Jennifer Rubin sums up why the Obami face public mistrust on security

Jennifer Rubin riffs off of a Politico article which comments on Obama’s peculiar reaction to the Flaming Panties bomber, but professes bewilderment was to why the reaction was as strange as it was:

The Obami don’t believe in their heart of hearts that we are on a war footing. The president wouldn’t label Fort Hood, where thirteen died, as an act of jihadist terror. His administration has systematically worked to denigrate the sense of urgency that the Bush administration displayed and to propound policies that treat these instances as discrete, ho-hum, and unexceptional. The Bush administration was scorned for reacting with a sense of alarm or out of fear following a terrorist attack — one which killed 3,000. Not the Obami. They told us they’re above all that and have an entirely new approach.

Arrest him, book him, Mirandize him, call the FBI — what’s the big deal? It is not a mystery at all as to why Obama behaved as he did. This is his anti-terror policy on full display. What we now see (and what the “shocked, shocked to see there is cluelessness” crowd is reacting to) is what that bizarre stance toward the war on terror looks like up close and in real time when played out in the context of actual events. Think it’s odd for the president to call Farouk Abdulmutallab a “suspect”? Think it’s weird that the terrorist isn’t being interrogated but has lawyered up? Well, that’s the Obama anti-terror policy. It isn’t supposed to be a big deal when these events occur. For if it were, we wouldn’t be treating the terrorists like criminal suspects.

It turns out that the Obami’s approach is entirely off-putting and inappropriate to virtually everyone. That the media has finally clued in to just how politically untenable it is, tells us something about the media’s own willingness to ignore the implications of Obama’s declared policy and previous rhetoric. The solution is not to make sure after the next incident that the president puts on a tie, drops the grumpy-guy demeanor, and orders Janet Napolitano to stay off the air (although all that would be swell): it is to get a new policy on the war on terror – a policy that regards these incidents with the gravity they deserve and employs responses appropriate to the war in which we are engaged.

Be Sociable, Share!

    Silencing Paul Revere

    Revere: The British are coming!

    White House: We’re looking into it. We believe it’s a lone misguided Brit.

    Revere: The British are coming!

    Janet Napolitano: The system is working.

    Revere: The British are coming!

    Eric Holder: Have they been Mirandized yet?

    Revere: The British are coming!

    Jeanean Garafalo: Teabaggers?

    Al Gore: It’s global warming. Shoot him on site, the horse is leaving carbon footprints in Arlington.

    Pelosi: They need health care reform, let them in.

    Revere: The British are HERE!!!
    Media: George Dubya.
    White House: I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of the British people wherever they appear.

  • Ymarsakar

    But Barack’s a hypocrite, because he didn’t treat his good friend Professor Gates like it was a criminal matter. It’s only serious when his own power base is affected. Otherwise, it’s just common crime. That is not the soul of integrity.

  • Gringo

    Shoot him on site, the horse is leaving carbon footprints in Arlington.
    Is that all the horse is leaving on the streets of Arlington? :)
    (Or could that be “Shoot him on shite?” )
    Sadie, that pretty much covered all  of NObama’s responses. Soon after 9/11 NObama said pretty much what your final sentence covered. I dunno, when someone punched me in the nose, I never worried much about  my making a negative stereotype of someone who just hit me.  That must have not been something Nobama learned in kindergarten.


    Good one – Shoot him on shiite.
    That final sentence was in his own words. I only inserted British where he had said islam (although I can’t tell the difference) from history or current reading.
    I know we all pretty much agree with Book’s assessment of him, but  I’d had another slide to the slide show – Passive-Aggressive. He lived vicariously through Wright for 20 years.  He never had the cojones to publically agree and worse to publically deny his own rage.

  • Mike Devx

    Here’s a new video starting to make the rounds.  An energizing “We’re Taking Back America In 2010!” shout-out protest, with drum rolls and dramatic music to beat the best movie trailer.
    Leftists will watch its steely, determined resolve – against THEM – and scream fascism.  Hahahahaha.
    Whenever you need a pick me up energizer, watch it.