Out: Dissent is patriotic... In: Dissent is assisting the terrorists

The Obama administration’s counter-terrorism czar, John Brennan, took to the pages of USA Today’s Op-Ed section to scold critics of the administration’s handling of the war on terror and specifically the mirandizing of alleged terrorists. In the piece, he closes with this money paragraph

Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda. Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill. They will, however, be dismantled and destroyed, by our military, our intelligence services and our law enforcement community. And the notion that America's counterterrorism professionals and America's system of justice are unable to handle these murderous miscreants is absurd.

Never mind the self-serving nature of that first line, what it is that serves the goals of al-Qaeda is the out-of-the-blocks bumbling of the administration in the immediate wake of the Christmas crotch bomber where the President waited a whole three days to address the incident and where the director of the National Counterterrorism Center decided to stay on the ski slopes rather than return to D.C. in what was an obvious all-hands on deck situation.

What it is that serves the goals of al-Qaeda is that miserable hack that runs the Justic Dept. giving stuttering and incoherent answers to whether or not or troops would be expected to mirandize enemy combatants and known terrorists, including Osama bin Laden on the field of battle.

And 100-ft. tall terrorists? Just what is it about asymmetrical warfare does this counter-terrorism expert not understand. One snot nose punk barely out of his teens nearly ruined Christmas for this entire country. These idiots don’t have to be smart, strong, cunning or courageous, they need only be willing. That this appears lost on Brennan does not exactly inspire confidence in us that he knows what the hell he is doing.

And as for his overall whine about partisan politics injecting itself into the matters of national security, let’s take a little walk down memory lane, shall we. Here’s Brennan in August of 2009:

"The fight against terrorists and violent extremists has been returned to its right and proper place: no longer defining — indeed, distorting — our entire national security and foreign policy, but rather serving as a vital part of those larger policies."

Nope. Nothing partisan about that. Hell, Bush-bashing hardly qualifies anymore. Don’t know about you all, but all that “distorting” seemed to work quite nicely.

Naivete' You Better Believe

“It's not that he thinks the court can protect the villagers now being killed and maimed and raped in Darfur; his investigation into war crimes there will take years. What he is convinced of is that the prospect of prosecuting war criminals in Darfur and elsewhere will deter others from committing horrific crimes.”

Argentinian, Luis Moreno-Ocampo is the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. He seems to be a decent, honorable and well-intended man but, ironically enough, it is because he is these things, it is unlikely that justice for Darfur will ever be served in court. Precisely because the genocidal criminals in the Sudanese government and international terrorists are the antithesis of decent, honorable and well-intended, is the reason why an international court is a dubious option for ridding the world of these people. Story here.

And unfortunately, we see now that Barack Obama favors this approach to fighting the War on Terror.

We all saw how well fighting terrorism as a law-enforcement matter worked back in the 90s. The civilian criminal prosecution of the World Trade Center bombers in ’93 did nothing to deter terrorists from carrying out their deadly missions on U.S. interests over the next 8 years (American embassies in Africa, Khobar Towers, USS Cole), culminating, of course with the 9-11 attacks here on U.S. soil.

Since that time when we have actually gone out, hunted down and killed terrorists, successful terrorist attacks on U.S. interests and American soil: Zero. This is not a coincidence, this is not a statistical anomaly. And to be honest, we don’t care if terrorist man-hunts are a deterrent or not… dead terrorist can’t terrorize. Period.

Yet with this stark evidence before him, Barack Obama wants to return this nation to fighting the terrorists via criminal prosecution .

Ralph Peters in story here, has some pretty basic national security/anti-terrorism questions that Obama’s adoring media haven’t quite got around to asking the Senator themselves. Among them:

* How would you manage the consequences of the military incursion into Pakistan you've threatened? Are you willing to go to war with Pakistan?
* What would be the specific results of a swift troop withdrawal from Iraq?
* Why would a judicial approach to defeating terrorists work this time when it failed to protect us in the past?
* Do you truly believe that self-admitted terrorists, when captured, deserve the full legal privileges of US citizens?

Obama, while at Columbia is said to have been averse to studying history. This is apparent as he has filed 9-11 and the events and the acts of folly that led up to that point under “Ancient Western Civilization.”