On the day of the horrific Boston Marathon terrorist attack Pres. Barack Obama promised that whoever was responsible for the attack would “feel the full weight of justice.”
My question to him is, what justice is that? Would it be the “justice” that has been served to Ft. Hood jihadist Nidal Hasan, who on November 5, 2009 Hasan shrieked “Allahu Akbar“ and proceeded to murder 13 soldiers and injure 32 on an American military base in Texas? Through such weighty justice, Hasan has been allowed to keep his “religious beard” and observe his “religious rights” while maintaining his military benefits yet refusing to follow military code. His court martial hearing doesn’t even begin until May of this year because he was allowed to defy judges’ orders, keep his beard, make endless appeals and even remove the judge that was presiding over his case. Meanwhile the victims of his terror attack are being denied their rightful benefits and awards because Pres. Obama is calling this jihad “workplace violence”.
In 2010 the Bipartisan Policy center characterized the Ft. Hood shootings as a terrorist attack in their report “Assessing the Terror Threat”. However in December of 2012 Department of Defense Press Secretary George Little issued this statement: “The Department of Defense is committed to the integrity of the ongoing court martial proceedings of Major Nadal Hasan and for that reason will not at this time further characterize the incident that occurred at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009.”
While denying the victims and their families what they are due, President Obama and the DOJ are victimizing them again.
Now, due to the fact that our commander in chief finds it offensive to call a jihadist a terrorist, he is rewriting history and changing the rules as we go along. He is always “reluctant to jump to conclusions” and admonishing others not to do so—yet he makes up a story about an unknown filmmaker, claims that it incited violence, has that story reiterated on numerous talk shows and brazenly lies about it himself during a presidential debate. Four Americans died during the terrorist attack in Benghazi and the President of the United States of America is siding with the jihadists. The one suspect that was captured in connections with the attack was released in Tunisia in January of this year. Is that justice? Obama claimed, “We must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.” All the while, he is wholly refusing to admit it was a terrorist attack. Beyond that, Obama’s words were not even forceful or committed to doing anything, just that he lackadaisically “opposed senseless violence”, sounding as if he were speaking about a video game.
Regarding the Boston Marathon attacks, Obama was more vehement about cautioning against jumping to conclusions. He seemed disappointed that the FBI had categorized it as a terror attack. He was quick to define the meaning of terror, lest anyone assume that meant “Jihadist”.
During his White House press conference on the Boston Marathon bombings, Obama said:
“Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror, what we don’t yet know however is who carried out this attack, or why, whether it was planned and executed by a terror organization, foreign OR domestic or was the act of a malevolent individual.”
He continued, “We will pursue every effort to get to the bottom of what happened.”
His concern seemed to lie not with finding whoever was responsible but with using sensitivity in accusing anyone.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but President Obama’s statements do not fill me with confidence. If Ft. Hood and Benghazi are examples of the “justice” he metes out, then terrorists will continue to have a field day with us. Until we stand strong as a nation united against terror we will continue to be targets. We must have a president that is courageous enough to stand up to those who would do us harm. He should reject the political correctness that endangers and divides our nation. Our president should protect Americans and their interests; he should not serve the interests of the terrorists.