Mudança na qual podemos acreditar (3)

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Via Hot Air.

Infiltração jihadista (16)

Obama recusa colaborar com a investigação do Congresso ao massacre de Fort Hood.

«The first public congressional hearing on the Fort Hood attack will not include testimony from any current federal law enforcement, military or intelligence officials because the Obama administration "declined to provide any" such witnesses, according to a Senate committee source.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has released the witness list for its hearing (...).

But the list does not include anyone actively involved in investigating the Fort Hood attack, or anyone who might have been responsible for decisions made by various government agencies before the attack about whether to investigate the shooting suspect, Nidal Hasan. The Senate committee source said HSGAC Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) had hoped to have witnesses from the FBI and the U.S. Army, but was rebuffed in his requests.»

O título deste postal não se refere a Nidal Hasan, mas ao próprio presidente dos EUA. Via Hot Air.

Conformidade com a sharia VII

A polícia canadiana pede desculpa aos muçulmanos por um agente de sexo masculino ter revistado uma mulher na acção de detenção do seu marido:

«Windsor Police Chief Gary Smith publicly apologized to the Muslim community this week after one of his officers allegedly patted down the wife of a suspect during a raid tied to a case in metro Detroit that ended in the shooting death of an Islamic leader. “The actions taken did cause embarrassment and did offend their religious beliefs,” Smith said in a statement. “I sincerely apologize to the families and the Islamic community.” (...) Khan’s wife, Hiba Khan, was patted down by a male Windsor police officer during the raid, said Patrick Ducharme, the lawyer for the two suspects. Ducharme welcomed Smith’s apology. (...)

Ducharme said he was on the phone with Hiba Khan as officers were in their home during the raid.

“She said, ‘He’s going down my body with his hands’’’ on the outside of her clothing, Ducharme said.

Ducharme said that the pat down was unnecessary because Hiba was not being arrested. He added that if a patdown is to happen on a woman, a woman police officer should do it, especially if the subject is Muslim. Some Muslim women say their religion doesn’t allow them to make physical contact with men outside their family.

”This is not just about Muslim women,” he said. “This is about all women. They should not be searched by an officer of the same sex.” A police union official told reporters that the officers involved in the raid acted appropriately, according to Canadian media reports. (...)»

No Tundra Tabloids comenta-se o caso do seguinte modo:

«This is a classic case of Islamic values, specifically, sharia law, being accepted by non-Muslims. It's clear that the police officer did nothing wrong, but yet, the Windsor police chief is offering an apology for the proper conduct of one of his police officers. (...) It should never have been a question as to whether the officer acted properly "in this circumstance", because under the law, all people are to be treated in the exact same manner, there is no special treatment for particular groups. (...) This is a prime example of sharia based principles being accepted by non-Muslim law enforcement officials in the West, and it needs to be rebuked and condemned in no uncertain terms. The Windsor Chief of Police should be forced to take back his apology and insist that his police officers acted correctly and will continue to frisk all suspects regardless of gender.»

A conformidade voluntária com a sharia é um dos sinais mais evidentes de que o Ocidente está a ceder à ofensiva islâmica e de que o efeito pretendido da jihad - instilar o medo no coração dos infiéis - está a ser plenamente alcançado.

Alta traição (2)

Sobre a decisão de julgar Khakid Sheikh Mohammed em processo civil:

«''This is a prosecutorial decision as well as a national security decision," President Barack Obama said last week about the attorney general's announcement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al Qaeda operatives will be put on trial in New York City federal court.

No, it is not. It is a presidential decision—one about the hard, ever-present trade-off between civil liberties and national security.

Trying KSM in civilian court will be an intelligence bonanza for al Qaeda and the hostile nations that will view the U.S. intelligence methods and sources that such a trial will reveal. The proceedings will tie up judges for years on issues best left to the president and Congress.

Whether a jury ultimately convicts KSM and his fellows, or sentences them to death, is beside the point. The treatment of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter rather than as an act of war will cripple American efforts to fight terrorism. It is in effect a declaration that this nation is no longer at war.

(...) KSM and his co-defendants will enjoy the benefits and rights that the Constitution accords to citizens and resident aliens—including the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it got it. Prosecutors will be forced to reveal U.S. intelligence on KSM, the methods and sources for acquiring its information, and his relationships to fellow al Qaeda operatives. The information will enable al Qaeda to drop plans and personnel whose cover is blown. It will enable it to detect our means of intelligence-gathering, and to push forward into areas we know nothing about.

This is not hypothetical, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has explained. During the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (aka the "blind Sheikh"), standard criminal trial rules required the government to turn over to the defendants a list of 200 possible co-conspirators.

In essence, this list was a sketch of American intelligence on al Qaeda. According to Mr. McCarthy, who tried the case, it was delivered to bin Laden in Sudan on a silver platter within days of its production as a court exhibit.

Bin Laden (...) could immediately see who was compromised. He also could start figuring out how American intelligence had learned its information and anticipate what our future moves were likely to be.

(...)

KSM's lawyers will press hard to reveal intelligence secrets in open court. Our intelligence agents and soldiers will be the ones to suffer.»

Via The Corner.

Alta traição

Em artigo na National Review Online, Andrew McCarthy reexpõe a sua tese, já defendida em postal anterior, mas explicitada com mais riqueza de pormenores e clareza de argumentos (no fundo, a diferença entre um postal num blogue e um artigo numa revista de referência).

«The decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other top al-Qaeda terrorists to New York City for a civilian trial is one of the most irresponsible ever made by a presidential administration. That it is motivated by politics could not be more obvious. That it spells unprecedented danger for our security will soon become obvious. The five 9/11 plotters were originally charged in a military commission. Military commissions have been approved by Congress and the courts. Eleven months ago, the jihadists were prepared to end the military case by pleading guilty and proceeding to execution. (...) The Obama Justice Department teems with experienced defense lawyers, many of whom (themselves personally or through their firms) spent the last eight years volunteering their services to America’s enemies in their lawsuits against the American people. As experienced defense lawyers well know, when there is no mystery about whether the defendants have committed the charged offenses, and when there is controversy attendant to the government’s investigative tactics, the standard defense strategy is to put the government on trial. That is, Pres. Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, experienced litigators, fully realize that in civilian court, the Qaeda quintet can and will demand discovery of mountains of government intelligence. They will demand disclosures about investigative tactics; the methods and sources by which intelligence has been obtained; the witnesses from the intelligence community, the military, and law enforcement who interrogated witnesses, conducted searches, secretly intercepted enemy communications, and employed other investigative techniques. They will attempt to compel testimony from officials who formulated U.S. counterterrorism strategy, in addition to U.S. and foreign intelligence officers. As civilian “defendants,” these war criminals will put Bush-era counterterrorism tactics under the brightest public spotlight in American legal history. This is exactly what President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder know will happen. And because it is unnecessary to have this civilian trial at all, one must conclude that this is exactly what Obama and Holder want to see happen. (...)»

A decisão de julgar Khalid Sheikh Mohammed em processo civil, ao criar condições para a divulgação pública de informação dos serviços secretos, colocando em risco toda a sua estrutura operacional, configura um crime de alta traição: Obama e companhia preparam-se para pôr à disposição dos terroristas presos e dos seus representantes legais informação confidencial e crítica para a defesa face à ameaça terrorista. Para além disso, põe a anterior administração no banco dos réus. Obama mata dois coelhos com uma cajadada. Ganha o terrorismo islâmico e alegra-se a esquerda progressista e suicida. Perde a segurança dos EUA e do mundo.

Mudança na qual podemos acreditar (2)

E, ao que consta, nem o fez convenientemente. Para além do mais, o Imperador não retribuiu o cumprimento, o que já havia ocorrido com o Rei da Arábia Saudita. Tem o que merece.

Sim, insensatos são todos aqueles homens em que se instalou a ignorância de Deus

Livro de Sabedoria 13,1-9. «Sim, insensatos são todos aqueles homens em que se instalou a ignorância de Deus e que, a partir dos bens visíveis, não foram capazes de descobrir aquele que é, nem, considerando as obras, reconheceram o Artífice. Antes foi o fogo, o vento ou o ar subtil, a abóbada estrelada, ou a água impetuosa, ou os luzeiros do céu que tomaram por deuses, governadores do mundo. Se, fascinados pela sua beleza, os tomaram por deuses, aprendam quão mais belo que tudo é o Senhor, pois foi o próprio autor da beleza que os criou. E se os impressionou a sua força e o seu poder, compreendam quão mais poderoso é aquele que os criou, pois na grandeza e na beleza das criaturas se contempla, por analogia, o seu Criador. Estes, contudo, merecem só uma leve censura porque talvez se extraviem, apenas por buscarem Deus e quererem encontrá-lo. Movendo-se no meio das suas obras, investigam-nas, mas deixam-se seduzir pela aparência, pois são belas as coisas que vêem. De qualquer modo, nem sequer estes são desculpáveis, porque, se tiveram tanta capacidade para poderem perscrutar o universo, como não descobriram, primeiro, o Senhor dessas coisas?»

Vlad Tepes

Apenas para divulgar mais um par de sites anti-islamização do Ocidente:

• Vlad Tepes. Tem uma secção com filmes, semelhante à nossa Videoteca do Islamismo.
• Islam: the Religion of Peace (and a big stack of dead bodies), que trata de fazer a contagem dos ataques jihadistas, e das suas vítimas, por todo o mundo.

Mudança na qual podemos acreditar

Obama volta a quebrar um protocolo com 233 anos e faz uma vénia ao Imperador do Japão. No Hot Air, Ed Morrissey comenta:

«(...) American Presidents do not bow to royalty. In fact, heads of state do not bow or genuflect to each other in the normal course of diplomacy. At least, they didn’t until this amateur came into office and failed to learn from the first time he did it. (...)»

Obama parece inclinar-se a demonstrar subserviência perante a aristocracia mundial. Recorde-se a vénia ao rei da Arábia Saudita, que teve a agravante de ser feita ao chefe de estado de um regime islamita totalitário, opressor, onde as mulheres são cidadãos de segunda, assim como os não-muçulmanos que não têm liberdade religiosa. Com esta vénia, estes gestos podem ser interpretados como acções concretas de Obama para mostrar respeito no contexto da estratégia diplomática que tem implementado de assumir uma atitude expiatória dos supostos crimes americanos da história, narrativa tão ao gosto do progressismo esquerdista. Seja como for, uma desgraça.

KSM será julgado em processo civil

A decisão do Department of Justice norte-americano de julgar Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, o suposto cérebro por trás do planeamento do ataque de 11 de Setembro, num processo civil deixou metade dos EUA perplexos. Para começar a perceber porquê, pode ler-se Andrew MaCarthy:

«(...) Let's take stock of where we are at this point. KSM and his confederates wanted to plead guilty and have their martyrs' execution last December, when they were being handled by military commission. As I said at the time, we could and should have accommodated them. The Obama administration could still accommodate them. After all, the president has not pulled the plug on all military commissions: Holder is going to announce at least one commission trial (for Nashiri, the Cole bomber) today.

Moreover, KSM has no defense. He was under American indictment for terrorism for years before there ever was a 9/11, and he can't help himself but brag about the atrocities he and his fellow barbarians have carried out.

So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.»

Eu apenas acrescentaria, para já, que julgar KSM num tribunal de guerra corresponderia a reconhecer que o ataque de 11 de Setembro foi um acto de guerra contra os EUA. Obama não se quer associar a essa tese, sustentada por George W. Bush.

Exéquias das vítimas de Fort Hood (4)

Como pude ser tão ingénuo? Onde eu vi o reconhecimento de um motivação religiosa, vejo agora justamente a sua negação! Agradeço a Andrew McCarthy e prometo não voltar a precipitar-me a elogiar algo que Obama diga. Acontece que as minhas expectativas em relação a Obama são tão baixas que qualquer coisa que se revista de uma aparente razoabilidade me leva a elogiá-lo.

«Still Willfully Blind

President Obama at Fort Hood today: "It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know — no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor."

Really?

At his blog today, Andrew Bostom, a scholar of jihadism, cites the following passage from "Reliance of the Traveler," a widely distributed manual of Islamic law produced by al-Azhar University in Egypt, the most authoritative interpreters of theology and sharia jurisprudence in Sunni Islam, the dominant tradition among the world's Muslims:

Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and, is etymologically derived from the word, mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion [of Islam]…The scriptural basis for jihad is such Koranic verses as “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216); “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89); “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36); and such hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] as the one related by (Sahih) Bukhari and (Sahih) Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And the final reckoning is with Allah”; and the hadith by (Sahih) Muslim, “To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”

As Dr. Bostom points out, the first hadith referred to in the passage — the one in which Mohammed explains that Allah has commanded the Muslims to fight non-Muslims — was cited by Nidal Hasan in slide 43 of the June 7, 2007 presentation that Jonah discusses in his excellent column today.

Not to beat a dead horse on this, but in 2001, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an al-Azhar graduated doctor of Islamic jurisprudence who is the spiritual guide of the Muslim Brotherhood and the most influential Sunni cleric in the world, issued a fatwa approving suicide bombings against Israel. In 2003, with the male jihadists being caught too often before they could strike, Qaradawi expanded the fatwa to approve suicide bombings by women. In 2004, he issued a fatwa calling for the killing of American troops in Iraq, and later expanded this authorization to include the killing of American civilian support personnel. (As Qaradawi put it: "All of the Americans in Iraq are combatants, there is no difference between civilians and soldiers, and one should fight them, since the American civilians came to Iraq in order to serve the occupation. The abduction and killing of Americans in Iraq is a [religious] obligation so as to cause them to leave Iraq immediately.")

(...) It doesn't matter what President Obama thinks about faith; his obligation is to acknowledge and act on what others understand their faith to compel — even if the president finds that horrifying to contemplate.

After the carnage we've seen for two decades, and the high religious authorities that have endorsed it, it is simply astounding that an American president — at a solemn memorial service for soldiers killed just days ago by a jihadist acting on his rational, broadly accepted understanding of his religious duty — could claim that "no faith justifies" sneak-attack murders, and that no religion teaches that "God looks upon them with favor." In fact, a widely held interpretation of Islam holds exactly these principles. No one is saying that all Muslims follow Hasan's construction of Islam, but hundreds of millions do and they have scriptures to back up their beliefs — scriptures we could all read if we'd just pull our heads out of the sand.

To deny that is to deny reality. A country can't be protected by people who lack the will to face reality.»

Os mesmos erros, os mesmos resultados

Andrew McCarthy analisa, no National Review Online, o comportamento das autoridades policiais americanas que, conhecedoras dos contactos de Nadil Hassan, o autor do antentado de Fort Hood, com Anwar al-Awlaki, imã radical, guia espiritual de dois dos terroristas do 11 de Setembro, não consideraram importante vigiar Hassan mais de perto. A decisão de não investigar Hassan ter-se-á baseado numa suposta impossibilidade de processar alguém por incitamento à violência, o que McCarthy desmente; numa interpretação sui generis do Primeiro Aditamento à Constituição Americana, o qual protege a liberdade de expressão; e por se considerar que um religioso não pode ser acusado por um crime cujo incitamento tenha sido feito no exercício da liberdade religiosa.

«“September 10 America.” The phrase signifies a reprise of the “terrorism is just a crime” mindset that reigned in the years before the 9/11 attacks. Like other observers, I’ve groused in recent months that we are back to that self-destructive ethos. I was wrong. If the Fort Hood atrocity tells us anything, it is that things are much worse than they were before 9/11. For one thing, 9/11 has happened. Before it did, perhaps we had an excuse. But we’ve experienced the wages of consciously avoiding Islamism. To have retreated into puerile fantasies about a religion of peace is, at this juncture, unfathomable. (...) In 1995 (...) I led the team that convicted Omar Abdel Rahman, the “Blind Sheikh.” In essence, we prosecuted him for inciting terrorism­ (...). Specifically, the Blind Sheikh was convicted of (among other things) soliciting an attack against a U.S. military installation (like Hasan just committed) and soliciting the murder of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. (...) How was the Blind Sheikh convicted? By presenting to the jury his fiery sermons and private meetings with the faithful, often in mosques where he urged barbarous strikes against America, swaddled in accurate quotations of the Koran and other Muslim scripture. Of course, he claimed that such exhortations were protected speech. (...) the Blind Sheikh contended that his incitements to terror were beyond prosecution because he was practicing his religion: Specifically, he claimed he had simply been performing the traditional role of an Islamic cleric called on to determine whether proposed courses of conduct (in this instance, mass-murder plots) were permissible under Islamic law. Fourteen years ago, that contention was properly seen as frivolous. In America, we are not under sharia law — not yet. There is no religious exception for violent acts, conspiracies, and incitements to violence that violate American law. So what has happened? Why did we know these rudimentary, commonsense principles in the Nineties but not now? Because incitement explodes the government’s “religion of peace” narrative. The incitement to Islamist terror is Islamic scripture. The Blind Shiekh was not a hypnotist or a particularly compelling speaker. His authority over terrorist organizations was rooted exclusively in his acknowledged mastery of sharia. Islamic scripture was the source of his power over Muslims. To concede this would be to concede the obvious but unspeakable fact that there is a nexus between Islam and terror. That would harpoon the lovey-dovey dream that Islam and Western democracy are perfectly compatible. It would upset Muslims — especially the well-organized, deep-pocketed Islamic grievance industry. Today’s hip, progressive FBI, like Gen. George Casey’s modern, slavishly “diverse” military, doesn’t want to upset Muslims. Besides souring State Department cocktail parties and drying up funding for presidential libraries, upsetting Muslims would put a damper on our government’s lavish “Islamic outreach” efforts. (...) (...) [B]e prepared for more Fort Hoods. We’re not in September 10 America. We’ve managed to land in a much more dangerous place.»

A América a ceder ao relativismo cultural, ao multiculturalismo e à ideologia do politicamente correcto. Na semana em que comemorámos o derrube do muro de Berlim, assistimos, no rescaldo do atentado de Fort Hood - concretamente, na cobertura noticiosa e na análise do ocorrido pelos media e pelos políticos progressistas norte-americanos -, ao triunfo da mais corrosiva forma de marxismo: o marxismo cultural, que destrói as fundações da cultura ocidental e que deixa o Ocidente vulnerável a qualquer ameaça consistente com que se depare. Uma coisa que os progressistas ainda não perceberam é que o vazio de valores que se seguirá à destruição da cultura ocidental - porque os valores que têm para propor, como alternativa, são isso mesmo: vazio - será preenchido por outros valores, defendidos com convicção pelos islamistas.

Outros muros

Por que razão não se manifestam contra estes outros muros os que se manifestam contra o muro que separa Israel dos territórios habitados por muitos indivíduos que lhe são hostis? Melanie Phillips resume o artigo de Shiraz Maher no seu blogue na Standpoint, do qual destaco as seguintes passagens:

«(...) Of course, the one [muro] we've all heard about is the Israeli security fence which attracted fierce criticism after its construction in 2003. Built in response to the Palestinian intifada which claimed more than 900 lives since September 2000, the fence has dramatically halted the number of terrorist attacks inside the country. (...)[Y]ou could be mistaken for thinking that Israel's decision to defend itself in this way was unprecedented. Yet, not only is this wrong but, ironically, a lot of the physical barriers currently in place are located in the ‘Muslim world'. The Saudi-Yemeni border is just one place where a physical barrier is used by a Muslim regime to defend itself against ‘smuggling' and ‘terrorism'. (...)

Saudi Arabia's border with Yemen has always been problematic, providing a trafficking route for weapons smuggling. Indeed, the explosives used in the 2003 Riyadh bombings which targeted compounds housing western expatriates were blamed on Yemeni smugglers. It was not the first time Saudi Arabia blamed the Yemenis for not doing enough to stop terrorism. Yemeni smugglers are also believed to have helped facilitate the bombing campaign against US military bases in the mid-1990s.

Once the Saudi government lost confidence in Yemen's ability to curb domestic terrorism, they decided to build a physical barrier. Much of it runs through contested territory. According to the 2000 Jeddah border treaty between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, a demilitarised ‘buffer zone' should exist between both countries, protecting the rights of nomadic Bedouin tribes which live in the cross-border area.

Yet, parts of the Saudi barrier stand inside the demilitarised zone, violating the 2000 agreement and infuriating Yemen. (...) (...) More recently, Saudi Arabia has also built a physical barrier along its border with Iraq to stop jihadists from the Kingdom going over to join the mujahideen. Talal Anqawi hailed it a major success saying that cross-border incursions had dropped by up to 40%. (...)»

Mas há mais!

«(...) Beyond the Middle East, Iran's 900 km border with Pakistan is currently being replaced by a concrete wall (10 feet high, 3 feet thick), fortified with steel rods. Ostensibly built to thwart drug traffickers and terrorists, the local Baloch people oppose its construction as it cuts across their land and separates communities living on either side of the divide. The opposition leader of Balochistan's Provincial Assembley, Kachkol Ali, has bitterly opposed the wall saying his people were never consulted about it and that it cuts off families from one another. (...)»

E ainda:

«(...) In the Western Sahara desert Morocco has built a massive wall, spanning more than 2700 km. Its primary aim is to guard against Sahrawi separatists who organised themselves into the Polisario Front - a political and terrorist movement - which seeks independence for the Sahrawi people. Much of the wall is lined with barbed wire and landmines, which is something it shares in common with parts of the Pakistan-Indian border (particularly in Kashmir). (...)»

Porque será que nunca ouvi falar destes muros? Haverá alguma obsessão dos media com o muro israelita e uma intenção de branquear semelhantes estruturas noutros países? Maher tem dedicado os seus últimos postais ao já nosso conhecido Anwar al-Awlaki , mais concretamente aos que o apoiam no Reino Unido, que merecem a atenção de todos os que se preocupam com estas questões.

Muslims Against Sharia

No movimento anti-jihad é frequente dizer-se que as primeiras vítimas do Islamismo são os próprios muçulmanos. Já aqui fizemos referência a alguns sites de ex-muçulmanos que resolveram manifestar publicamente a sua aversão ao Islamismo e a sua disposição para se lhe opor. Os seus autores converteram-se a outras religiões ou, simplesmente, perderam a fé. Há também outros que continuam a considerar-se muçulmanos mas que se opõem decidida e veementemente ao Islamismo, à jihad, à sharia e a outros traços do Islamismo, movimento que ameaça o Ocidente e fustiga os países muçulmanos por todo o mundo. Refiro-me ao Muslims Against Sharia. No seu blogue desenvolvem uma intensa actividade de cobertura das notícias relacionadas com a expansão do Islamismo em todo o mundo e contra isso tomam posição. A seguir.

Exéquias das vítimas de Fort Hood (3)

Richard Fernandez, no Pajamas Media, escreve o discurso que, na sua opinião, Obama devia ter proferido nas exéquias das vítimas do atentado terrorista de Fort Hood:

«First of all, I would like to apologize, as Commander in Chief and on behalf of the entire chain of command, for failing to protect the men who were shot here some days ago. The specific shortcomings which allowed the shooter the opportunity to commit this crime will determined and rectified forthwith. That is the least I can do for those who died. (...) The leadership owes you the best equipment, the finest intelligence and the most competent leadership. But above all we owe you our loyalty and the assurance that everyone placed above you and alongside you wearing the uniform of the United States is someone you could trust implicitly with your life. Because there would be times when you would have to. And in that duty we have failed. For reasons which brook no excuse, whether from lack of competence or the absence of professional courage, we have allowed a traitor to gain a position of trust in your midst. We gave him high rank. We gave him the prerogatives and honors due to a member of the medical profession and an officer in the Armed Forces. And he used that position to kill the men we are remembering today. We who demand of you the courage to routinely risk your lives in the service of our nation did not ourselves have fortitude to expel a man from the service who by rights should have been gone because we feared criticism. We feared being accused of bigotry. We feared being accused of persecuting a religion. We feared the bad publicity that would come from recognizing the danger signals which have all too tragically culminated in this. It was out of fear that we forbore and men died. Let me repeat my apology. By command responsibility the onus of this falls on my shoulders. And the duty for correcting the defects falls on me as well. Already there are those who say “this was an ordinary crime”; or that we do not know what motivated this killer to commit the crime he did. We must not add dishonesty to dereliction. We know. If we were not men enough to do our duty then, then at least we should do it now. Let me pledge that from this day forward, no officer in the Armed Forces, no member of law enforcement, no man or woman in authority should ever dare ignore a danger to you, my men — for you are my men — out of fear of giving offense. Political correctness should fall distant second to duty, honor and country.

I cannot bring back the dead. But I can prevent others from following in their tragic place. Others will eulogize the fallen. They will recall this young life or that promising future cut short on that day. Let others speak of the nobility of those who died on this post. Let others comfort the parents and loved ones of those who will wait at the door for the knock they once heard and hear nevermore. That is not for me to do.

Rather let my deeds from this day speak more eloquently than tributes or flowers. Let my determination to prevent this from ever happening again be my peroration and my tribute to the fallen. Gesta, non verba is all the Latin I need to know. Deeds, not words. I will return to my duties and you to yours. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.»

Grande discurso este, de longe superior ao que Obama proferiu. Que sociedade é esta em que os grandes discursos, feitos nas grandes ocasiões, são virtuais e os reais são peças de campanha eleitoral?