Obama's big "win" in the war on terror, which he wont name, is his claim to killing Osama bin Laden. Maybe in his mind he personally executed him. I dont know.
But so what? What did that accomplish? Were terrorists dismantled as a result? Was there any demonstrable effect? Was America or Europe any safer?
No.
Bush was right to de-emphasize Osama, knowing he was nothing more than a symbol, and bypassed by events and marginalized by US efforts.
So without that accomplishment, what has Obama done to make this country safer? I mean other than groping 85 year old women at airports.
Killing Osama, which Obama only gave the okay for because he was under pressure, was a retaliation. What we've been lax in is the prevention of future attacks. When Obama constantly makes claims that terrorism is under control, it means that he is not anticipating any trouble and that is the wrong attitude to take. How can we be prepared when he insists there is no real threat? Most of our efforts have been reactive, such as checking shoes at the airport after the shoe bomber attempted to blow up a plane. We are very bad when it comes to anticipating future attacks and the means by which they will infiltrate us.
Right now, it's becoming clear that terrorists are pretending to be refugees. Obama has decided to greatly increase the number of refugees we will take. This is another example off how we are being politically correct when we should be increasing security.
When an attack occurs, Obama is quick to label it as workplace violence rather than admit that radicals are among us and are ready to strike at the first opportunity. While it's been lone attackers lately, they all have things in common such as attending radical mosques and often posting anti-American and pro-ISIS comments on social media.
Bringing in tens of thousands of refugees and knowing that a certain percent are ISIS members is suicide.
The FBI has already admitted that there is no way to vet them and all they can ascertain is whether a person has a record with them. Most ISIS members will not. While the WH claims we have a fantastic vetting process, the truth is that there is scant information except for known terrorists who have been on the radar in the past. This means we just don't know who is who and it won't be clear until another attack occurs.
Obama first admitted he had no strategy and now says his strategy is working slowly and needs more time. From what I can see, his strategy is to be as nice as possible to ISIS and other terrorists and hope that they change. Or he is secretly rooting for them and is making it easier for them to infiltrate the homelands of the infidels, now called crusaders by ISIS.
Some states are already saying that the safety of their citizens are more important than some unknown people who may or may not be terrorists. Some states are refusing refugees and, of course, that has the Obama administration hurling accusations of Islamophobia. When in doubt, shouldn't we err on the side of caution rather than expose our people to terrorist attacks?
Our biggest problem when dealing with terrorism is that we remain reactive instead of proactive. That needs to change quickly and I am glad a few states are taking the lead to protect people.
Obama can beat his chest all his wants over his reluctant nod to the SEALS that allowed them to take out bid laden. Osama was quickly replaced and we need to deal with that before the next attack, not wait until after to react.
