Remember when Obama worshipping columnist Andrew Sullivan opined that electing Obama would be the best weapon in the war on terror?
Here's a reminder:
It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.Yeah. How'd that work out!
First we had the Muslim shooting at the Army recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas killing one soldier in June. Then, in November, the Muslim massacre at Fort Hood killing 13 soldiers and wounding 30. Now, the botched Christmas Day attack on the airliner carrying 300 people.
One might make the case that the tempo and seriousness of these attacks is on the rise.
And yet, from the beginning of the Obama Administration, they have downplayed the seriousness of the problem. Obama and company refused to call this a "war on terror." Janet Napolitano, Sec. of Homeland Security choose to call these attacks "man caused disasters." It's no wonder that Mark Steyn dubbed Ms. Napolitano "Janet Incompetano" after she claimed "the system worked" in the wake of the failed underwear bomber (bomb photos here). Let's not forget that Sec. "Incompetano" seemed to be more concerned with "rightwing extremist activity" than she was by Islamic terrorists who have killed thousands of Americans.
Obama too has had trouble calling terrorism by it's name. After the Little Rock killing, a belated White House statement called it a "senseless act of violence." After the Fort Hood shooting Obama referred to the attack as a "horrific outburst of violence." Later at the memorial service at Fort Hood he only managed to call the attack a "tragedy" that killed "13 men and women who were not able to escape the horror of war."
Obama "Alleged" Terror Attack?
Three days after the failed Christmas bombing, Obama finally took a break from his vacation and commented on Monday. His statement referred to an "alleged" attempt to ignite an explosive by an "isolated extremist" despite mounting evidence that the attacker was trained by an Al Queda group in Yemen led by terrorists released from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. At least Obama was able to admit that this was an "attempted act of terrorism."
But what is the Obama Administration reaction to this "attempted act of terrorism?" It seems that instead of working to assure that no more terrorists were preparing further attacks White House officials fanned out to blame the incident on Bush. Never mind that the Obama Administration had thoroughly reviewed the Bush anti-terror policy and also, that the vital warning by the would be terrorist's father was passed up the chain of command to Washington after the initial report on November 19th.
When Obama aides aren't blaming Bush they are busy promulgating ridiculous new airline security regulations which take away passengers blankets and pillows and demand passengers remain in their seats with their hands visible during the last hour of flight. Why not just insist that passengers be shackled to their seats during the entire flight?
Obama Attitude a September 10th Mentality
When Obama does talk about these recent attacks he looks pained when he places them within the context of a war. He seems far more comfortable treating these attacks as criminal incidents instead of acts of war. Just as he is allowing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to have his day in court in New York with the world's press there to broadcast the entire trial, Obama has granted this Nigerian terrorist wannabe the full panoply of constitutional rights of an American citizen. He's now lawyered up and able to refuse the questioning by the FBI or CIA that might lead to the discovery of information which could prevent future attacks.
It's clear that Obama's evident weakness in perceiving the nature and reality of this threat have only emboldened the terrorists. After learning that one of their own was able to walk past security and onto a plane they will likely try again. No doubt they won't be bothered by the lack of a blanket or a bathroom visit in the last hour of the flight.
Instead of seeing that iconic figure described by Andrew Sullivan above, the terrorists see a President who has continued many of his predecessors policies, but who also spends a great deal of time validating the terrorist's propaganda against the United States by apologizing for past wrongs at every available opportunity. It isn't just the French President who sees Obama as weak and ineffective. Everything about Obama invites the terrorists to try harder. Bush scared them, but Obama couldn't frighten anything larger than a fly.
Has Obama's election made America safer? Clearly the answer is NO!