Allies Obama Overlooked

New York Times ^ | August 1, 2008 | Eric Egland

[Interesting Times]

LAST weekend, Barack Obama dazzled crowds in Europe. Discussing international security, he spoke eloquently about needing an American-European partnership to defeat terrorism.

In Paris, he said that “terrorism cannot be solved by any one country alone,” and that we should establish partnerships. In Berlin, he expressed hope that Europeans and Americans “can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks” of terrorists worldwide.

But there’s one problem. We already have a counterterrorism partnership with the European Union. And it works. Indeed, despite news media caricatures of aggressive Americans feuding with pacifist Europeans, both groups are quite serious about protecting citizens by working together.

[Interesting Times]

Nice, pointed article by my friend Eric Egland that shows Obama's cluelessness (or dishonesty) about our European alliances against AQ...

[Interesting Times]

A “how did this get into the NY Slimes?” ping...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[CDHart]

This from the Times? Amazing!

Carolyn

[Syncro]

And here in the United States, of course, Al Qaeda has been unable to attack since 9/11.

Officials in the American and European military, intelligence and law enforcement communities created this success, and a strong counterterrorism partnership made it possible. The key pillars are better intelligence sharing and closer law enforcement cooperation.

I have witnessed this success firsthand. In 2005, I was the Pentagon’s lead intelligence specialist in Iraq focusing on terrorist networks that used improvised explosive devices.

Maj Eric Egland is a good man, very well informed.

His work in Iraq was monumental.

I have met and talked to him at several patriotic events.

Thanks for posting this.

[The Shrew]

Thanks to German intelligence and law enforcement officials, a planned attack modeled on the 1983 truck bombing against United States marines in Lebanon — but several times larger — never happened.

Nice article. However, there is always something in a NYSlimes article that manages to p*** me off. I'm sure Eric didn't do this, but rather, their style sheet requires that Marines not be capitalized. Grrrrrr. I have not doubt that October 23, 1983 brought rounds of cheers in the Slimes newsrooms.

Thanks for the ping!

TS

[editor-surveyor]

I’ll go with clueless for sure.

Obama is a sneaky snake, but mostly he is a mental midget.

[colorado tanker]

I also vote for cluelessness. The Chosen One has spent most of his short time in office running for other offices.

He don't know sh%t from shinola.

[Grampa Dave]

Did hell freeze over in NYC or in Pinch’s wasted mind?

[ETL]

And here in the United States, of course, Al Qaeda has been unable to attack since 9/11.

How are they "unable" to attack? They can still do just about whatever they want in terms of another attack, at least small scale ones. I suspect the reason there hasn't been another attack of any kind in the U.S. since 911 is that there has been so much Bush-bashing and left-wing propaganda here in the states by the radical left that they feel they're better off not risking another attack. After all, it might bring the country back together again. Instead, they hope that a radical like Obama will be elected president and that things will go a whole lot easier on them. i.e. they can smell a great "change" in the air, while most of us here smell something else in the air.

Barack Obama, July 30, 2008, Washington Post:
"This is the moment that the world is waiting for,"... "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902068.html?nav=hcmodule

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[Syncro]

How are they "unable" to attack? They can still do just about whatever they want in terms of another attack, at least small scale ones. I suspect the reason there hasn't been another attack of any kind in the U.S. since 911 is that there has been so much Bush-bashing and left-wing propaganda here in the states by the radical left that they feel they're better off not risking another attack. After all, it might bring the country back together again.

Great strategy from the Bush team, isn't it? You pretty much answered your own question, thanks.

The clincher:

Instead, they hope that a radical like Obama will be elected president and that things will go a whole lot easier on them. i.e. they can smell a great "change" in the air

[Interesting Times]

Obama is a sneaky snake, but mostly he is a mental midget.

I was amused the other day to read that Obama plans to "tell the Joint Chiefs to end the war" in Iraq if he's elected. Clearly, he doesn't understand that the Joint Chiefs serve the President solely in an advisory capacity....

[BossLady]

You mean the US has alliances with European nations....and other countries as well?????

When did this happen.....why wasn't I told......where's the memo??????

/ horrible sarcasm

((And people talk about Bush and McCain's stupidity.....))

[okie01]

How are they "unable" to attack? They can still do just about whatever they want in terms of another attack, at least small scale ones. I suspect the reason there hasn't been another attack of any kind in the U.S. since 911 is that there has been so much Bush-bashing and left-wing propaganda here in the states by the radical left that they feel they're better off not risking another attack. After all, it might bring the country back together again.

Actually, anti-terrorist expert John Effin' Kerry has pronounced that "al-Qaeda is better able to attack us today than on 9/11."

Which, if true, makes one wonder why they haven't tried...

[ETL]

Great strategy from the Bush team, isn't it?

Brilliant! lol!

[ETL]

Which, if true, makes one wonder why they haven't tried...

"Politics". The left has half the country blaming Bush and the republicans for the fact that the islamo-fascists want to wipe us off the map. So why take a chance on ruining that major propaganda victory. They'd rather wait for the "change" that's a-coming. However, I think it's ridiculous for John Fonda Kerry to assert that Al-Qaeda is better able to launch large scale attacks against U.S. targets today. But what else would one expect from that loser.

[oyez]

Such close collaboration between the United States and France against terrorist cells in Iraq may surprise those accustomed to digesting easy sound bites of “cowboy diplomacy” and “unilateralism.” But the partnership is real, and not just with France.

Imagine that.

[Interesting Times]

Actually, anti-terrorist expert John Effin' Kerry has pronounced that "al-Qaeda is better able to attack us today than on 9/11."

Which, if true, makes one wonder why they haven't tried...

No doubt it's because Kerry asked them not to...

[editor-surveyor]

"Clearly, he doesn't understand that the Joint Chiefs serve the President solely in an advisory capacity"

Clearly, he doesn't understand one single thing that any Senator should, let alone a President. Would he request permission to leave his desk from the guards?