Scott Brown imperils President Obama's terror policies

Politico ^ | Jan 20, 2010 | JOSH GERSTEIN

[SmartInsight]

Scott Brown's stunning victory in Massachusetts Tuesday triggered a wave of dire predictions about health reform, but Brown's win also could pose a threat to a less obvious aspect of President Barack Obama's agenda - his anti-terror policies and plans to shut down Guantanamo Bay prison.

During the campaign, Brown repeatedly railed against criminal trials for terrorism suspects, took out a television ad opposing giving "rights to terrorists who want to harm us" and declared that he did not view water-boarding as torture. And in his nationally televised victory speech Tuesday night, the senator-elect seized on the issue again.

"I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation - they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime," Brown said. "In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them."

[SmartInsight]

Go Scott!

[hsalaw]

“Of course this can make things more difficult for the president, but this is a long-term agenda,” said Elisa Massimino of Human Rights First. “President Obama is trying to steer people from a paradigm of fear and anxiety that’s been pretty deeply embedded over the course of the last eight years…..There’s no question fear is always an easier message to sell than courage, but this president has to think about his responsibility to defeat Al Qaeda and keep the country safe.”

Can anyone explain what this means? Other than the usual Obumbler-speak, the same old "Bush's fault" cr*p. It sounds totally contradictory.

[max americana]

Now how can Scott Brown affect OBowma’s “anti terror policies” when Obowma apologizes to every terrorist in the world?

[tanuki]

I disagree with only one point-the ‘anti’ part.

[J Edgar]

I also see it as completely contradictory - but then again, as Dr. Savage has pointed out - Liberalism is a mental disease.
Perhaps Elisa Massimino of Human Rights First is unaware of this common Lib-tard affliction!

[J Edgar]

LOL

[Frantzie]

Some people have said Scott is a bit too RINO for the heartland etc etc but...tearing Obama a new one about terrorism in MA was pretty ballsy. He could have been Harvey Miltoast about that issue.

People here might say what do you mean but the lib MSM has brainwashed people into thinking Islamic terrorism is a non issue. My guess is Mass the propaganda is probably even worse.

Nice one Scott. I also like Chris Christie in Jersey telling unions they cannot use dues for political contributions. Scott and Christie have stones.

Chirstie is priceless - the guy is picking fights with the NJ marxists. Appointing Schundler to schools. Great stuff.

[SmartInsight]

“Now how can Scott Brown affect OBowma’s “anti terror policies” when Obowma apologizes to every terrorist in the world?

Good point. ;) If it weren’t so sad, it would be funny — Obama does NOT have “anti-terror policies”, only “pro-terrorist” policies.

But Scott Brown will point it out nonstop and will try to stop closing of Gitmo in the Senate.

Speaking out and explaining the truth to the American people is important and more Republicans should be doing it.

[max americana]

SB said it himself in the acceptance speech.

“We should be spending money on developing weapons on stopping terrorists..not spenidng money in the courts defending them”

[J Edgar]

“Speaking out and explaining the truth to the American people is important and more Republicans should be doing it.”

Totally agree, and All political professionals know this! -
but starting with GWB this hasn’t happened -
which one reason I completely mistrust the present GOP leadership.

[mtntop3]

May Scott Brown never let up on this—it goes to the heart of our national security. He and others with him on this will find a ground-swell of support.

Obama and Holder are manifestly providing aid and comfort to the mass murderers of some 3000 victims of 9/11 by providing these terrorists a soap-box in, yes, criminal court with lawyers and unlimited powers—thus providing also a huge incentive for other terrorists to follow their hideous path.

[Red Steel]

Bump!

[SmartInsight]

“In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.”

What other Republican have we heard stating the obvious so succinctly? The answer is none.

That’s why Brown is a breath of fresh air, he is not afraid to say what needs to be said.

[kagnew]

That remark reminds me of the saying that I either read or heard, not sure which, but it goes like this: “You can lead a liberal to logic but you can’t make him think”. So very true.

[J Edgar]

LOL - sounds like something Ann Coulter would point out.

[MaxMax]

Are they spinning this into Brown being bad for national security?

I know the lies and deception are coming, but before he's even sworn in?

[PA Engineer]

Here is Elisa Massimino of Human Rights First.



Does that help. For some reason she reminds me of Darth Vader.

[Soul Seeker]

From that statement I think it requires looking at their prior positions and polices to make sense of it. If I had to explain I’d state they are vaguely speaking in code that this terror “thing” has been overblown and he’s dealing with it in it’s proper matter through diplomacy, civilian courts and of that nature.

[cricket]

By title here; we are all challenged to think the 'unthinkable'; and clearly, it has been our Military and the rest of America, so imperiled by Obama's policies.

We cannot address our security issues, fast enough. GO Scott!

(Loved, where in his 'winning' speech the other night, Brown tackles Obama, head on, per his position on terrorists/ism versus our soldiers and Military and our security.)

[chuck_the_tv_out]

Yeah 0bama’s terror policies. That’s what they are.