Obama declared the war on terrorism over and brought us a kinder, gentler approach:
The US president has instead replaced it with a softer approach stressing “new partnerships” and multilateral diplomacy.
“Our long-term security will not come from our ability to instill fear in other peoples but through our capacity to speak to their hopes,” Mr Obama said in a message introducing a new national security strategy.
In the 52-page document, drawn up after 16 months of deliberations, Mr Obama outlines a much broader set of priorities and methods than Mr Bush’s tightly-focused determination to eradicate Islamism by any means possible and alone if necessary.
“We will always seek to delegitimise the use of terrorism and to isolate those who carry it out,” it states. “Yet this is not a global war against a tactic – terrorism – or a religion – Islam.
“We are at war with a specific network, al-Qaeda, and its terrorist affiliates who support efforts to attack the United States, our allies, and partners.”
Obama lulled this country into a false sense of security:
In his State of the Union address to the American people earlier this year, Barack Obama declared that he was “confident” of achieving “our objective of defeating the core of al-Qaeda”.
Although he acknowledged the need to pursue the “remnants” of the terrorist group and its affiliates, the overall message was clear – al-Qaeda was badly degraded, the tides of war were receding and the US was winning this fight that was no longer even officially a war.
The Boston bombings would appear to present a fundamental challenge to that assessment and once again bring the nagging uncertainty of terrorism back on to the American main street.
When a mentally ill young adult murdered 26 people, Obama responded by seeking punishment for all gun owners. When Muslims kill, we must resist a rush to judgment as to motives:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: In this age of instant reporting and tweets and blogs, there’s a temptation to latch on to any bit of information, sometimes to jump to conclusions. But when a tragedy like this happens, with public safety at risk and the stakes so high, it’s important that we do this right. That’s why we have investigations. That’s why we relentlessly gather the facts. That’s why we have courts. And that’s why we take care not to rush to judgment — not about the motivations of these individuals; certainly not about entire groups of people.
The Feds made a decision not to grant Tsarnaev his Miranda rights invoking a special rule:
The exception, according to the FBI‘s website, “permits law enforcement to engage in a limited and focused unwarned interrogation and allows the government to introduce the statement as direct evidence.”
Left wing websites which would have torn George Bush to shreds fell over themselves defending Obama:
The Public Safety Exemption Is Real
As the Court emphasized, this exemption is “narrow.” It permits police to ask a limited range of questions for the purpose of removing any imminent threats. It does not permit wide-ranging questions intended to build a case against the suspect.
Prosecution of Tsarnaev holds the possibility that he could skate on the technicality. If that happens, Tsarnaev could grant an interview entitled “Guilty as hell, free as a bird— America is a great country,” go on to become a “distinguished professor” at a left wing college and then hold a fund raiser for an up and coming democrat political candidate in his living room. And he too could get to say: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”
Don’t laugh. It’s happened before.