« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Gov. Jindal Calls Obama’s National Security Strategy ‘Dumb’ and ‘Dangerous’

By: Jason Mattera (Diary)  |  November 30th, 2010 at 12:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Bobby Jindal wasted no time assessing this administration’s approach to fighting terrorism, mocking Obama’s strategy as a “treatise on social justice.” In part two of his exclusive interview with HUMAN EVENTS, the Louisiana Governor argued that Obama’s inability to talk honestly about radical Islam stems from the President’s erroneous perception of why the threat even exists.

“We just need to give these poor people more money and there will be more opportunities, less violence, less terrorism,” Jindal said of the White House’s way of tackling global Jihad.

It’s a reference to an op-ed Obama penned eight days after September 11 for Chicago’s Hyde Park Herald, where he argued that Americans needed to demonstrate “empathy on the part of the attackers.”


“The current therapeutic approach to national security is dangerous,” Jindal writes in his new book, Leadership And Crisis, which is currently # 1 on Amazon’s “Leadership and Politics” section. “I’m just not interested in empathizing with the grievances of our sworn enemies. Let’s figure out where they’re vulnerable and destroy them.”

Jindal tells HUMAN EVENTS that President Obama’s decision to read Miranda rights and hold civilian trials for foreign terrorist suspects is not only misguided, but dangerous. “We’ve been lucky with…the Time Square bomb, the underwear bomber. Being lucky is not a strategy. The reality is we’ve been playing defense instead of playing offense.”

To Jindal, “playing offense” would entail profiling those Islamists most likely to hijack an airliner or make a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in, say Portland, go Kaboom.

“Why in the world do we have TSA examiners who are groping 6-year-old children flying home to see grandma for the holidays? Why in the world are we acting like we don’t have intelligence assets and common sense? Not using our intelligence and not using our common sense, that’s called dumb. This is a dumb strategy that we’re pursuing.”

Cross-posted from Human Events.

Mr. Mattera is the editor of HUMAN EVENTS and the author ofObama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation (Simon & Schuster).He also hostsThe Jason Mattera ShowonNews Talk Radio 77WABC. Previously, he was the Spokesman for Young America’s Foundation and a TV correspondent for Michelle Malkin. Follow Jason onTwitter,Facebook, andYouTube.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • E Pluribus Unum

    I sure am liking the way he is sticking it to Barack. And I like what he’s been doing to get Louisiana back on its feet from the effects of years of Democrat rule.

    • irishgirl

      Go, Bobby, Go.

      • red_oakster

        http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=197422

        On Iran:

        “The most likely outcome with respect to Iran is that it gets nuclear weapons and very, very soon,

        • fpete13527
        • miroco

          We drift off to a world of tangled symantics rather than, ourselves, focus. In my decades, excepting Reagan, we have never made the good choice. I do not necessarily mean MY choice, I did support Kasich some years past and observed he was not ready. NOW it is Sarah or be damned. Every slime ball like D’Amato that says—who cares, she’s smarter than him. OR Mr affirmative Action, your coward in chief

  • johnt

    the classical “root causes” tripe. Except this was about the masss murder of fellow Americans, not shoplifting.
    OK, cancel the fellow Americans part. If possible, a new low level of disgust for this human filth in our White House. And an extension of same to the other leftist filth that steadfastly support this dirty thing.

  • drwallst

    Considering that Palin is untenable as a POTUS, Romney is a weasel and Huck is unfocussed, Jindal may well be our best bet come 2012 (even if he does speak like Mickey Mouse)

  • msctex

    I looked up the article on the paper’s website:

    (http://ddd-hph.dlconsulting.com/cgi-bin/newshph?a=d&cl=search&d=HPH20010919.2.25&srpos=275&e=——-20–261-byDA—obama-all)

    What Obama said, per the article, is there was a lack of empathy on the part of the terrorists towards Americans; he doesn’t say Americans need to demonstrate or offer empathy towards them. This was so outlandish a thought I tracked down the article to see if it was the case — I wouldn’t have been flabbergasted at this point, but I would have been surprised. Turns out, it was not what he said. The “absence of empathy” is “on the part of the attackers.” (The rest is his usual dissemination of blame to the point of evaporation, the rhetorical equivalent of a “Present” vote.)

    We can’t afford to put words in the mouths of the bad guys: the Media would gleefully jump at the chance to point out such inaccuracies. I get no pleasure out of pointing this out, but it is doubly important our side’s message always be grounded in fact. If we lose that, we are no better than the Progressives.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    I sure am liking the way he is sticking it to Barack. And I like what he’s been doing to get Louisiana back on its feet from the effects of years of Democrat rule.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    I read it too, and I’m not sure at what point Jindal said that the article said contrary to what he says it said….if you can follow all that.

    Yes, it speaks of the terrorists’ “absence of empathy”, as a direct quote. But he spends the rest of the article talking about how Americans need to understand the situation of the attackers:

    – “we must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness”.
    – “Most often it [failure of empathy] grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.” [and in the same paragraph NOT "unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity"]
    – “we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe”

    The thread throughout every bit of that article is that WE have to understand THEM, and work to reduce their feelings of bitterness, and carry on our shoulders the responsibility for reducing their poverty.

    [oh, and he is careful to point out that it had nothing to do with their being Muslim, of course]

    I fail to see how, in any way whatsoever, Jindal misrepresented Obama’s article.

  • msctex

    I was referring to the poster’s choice of words, specifically the last seven here, which I can’t see why are in quotes to begin with:

    “It

  • southernpatriots

    Thank you for bringing clarity. Of course it has nothing to do with them being Muslims?!!! ha. Of all the wars and conflicts on the earth today, how many are being fought by Muslims? What is the total number? What is the percentage?

    In previous conversations with Gov. Jindal he has always been gracious, listened to the concerns of the citizenry and responded in a thoughtful manner. We would find it hard to believe that all of a sudden he has taken leave of his senses and made up something from an article which can so easily be read by the media and all interested. If the tenor of the assertions by Obama throughout the article is that we need to better understand them, and the onus of action is upon us to do something to make them feel better about themselves, and feel better about their situation and feel better about the world around them, and feel better about us!??! How can we do anything while the imams, schools, etc. are all teaching violent overthrow of the infidels (us)?

  • roguebeaver

    Beyond domestic policy. It will be necessary when he debates Joe Biden in 2012. He’s not running for president in 2012, period.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    Agreed,the OP needed a rewrite on that sentence, because like you, I’m not sure where he was going with it.

  • edintexas

    That awful construction, which does mean nothing rational, might have come about from editing. Sometimes going back and changing one portion of a writing can result in either inadvertently changing the meaning of the part, leaving something out or failing to change all of the passage.

  • drwallst

    Considering that Palin is untenable as a POTUS, Romney is a weasel and Huck is unfocussed, Jindal may well be our best bet come 2012 (even if he does speak like Mickey Mouse)
    www.musingsofablogger.wordpress.com

  • southernpatriots

    Being a Cajun born and raised, it is joy to see the turnaround in Louisiana since Jindal came to office. He has faced crises head on. He has remained calm and with a concise precision offered common sense solutions (berms off the coast, etc.), listening to experts in the fields and projecting an aura of calm.

    He would be a good candidate for a federal position, but why would we want that. He needs to remain governor for another term. Washington does not need him as bad as we from Louisiana do. If he is not governor that opens the gate for the Democrat hack who is now the NO major to win easily or others from his family or close political kinship. God forbid!

  • azmar

    Jindal is not eligible to be POTUS. The Constitution requires that he be a “natural born citizen”, which the founders wrote meant born of TWO US CITIZEN parents. Jindal is “native birth”, born on the soil but parents were not citizens. The framers of the Constitution wanted to make sure that the parents did not pass allegiance to a foreign country to a child who would become commander-in-chief of US military. When the parents are citizens of a foreign country, the child is born a citizen of that country. The founders had just fought a war for freedom from Britain and intended to prevent such allegiance in our POTUS.

  • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

    I’m not a Constitutional scholar, but I believe that the Fourteenth Amendment is pretty specific: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Natural-born citizens are those who are born in the United States. Madison said the same in 1789; “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

  • powertothepeople

    prior to putting comments down on a permanent record. You are wrong, and we really do not need a new Birther movement concerning Jindal.

  • powertothepeople

    Look up jus soli and how that affects anyone born in this country, then you may want to come back and re-write your original post.

  • ihateliberals

    if they don’t even understand the constitution. It is quite clear in the Constitution that Jindal is eligible to be President. Actually more so than Obama. That really isn’t what we are here to discuss.

    For some reason Obama and people in general believe that terrorist are doing this because of poverty. Noting could be further from the truth. They are doing this because they believe our wealth is evil and our way of life is evil. You could give them all the money you want and it will not curb their resolve to destroy western civilization. That is the way these people are raised and what they believe in. People in this country always think that other cultures want what we want and that is just not so. Islam’s goal is to eventually rule the world. If you are not from Islam you should be dead. That is the thought process. Conversion out of the Islamic faith or death is the only solution to this terrorist problem.

  • azmar

    Others need to do their research, as I have. The 14th amendment only defines a “citizen”, not a “natural born citizen”, which is specifically required for a POTUS and no other person.
    The writers of the Constitution followed Vattel’s meaning as noted below.

    In those few cases in which the Supreme Court has declared an individual to be a “natural born citizen”, the individual was always U.S.-born to U.S.-citizen parents. For example, in Perkins v. Elg (1939), Miss Elg was declared to be a natural born citizen. She was born in the United States and, when she was born, both of her parents were naturalized U.S. citizens.

    In 1797, the English translation of Emmerich de Vattel’s, Law of Nations was revised to include the term “natural born citizen”. The revised English translation helps to clarify the meaning of “natural born citizen”, as English-speaking people generally understood it towards the end of the 18th Century: “The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. .. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” (Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19)

    In 1874, in the Minor v. Happersett case, the Supreme Court affirmed the definition of natural born citizen which had appeared in the 1797 English translation of Vattel’s Law of Nations:
    …it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (Minor v. Happersett, 1874)