'Bounce Back' from terrorist acts?

I saw an interesting interview Monday morning (17 November 2009) with Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. She was being interviewed by Gretchen Carlson of Fox News. It was pursuant to the recent announcement by Attorney General Eric Holder that five men who have admitted to planning the atrocities of 11 September 2001 are to be tried in New York in a civilian court.

Carlson asked Napolitano if she is absolutely sure of a conviction in light procedures and rules of evidence in civilian courts.

Secretary Napolitano responded: “Well, first of all let me say to that to the survivors and 9/11. That I continue to, feel your… to feel what you're going through. This is a very tough situation. It's a tough situation whenever somebody who's had a loved one killed in a violent crime. Now we have to let the justice system run its course...”

Subsequently, Carlson asked: "Do you believe that there's still a war on terror Mrs. Secretary?"

Napolitano: "Um, I think terrorism is part of the environment in which we live. I’m the Homeland Security secretary. Homeland Security actually begins abroad; I do a lot of travel abroad. I’m talking with my colleagues in other countries. But it's part of our environment so we need to know how to respond to prepare to be resilient about it."

I must say that I was disappointed in the interviewer, Ms. Carlson, who did not question this response.

Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano says '[terrorism] is part of our environment... so we need to know how to respond... and be resilient about it.'

I can only say, “Huh?!”

Dictionary.com says: Resilient: returning to the original form or position after being bent, compressed, or stretched. Webster's Unabridged says: The act of bouncing or springing back to original form.

So Madam Secretary, are we to simply 'bounce back' after mass murder!?! Is this what we are to say to the families of so many victims of acts of terrorism… “Bounce back”?

How about stopping it in advance as we have been so greatly blessed to have been able to do for 8 years!

The attitude of treating acts of terrorism as an act of ‘violent crime’, and then expecting victims and their families to ‘bounce back’ will, in my opinion, never protect us from the vicious actions of ideological fanatics bent on producing the greatest effect through random and senseless violence. This is, after all, the definition of terrorism. Nor will giving these human pigs a platform from which to spew their illogical and hate filled ideologies advance the cause of freedom and harmony among thinking peoples of the world.

Mrs. Napolitano, as Secretary of Homeland Security of the greatest and most moral community in the history of the world, please rethink your definition of terrorism. Even more importantly, please rethink your duties… to be proactive. Please don’t ask those who have been viciously injured, or who have lost loved ones to be ‘RESILIENT’!

Mr. Holder, please rethink your politically motivated decision to give these men a platform from which to mock those who have given their lives and their families!

In a recent article, Columnist Peggy Noonan noted: “The biggest threat to America right now is not government spending, huge deficits, foreign ownership of our debt, world terrorism, two wars, potential epidemics or nuts with nukes. The biggest long-term threat is that people are becoming and have become disheartened…” (Thanks for the reference Bob.)

I hope I’m not becoming disheartened, but I’m not looking forward to the spectacle. And, I fear that we are in for quite a spectacle.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks for reading!
Jeff