Call a Spade a Spade
Why is it that the liberals, especially President Obama, resist so strongly the use of the word "terrorist?" They especially don't like to say or hear the words "foreign terrorist." Here are some examples:
You may recall the terrorist; Nidal Malik Hasan, who shot 43 US soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, on November 4, 2009, killing 13 of them. During the rampage, he was heard shouting Allah Akbar! (KMBC-TV, Kansas City, November 6, 2009). We've since learned that the surviving injured soldiers did not receive a Purple Heart because the Obama administration classified the shooting as "workplace violence" (WTMJ News Team, Milwaukee, April 5, 2013) instead of terrorism. This in spite of the fact that the government had information connecting Hasan to Al-Qaeda (Fox News, March 18, 2010), a well-known terrorist organization that wants nothing more than the total destruction of the United States.

Of course, who can forget the clumsy manipulation of information following the deadly attack in Libya? The September 11, 2011 attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi killed four Americans, including two US Navy SEALS and the US Ambassador to Libya. The worst part was that the Obama administration clearly knew the attack was an act of terrorism (CNN, September 11, 2012) even as we were repeatedly told that it was just violence resulting from Muslim anger over an anti-Islam video (CNN, September 13, 2011). We still haven't been given acceptable reasons why the attack was allowed to unfold even though a stronger defense could have been made. The president's re-election after this obvious failure leads me to believe he would have been re-elected even if it had been discovered that he was a homicidal maniac (not that I think he is).
Another example occurred just this week, on April 15, 2013, after terrorists' bombs exploded at the Boston Marathon killing at least three people and injuring more than 160. Dreading the possibility that the bombers were foreign terrorists, liberal David Sirota said, "Let's hope the Boston marathon bomber is a white American." (salon.com). How disappointed he must be. While possessing more information about the attack than probably anyone else, President Obama held an initial press conference in which he refused to use the words "terrorism" or "terrorist." It wasn't until the following day, when it was overwhelmingly obvious, that the administration admitted the bombing was the work of terrorists. But, even if he wasn't sure on that first day about who perpetrated the attack, he certainly knew, just like the rest of us, that it was likely the result of terrorism and should have said so. He would probably say he didn't want to speculate about who was responsible. Why not? Would it be too offensive to people who have demonstrated a desire to kill us? What we need instead is a leader who, in responding to a possible terrorist attack, is strong and aggressive in our defense, not weak and unsure. When he held the conference, he needed to speak to them, not just us.
But, of course, the terrorists think the president's already aligned himself with them. In an address to the United Nations, President Obama said, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." (September 25, 2012, New York City). To the terrorists, those who slander the prophet of Islam is... us! They heard the president saying he's with them!
I don't believe the president is "with" the terrorists. But I do think he needs for us to believe we are defeating terrorism (politicususa.com, January 12, 2013) so we will accept his drawdown in Afghanistan. If we were to see that the terrorists haven't been defeated after all, we would recognize that he was intentionally deceiving us. In addition, I believe the president simply doesn't want us to become fully enraged at the terrorists over these attacks, thus jeopardizing relations with terrorist states with whom he is trying to connect. And, maybe he's afraid of the power of that unleashed anger come the next election when a multitude of Democrats will be trying to win seats in congress and around the country.
You may recall the terrorist; Nidal Malik Hasan, who shot 43 US soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, on November 4, 2009, killing 13 of them. During the rampage, he was heard shouting Allah Akbar! (KMBC-TV, Kansas City, November 6, 2009). We've since learned that the surviving injured soldiers did not receive a Purple Heart because the Obama administration classified the shooting as "workplace violence" (WTMJ News Team, Milwaukee, April 5, 2013) instead of terrorism. This in spite of the fact that the government had information connecting Hasan to Al-Qaeda (Fox News, March 18, 2010), a well-known terrorist organization that wants nothing more than the total destruction of the United States.

Of course, who can forget the clumsy manipulation of information following the deadly attack in Libya? The September 11, 2011 attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi killed four Americans, including two US Navy SEALS and the US Ambassador to Libya. The worst part was that the Obama administration clearly knew the attack was an act of terrorism (CNN, September 11, 2012) even as we were repeatedly told that it was just violence resulting from Muslim anger over an anti-Islam video (CNN, September 13, 2011). We still haven't been given acceptable reasons why the attack was allowed to unfold even though a stronger defense could have been made. The president's re-election after this obvious failure leads me to believe he would have been re-elected even if it had been discovered that he was a homicidal maniac (not that I think he is).
Another example occurred just this week, on April 15, 2013, after terrorists' bombs exploded at the Boston Marathon killing at least three people and injuring more than 160. Dreading the possibility that the bombers were foreign terrorists, liberal David Sirota said, "Let's hope the Boston marathon bomber is a white American." (salon.com). How disappointed he must be. While possessing more information about the attack than probably anyone else, President Obama held an initial press conference in which he refused to use the words "terrorism" or "terrorist." It wasn't until the following day, when it was overwhelmingly obvious, that the administration admitted the bombing was the work of terrorists. But, even if he wasn't sure on that first day about who perpetrated the attack, he certainly knew, just like the rest of us, that it was likely the result of terrorism and should have said so. He would probably say he didn't want to speculate about who was responsible. Why not? Would it be too offensive to people who have demonstrated a desire to kill us? What we need instead is a leader who, in responding to a possible terrorist attack, is strong and aggressive in our defense, not weak and unsure. When he held the conference, he needed to speak to them, not just us.
But, of course, the terrorists think the president's already aligned himself with them. In an address to the United Nations, President Obama said, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." (September 25, 2012, New York City). To the terrorists, those who slander the prophet of Islam is... us! They heard the president saying he's with them!
I don't believe the president is "with" the terrorists. But I do think he needs for us to believe we are defeating terrorism (politicususa.com, January 12, 2013) so we will accept his drawdown in Afghanistan. If we were to see that the terrorists haven't been defeated after all, we would recognize that he was intentionally deceiving us. In addition, I believe the president simply doesn't want us to become fully enraged at the terrorists over these attacks, thus jeopardizing relations with terrorist states with whom he is trying to connect. And, maybe he's afraid of the power of that unleashed anger come the next election when a multitude of Democrats will be trying to win seats in congress and around the country.
Published on April 21, 2013 09:46
No comments have been added yet.
The Other Way It Is
The stories and opinions of author Trent Ruble.
Find Trent Ruble on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/taruble/ The stories and opinions of author Trent Ruble.
Find Trent Ruble on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/taruble/ ...more
Find Trent Ruble on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/taruble/ The stories and opinions of author Trent Ruble.
Find Trent Ruble on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/taruble/ ...more
- Trent Ruble's profile
- 17 followers
