Oh how soon we forget.
According to media sources, a senior Al Qaeda leader was killed by a U.S. forces in Syria.
Naturally, Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama and his crew are furious. That shouldn't be surprising.
We've seen tepid, emasculated responses from Democratic presidents in the past (see: Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton), so it should come as no surprise that 1.) Obama would rather engage terrorist fomenters in "dialogue;" 2.) this is a portent of an Obama foreign policy.
So what does this mean?
We'll be back to square one with Obama; we'll be relegated to pre-Bush days when the previous administration allowed ourselves to bullied by Islamic fundamentalists and when forced to retaliate, offered nothing more than a token military gesture.
Furthermore, in an Obama presidency where dialogue in the only option, terrorist groups like Al Qaeda will be allowed to reconstitute, once again becoming a threat not only in the Middle East, but to our national security.
Again.
We're weakening ourselves again. This is like a bad dream, replayed over and over again. We've been down this road before under Bill Clinton, where a liberal administration consternated over political and legal ramifications of staving off the terrorist threat. We're already experienced the feeling of retreating, with our tail between our legs, and the feeling of not hitting back HARD against aggression and violence against Americans and its interests.
Couple that with the near-certainty of Obama closing Guantanamo Bay and stopping military tribunals against terrorists, as well as the eradication of the Patriot Act; I think we can guarantee that we'll see attacks increase.
Say what you will about George Bush, but he kept us safe. Terrorists, domestic and international, were cut off at the pass. They weren't allowed to develop nor implement their plots.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
George Bush is doing precisely what Barack Obama has advocated for over a year and been criticized by McCain and others for -- taking out Al Qaeda across borders when the authorities there can't or won't.
Great point, Bob. It's hardly surprising that, as you stated, Obama mentioned crossing the Pakistani border to root out Al Qaeda and Taliban that Pakistani forces REFUSE to engage.
I mentioned this in a previous post regarding the discrepancies in Obama's foreign policy "message." He and others on the Left castigated Bush for essentially ending a genocide in Iraq (i.e. Shiites), but want to effectively do the same in Darfur.
Post a Comment