Dick Cheney delivered this statement to Politico:

As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.

He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency – social transformation—the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war.

In keeping with the deliberate shift towards treating these attacks as law enforcement issues, the president has referred to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as “the suspect” in his public statements over the last few days, and said that he “allegedly” tried to ignite explosives on the airplane. The same kind of language, naturally, has been used regarding Nidal Malik Hassan, another Islamic terrorist in communication with enemies abroad who killed thirteen members of the U.S. military at Fort Hood on November 5th.

To put this in perspective, imagine that during the Blitz, newspapers in England announced: “Birmingham allegedly bombed overnight. Multiple suspects sought — witnesses allege they were piloting airplanes with Luftwaffe decals.”

(Lower down the story might read: Home Secretary asserts that “the system worked” as fires are doused, rubble cleared and the dead are transported efficiently to cemeteries.)

Treating an enemy who is at war with you like a common (alleged) criminal is exactly this absurd. Your enemy is making war upon you, with no illusions and no holds barred. You choose to have one hand tied behind your back, and to give the enemy the full benefits of your legal system. It is simply the deliberate imposition of an enormous handicap on your own side. Why, if your highest duty is the defense of the American people, would you impose this gratuitous handicap?

This question will only gain resonance with each successive attack, as it is doing now. We all know that a successful mass casualty attack on the U.S. would compel the Obama administration to abandon this law enforcement approach; if nothing else, it would become politically untenable. The thing is, we already had that attack and learned that lesson, on September 11th, 2001. Why is it that it has become necessary to learn it again?

...................
Share this!

Posts which might be related to this one based on a mysterious algorithm:

• Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to visit the Big Apple
• Doth protest too much
• President Obama okays overseas abortion funding