Do You Feel Safer Than You Did A Year Ago?
I think it was John (AverageGayJoe) who asked that question in the comments a few days ago. The Hill took that question to a variety of political pundit-types.
I agree with Tom Fitton from Judicial Watch:
The Obama administration’s anti-terrorism policies have made the United States less safe.
Obama’s decision to end the use of the enhanced interrogation techniques prevents us from gaining intelligence that can save lives and prevent terrorist attacks (like the recent attempt to blow up the Detroit-bound airliner).
Obama’s decision to prosecute 9/11 terrorists in civilian court is a public relations victory for Al Qaeda that will lead, among other deadly dangers, to the release of intelligence data that will help terrorists.
Obama’s decision to prosecute the recent airline bomber Abdulmutallab in the civilian system prevents our defense and intelligence agencies from gaining access to timely information that might prevent future terrorist attacks. And it will encourage more terrorism by suggesting leniency can be had by terrorists in plea bargain negotiations with civilian prosecuters.
Obama’s decision to close Gitmo will result in terrorists being brought to the United States, with all the attendant risks to the homeland – which include the outright release of terrorists in the United States.
Obama’s decision to release terrorists from Gitmo and elsewhere will lead to more terrorism from recidivist terrorists. [GP Ed. Note -- Released Gitmo terrorists (under Bush) already have returned to the battlefield.]
But the real question is…. what do you think? What do your neighbors think? What do the majority of Americans think? Is America Less Safe Under Obama?
I’d like to see Gallup ask that question. The best part of this whole conversation is that Dick Cheney began the discussion with that very point. Hooah.
UPDATE: A related thought from Marc Thiessen at National Review:
Thanks to Obama, the terrorists know they have nothing to fear — and thus have no incentive to talk. And even if they did face some enhanced techniques, the techniques would no longer work — because the terrorist would know from the memos that there are limits to what they would face. The effect of the techniques is psychological, not physical. They trick the terrorists into thinking what they are enduring is worse than it really is.
It’s like the show Magic’s Biggest Secrets Revealed — once you know how the magician saws the woman in half, you’re not fooled. The same goes for enhanced interrogation.
Obama’s policies themselves are making our nation less safe.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
31 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
“I’d like to see Gallup ask that question.”
Funny that you mention that….
Gallup DID ask a very similar question, just a couple of weeks ago. Not exactly putting names to it, but asking “”Now, thinking for a moment about terrorism, how worried are you that you or someone in your family will become a victim of terrorism: very worried, somewhat worried, not too worried, or not worried at all?”
the exact same question that they ask once a year or so.
Near the end of the Bush administration, in Sep. 08, the results were 38% very or somewhat worried, 62% not too worried or not at all.
Now (in mid December) the results were 39% very or somewhat worried, 62% not too, or not at all.
Comment by Tano — January 4, 2010 @ 10:29 pm - January 4, 2010
It’s the Bungling Bros. Obama & Holder Circus!!
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 4, 2010 @ 10:41 pm - January 4, 2010
To answer the question: Not in the least.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 4, 2010 @ 10:54 pm - January 4, 2010
A “couple of weeks ago” — was before 12/25. When the nation wasn’t fully aware that the Obama policies were coming home to roost.
NEXT!
Comment by GayPatriot — January 4, 2010 @ 10:57 pm - January 4, 2010
Oh really Bruce? Please tell us all, what exactly did Obama do, different from what Bush has done, that allowed that guy to get on the plane?
What policies of Obama’s are you blaming for this incident?
Comment by Tano — January 4, 2010 @ 11:01 pm - January 4, 2010
Well Tano……….for starters Obama fundamentally altered the culture and risk-taking incentives of the intelligence community with policy and personnel changes. He gutted the Homeland Security Council coordinating role, he diluted the focus of the daily intel brief, he made CIA officials worry more about being prosecuted for doing their jobs than capturing terrorists.
The sense of urgency was long gone way before December 25th… because Obama made it uncool to call the war on terror the war on terror at all.
Federal employees say, “despite statements to the contrary from the Obama Administration, information was flagged and given a higher priority during the Bush Administration,” and that since the changeover, “Federal employees are encouraged to not create the appearance they are profiling or targeting Muslims”.
That’s all I have time for tonight…. let me know if you’re still hell bent on contesting the truth…. and I’ll be happy to provide you with even more examples of Obama’s incompetence.
Comment by Spartann — January 4, 2010 @ 11:56 pm - January 4, 2010
‘The sense of urgency was long gone way before December 25th”
I’ll agree with you there, but that isn’t on Obama. The war against al-Q was backburnered by Bush after Tora Bora. While he decided to use the support he was receiving from nearly all Americans to launch an invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and had nothing to do with al-Q.
And for 7 long years the situation in Afghanistan deteriorated, the Taliban was able to rebuild, and became even more linked together with al-Q. I actually just came back here now after watching Charlie Rose, and one of his guests was Hank Crumpton, the CIA man who led the mission to bring down the Taliban after 9/11. He had some criticisms of Obama, although he was mostly complimentary, but he expressed frustration at the manner in which the fight that matters was downplayed for so long by the Bush admin.
Its not just Afghanistan. There was a successful CIA+local govt. effort against al-Q in Yemen in the early aughts – but that country too was pretty much abandoned after the early success, and for the past 4-5 years al-Q has been able to reestablish itself as a powerful force in that country.
It is pretty clear that the utterly feckless policies of the Bush administration – pretending that Saddam Hussein was the problem while allowing al-Q to survive and regroup – that was the ultimate source of the problems we see today.
Comment by Tano — January 5, 2010 @ 12:07 am - January 5, 2010
Tano you just have no idea at all. Afghanistan as a theatre of war was not neglected as you claim. However, since the Obot has been in charge Afghanistan has been less safe for military personnel. What was probably a winnable situation is now extremely dangerous.
The Taliban are not stupid and they do not admire someone as dickless as the Obot.
Comment by StraightAussie — January 5, 2010 @ 12:23 am - January 5, 2010
Yeah, so I can totally see why it’s Obama’s fault. George W. Bush and Dick H. Cheney tried to counteract B. Hussein O.’s powerful mojo, but ultimately failed and simply HAD to release terrorists from Gitmo. That’s because Libruls wanted to let out the goat herders from Afghanistan who were rounded up because their neighbor had a beef with them, so naturally Dick and George were FORCED to let actual terrorists go.
Learn to think.
Comment by Calming Influence — January 5, 2010 @ 12:31 am - January 5, 2010
#1: “Near the end of the Bush administration, in Sep. 08, the results were 38% very or somewhat worried, 62% not too worried or not at all. Now (in mid December) the results were 39% very or somewhat worried, 62% not too, or not at all.”
Now there’s some razor-sharp, up-to-the-minute analysis, Tano. Of course you’re right–”now” is interchangeable with mid-December or, I dunno…December 26th, or…January 4th. I mean, really, what’s the diff?
Comment by Sean A — January 5, 2010 @ 1:55 am - January 5, 2010
Tano…as usual, you’re ever the doyen of truth…
Now you may believe yourself to be ahead of the curve right now by refusing to respond to most of what I charged Obama with above….. and this lil quick step move of inserting Yemen and Afghanistan in to the mix tonight …well nice try, but I’m not phased, and I’ll be more than happy to address some of that.
Now I do find it odd you’ve decided to bring up Yemen….especially when wisdom would dictate otherwise to an Obamaican. Yemen is not a good option for anything, and BHO has always known that….and yet he’s been wanting to ship 97 Gitmo detainees to Yemen since February of this year: could it be because nobody else in the world will take them? By the way, the Saudis have kept the administration abreast of any and all former Gitmo detainees that have repatriated to Yemen.
President Obama should have thought about these and many other difficulties before issuing an order to close Gitmo during his first week in office. Well you have to really assume the administration didn’t examine these issues before deciding to order Gitmo closed because a) It was the easiest and quickest way for Obama to appear like he was hitting the ground running. b) It was done all for show in order to appease European and other foreign objections c) Only a seasoned executive would trust but verify before making the final announcement.
Now here’s where it’s gonna get really funny…. His administration stands alone in trying to relocate the Yemeni detainees. Imagine that, Obama is all alone on this one. He’s begging…yes I said begging the Saudis, but they’re not about to take them. The Europeans don’t want them either. Oh, and Yemen, well that’s not a viable option.
The only remaining question is: Why, other than to fulfill his self-imposed unrealistic deadline, does President Obama want to transfer the Yemeni detainees?
Comment by Spartann — January 5, 2010 @ 2:25 am - January 5, 2010
Not safer, not freer and not employed
Comment by LCRW — January 5, 2010 @ 2:56 am - January 5, 2010
No, I do not feel safer. The “statement” from Hawaii from the president certainly did nothing to instill feeling safer in me.
He started from day one undermining the United States at home and a broad and it came full circle with the near disaster over Detroit.
Community organizers do not make good national leaders.
Comment by PatriotMom — January 5, 2010 @ 5:27 am - January 5, 2010
Really? Remind me again who was president when KSM and the USS Cole bombers were captured? Who was president when al-Zarqawi was killed? How about Muhammad Khalil Ibrahim? And where were those last two killed?
Not to mention while liberals were undermining our president, threatening to defund our soldiers in country, calling them stupid and terrorists as well as ignorant hayseed hicks, manufacturing a non-existent “civil war”, endangering the lives of our soldiers while playing political games, we were fighting and defeating al-Qaeda all over the globe including Indonesia and the Phillipines.
So you can take your “Bush ignored terrorism” lie and cram it right back in your team-killing twat from whenst it came.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 5, 2010 @ 5:27 am - January 5, 2010
BTW, you’d think a president who gave a rat’s ass about terrorism wouldn’t have buzzed Manhattan in AF1.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 5, 2010 @ 5:29 am - January 5, 2010
Calming flatulanece,
So… You agree that moving terrorists out of Gitmo is a bad idea? Glad to see you oppose the Obama policy.
Plus we’ve let a non-american terrorist lawyer up. To paraphrase NRO, he should be taken and waterboarded until his lungs qualify for Federal Wetlands money.
We’re going to get people killed, because this administration won’t roll the hard six.
Comment by The_Livewire — January 5, 2010 @ 7:32 am - January 5, 2010
It just occured to me, liberals are like children, never taking responsibility for anything. Leaders? I think not.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 5, 2010 @ 8:21 am - January 5, 2010
Do I feel safer now that the War against Terror has been turned into a police action against man caused disasters? Do I feel safer now that terrorists instead of being interrogated are given lawyers and told they have a constitutional right not to say anything?
No, I think the nation is enormously less safe.
And Tardo, I have never thought that I personally was going to be the victim of terrorism. Not even right after 9/11. Theres 300,000,000 people in America, and only a tiny fraction of those were killed in terrorist attacks.
Nor do most Americans think they will personally be victims of terror attacks.
But thats the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Even when we dont think we will be personally victimized, we take defending everyone deadly seriously — because that is governments most important job.
Democrats dont think they will be affected so they dont see defending others as very important at all — indeed, they would much rather just arrest someone AFTER the fact. Because Democrats see all that defense crap as a distraction from the real purpose of power — which is to destroy the Constitution and turn America into a European socialist welfare state.
Comment by American Elephant — January 5, 2010 @ 8:37 am - January 5, 2010
Bruce, our family just traveled through DTW to PHX to Cabo San Lucas and back for a long holiday break. Kids, strollers, Ipod Touchs and Michigan partner’s own training as a Navy Seal didn’t make me any less uneasy.
I did not feel safe while stateside. The TSA are a joke –and an annoyance at best. These folks ought to be working sanitation at the airports, not security.
I thought a long time ago we needed to adopt the El Al strategy and put 2-3 sky marshals on every flight –do lots of reporting on their training and ability to shoot out the brain stem of a terrorist at 50 yds. Give ‘em a reality TV show and let the world and our enemies learn how serious Americans are about insuring the citizens’ safety while in air transit.
Americans haven’t. Americans didn’t. We elected a man intent on disassembling the tough game-face that Cheney-Bush chiseled over 8 yrs… and the Christmas ‘09 jihadist bomber is proof that we’re going backwards in the War On Terror. Cowboy diplomacy wasn’t all that bad –and it beat the Big-Hugs-Heal/Apology Tour mentality we’ve got in the Front Office now.
I’m glad to be back home –it’s going to be a while before I travel abroad or domestically by air again.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 5, 2010 @ 9:28 am - January 5, 2010
From a mother jones article:
We play by the same rules. When our predator drones blow up somebody’s lunch, we immediately treat the incident the same way cops go through a shooting review every time they use their weapon outside of the target range.
However, the pantie-bomber and other folks of his ilk get to do their “jobs” without concern for “international law.” It seems “fair” that assassinating someone who is operating outside of international law would be a no-fault action.
In the distant past we did send specially trained personnel into rat holes to leave the body of someone nasty who never woke up. But then we got all “polite” in our CIA and special forces. Now, a Marine sniper sits motionless for hours and only shoots the guy carrying the heavy weapon, because the other two “innocents” in the party are just local guides. Perhaps if a few “innocents” got shot, the local guide service would dry up.
Or perhaps, losing a commercial plane full of people now and then is the price we have to pay for our high level of “morality.” Therefore, it is the highest level of morality to treat the would-be terrorist to all the protections of international law, but sacrifice a plane full of innocent civilians as the cost of being saintly.
Epitaph: Here lies Bob Smith who died suddenly protecting a principle he hadn’t considered.
Comment by heliotrope — January 5, 2010 @ 10:34 am - January 5, 2010
Oh, and putting the lie to Tano’s ‘we ignored Yemen’ meme.
Comment by The_Livewire — January 5, 2010 @ 11:24 am - January 5, 2010
I’m traveling back to Ft Lauderdale tomorrow. Janet Napalatano is still in charge. Please pray for me and my flight.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 5, 2010 @ 1:06 pm - January 5, 2010
“Oh, and putting the lie to Tano’s ‘we ignored Yemen’ meme.”
???
Sorry Livewire, but could you explain this one to us? I read the linked article, and nowhere does it say anything contradicting my claim that the bush administration basically ignored Yemen for years after the initial success there. The only somewhat related point the guy makes is that there were two strikes against al-Q in Yemen last month.
Last time I checked, “last month” was deeply embedded within the Obama administration, no?
Comment by Tano — January 5, 2010 @ 2:12 pm - January 5, 2010
“Remind me again who was president when KSM and the USS Cole bombers were captured? ”
The same man who was president when the Taliban rebuilt itself, and reestablished effective control over a fair sized chunk of southern Afghanistan – and the same man who was president during these long 8+ years during which the leadership of al-Q has survived and managed to rebuild a lot of the organization that had been degraded early on.
As I said – fecklessly backburnered so that now, all these years later, al-Q is still a real threat. I did not say that the fight was completely abandoned nor that there were no small victories at all.
Comment by Tano — January 5, 2010 @ 2:21 pm - January 5, 2010
And I’m saying that article shows that it was never a backburner, since, no matter how much you want to pretend, it’s one war, multiple fronts.
Funny how you decline to answer the information that shows the global warming sham, or why President Obama hates free people, but still try to argue that the process was ‘back burnered’ there.
It’s as crazy as blaming Bush for ignoring the 2003 NIE saying that Iran wasn’t building nukes.
Comment by The_Livewire — January 5, 2010 @ 2:39 pm - January 5, 2010
Livewire,
The problem is that you insist on considering the Iraq expedition as the same war as the war on al-Q. Handy little trick if you can make it sound credible, because then you can argue that there was a very big, ongoing committment. But sorry, that just doesn’t hold water. As we sent massive amounts of money, and the bulk of our available forces to the fight in Iraq, the fight against al-Q was put on a subsistence diet. Just enough to keep things from a complete collapse.
That is why – it is the only reason why – that the Taliban has survived, and to some limited, but real measure, thrived. Its why Yemen has reverted back to being a very dangerous place -probably worse than it was a few years ago.
Its odd how people on the right, who lambasted Obama for actually taking some time to THINK about sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan (after already having sent several tens of thousands more in the spring) had no problem for YEARS, watching the situation there deteriorate while we maintained a relatively small force there.
There was never any al-Q in Iraq to begin with. Once we got bogged down there, then al-Q gladly rounded up recruits to pile on us – all the while continuing their rebuilding in many other places.
One of the most important moves Obama has made has been to get rid of that absolutely insane notion of a “war on terrorism”. He has redefined the war as one against real enemies, not concepts or strategies. This idiotic construction of Bush’s has obviously prevented clear thinking by people like you, who think that because you can conceptually put all American military actions of the past decade under one word-umbrella, that you therefore can claim that we have been effectively fighting the real terrorists.
Its a complete scam and you have been suckered. We backburnered the fight against the real enemy – al-Q and the Taliban. That is why it has taken twice as long to defeat them as it took us to defeat Nazi Germany and Japan combined. And that is if we were to win today – we still have a long way to go.
Just imagine what we could have accomplished against al-Q and all radical jihadists if we had never committed any resources, money or troops or intel, to the sideshow in Iraq.
Comment by Tano — January 5, 2010 @ 3:52 pm - January 5, 2010
Its a complete scam and you have been suckered. We backburnered the fight against the real enemy – al-Q and the Taliban.
Actually, Tano, you lie — because you and your Barack Obama declared that al-Qaeda and the Taliban were NOT our enemies and that they were “moderates” with whom we could work.
Bush never stopped fighting the Taliban or al-Qaeda. You and your Barack Obama, on the other hand, screamed, cried, whined, stamped your feet, and did everything in your power to cut off funds, stop troops from being deployed, hamstring them when they were, and insist that the Taliban were “freedom fighters” who were being “persecuted”.
And now that your pandering has been proven to be full of crap, you’re trying to reverse yourself — but, in classic style, trying to blame and attack Bush for the fact that you endorsed, supported, and did everything in your power to aid and abet al-Qaeda and the Taliban for eight years because doing so was anti-Bush.
You denied al-Qaeda and the Taliban were enemies. It’s right up there with links. You are a liar, Tano, just like your Barack Obama.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 5, 2010 @ 4:42 pm - January 5, 2010
Ah Tano, you make it so easy…
Clinton administration Iraq support of terrorists
Hillary’s statements about Al Quiada in Iraq
More documentation of terrorists in Iraq.
Yawn, now answer me this Tano. Why does Barack Obama hate free people?
Comment by The_Livewire — January 5, 2010 @ 4:53 pm - January 5, 2010
Read the few sentences BEFORE that one. Read it again. Read it again. Read it again….
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 5, 2010 @ 6:30 pm - January 5, 2010
“That is why – it is the only reason why – that the Taliban has survived, and to some limited, but real measure, thrived. Its why Yemen has reverted back to being a very dangerous place -probably worse than it was a few years ago.”
Tano …. as a rule I’m use to dealing with tangibles, so please understand my unfamiliarity when dealing with a clairvoyant like yourself.
Like this exerpt taken from ABC’s “60 Minutes” earlier last year:
“Meanwhile, across the border in Afghanistan, the hawks’ plan for a generations-long occupation there is hitting some snags too. President Karzai has lost patience with Western leaders who talk about caring but don’t seem to care enough to stop causing civilian casualties. He’s indicated that he’d like to see a timetable for withdrawal and in return the Obama administration has indicated it would like to see him gone, replaced by someone more malleable and (hopefully) less corrupt in the wrong ways. Karzai said Sunday that he believed rumors about his alleged drug-lord brother were being circulated by the US to drive Karzai himself from office and he’s doing some outreach to the Russians instead.”
In closing I’d like to invite you to take a stroll down memory lane:
Iraq “represents a virulent threat in a class by itself … As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. … The real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our own terms.”,,,, Al Gore/Feb12,2002
Who amongst us can forget this performance by the country’s consummate politician from Campaign 1992:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h6gehCPvpk&feature=related
Comment by Spartann — January 5, 2010 @ 6:45 pm - January 5, 2010
The worst president in history is now diverting CIA resources from keeping Americans safe to … watching ice!
No wonder Obama couldnt catch this terrorist despite having known about him for months! He’s too busy converting our national defenses into part of the global warming fraud.
Comment by American Elephant — January 5, 2010 @ 11:58 pm - January 5, 2010