Al Qaeda is 'On the Run'

Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama, in 2012, concluded that al Qaeda was not a threat to America. He said in his 2012 State of the Union speech that "al Qaeda operatives who remain are scrambling, knowing that they can't escape the reach of the United States of America."

Obama said on September 14, 2014, "This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years."

Obama has stated that al Qaeda is "on the run" or "has been decimated" or "is on the path to defeat" or some other variation thirty two times since the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Obama has also said repeatedly that Osama bin Laden is dead.  That may be true, but al Qaeda certainly isn't.  

In the March 2014 issue of Inspire, the propaganda magazine of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, this statement appears: "America is our first target, followed by United Kingdom, France and other crusader countries... The important thing is that you target people and not buildings." And Inspire has just published a list of people on al Qaeda's "Most Wanted" list. Stéphane Charbonnier, publisher of Charlie Hebdo, is on that list, so al Qaeda's threats can be taken seriously.

Is a violent attack coming to America? Al Qaeda has said so. But for Obama, al Qaeda is on the run, so no threat exists, there is no need to search for one.

Al Qaeda forces in Yemen have claimed responsibility for the January 7, 2015, attack on the Charlie Hebdo headquarters. Andrew Parker, head of Great Britain's MI5, has said, "... three terrorist plots had been thwarted in the past few months." The New York City Police Department was placed on high alert after an ISIS video surfaced that urges "supporters to rise up and commit acts of violence, not only against law enforcement targets, but also civilians."

Okay, Obama, two of three countries with attacks forecast have experienced them. You won't connect the dots, so let me do it for you: America is scheduled to be attacked by al Qaeda. The attack may not be the next one, but the attack will come. 

Al Qaeda has established safe havens in Libya, Syria and Iraq in 2014 alone, this last one as Obama declared Iraq to be stable enough to bring troops home. Yeah, al Qaeda is on the run. Will al Qaeda also be on the run in Afghanistan?

Al Qaeda now controls more territory than at any previous time in its history. "From around Aleppo in western Syria to small areas of Fallujah in central Iraq, al Qaeda now controls territory that stretches more than 400 miles across the heart of the Middle East, ..." In Syria's rebel-held north, al Qaeda is imposing  Islamist ideology on Syrians. Yes, that's the same bunch of rebels Obama is sending U.S. troops to train. Question Obama: without you, how will the troops tell the difference between rebels and al Qaeda members?

Al Qaeda, as we knew it, no longer exists, so al Qaeda may be running to its new identity.

A cluster of militant attacks... is a reminder of how the once-singular threat of al Qaeda has changed since the killing of Osama bin Laden, morphing or splintering into smaller, largely autonomous Islamist factions that in some cases are now overshadowing the parent group.

Is this what Obama means when he says that al Qaeda is "on the run?"

The number of al Qaeda and al Qaeda-related groups rose 58 percent between 2010 and 2013. The number of "Salafi jihadists" (who are a violent part of an extreme form of Islam) more than doubled during the same period. And Obama continues adding to terrorist numbers by releasing them from Gitmo. Yeah, al Qaeda is on the run.

Let's not forget the sycophants that surround Obama. James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, and John Brennan, CIA director, were defenders of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism tenets, but they became public critics of those views when they joined Obama. Clapper defended Bush's decision to invade Iraq by saying that Iraq had transferred its WMDs to Syria. Once with Obama, Clapper never repeated that belief. Brennan was a supporter of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism interrogation methods, including waterboarding. Once with Obama, he said that they were counterproductive.

Homeland Security director Janet Napolitano urged that we avoid using the word "terrorism" and use instead "man-caused disasters." In an attempt to deflect criticism about an open southern border, Napolitano suggested falsely that the 9/11 attackers came through Canada. She suggested that the real threat of terrorism came from right-wing groups and critics of Obama rather than from radical Islamists.

Jeh Johnson, Napolitano's successor, when testifying to Congress, was asked about reports of Middle Easterners crossing illegally into the U.S. via the southern border. He seemed completely unconcerned, and said, "I don't know the accuracy of the reports or how much credence to give them. But I've heard reports to that effect." 

As Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton welcomed the election of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, ignored requests for stronger security at the Benghazi consulate, claimed that the deaths of the four Americans there were due to a spontaneous riot over a video. In an attempt to cover up administration involvement, she lied, then said, "What difference at this point does it make?" She advised pulling all troops out of Iraq, advised ending the embargo and trade sanctions against Iran, said that we need to empathize with our enemies. Even John Kerry tried to defend her, thereby showing himself to be yet another Obama team player.

Thus we see the Obama administration's collective denial that terrorism has anything to do with Islam.

Of Obama's administration, there is/was some politics, some face-saving going on.  But... Obama freely chose them to advise him.  He has to, therefore, shoulder the consequences of their (non) actions.

So why should we believe anything the administration) now says? The problem is that a delusional Obama (and his administration) doesn't have to pay the price for his denials about Islam violence.  We do. America has been relatively lucky so far. But indications are that our luck is about to run out. Still Obama says that “al Qaeda is on the run in,” and does nothing to protect us.

Kinda reminds me of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. After Rome burned, Nero blamed and persecuted Christians. Obama, will you blame and persecute us conservatives when the attack comes?

But that's just my opinion.

Dr. Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor) earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and statistics from Florida State University.  He was a (very conservative) professor of quantitative management specializing in using statistics to assist/support decision-making.  He has been a consultant to many small businesses and is now retired.  Dr. Beatty is a veteran who served in the U.S. Army for 22 years.  He blogs at rwno.limewebs.com.

Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama, in 2012, concluded that al Qaeda was not a threat to America. He said in his 2012 State of the Union speech that "al Qaeda operatives who remain are scrambling, knowing that they can't escape the reach of the United States of America."

Obama said on September 14, 2014, "This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years."

Obama has stated that al Qaeda is "on the run" or "has been decimated" or "is on the path to defeat" or some other variation thirty two times since the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Obama has also said repeatedly that Osama bin Laden is dead.  That may be true, but al Qaeda certainly isn't.  

In the March 2014 issue of Inspire, the propaganda magazine of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, this statement appears: "America is our first target, followed by United Kingdom, France and other crusader countries... The important thing is that you target people and not buildings." And Inspire has just published a list of people on al Qaeda's "Most Wanted" list. Stéphane Charbonnier, publisher of Charlie Hebdo, is on that list, so al Qaeda's threats can be taken seriously.

Is a violent attack coming to America? Al Qaeda has said so. But for Obama, al Qaeda is on the run, so no threat exists, there is no need to search for one.

Al Qaeda forces in Yemen have claimed responsibility for the January 7, 2015, attack on the Charlie Hebdo headquarters. Andrew Parker, head of Great Britain's MI5, has said, "... three terrorist plots had been thwarted in the past few months." The New York City Police Department was placed on high alert after an ISIS video surfaced that urges "supporters to rise up and commit acts of violence, not only against law enforcement targets, but also civilians."

Okay, Obama, two of three countries with attacks forecast have experienced them. You won't connect the dots, so let me do it for you: America is scheduled to be attacked by al Qaeda. The attack may not be the next one, but the attack will come. 

Al Qaeda has established safe havens in Libya, Syria and Iraq in 2014 alone, this last one as Obama declared Iraq to be stable enough to bring troops home. Yeah, al Qaeda is on the run. Will al Qaeda also be on the run in Afghanistan?

Al Qaeda now controls more territory than at any previous time in its history. "From around Aleppo in western Syria to small areas of Fallujah in central Iraq, al Qaeda now controls territory that stretches more than 400 miles across the heart of the Middle East, ..." In Syria's rebel-held north, al Qaeda is imposing  Islamist ideology on Syrians. Yes, that's the same bunch of rebels Obama is sending U.S. troops to train. Question Obama: without you, how will the troops tell the difference between rebels and al Qaeda members?

Al Qaeda, as we knew it, no longer exists, so al Qaeda may be running to its new identity.

A cluster of militant attacks... is a reminder of how the once-singular threat of al Qaeda has changed since the killing of Osama bin Laden, morphing or splintering into smaller, largely autonomous Islamist factions that in some cases are now overshadowing the parent group.

Is this what Obama means when he says that al Qaeda is "on the run?"

The number of al Qaeda and al Qaeda-related groups rose 58 percent between 2010 and 2013. The number of "Salafi jihadists" (who are a violent part of an extreme form of Islam) more than doubled during the same period. And Obama continues adding to terrorist numbers by releasing them from Gitmo. Yeah, al Qaeda is on the run.

Let's not forget the sycophants that surround Obama. James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, and John Brennan, CIA director, were defenders of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism tenets, but they became public critics of those views when they joined Obama. Clapper defended Bush's decision to invade Iraq by saying that Iraq had transferred its WMDs to Syria. Once with Obama, Clapper never repeated that belief. Brennan was a supporter of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism interrogation methods, including waterboarding. Once with Obama, he said that they were counterproductive.

Homeland Security director Janet Napolitano urged that we avoid using the word "terrorism" and use instead "man-caused disasters." In an attempt to deflect criticism about an open southern border, Napolitano suggested falsely that the 9/11 attackers came through Canada. She suggested that the real threat of terrorism came from right-wing groups and critics of Obama rather than from radical Islamists.

Jeh Johnson, Napolitano's successor, when testifying to Congress, was asked about reports of Middle Easterners crossing illegally into the U.S. via the southern border. He seemed completely unconcerned, and said, "I don't know the accuracy of the reports or how much credence to give them. But I've heard reports to that effect." 

As Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton welcomed the election of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, ignored requests for stronger security at the Benghazi consulate, claimed that the deaths of the four Americans there were due to a spontaneous riot over a video. In an attempt to cover up administration involvement, she lied, then said, "What difference at this point does it make?" She advised pulling all troops out of Iraq, advised ending the embargo and trade sanctions against Iran, said that we need to empathize with our enemies. Even John Kerry tried to defend her, thereby showing himself to be yet another Obama team player.

Thus we see the Obama administration's collective denial that terrorism has anything to do with Islam.

Of Obama's administration, there is/was some politics, some face-saving going on.  But... Obama freely chose them to advise him.  He has to, therefore, shoulder the consequences of their (non) actions.

So why should we believe anything the administration) now says? The problem is that a delusional Obama (and his administration) doesn't have to pay the price for his denials about Islam violence.  We do. America has been relatively lucky so far. But indications are that our luck is about to run out. Still Obama says that “al Qaeda is on the run in,” and does nothing to protect us.

Kinda reminds me of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. After Rome burned, Nero blamed and persecuted Christians. Obama, will you blame and persecute us conservatives when the attack comes?

But that's just my opinion.

Dr. Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor) earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and statistics from Florida State University.  He was a (very conservative) professor of quantitative management specializing in using statistics to assist/support decision-making.  He has been a consultant to many small businesses and is now retired.  Dr. Beatty is a veteran who served in the U.S. Army for 22 years.  He blogs at rwno.limewebs.com.