The TIMES reported:
"The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,'" said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a "new way of seeing" the fight against terrorism.Pop the corks, right?
The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is "at war with al Qaeda."
"We are at war with al Qaeda," he said. "We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda's murderous agenda."
Not so fast. White House Press Secretary and record holder of the number of times any human being has ever uttered the verbal pause known as, "Uhmmm", Robert Gibbs has apparently not gotten the memo.
On Monday, August 31st, he referred to the "War on Terror" in the present tense.
CLICK HERE for the video of Gibbs' erroneous reference.
Gibbs' gaffe aside, if we are no longer waging a war on terror, should we not look at gutting DHS, which was formed in response to Islamic terror attacks?
I direct you to NEWT GINGRICH'S PIECE calling for Obama to fire Eric Holder (I know it seems like I'm changing subjects but I'm not). Note the implication of what Gingrich says here:
We know from long experience, of course, that special prosecutors in Washington quickly become self-justifying. To rationalize their existence, they must find people to prosecute, and find they do.Newt was talking about giving special prosecutors the green light when there's no clear target.
Think about the DHS and the implications of this reality in that department. If the Obama administration is now telling the DHS there are no Jihadists or Global War (let alone Islamist enemies), aren't they going to seek to justify their own existence.
Keeping the DHS at its current strength while pushing our actual enemies further into obscurity is a very bad move that benefits our enemies and may cause our own DHS to start justifying its existence by going after those it was created to protect.
It is time to start identifying our enemies now.
No comments:
Post a Comment