Sunday, January 03, 2010

There You Have It: APPEASEMENT

There is something VERY FISHY about the handling of the Christmas Day attempted terrorist attack by a 23-year-old "underwear bomber." World Net Daily reports: HOMELAND INSECURITY
Report of 2nd man cuffed from Flight 253 confirmed
U.S. Customs and Border official apologizes, reverses himself – 'This is the FBI's 4th story'

Why would the FBI make up four separate stories about the incident when eye witnesses were there to counter their made-up stories?

Could it involve some sort of cover-up?

Nice Deb's post: Where Does The Buck Stop In The Knickerbomber Intelligence Failure? may have the answer:

This report, posted by The Prowler on December 29 offers some clues as to why dots were not connected:

“We have agreements with a number of different countries that work with us cooperatively on intelligence matters,” says the State Department employee. “A number of the treaties work through our justice departments or foreign offices or intelligence and interior or homeland security agencies. Several departments here in Washington got the information from London and it didn’t trigger anything within our own system.

This employee says that despite statements from the Obama Administration, such information was flagged and given higher priority during the Bush Administration, but that since the changeover “we are encouraged to not create the appearance that we are profiling or targeting Muslims.

Could this episode just be the natural result of an administration that doesn’t take the war on terror seriously, indeed, doesn’t even believe in such a thing?

Charles Krauthammer seems to think so:

The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration’s response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism “man-caused disasters.” Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counter terrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York — a trifecta of political correctness and image management.

And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term “war on terror.” It’s over — that is, if it ever existed.

Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda has not. Which gives new meaning to the term “asymmetric warfare.”

This may explain the odd detachment that many have noticed in Obama’s statements about the “alleged” terror plot.

None of this is supposed to be happening.

One thing is for sure – pretending that there is no war on terror, and giving terrorists civil liberties that only American citizens should enjoy, plays right into our “alleged” enemies’ hands.

Read this comment from The American Spectator link:

Ret. Marine 12.29.09 @ 6:34AM
"I'm just saying that a number of us were encouraged to have a different mindset about such intel and such individuals, and today, we are encouraged not to have that same mindset."

There you have it, APPEASEMENT. So the difference is the Bush Admin. saw this type of potential threat as a concern for the safety of all traveling public, the little o and his chicken littles do not want to offend his brethren. And what? again, another little lie to cover his kenyan butt from taking a public hit of stupidity? He owns this issue at present, he damn well better start taking responsibility for this Constitutional duties before his boot-lick'n followers, and his bull at the dhs head start to take notice. This is typical little o strategy, blame, deflect, blame, move on nothing to see here gang.
What me responsible?


Hat Tips:

World Net Daily

Nice Deb

P.S. Perhaps Obama thought he was becoming a king (as The Anchoress states), instead of a president? That way he wouldn't have to REALLY WORK at anything...

She hit the nail on the head when she wrote:

“I suspect that what Obama wanted was to be the King, not the President. The King’s role is largely ceremonial.”

Sadly, such a revelation also means:

“But we haven’t a Prime Minister” – so well said and so very scary…

Also very true:

[Perhaps it comes down to genuineness. Bush seemed to speak from the heart. Obama does not show his heart, so he is hard to know -admin]

Excellent comment:

December 30th, 2009 | 9:35 am | #27
Remember, in the Democrats quest to make our enemies love us, dead Americans are acceptable collateral damage. Obama would rather a dozen planeloads of US citizens drop from the sky than instruct our security personel to focus on Muslims entering the country.

The man does not love this country. He wants to remake it. As Dennis Prager said, one does not want to remake what one thinks is good.

THE best comment:

Jeffrey Quick
December 30th, 2009 | 3:53 pm | #33
“Sadly, though, America is not in need of his Kingship.”
But America needs a King. You know which One I mean.


No comments: