With embassy closings, the War on Terror comes roaring back

Editor News Leave a Comment

Fred Johnson

Fred Johnson

By Fred Johnson

Less than three months ago, President Obama told an audience at the National Defense University in Washington that after the death of Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, al Qaeda has been decimated, scattered across the North Africa and the Middle East and able to launch only small-scale attacks. Senior administration officials went further by telling reporters that Mr. Obama wanted to jettison the whole mindset that the U.S. is still engaged in a war on terrorism.

Now the Obama administration has announced that we are closing nineteen Embassies in Islamic countries due to the fear of terrorist attacks. Wait a minute! Our Homeland Security does not recognize terrorist attacks. They are called “man-caused disasters.” I suppose announcing to the world that we were closing those embassies to prevent man caused disasters just doesn’t sound right. It might even lead to questions of what man is causing the disaster.

It became pretty hard to pretend that al Qaida was on the run after they killed our ambassador and three others in Benghazi. The claim that the attack was caused by a YouTube video was also ludicrous. In his Rose Garden speech, President Obama promised that those responsible would be brought to justice. Officials say the U.S. has identified five suspects for the attack and has enough evidence to justify seizing them by military force as suspected terrorists. But the Obama administration insists that they be tried in a U.S. civilian court and there isn’t enough proof to arrest them.

One of the al Qaida suspects was interviewed by CNN last week. He is living openly and told the CNN reporter that no one from either the Libyan or American governments has contacted him asking for his take on the events of that deadly night in 2012. “Even the investigative team did not try to contact me,” he said of the FBI team that traveled to Libya in the wake of the attack.

We also have the strange situation where we were told that the massacre at Fort Hood was not a terrorist attack but was “workplace violence.” But the shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, is acting as his own attorney and claims that he was protecting Taliban leaders in Afghanistan from danger when he opened fire at the base on Nov. 5, 2009, killing 13 people. In describing his new defense — known in legal terms as a “defense of others” — he said he was defending the lives of Taliban leaders from Fort Hood soldiers deploying to Afghanistan. It is interesting that the “non terrorist” is claiming in his defense that he is an Islamist terrorist.

Some claim that closing nineteen embassies could be a sign that we expect an all out war against the U.S. to erupt in those Islamic countries. A Huffington Post news story reporting that blimps will be deployed over Washington, D.C. within the year to help protect the city from incoming cruise missiles lends credence to the all out war theory. The fact that Washington, D.C. is the city they plan to protect makes it even more believable.

Leave a Reply