Wednesday, April 07, 2010

'This is impeachment-level criminal negligence'

In a series of posts, the Strata-Sphere provides compelling evidence that the White House implemented policies that led directly to a Jihadist terror attack and a very near miss.

I have noted many times that the events leading up to the Ft Hood Massacre and near fatal Christmas Day airline bomb attack were suspicious and incoherent with what this nation knew about three people: Major Nidal Hasan (Ft Hood Massacre), Farouk Umar Abdulmutallab (Christmas Day Bomber) and Anwar al Aulaqi (Yemen Cleric).

There are very important details about these three people which resulted in team Obama dismissing them as threats, even with the knowledge and evidence they were enemies of America and reaching out to, or supporting, bloody Jihad against this country. It was these details which were made a priority by team Obama, obliterating the mounting evidence that would have stopped the efforts of these people – if America had kept the national security posture of President Bush.

First off, none of these people were located in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq. Team Obama decided early on to arbitrarily limit the geographic boundaries of terrorism, despite nearly two decades of evidence, going back to the Clinton years at least, indicating global Jihad had truly become ‘global’.

A timeline helps illustrate the disastrous policy changes that led to the Jihadist attacks.

In March of 2009, Obama's legal team adopted new rules regarding detainment in the war on terror. It redefined the rules for fighting conventional, uniformed armies to apply -- nonsensically, of course -- to terrorists: "...the president could detain without trial only people who were part of Al Qaeda or its affiliates, or their 'substantial' supporters."

In other words, unless you carried a laminated Al Qaeda membership card and decoder ring, you were off the hook. Members of Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Ansar al Islam, Abu Sayyaf, Jemaah Islamiyah, Fatah, Darul Islam, etc. were free to launch attacks, it would seem.

The new policies ensured that the Ft. Hood shooter (Hasan) and the underwear bomber (Abdulmutallab) could not be considered material threats because they were not confirmed al Qaeda associates.

What followed were the Fort Hood massacre in November and the related Underwear Bombing attempt on Christmas Day.

As the timeline shows, once the administration took its eyes off the threats it struggled, without any hope, to catch back up. It had tied its hands and blinded itself, and Americans died at Ft Hood. Ten times as many nearly died on Christmas Day. This is not coincidence, but evidence of a pattern of criminal negligence based on naive liberal dogma.

Read Parts One and Two to get a more complete picture of the outrageous malfeasance.

If the GOP can take one or both Houses of Congress in November, I hope and expect a wave of subpoenas will follow shortly thereafter.


Linked by: Michelle Malkin. Thanks!

7 comments:

  1. One question I've never gotten an answer to is why aren't Hassan and
    the underwear bomber being charged,
    in addition to the standard charges, with "Hate Crimes"?

    Clearly, their crimes were directed at an identifiable group
    (People who aren't radical Muslims)
    and were clearly motivated by hate for that group.

    With all the fanfare over the Federal Hate Crimes legislation,
    why aren't these people charged
    with them? Especially the ones to
    be tried in Federal civilian court?

    ReplyDelete
  2. are you serious? You, you, are now a legal scholar and authority and can intelligently question a serious political/legal decsion,. without knowing all the facts, going by only published information. I have worked for the government before. The reason for most security decisions are rarley based on published reports. Decisions are rarely made in response to irrational writings by uninformed so called bloggers. Until you have access to secured documents that have non-published details, well, this is the reason why bloggers have little journalistic respect.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous8:52 AM

    "You, you, are now a legal scholar and authority and can intelligently question a serious political/legal decsion,. without knowing all the facts, going by only published information"

    So only legal scholars and 'authorities' can question "serious political/legal decisions? Who in the MSM are qualified to do that? Are you suggesting the White House Press corps was illegitimate because they are not "legal scholars, or authorities" on all the issues they question the President about?

    It seems the only real qualification to make accusations/judgements abut "serious issues" is this:
    "I have worked for the government before"
    That says it all, clearly former government workers are the most qualified, intelligent and rational people to pontificate on "serious political/legal decisions.

    The story was great; well researched and all assertions were backed with data--unlike some former government workers.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is why bloggers and their readers are not highly respected. None of your assumptions and/or speculations about me was correct. Nor was your analysis about my comment correct. Yes it does take a person with a certain sense of knowledge and access to information to correctly make the speculations and ‘connecting of dots and timelines this poster tried to make. I am saying the poster should seek better resources, use better sources, and understand that collecting intelligence is a complex and serious job, which requires a unique perspective and understanding, not likely found in a logger posting from a basement and with his/hers readers.

    Finally, I will make a bet. Any knowledgeable government worker will not take one of his speculations seriously. Any official with access to classified information, know these speculations makes no kind of sense. And the complexities involved cannot be summarized in a blog posting

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous11:38 AM

    "This is why bloggers and their readers are not highly respected"
    --Reader of the Doug Ross Blog

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous12:16 PM

    "None of your assumptions and/or speculations about me was correct."

    What assumption or speculation are you referring to?

    "Nor was your analysis about my comment correct. Yes it does take a person with a certain sense of knowledge..."

    What? I am incorrect about something, and it takes a person with a certain...something...to make speculations.

    "Any official with access to classified information, know these speculations makes no kind of sense"

    Buck if you know better, educate us morons, otherwise your accusations are baseless (ie no evidence to support the statements you have made).

    I am beginning to understand why you are a former government employee--and that is a hard thing to be; if you have ever tried to get rid of a government employee you would understand.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Since I do work for the Feds, know their detection systems, and know a lot about the federal law, etc I am fairly confident my assessment is spot on Bucky.

    Don't assume I am the more ignorant here!

    LOL! - AJStrata

    ReplyDelete