Posted on 03/18/2009 3:02:23 PM PDT by Michael Eden
My son Barry came home from school today. He was dirty, bleeding, and crying.
"What happened?" I asked.
"Those mean bullies beat me up again," he finally managed. It appeared his nose had been broken. He clearly needed to go to the emergency room.
"Did you try ignoring them? Did you pretend they didn't exist, like I told you to?"
"Yes. And I pretended they weren't beating me up, too. But I could still feel them punching me."
"Well, you're just going to do a better job ignoring them, little mister."
None of that actually happened, thank God. But I can assure you that I would have had a very different response if it had. "Temporarily insane" would be the legal term I would stick to.
Not so, the Obama administration. After nearly two months in office, they are clearly permanently insane.
First the Obama administration announced that it was abandoning the phrase, "War on terror." Then we had the cheesy announcement that one day - Allah willing, and Blessed be the Prophet - we will close Gitmo. Then Obama decided we weren't going to bother to try the guy who masterminded the bombing of the USS Cole. Then we had the announcement from Obama that the Taliban can be a moderate and reasonable bunch, after all. Then we had the abandonment of the term "enemy combatant" (noting that it comes from the language of the Geneva Convention's use of "unlawful combatants" who specifically do NOT fall under the Treaty).
Now we get to stand by and watch while the term "terrorism" and "terrorist" gets the goodbye kiss.
Napolitano Avoids Mentioning 'Terrorism' in Remarks to CongressThat is all very, very bad. It signals not only that the Obama administration is at a pre-9/11 mentality, but a pre-1979 mentality. And for that matter, it signals a pre-Neville Chamberlain mentality.Tuesday, February 24, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano avoids mention of the terms "terrorism" or "Sept. 11" in remarks prepared for her first congressional testimony since taking office, signaling a sharp change in tone from her predecessors.
Napolitano is the first homeland security secretary to drop the term "terror" and "vulnerability" from remarks prepared for delivery to the House Homeland Security Committee, according to a copy obtained by The Associated Press.
Tom Ridge, who headed the agency when it was launched in 2003, mentioned terrorism 11 times in his prepared statement at his debut before the oversight committee in 2003. And in 2005 Michael Chertoff, the second secretary, mentioned terrorism seven times, according to an AP analysis of the prepared testimonies.
Napolitano, a former Arizona governor, instead charts a course in very different terms than Chertoff, who used law enforcement and military jargon -- "intelligence," "analysis," "mission" -- to describe the agency's objectives.
The department's top priorities are spelled out in legislation that created it in 2001: preventing a terrorist attack in the United States; reducing the vulnerability for such an attack; and helping with the recovery if the U.S. is attacked.
Napolitano's prepared remarks also show her using the word "attacks" less than her predecessors. She is the first secretary to use a congressional debut to talk about hurricanes and disasters, a sign of the department's evolving mission following Hurricane Katrina. Napolitano is not alone in her departure from terror talk.
President Barack Obama largely has avoided using the term "war on terror," although it has not been scrubbed from the White House lexicon.
The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee does not mention terrorism or Sept. 11 in his prepared remarks for Wednesday's hearing either. Securing the borders, responding to natural disasters, ensuring transportation safety, protecting critical infrastructure and administering grants are the priorities, Democrat Bennie Thompson says.
But, as these things often do, the situation gets even worse.
In an interview with Der Spiegel, our new director of "Homeland Security" (boy, has THAT ever become a contradiction of terms!), offered the following by way of elaboration:
SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?The interview is titled, "Away from the Politics of Fear." But it should be called, "Away from the Politics of Reality."Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.
Remember the outcry over "profiling" to identify terrorists at airports and other places? We went from being able to specifically identify those who were most likely to pose a threat to having to check 103 year old ladies out of political correctness. But at least we could still call terrorism "terrorism." Now we have to call it, "man-made disasters."
Meanwhile, Iran is busily working toward a nuclear arsenal - they now have enough material to build fifty bombs - and the means to deliver that arsenal. And then we will start seeing "man-made disasters" such as the world has never seen with terrorist Iran being impervious to direct retaliation.
The only "man-made disaster" we should be talking about is the November elections. THAT qualifies for Napolitano's new term.
Soon “deficit” and “national debt” will be dropped from the lexicon.
Those words are already being deleted from the teleprompter’s dictionary.
The word “billion” sure doesn’t carry any weight, any more.
After the September 11 attacks, commercial airline pilots were allowed to carry guns if they completed a federal-safety program. No longer would unarmed pilots be defenseless as remorseless hijackers seized control of aircraft and rammed them into buildings. Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.The era of the "Kick Me" sign is back with a vengeance.
And, if he could find someone to surrender to, we’d be in negotiations right now, IMO.
This guy is a clear and present danger to the country.
If what we have experienced over the past 15 years or so is “man-caused disaster,” what about those Palestinian girls that go into Israeli or Palestinian markets with the dynamite belt strapped on?
Man caused disasters, like when a dam breaks.
What a pathetic jerk.
The War on Terror is over.
Terror won.
Now we shall have to pay reparations.
Somewhere along the line, Barack found the method of “if I ignore it, then it doesn’t exist” allowed him to live in a dream world. Good enough for him. He and Michelle can go to the fancy bunker when Iran starts bombing or some terrorist strikes.
In true Clintonian form, whatever security risks Obama creates will be, with a nod and a wink, saved to be dumped on the next Republican President - just as they were on President Bush.
Terror won.
Now we shall have to pay reparations.
I would never want to hope for a terror attack for the sake of political partisanship. But I am hoping that if we are going to get hit again, please let it be soon. Before we undo all the policies that actually kept us safe, and while there is still time to act to correct the stupidity we are being led with right now.
Politically, if we ARE hit again, this country would likely swing so far to the right a "right-winger" like myself would be alarmed. And it will be the result of the total failure of the left, rather than conservative policies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.