“SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?
Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”
First, is this how Obama envisions a “move away from the politics of fear”?
Second, the juxtaposition of the phrases “man-caused disasters” and “being prepared for all risks that can occur” suggests to me that the Obama administration envisions an equivalence between acts of war and natural disasters.
1) Does Obama regard 9/11 as a “man-caused disaster” - not an act of war? What about the attack on Pearl Harbor?
2) A “bi-partisan report” asserts that “[t]he United States can expect a nuclear or biological terror attack before 2013”. If this comes to pass, will Obama respond to this “man-caused disaster” as he would a hurricane? Will he simply seek to mop up the damage without engaging the perpetrators in warfare? Remember, these zealots declared war on us in 1998!
3) Actually… follow me down Obama’s rabbit hole while we recall that Obama has pledged to - in effect - go to war with what he (incorrectly) imagines to be the cause of hurricanes - Carbon Dioxide.
So, within this Alice in Wonderland administration, our President will respond to a hurricane as if it were an act of war and respond to an act of war as if the damage were done by a hurricane (or, any other natural disaster)?
In Obama speak, are we facing a thermonuclear “natural disaster”?
The lunatics are running the asylum!
No comments:
Post a Comment