Okay, seconds ago I saw Janet Napolitano on Fox and Friends (guess the BO goon squad has decided to call a cease fire in the war on Fox), and I’m astounded. Seriously. Did anyone see it? She just said that terror is a part of the world in which we live (the words were, I believe, “it’s the world we live in now”) and that we just need to suck it up and deal (okay, she said “be resilient”). Are you freaking kidding me?!
How did we go from President Bush who was determined to take action, not only to keep us safe (and he did) but to stop al Quada once and for all to this namby pamby well, let’s just ignore it and maybe it’ll go away craziness? Honestly, this is about accepting terror as a way of life, and being defensive when we can but sort of knowing that we’re under constant attack, but hey, no problem, we’ll be resilient. Um. No thank you. I think we can be resilient as we hunt them down and stop them, shut off their money, intercept every and anything and put a stop to it all. For good. Does this administration really imagine, in its wildest dreams, that just rolling over and saying uncle is the way to deal with terror? Reacting when we’re hit? Isn’t that how the Taliban got to be so big, so damned dangerous? People just hoped it would go away, and then when it didn’t, they just dealt with it, were resilient.
No thank you. I’m an American, by God, and I’ll be damned if I’ll accept this as our policy. Terror is not the world I live in, terrorized is not how I live my life nor what I want for my countrymen and women and children. That is ten kinds of unacceptable, and I am thoroughly incensed right now. I may be over-reacting, but do you really think so? What has BO done to suggest that he’s going to be strong on terror or on . . . anything except his assault on patriotic Americans, conservatives, and FOX News?
The best thing of all, though, was in the next segment when Napolitano argued against “amnesty by inaction” (i.e. not pushing to get some brand new voters to save their butts next year and in 2012). So inaction is okay when it comes to terror, but boy, look out when it comes to amnesty for illegals or socialized medicine.
But it certainly helps explain why BO and that jackazz Holder are insisting on treating terrorists like common criminals. They want to pretend that it’s not what it is so they don’t have to deal with it. Instead, we have to apparently deal with the fact that we are going to bury our heads in the sand and hope that Osama bin Laden and his ilk “get over it” when we don’t fight back or take any offensive measure at all. That worked out so well after the first attack on the World Trade Center in ’93, don’t you think? I’ve always wondered why no one blamed Bill Clinton for 9/11. Had he treated that like the terrorist attack it was, we would have had the apparatus in place to stop 9/11 before it happened as we’ve stopped countless attacks since then.
But now, there is only BO to blame when (certainly not if) the next big terrorist attack happens. But, hey, no problem, we’ll just arrest them and give them better accommodations than they have in the desert or in the caves they cower in and then we’ll lock them up with three squares a day, all the visitors they can handle, access to all sorts of communications, and a whole host of disaffected criminals to coerce into joining their jihad. We’ll sit back, wait, and react. And the world will still hate us. And the terrorists will still recruit. And we’ll just . . . deal.