Terrorism and the President

justin-katz-avatar-smiling

Last night, I received a little push-back on Twitter to my reaction to the attacks in Paris, specifically President Obama’s comments thereon.  By Obama standards, the commentary wasn’t that bad.  His bar is so low it’s on the ground, of course, but he managed to refer to himself fewer than a dozen times in the 500 words, and at least he didn’t deny that Islamic terrorism was behind the attacks; he just sidestepped the perpetrators altogether.

The problem is that he’s just so weak, and the world is as it is in large part because of his weakness.  (Whether it’s deliberate is another subject.)  He came into office and traveled the world to point a finger of blame at his own country.  He cashed in a victory in Iraq for electoral gain and thereby precipitated much of what followed.  His actions in Afghanistan have been less than impressive, his administration (with Hillary Clinton) turned Libya to (even greater) turmoil, he helped foment unrest in countries like Egypt, while knocking the wind out of it in Iran, where it might have turned things for the better.  His fecklessness in Syria drew that country toward its calamity, and his timidness against Russia has invited that country to press for advantage.

That’s before we get to domestic politics, where open borders have drawn masses of untraceable, low-skilled people into our stagnant economy (which his policies have helped to keep stagnant), and his strategy of fomenting divisions along lines of identity politics (especially race) has weakened us as a nation.  And don’t forget the observation that he’s used taxpayer dollars to make it boom-time for left-wing activists while the bureaucracy under him directly attacks his opponents and imposes policies across the board that erode freedom and opportunity.

All of this leaves us extremely vulnerable.

On the national security front, the two options are to attack the terrorists’ infrastructure in their home countries, thus drawing the fighters back to that land, over there, or to build our own defenses and attempt to identify, trace, and neutralize them on our land, over here.  President Obama apparently lacks the will and clearly lacks the credibility to attack over there, and in any event, it likely aligns with his domestic goals to increase the reach and invasiveness of the government among its own people.

At this point, however, the country is so divided and distrustful of itself and the government that a dragnet sufficient to stop the largest attacks (but never all of them) is sure to fray as Americans resist it.  Meanwhile, the enemy is inside the gates and proclaiming, “The American blood is best, and we will taste it soon.”

It takes a great deal of inanity to get the world to a precipice like this, and another year of this president promises only more inanity.



  • Max

    Have pity. When there’s no defense, liberal sycophants have no alternative than to play the race card. You’d think we’d be beyond that after his reelection but alas, it must be in their DNA.

  • censored

    Simply disgraceful, Justin. When 9/11 happened under the watch of possibly the worst president ever, the radicals on the left had the class to not blame terrorist attacks on the president. I suggest you radicals on the right take a lesson from them.

    • OceanStateCurrent

      Your objection misses a whole lot of reality.

      1. President Bush hadn’t even been in office for a year when 9/11 occurred.
      2. 9/11 was a stunning new sort of attack that changed our entire thinking on jihadis and terrorism.
      3. The attack therefore stunned the nation, including those on the left, to such a degree that those who might have wanted to attack Bush knew they had to bit their lips.
      4. It didn’t take long, though, before we started to get “9/11 was an inside job” lunacy as part of the most sustained and vicious assault on a president I’ve seen in my lifetime.

      In contrast:

      1. Obama is about to enter the last of his eight years in office.
      2. The Paris attacks were not some stunning new strategy, but more of a marked escalation in general hostilities.
      3. Obama’s policies (as I argue) are directly responsible for much of that escalation on Western soil.

      • conspiracy

        I hope your writings are to only please your masters in the conservative echo chamber and your don’t really believe them. To even mention the president in the same discussion as a terrorist attack in a foreign country just shows how obsessed the far-right is with this president.

        Just look at your flimsy “justifications”, the length of time W was in office (does that make him less of the president?). I’m sure you liberally give credit to RR for freeing the US hostages in Iran, don’t you? Yes, the attack “stunned the nation”, as if the Paris attack did any differently. Your best work is having the nerve to make reference to one of the far-rights best work: conspiracy theories! Don’t you remember republican John Buchanan running for president on the 9/11 Truth ticket?

        • OceanStateCurrent

          I understand that you want to excuse the disaster that has been the Obama presidency, but insisting that unlike things are the same is not the way to go about it. In September 2011, it would have been ludicrous to blame Bush’s policies. You can disagree with my conclusion, but it is plainly not ludicrous to blame Obama’s policies.

          And to act as if Americans are as stunned by the attack in Paris as they were after 9/11 is bizarre.

          As for Buchanan, on of the most fascinating things about the Bush Era was the illustration that the political spectrum isn’t a line but a circle, and the far left and far right aren’t that different.

          • not yet censored?

            I’ve have no need to defend the presidents policies with regard to a terrorist attack on a foreign country. Even if many are puzzling. You have made that bizarre connection, which I find appalling. You weren’t watching TV last night (even Bill O’Reilly was pre-empted!) if you don’t think the reaction of the world was “stunned”.

            I agree with you with regard to the loons on the far-left and far-right meeting in blissful harmony.

          • Max

            “I’ve have no need to defend the presidents policies with regard to a terrorist attack on a foreign country.”

            Yet you do.

  • Rhett Hardwick

    ” attempt to identify, trace, and neutralize them on our land” ask the Nazis, or Russians, how effective that was. Even the French managed to mount a “resistance” (of course they also fired on the Americans landing to free them from the Nazi yoke, Operation Torch). The solution would appear to be that we must cease to deal with it as “criminal action”, with us policing. We have to declare war. But, against who? We are geared for war with nation states. Americans would no longer accept the “collateral damage” of war. I fear that Putin will run that errand for us, and we will be grateful. This is not the time when we need a President who is a “survivor”, we need a warrior. Censored should remember that Clinton had an opportunity to bump Bin Laden and prevent the whole thing. Of course, the great lesson of history is that if things had not happened as they did, does not mean they would not have happened at all. Does anyone thing that if Bell had not invented the telephone that we would now be communicating with megaphones?

Quantcast