Obama Consistantly Weak On Terrorism

The story from the New Yorker that is getting wide play this week, contains this speech Obama gave 0n 9/19/01, a little over a week after the 9/11 attacks. Most of you have read it by now, but here it is anyway:

Even as I hope for some measure of peace and comfort to the bereaved families, I must also hope that we, as a nation, draw some measure of wisdom from this tragedy. Certain immediate lessons are clear, and we must act upon those lessons decisively. We need to step up security at our airports. We must re-examine the effectiveness of our intelligence networks and we must be resolute in identifying the perpetrators of these heinous acts and dismantling their organizations of destruction. We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity or suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particularbrand of violence, it may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.

We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle-Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and within our own shores.

Peter Kirsanow at the Corner puts up some other famous speeches from times of war to compare and contrast to Obama’s. Obama sounds pretty weak especially when you compare his words to Winston Churchill’s:

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.

Again, here’s Obama during a Democrat debate on NBC last April 2007. The question: In the event of disastrous terrorist attacks on two American cities by al-Qaeda, “How would you change the US military stance overseas as a result?” Remember Obama’s FEMA response?:

Both Edwards and Clinton got that one correct: They would react with swift military force.

Damn, when even The Silky Pony makes you look weak, you’ve got problems, man.

And here he is last month, in an interview caught by Ronald Kessler of Newsmax:

Like a Rip Van Winkle who is unaware of recent history, Barack Obama is citing the government’s prosecution of those responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as the correct way to deal with terrorism.

In an ABC interview, Obama said the government can crack down on terrorists “within the constraints of the Constitution.”

He said, “What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center — we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.”

Apparently, Obama has been asleep for the nearly seven years since 9/11. He missed having learned that the 9/11 hijackers are dead and thus could not have been prosecuted. He missed learning that they wanted to be martyrs and were prepared to be jailed or killed. No threat of prosecution would have deterred them.

I just hope people understand that what they’re getting with Obama: A cross between Rip Van Winkle and Cindy Sheehan.

RELATED:

For a devastating take down of Obama’s 7/14 NYTs oped, see John Hinderaker at Powerline.

His conclusion:

It is possible that at some point in American history there may have been a major politician as dishonest as Barack Obama, but I can’t offhand think of such a miscreant.

Rich Lowery has come to basically the same conclusion:

There are two possible interpretations — either Obama is dangerously sincere, or he’s a cynical operator playing duplicitous politics with matters of war and peace.

I think it’s time to update my Exaggerations, Lies, Distortions, And Flip Flops Of Obama post.

Dang, it’s a lot of work keeping up with that guy!

UPDATE:

See also:

NRO: Barack Obama And The Democratic Affliction – Disgraceful.

UPDATE: July 16:

Here’s Michelle Malkin’s take-down of the above quoted Obama interview from 9/19/01:

Is this man for real? Osama bin Laden’s murderous legions are plenty able to “imagine” the “suffering of others.” Go watch an al Qaeda beheading snuff video. Just Google it or surf YouTube. Imagining the suffering of infidels is covered amply in Basic Jihadi Training 101.

There should be no doubt that these monsters have “empathy” or are able to intellectually identify with the suffering of their victims. What makes them inherantly evil is that they relish it, celebrate it, bask in it.

UPDATE: (July 17):

Wow. The Washington Post has come out with a scathing op-ed about Obama’s plan for Iraq, calling it “irrational”, “ahistorical”, “foolishly inconsistent”, and most devastating of all, “ultimately indifferent to the war’s outcome”.

I don’t know how Obama comes back from his visit to Iraq, after meeting with Maliki, and our commanders on the ground, and continues to espouse his untenable plan. He’s going to have to make another huge flip flop, and take the heat for that, or continue to look like a guy who doesn’t care if his decision to withdraw troops causes us to lose the war. It’s one ot the other.