Let's Be the Strong Horse

Evidently, the United States is no longer engaged in (i) a War on Terror, (ii) a War Against Islamic Extremists, (iii) fighting jihadists, or (iv) a global war. Last Thursday, President Obama’s top homeland security and counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan, took all of these terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech in Washington at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Mr. Brennan said that, “The President does not describe this as a ‘war on terrorism’”. The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said that the administration is using is that the U.S is “at war with al Qaeda.” The President himself has not used the term “War on Terror” in public since January 23. Evidently, the Obama Administration does not believe that other terrorist groups, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, are worth fighting.

Apparently, therefore, it’s okay with Mr. Obama if black market cigarette smuggling continues in North Carolina and the proceeds are used to fund Hamas and Hezbollah cells that may be operating in the United States. It is bad enough that these two Iranian controlled and funded terrorist organizations actively engage in armed conflict on a daily basis against one of our closest allies, Israel, but the fact that the President does not feel that they pose an enormous threat to the security of the American people is beyond troubling.

Mr. Brennan continued with his politically correct nonsense by saying that it is wrongheaded to continue to claim that we are fighting “jihadists” because it is using “a legitimate term, ‘jihad’, meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal” which “risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve.” In Western parlance, the term “jihad” had universally meant holy war. It wasn’t until the politically correct victimization crowd, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR”), claimed otherwise. (Let’s not forget that CAIR itself is a group that supports terrorism. It was formed by the Muslim Brotherhood and it was an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation.)

Mr. Brennan said that he and the President lamented “inflammatory rhetoric, hyperbole, and intellectual narrowness” surrounding the national security debate and said that Mr. Obama has views that are “nuanced, not simplistic; practical, not ideological.” This, of course, is just further proof that President Obama does not understand the nature of the threat that we face from Islamic extremists, regardless of the organization that they belong to. There is no nuance needed in the goal of defeating those who would try to kill us or subjugate in an effort to restore the caliphate.

As Osama bin-Laden said, "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse." Therefore, it would seem to make sense for the members of the Obama Administration to spend time acting like we are, in fact, the strong horse, as opposed to talking about nuance and political correctness. (I must give the President for the continued use of the Predator drones in Pakistan. This program, started by the Bush Administration, has been very successful. So much so that some on the left want it to stop. Hopefully, this helps send that message to the terrorists that you can run, but you can’t hind.)

The goal of US foreign policy should be the security of the American people. It should not be to try to have the United States be liked around the world. As a matter of fact, sometimes, it is better to be feared than liked. I don’t think that the President knows what it means to be the strong horse. Unfortunately, that endangers us all.

The Return of Dick Cheney

Normally, I believe that it is out of line for the former President of the United States to criticize his successors. By extension, that should apply to former Vice-Presidents as well. However, the criticism of the Bush Administration by the Obama Administration is unprecedented. From the almost daily attacks on the Bush Administration to the release of the so called “torture memos”, along with accompanying anti-Bush commentary, it is perfectly understandable why former Vice President Dick Cheney has decided to speak out in defense of his administration.

It cannot be left to stand unanswered that President George W. Bush allowed torture and that he was the Torturer–in-Chief. The honor of this man and the policies that have kept America safe for almost 8 years must be defended by those with direct knowledge of the situation. Mr. Cheney is such a person. While his actions are, in part, for the purpose of defending his own legacy, the Vice President was instrumental in developing the successful strategies in the War on Terror. Therefore, on behalf of himself, those in his administration and those who had supported (and continue to support) these effective policies, Vice President Cheney is adding an informed and useful voice to not only analyze what has transpired, but also to the debate as to how the current administration should proceed going forward.

Based upon Mr. Cheney’s statements, and those of four former Directors of the CIA and the current Director of National Intelligence, the information that was gained by using enhanced interrogation techniques was invaluable. Those who say that these techniques do not work are either lying or badly misinformed. Mr. Cheney also rebuts the canard that those such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed may have talked if the CIA had only used conventional interrogation techniques. According to the Vice President, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed did not cooperate fully in terms of interrogation until after waterboarding. Cheney goes on to say, “Once we went through that process, he produced vast quantities of invaluable information about Al Qaida.”

I am inclined to believe the former Vice President when he claims that the actions of the Bush Administration saved thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of lives. Some of these foiled plot have been made public (flying an airplane into a skyscraper in Los Angeles, blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge, poisoning the water supply to the US Embassy in Rome, attacking the US Embassy in Singapore, just to name a few). And, of course, the mind set in the country immediately following September 11 was that another Al Qaida attack was imminent.

As Mr. Cheney points out, the public announcement of the halting of enhanced interrogation techniques does increase the danger to the American people. Whether we these techniques or not, the belief that they may be used would stand as a deterrent for those who may be captured. Also, the closing Guantanamo Bay with no plan as to what to do with the terrorists imprisoned there not only shows weakness on the part of President Obama, but also a lack of judgment on the single most important issue relating to our national security. It is pathetic to see him begging our European allies to take these terrorists and then to have his request rejected. That is not a good example of strong American leadership.

Is our position on the War on Terror weaker today than under the previous administration? The answer is yes. Is President Obama responsible for this? The answer is, again, yes.

However, to the victor goes the spoils. President Obama has been charged with the defense of the American people. I just hope that he spends time dealing with this in a serious manner rather than sniping at his predecessor. If he does, Dick Cheney can happily retreat into retirement.

Take a Bow, Barry

In an incredible breach of protocol, President Obama bowed before King Abdullah of Saudi Ruled Arabia upon greeting him at the G20 Summit last week. It is inappropriate for anyone who is not a subject of a monarch (especially a fellow head of state) to greet that monarch with a bow. Miss Manner Book Of Etiquette advises, “One does not bow or curtsy to a foreign monarch because the gesture symbolizes recognition of her power over her subjects.” Additionally, it is not even required that a monarch’s own subjects bow before him or her. In answering the question about the proper behavior upon meeting the Queen, subjects are told by the official website of The British Monarchy that, “The simple answer is that there are no obligatory codes of behavior – just courtesy. However, many people wish to observe the traditional forms of greeting. For men this is a neck bow (from the head only) whilst women do a small curtsy. Other people prefer simple to shake hands in the usual way.”

For a man who prides himself on his intelligence and his preparedness, the President should have known better than to do a deep waist bow before a dictator of a repressive regime. Where was the Chief of Protocol from the White House or the State Department? Shouldn’t he have been prepared for this encounter? Even my 7 year old knows that Mr. Obama’s behavior was inappropriate. Upon seeing the attached video, he asked, “Why would Barack Obama bow to a king? That’s crazy.” And indeed it is.

The press has been absent in covering this faux pas. Remember the big deal about President Bush holding hands with the Saudi King at his Texas ranch, the press tried to spin that into President Bush being too chummy with the House of Saud. But holding hands does not show subservience. A bow from the waist does. Are we to infer from his actions, therefore, that the current occupant of the Oval Office is subservient to the hereditary ruler of a regime that subjugates women? I think not, but the President will be better served if he really is prepared for his meetings that are in full view of the world.

In addition to being another instant of bias press coverage in favor of President Obama, the reason that the deep bow is important is because it plays into the narrative (I loving using that term because it is a favorite of our friends on the left) that Mr. Obama is weak on Islamist extremists. In only just two and a half months in office, this is another in a long line of actions that lead to the conclusion that the President is weak on the War on Terror. Among them are:

o His apology for our conduct of the War on Terror during his first network TV interview to the English language Arab network, Al Arabiya;

o The prohibition of the use of the phrase “War on Terror”;

o The prohibition of the use of the phrase “Terrorist Attack” in favor of the phrase “Man made disasters (ask the families of the 9/11 victims if their loved ones died in a terrorist attack or a man made disaster – I’d bet they’d say terrorist attack);

o The closing of Guantanamo Bay;

o The freeing of the mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole;

o The announced goal of negotiating with “moderate” Taliban;

o The sending of $900,000,000 to the Palestinians;

o Continuing to insist that we should talk to the Mullahs in Iran;

o Allowing the imposition of Sharia law in the Swat Valley in Pakistan;

o Announcing a date certain for our withdrawal from Iraq; and

o Halting military tribunals for those that sane people refer to as enemy combatants.

During the presidential campaign I repeatedly told some of my fellow conservatives that Barack Obama is not a secret Muslim, because he is not and that such false allegations undermined the legitimate arguments against his then candidacy. Unfortunately, however, for some reason, President Obama is not so secretly excessively solicitous to Islamist extremists.

Recreation at Gitmo

Evidently our friends down in Venezuela were a bit embarrassed last week when Venezuelan citizen and reigning Miss Universe, Dayana Mendoza, posted on her blog how nice things are at the US Navy base at Guantanamo Bay. Ms. Mendoza was forced to remove these posts. As a vocal critic of our prosecution of the War on Terror (I will continue to use that term, even if the Obama Administration is unable to comprehend that we are engaged in a war) in general and Guantanamo Bay in particular, the Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez, could not tolerate a fellow Venezuelan making observations like she "saw the jails, where they shower, how they recreate themselves with movies, classes of art, books."

Somehow, Islamists attending art classes and watching movies doesn't fit the Guantanamo narrative of torture and isolation. Certainly, things would have been much better for ole' Hugo had Miss Universe posted that she had seen the inmates being sodomized and US servicemen flushing Korans down the toilet. But, once again, there was none of that.

As I've stated before, the closing of the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay is bad policy and a sign of weakness by President Obama. In a rush to fulfill a campaign promise to placate the left at home and the left around the globe, he announced the closing of the prison without any clear plan about what to do with the detainees (remember, I suggested that they be freed outside of the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port - at least that's a plan).

It is ridiculous to say that the United States cannot hold these terrorists for an indefinite period of time without trial. During World War II, no one suggested that the Roosevelt Administration could not hold German and Japanese prisoners of war for the entire length of hostilities. The detainees at Guantanamo should not even be conferred the status of prisoners of war, but rather that of unlawful enemy combatants. Therefore, we should be able to hold them until the hostilities end. It is irrelevant how long that is. We did not start the War on Terror, the Islamists did. It is their fault that the war continues. They can end it at any time.

The President feels that we must close Guantanamo Bay because it has become a symbol of torture to the international community. Since were bowing to international pressure over what certain things symbolize, maybe the President would like to remove the Statute of Liberty from New York Harbor because that is a symbol of freedom and that has got to make third world dictators uncomfortable.