Not soft on terror?

In 1949, Mao Zedung (or however we’re supposed to spell it these days) successfully seized the reigns of the mainland Chinese government and US Republicans charged that the “Democrats lost China”. That’s what was in the back of Lyndon Johnson’s mind when he sent combat troops to Vietnam in reaction to the fuzzy details of the “Gulf of Tonkin incident” that filtered back to the White House – Johnson didn’t want to be known as the guy who lost Indochina.

A decade later, Jimmy Carter lost Iran, Nicaragua and the Panama Canal and a decade later Bill Clinton lost Somalia – all of those have come back to bite us. Now, Barack Obama is in danger of losing the war against terror. So the Washington Post feels an urgent need to defend the young president;

Words first. “Evil does exist in the world,” Mr. Obama said in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. “Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms.” In his weekly radio speech Saturday, he disposed of the war-vs.-law-enforcement canard, pointing out that in his inaugural address he made it clear that “0ur nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred and that we will do whatever it takes to defeat them and defend our country, even as we uphold the values that have always distinguished America among nations.” “

But actions speak louder, and Mr. Obama’s actions — often at the cost of enraging his party’s liberal base — have also demonstrated tenacity and pragmatism blended with a necessary reassessment of the flawed policies of his predecessors and a recommitment to the rule of law. He wants to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, which is all to the good given its stain on the national character, but he has delayed that goal until acceptable alternatives can be found. He has brought criminal charges against some terrorists, but he has also sent others to be tried by military tribunals. He has invoked the authority of the executive to have lawsuits dismissed because they risk exposing state secrets. In addition to the new troop deployments, he has aggressively used predator drones to strike at terrorists, including outside Afghanistan. Even before the failed attack, his administration has been working aggressively with Yemeni authorities to deal with extremists there.

See how brave he is – he enraged his party’s base. Like they’ll start suicide bombing the White House, or vote Republican in protest. Whew! How courageous. Don’t you wish he’d enrage our enemies instead?

His administration announced today that they won’t open a new front in Yemen despite the fact that three strikes in our own country have their origins in Yemen;

The U.S. does not plan to open a new front in Yemen in the global fight against terrorism despite closing its embassy there in the face of Al Qaeda threats, President Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser said Sunday.

“We’re not talking about that at this point at all,” White House aide John Brennan told Fox News when asked whether U.S. troops would be sent to Yemen.

“The Yemeni government has demonstrated their willingness to take the fight to Al Qaeda,” he said. “They’re willing to accept our support. We’re providing them everything that they’ve asked for.”

Like they provided McChrystal with everything he asked for?

See how much “smart power” worked against Iran – they won’t even let John Kerry get a visa;

On Saturday, Iranian legislators stepped up the rhetoric against the news that Kerry was considering traveling to Tehran with the blessing of the White House.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran has no plans to negotiate with any American official, unless the country (the U.S.) changes its policies,” member of the parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Zohreh Elahian said, according to Fars News Agency.

Yeah, the US has to change it’s policies, while Iran murders dissidents and locks up thousands more.

But don’t let the Washington Post catch you calling him soft on terror.

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Foreign Policy, Media, Terror War