110930- Obama is not a slouch when it comes to terrorists

With the recent death of al-Awaki, it hit me how much Obama was done to remove terrorists from threatening us, and how much more worry he has added to potential terrorists.

When Obama came into office, Bin Ladin was safe in the arms of the Pakistani military, "not a priority" according to Bush as he was no longer "relevant." Bush said he "could not hide," but let him hide and disappear. When found by the SEAL team, it turns out he was a very active terrorist with lots of ideas about harming Islamic's and Americans both. He is gone now and so is the shrine that would have cropped up if it had been done the Cheney (aka Bush) way.

Now the "American Al Qaeda" al-Awaki is history too. While the terrorist are undoubtedly really mad about it, the reduction of the main terror plot players must be giving them a little heartburn. In fact, 2011 has been a really bad year for people who want a career in terrorism. A pretty large number of both the big fish and small fry have been served on the sushi tray this year.

Further, instead of taking people off the streets and torturing them them, thereby infuriating and radicalizing both the people incarcerated and their families, terrorist are either caught and questioned with proven FBI techniques, or just killed because it is too hard to get to them otherwise. Either way, they are not "players" anymore.

Beyond this, Gaddafi's terrorism is probably no longer possible again, and people in the Arab region have some hope for freedom, even if tenuous. Obama there too helped by not getting himself and us locked into a boots on the ground scenario, and if it is good for one it is good for all mentality.

Some are concerned that they all should be captured and "brought to justice." So was I, for a little while. However that is not the set of rules made by the terrorists themselves. They made the rules by acting like ruthless muggers waiting in the dark corner for anyone to pass by- not to rob, but just so they can kill and maim. It is sad that sometimes the only way to avoid being killed maimed or harmed, sometime you just have to strike back.

At present, supposedly no current citizens have been the beneficiaries of the 2011 attention given to active terrorists. All either were never citizens, or had renounced the citizenship. But what if they had not renounced citizen ship?

If someone was on top of a building with shooting at anything that moved and they have almost unlimited ammunition, how who you feel if everyone just said keep shouting at him to "stop." "That is the solution to all our dead, and those soon to be killed!" Most of us would cry out "someone shoot back!" The fact that they were a citizen would not be an issue because they were a direct and immediate threat to everyone in range. When a person publicly states before billions of people (TV, articles, etc) that they will do all they can to attack and kill US citizens without recourse, we don't need a trial to say to our leaders who have the ability to protect us, "for heavens sake, shoot back!" The threat was immediate, real, and just getting near them could have gotten you killed. So, yeah, "shoot back."

I may not be safer with Obama, but he does make me feel better about the terror situation. I was not that safe with Bush, probably less than I knew. I remember reading about Bin Laden in August 2001 and how they had a big reward posted for him and how it was never going to work. Then September 2001 happened and Bush quietly kept reading his children's book, got in his plane and circled a while, and then used a bull horn to shout in the ear of a firefighter. When it was all over, he did not give me great comfort with his lack of performance on many terrorist fronts. Plus he created the largest governmental agency in history and spent lots and lots of money no one had, lives of soldiers and others, to do -- what did he complete for all that expense?

-Sam Martin

Tweet