- FIRST, FORT HOOD,
- AND SECOND THE KNICKER-BOMBER, (ONLY A FAULTY DETONATOR STOPPED THE ATTACK).
BUT LIBERAL OBAMA AND LIBERAL PC ARE ALSO TO BLAME.
LIBERALS BETTER CHANGE FAST.
OBAMA HAD BETTER CHANGE FAST.
OR THERE WILL BE ANOTHER SUCCESSFUL ATTACK.
PC MOVES - LIKE DECREASING OUR SECRECY RULES - ARE EXACTLY THE WRONG THING AT THE WRONG TIME.
AS ARE PROSECUTING NAVY SEALS AND CIA AGENTS.
THEY DE-MOTIVATE THOSE ON OUR FRONT LINES.
IF OBAMA IS SERIOUS ABOUT DEFENDING US THEN HE WILL RESCIND THESE THREE MOVES.
THEN AGAIN, IF OBAMA REALLY WAS A CRYPTO-MUSLIM AND/OR A RADICAL LEFTIST WHO WANTED THE USA TO LOSE, WOULD HE BE DOING ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY?
"As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.
“He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency – social transformation—the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war."