The title of the blog post, by White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, is funny: "The Same Old Washington Blame Game."
It think it's Team Obama that's engaged in the same old, same old.
There has been a lot of discussion online and in the mainstream media about our response to various critics of the President, specifically former Vice President Cheney, who have been coming out of the woodwork since the incident on Christmas Day. I think we all agree that there should be honest debate about these issues, but it is telling that Vice President Cheney and others seem to be more focused on criticizing the Administration than condemning the attackers. Unfortunately too many are engaged in the typical Washington game of pointing fingers and making political hay, instead of working together to find solutions to make our country safer.
First, it’s important that the substantive context be clear: for seven years after 9/11, while our national security was overwhelmingly focused on Iraq – a country that had no al Qaeda presence before our invasion – Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda's leadership was able to set up camp in the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they continued to plot attacks against the United States. Meanwhile, al Qaeda also regenerated in places like Yemen and Somalia, establishing new safe-havens that have grown over a period of years. It was President Obama who finally implemented a strategy of winding down the war in Iraq, and actually focusing our resources on the war against al Qaeda – more than doubling our troops in Afghanistan, and building partnerships to target al Qaeda’s safe-havens in Yemen and Somalia. And in less than one year, we have already seen many al Qaeda leaders taken out, our alliances strengthened, and the pressure on al Qaeda increased worldwide.
To put it simply: this President is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action. Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the President.
Second, the former Vice President makes the clearly untrue claim that the President – who is this nation’s Commander-in-Chief – needs to realize we are at War. I don’t think anyone realizes this very hard reality more than President Obama. In his inaugural, the President said “our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.” In a recent speech, Assistant to the President for Terrorism and Homeland Security John Brennan said “Instead, as the president has made clear, we are at war with al-Qaida, which attacked us on 9/11 and killed 3,000 people. We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al-Qaida’s murderous agenda. These are the terrorists we will destroy; these are the extremists we will defeat.” At West Point, the President told the nation why it was “in our vital national interest” to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to fight the war in Afghanistan, adding that as Commander in Chief, “I see firsthand the terrible wages of war.” And at Oslo, in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, the President said, “We are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land.”
There are numerous other such public statements that explicitly state we are at war. The difference is this: President Obama doesn’t need to beat his chest to prove it, and – unlike the last Administration – we are not at war with a tactic (“terrorism”), we at war with something that is tangible: al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies. And we will prosecute that war as long as the American people are endangered.
What a load!
Who's pointing fingers at whom here?
All I want is to be safe. I want my family to be safe.
The difference is this: President Obama doesn’t need to beat his chest to prove it, and – unlike the last Administration – we are not at war with a tactic (“terrorism”), we at war with something that is tangible: al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies.
Sounds like the same old Washington blame game to me, coming straight out of Obama's White House.
Change we can believe in?
Yeah, right.
The Bush administration went to battle to kill TERRORISTS, not terrorism.
The enemy is the same that the Obama administration claims to be fighting.
The difference is this: Obama wants al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies to be treated as criminals, to have their day in the U.S. court system and be given the protection of the U.S. Constitution.
That's not war.
The claim by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) that Obama has been "'far more aggressive in fighting al Qaeda' than the previous administration" is an absolute joke.
Ridiculous. Idiotic.
It sounds like something Janet Napolitano would say.
I am wondering, with the whole Criminal thing, the one charged with the crime gets to look at all the evidence with full disclosure, right?
ReplyDeleteSo every agency that knew what when and how will be laid out pretty as you please?
The world is becoming a more dangerous place every minute of every day.
ReplyDeleteSo much for the rising, or was that lowering, of the seas and all of that crap.
Yeah, the rising.
ReplyDeleteI'm not seeing it.
[F]or seven years after 9/11, while our national security was overwhelmingly focused on Iraq – a country that had no al Qaeda presence before our invasion – Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda's leadership was able to set up camp in the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they continued to plot attacks against the United States. Meanwhile, al Qaeda also regenerated in places like Yemen and Somalia, establishing new safe-havens that have grown over a period of years.
ReplyDeleteFor two years after the 9/11 attack on the USA, there were less than 10,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan looking for the people who actually attacked us! For reference, that is fewer people than were assigned to provide security for the 2004 republican national convention in NYC. Instead, Bush sent all our troops to unseat a "bad man" who might, one day attack us, but hadn't actually done anything to us and had no links whatsoever with the people who had. It wasn't until half way through 2007 that there were more than 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, and only last month that the number of troops finally rose to almost half the amount we have running around re-building Iraq. Over 4,300 soldiers have died in Iraq because Bush decided to use the attacks on the US to justify a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein rather than sending our troops to Afghanistan to catch/kill al Qaeda.
For the better part of our "War on Terror", the terrorists have had free reign to regroup, train and plan more attacks because the Neo-Conservatives were too busy nation building to bother actually hunting down our real enemies. And now we have been attacked again because the security apparatus set up by Bush doesn't actually work. Perhaps Obama could fix it if obstructionists like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) would let Obama's nominee for Administrator of the TSA reach the floor for an Up-Down vote. Instead, the TSA is still being run by a Bush appointee who helped set up it up in the first place (and clearly did a real bang-up job - not).