to divulge any information he has because of Miranda protection, and the fifth amendment. Those protections reserved for US citizens and foreigners accused of crimes in this country, and not for enemy combatants. 

This obvious 180 degree turn by the Obama administration, which seems to the average American an attempt to protect the rights of terrorists, excuse me, "suspects," over the safety of Americans, is troubling, and gives the Jihadist a strategic advantage. They are obviously aware of the new policy, and can at will, when caught, spout any terrifying announcements of future attacks, without being "enhanced" to elaborate. Does this new approach make Americans feel at ease when boarding an airplane? Of course they're so glad that we are living our values, and extending them to the terrorists, excuse me, "suspects," that any thought of a calamitous flight flees the mind of the grateful traveler, thankful that the new administration is changing our image world wide. Of course the administration doesn't have to fly commercial, and go through the new absurd and time consuming screenings that the average American must now endure. Which brings me to my next point.

As a result of this "incident," the TSA has announced that no one can leave their seats within one hour of landing, and must keep their hands visible during that time. Excuse me. Are they admitting that there may be an explosive device already on board, and they're just trying to stop it's detonation. Wow, that's going to make frequent flyers feel safe. Now back to the screening procedures. It seems rather than profiling an obvious Muslim extremist, who bought a one way ticket to America with cash, and checked no luggage, whose own father warned the US embassy in Nigeria about his son's radicalism, and was on a terrorist watch list, we're now going to profile the underwear of all airline travelers. Just like the shoe bomber caused all of us to remove our shoes, the new pantie bomber is going to cause all of us to undergo full body ex-ray screening. The reason for this political correctness gone wild, which is equivalent to a girls gone wild video for the TSA employee, is of course to nip in the bud any race or religious profiling that could possibly offend the sensitivity of either group. So we're going to inconvenience and embarrass all air travelers, as well as leave them feeling vulnerable, because we want to treat the terrorist, excuse me "suspect," with kindness and constitutional rights. 

In conclusion, just as Peter King pronounced on the Today Show, these terrorist attacks, excuse me "incidents," need to be taken from the federal court system and placed directly in military tribunals where the terrorists, excuse me, "suspects," may get their heads a little wet in the pursuit of life saving information. Which do you prefer as an American concerned about the safety of your fellow countrymen? The new administrations approach of Miranda rights for terrorists, excuse me, "alleged suspects," that give all concerned that joy joy feeling of living our values, and having everyone like us, or former president Bush's approach of military tribunals, secret CIA prisons, rendition, and enhanced interrogation, that puts terror in the heart of the terrorist, and a feeling that our government is looking out for our safety? I for one, am growing all nostalgic for W.
Read: Sarah Palin Is Changing Minds...at...: Con-men4Palin


  1. Explain to me why is was OK under Bush for the shoe bomber to be tried in federal court, but it's not OK for Obama to do the same?

  2. Obama is not just going to try the newest pantie bomber, but he's also going to try KSM, and others of the 9/11 terrorist in federal court just down the street from where they devastated Manhattan. The shoe bomber incident came very close to the 9/11 attacks when our options for enemy combatants hadn't been explored or formulated. When Jose Padilla was caught shortly there after in Chicago he was taken out of the criminal justice system and labeled an enemy combatant, and transferred to the Charleston brig for interrogation...That was the right thing to do.