Via Allahpundit, here's Michelle Malkin on Sean Hannity's show last night:
The point Malkin makes that I want to highlight is something that Allah links to, the diversity visa program run by the State Department. Two things: UndieBomber Abdulmutallab tried to enter this country on a tourist visa, not a diversity visa; and, this is truly a program inherited by The One from the Bush administration, that is, the George H. W. Bush administration. Some countries are not allowed to have its citizens come to the U.S. on diversity visas because those foreign nationals usually come to the U.S. via other visas. It was designed to allow citizens from countries that have historically not emigrated from those countries to the U.S. As a result, citizens of the 13 of 14 countries that the Obama administration has targeted for increased screening can still come to the U.S. on diversity visas. The Fox News article has the list of countries that have been provided diversity visas in 2010; to put it mildly, it's an interesting list.
This is nuts.
The leftist/liberal/progressive/statist (pick a term) concept of "diversity" is a travesty. Anyone who has worked for a company, as I have and do, or even the government, have seen millions of dollars thrown into "diversity" programs, the object of which is to have employees believe that success is driven by the importance of recognizing superficial traits in people (skin color, gender) or choices people make that have nothing to do with making an enterprise successful (sexual orientation). Everyone knows this is a crock, but it keeps getting pushed down our throats, as if it is gospel. Like the religion of anthropogenic global warming.
In national security terms, this is insane. Actually it isn't, since that is a crock. What this is is indefensible. How anyone in government can think of granting visas based on "diversity", especially during a time the country is at war, is malfeasance and corrupt (an argument can be made that it is treasonous, but that would be near impossible to prove legally). Anyway, look at some of the countries on that list from the Fox News piece: Algeria, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Yemen. Even though people from some of those countries might get a diversity visa and come the U.S. to seek asylum, that would be a relative few. How many could easily send terrorists to the U.S. through this, let alone via a tourist visa as the UndieBomber used? Yet, we have politicians out there pushing this idea of "diversity" as if it is some kind of be-all-end-all concept to be all-inclusive, to stamp out racism. Crap. It is a ridiculous notion that in the private sector costs money, jobs, and efficiency. From a national security point of view, it will cost American lives.
The U.S. is at war. The only way to win that war is to go on the offensive, to put the enemy on their heels. Not necessarily by just dropping bombs, but there are ways to put the enemy on their heels without a major military operation, and we would still be on the offensive. Battles can be one using a purely defensive strategy, like at Gettysburg and Kursk. But not a war. But even when employing a strategy to defend the nation or elements of that nation from a physical attack, an offensive strategy can be employed. Take a look at how the British defeated the Nazi U-Boats by using armed warships and enhanced intelligence techniques to protect its merchant vessels bringing a lifeline of goods keeping that country alive; they took the fight to the enemy and put the Nazis on their heels.
As this war isn't so much one that relies primarily on military muscle, an offensive strategy of finesse can be employed as well. As much as President George W. Bush used a combination of both muscle and finesse, I don't believe he did enough to go on the offensive in physically defending this nation, although the results do speak for themselves (plus, I'm picky). I believe he was absolutely right to take down the Hussein regime as this was an example of employing an offensive move to physically defend the nation (I'm less enthralled about the nation-building exercise, but that is a debate for another time). Putting these Islamist terrorists on trial as war criminals through military tribunals was another excellent example of being on the offensive in the physical defense of the nation. I'm sure there are plenty of other policies people could cite.
One of the ones that wasn't put in place immediately after 9/11, and really should have been, is the idea of selling war bonds to pay for all this. Plenty of people would have been happy to pony up some dollars to help out; plus, it gets the entire population involved. The Bush administration acted reactively in regards to screening passengers, with the use of "diversity" determining who gets screened instead of profiling. Border and port security were, to be generous, less than effective. Returning Gitmo terrorists to their home countries. With help from Congressional Republicans, expanding the federal budget on things that the government shouldn't be involved in. Then, of course, there is the issue of these visas. I could add not trying anyone under the military tribunals, but anyone with a clue knows the left tied this up in the courts after we started capturing these terrorists.
Unfortunately, things have gotten worse since The One has been inaugurated as President, with his ilk in both the White House and Congress in charge. I know many people would say that Hillary Clinton would be better than Obama on the war and security and whatnot, but I don't agree; I find Clinton to be no different than Obama or any other leftist Democrat when it comes to national security, and her actions as part of the Obama administration haven't been anything to write home about. While I do commend Obama for still taking the fight to the enemy with drone attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen, there isn't anything else about what he's doing that shows he's at all serious about battling America's terrorist enemies the U.S. is at war with. Look how he's started his Presidency: closing Gitmo, putting CIA agents on edge by threatening to prosecute them, initially supporting the release of pictures of captured terrorists, stopping enhanced interrogations, Mirandizing those terrorists that may be tried, trying some terrorists in civilian courts (while providing stupid and non-legal reasons for doing so), among other things, including not being interested in some concept of victory. I would also add two other things: continuing the Bush policy of releasing terrorists from Gitmo to their home countries (like Al Qaeda hotbed Yemen), and being Bush on steroids when it comes to expanding government spending.
The One is slowly, at tortoise-like speed, coming to grips that he is the Commander in Chief of a country at war. Of course, the problem with this is that this was something Obama should have realized the day after he was elected and knew he was going to be President 10 weeks later. I don't hold with the idea that The One is some kind of being with superior intellect. If he was so damn smart, and if he took his role more seriously, there are simple things he could have done. If he wants to show me and the rest of the country how much of a genius he is, he can start by using all the powers the man has at his disposal. Then, he can stop his ridiculous plans to close Gitmo and prosecute terrorists in the civilian courts; the military tribunals fall perfectly under the auspices of the Constitution, along with the Geneva Conventions. Illegal acts of war are not the same as the crimes that would normally be tried in those courts.
In regards to these "diversity" visas, there isn't any way the administration could repeal the law put in place without Congress; however, I have no doubt Obama could have ordered Clinton's State Department to suspend the program while the country remains at war, or remove countries that are known to be home to Islamist terrorists. It would be something someone who is supposed to be as smart as The One is would do.
* - Attributed to radio host Michael Savage.