Sensible Sarah Palin on Terrorism
Today I’m flying the South Carolina State Flag … things are relatively quiet, politically. While reading through the unreal posts about Obama’s “approach” to the terrorists, I ran across a Facebook posting by Sarah Palin. People can say what they want about this woman … but on this topic she is absolutely correct.
Relatively Quiet
Time for some Sensible Discussion on Terrorism. As you browse through the internet posts on the approach Obama is using toward terrorism, you must simply just hold your breath and shake your head. As Krauthammer said last night on Fox, how this problem is being approached is simply “Unbelievable!” How could anyone who has any sense at all be approaching this problem in Obama’s manner. He stated that the “war on terror” is over. He also stated that these are not terrorist attacks, they are “man caused disasters.”
Obama's Terrorism Strategy
Obama says … Obama says the people who perpetrate these “man caused disasters” are criminals who have rights under the US Constitution (even though they are not citizens!) … and that they must be Mirandized. He says they should be tried in civil courts and not treated as enemy combatants … making the knowledge they have inaccessible by water-boarding or ANY OTHER means possible to save American lives and keep America Safe. Obama’s ideology is more important than the safety of American lives and US security.
But one voice now has spoken out clearly on this subject, and with a refreshing and sensible point of view … Sarah Palin.
It’s War, not a Crime Spree
Today at 12:39pm (on Facebook)
Sarah Palin
President Obama’s meeting with his top national security advisers does nothing to change the fact that his fundamental approach to terrorism is fatally flawed. We are at war with radical Islamic extremists and treating this threat as a law enforcement issue is dangerous for our nation’s security. That’s what happened in the 1990s and we saw the result on September 11, 2001. This is a war on terror not an “overseas contingency operation.” Acts of terrorism are just that, not “man caused disasters.” The system did not work. Abdulmutallab was a child of privilege radicalized and trained by organized jihadists, not an “isolated extremist” who traveled to a land of “crushing poverty.” He is an enemy of the United States, not just another criminal defendant.
It simply makes no sense to treat an al Qaeda-trained operative willing to die in the course of massacring hundreds of people as a common criminal. Reports indicate that Abdulmutallab stated there were many more like him in Yemen but that he stopped talking once he was read his Miranda rights. President Obama’s advisers lamely claim Abdulmutallab might be willing to agree to a plea bargain – pretty doubtful you can cut a deal with a suicide bomber. John Brennan, the President’s top counterterrorism adviser, bizarrely claimed “there are no downsides or upsides” to treating terrorists as enemy combatants. That is absurd. There is a very serious downside to treating them as criminals: terrorists invoke their “right” to remain silent and stop talking. Terrorists don’t tell us where they were trained, what they were trained in, who they were trained by, and who they were trained with. Giving foreign-born, foreign-trained terrorists the right to remain silent does nothing to keep Americans safe from terrorist threats. It only gives our enemies access to courtrooms where they can publicly grandstand, and to defense attorneys who can manipulate the legal process to gain access to classified information.
President Obama was right to change his policy and decide to send no more detainees to Yemen where they can be free to rejoin their war on America. Now he must back off his reckless plan to close Guantanamo, begin treating terrorists as wartime enemies not suspects alleged to have committed crimes, and recognize that the real nature of the terrorist threat requires a commander-in-chief, not a constitutional law professor.
- Sarah Palin
The Bottom Line
On this issue, a clear choice! In all the researching, I’ve not seen anyone more clear, concise and to the point on the subject as the post Sarah Palin made on Facebook. Finally I’ve found someone that speaks MY mind. Those who say she’s “not qualified?” On this ONE topic … compare the words of Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. Which would you choose based on what you have seen Obama do and what Palin says? This is a fairly basic choice … not a lot of nuance needed.
Staying Engaged
Relevant Posts after this Post
- The Lid: Obama has Counter Terrorism Slated for major Budget cuts
- VotingFemale: Sarah Palin Crushes Barack Hussein Obama
