You can support bad policies, even bad policies that help terrorists, without actually being a terrorist, liking terrorists, or hating the US. Mistaken or foolish ideas, or inapt application of otherwise decent ideas, can result in a lot of harm without any hatred being necessary on the part of those pushing the ideas.
Like everything else, there are degrees of "being" a terrorist. One doesn't have to strap on a bomb to be a terrorist. As an example, suppose a Pakistani physician living in America provides funding for terrorist activities "back home". Would that not be terrorism? I think it would.
Now, the question of whether one can extend that logic to a president who, by his mere ignorance, hard-headedness, other inadvertent means -- he may not automatically be a "terrorist".
I have to say, I think Obama is being extremely wreckless in his actions with respect to protecting (or not protecting) America against attack. I know not everyone would agree with me. But if we are attacked during Obama's presidency, there are going to be some people calling for his impeachment. And I would be one of them, because there is no way after an attack that he could be exonerated; he would be de facto culpable in the terrorist attack for willfully and knowingly taking steps to reduce American homeland security.
I have no confidence in this man's commitment to our national security. |
