Now, this is a strange response, given that Obama's head of security, Janet Neapolitano rejected the term "war on terror" as too aggressive. Not satisfied with this extravaganza, she decided to seek literary awards and and introduced one of the most bizarre term to describe a terrorist attack - "man caused disaster". It was same Janet that could not make up her mind if her priority was the domestic terrorism or Islamic terrorism. And it's same Janet that believed the security system worked perfectly, when asked if there was any failure during the latest attack.
One should also not forget that the CIA was defending itself from the concentrated attacks by the Obama's administration - the attacks led by Eric Holder, who previously worked as a senior partner in a pro-terrorist law firm Covington & Burling (and which represents multiple terrorists pro-bono), the same man who personally fought for freeing 15 FALN terrorists - and who is now the attorney general. And yet, liberals are stunned than anyone who be questioning their desire to fight
While this drama was unfolding, the republicans were not silent. Back in May of 2009, Cheney was adamant that Obama's approach will lead to more attacks on US:
"It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness and would make the American people less safe....
The administration has found that it's easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it's tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America's national security."
In August, Cheney forcefully attacked Obama for his prosecution of CIA - a prosecution which deeply wounded this organization and made a lot of CIA operatives openly afraid to deal with terrorism.
During same time, liberal justices and lawyers worked hard to undermine any protections against terrorism that airlines could have - suing the companies that aggressively protected the passengers from jihadists and the passengers who reported suspicious behavior.
After the second terrorist attack on America in just a few months, Republican heavy-weights are strongly criticising Obama for his abysmal record on terrorism. Just yesterday, Dick Cheney made a very strong statement, which is undoubtedly true:
"As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war... He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, “war on terror,” we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe."
And then Cheney goes for the kill: "Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency – social transformation—the restructuring of American society."
Indeed few people, who watched the political developments in the last year would question the fairness of Cheney's claim that Obama's main goal is social transformation of the country, not the war on terror. There is little argument that for the last half year, Obama's main objective was to get unpopular Healthcare bill through Congress. It can be even speculated that Obama paid more attention into getting the 2016 Olympic games to Chicago than the war on terror (at the time the Copenhagen Olympic committee had more time tet-a-tet the president than the Chief commander of the US troops in Afghanistan).And now, the liberals are whining that they've been unfairly attacked. The funny thing is that they fully understand that if they attempted to emulate Obama's rhetoric they would look silly. I haven't seen any liberal using the term "alleged attacks" or "alleged terrorist" when discussing the attack. I hope all republicans must insist that liberals should use Obama's terms - just so that the stupidity of the current administration became more obvious.