Posted by
RME KRNL on Friday, April 03, 2009 2:26:44 PM
[Editorial note: This article was initially submitted on 3/23/09 to Letters to the Editor, Washington Times, but, so far as I can determine, was not published.]
Instead of referring to threats from terrorists, former Arizona governor and now President Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano is referring in her speeches to “man-caused disasters.” Huh? What?
Now, the times I've seen Secretary Napolitano on TV, she looked like a serious person with a somewhat impressive presence. You might even say she looks like someone with some gravitas. She did not look like a circus acrobat. But, get the contortion she tried to pull off below.
When asked by a reporter if her avoidance of the term terrorism means that Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer poses a threat to our country, Napolitano replied, "Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word ‘terrorism,’ I referred to ‘man-caused’ disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”
Perhaps only a nuance? A nuance? I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of the Obama Administration trying to show how smart they all are because they can "nuance," indicating that only they are intellectual enough to fully understand the subtle shadings of meaning, blah, blah, blah. You can intellectually "nuance" yourself into inaction if you're not careful and bury yourself so deep in the weeds that you can't even see the forest or the trees. And "man-caused disasters"? What kind of verbal avoidance and contortionism is that? The author Ronald Kessler has correctly noted: "By this logic, the FBI should refer to serial killers and serial rapists as 'man-caused afflictions.' After all, we do not want to create fear about serial killers."
Now, remember also that Napolitano, in her first appearance at Congressional committee confirmation hearings, so avoided using the words "terrorist" or "terrorism" that she was finally asked about it. This was after her opening statement of about 20 minutes in which she avoided mentioning any kind of foreign threat and focused almost exclusively on Homeland Security's responsibilities for domestic disaster relief.
And remember also that, with even some in the mainstream media recently reporting on increasing violence, killings and kidnappings along our southern border with Mexico, the only "field trip" I've heard reported that our new Secretary of Homeland Security has taken so far was to count FEMA trailers somewhere, not inspecting our as-yet-still-unfinished border fence or directly coordinating with and being informed by our (her) border patrol agents. When asked about the growing trouble along our southern border, Napolitano has basically only said that we have contingency plans we can use if and when necessary. Well, lady, there are people, American citizens, in Texas, Arizona and southern California, as well as some major cities in other parts of the country, who might say "if and when" has already arrived, so what are those "plans," exactly?
I think Madame Secretary's priorities are either backwards or at least insufficiently "balanced." And isn't "balance" also "nuance"? I mean, you need good balance to be a good acrobat, don't you?
Addendum: To be fair, since I originally wrote this article, the DHS Secretary has recently ordered some additional personnel and equipment to our southern border and has now, finally, visited at least part of the border area on her way to meetings in Mexico. While these most recent actions are encouraging, I still question her understanding of the scope of the threat to our national security currently represented along our all-too-porous southern border, as well as her, and President Obama's, intentions in enforcing existing immigration laws and dealing with the issue of illegal immigration generally. Recent indications on these latter issues are not encouraging, as I will discuss in an upcoming article.