January 8, 2010
We've given the Administration more than ample time to identify those responsible for the lapse in national security during the Christmas bombing attempt on a Delta/Northwest airliner. The President has even indicated that he's not interested in placing blame. Well Mr. President, as long as your national security contingent and others in the employ of the Federal government know that their screw-ups will not cause any repercussions, they will continue to act in the "matter-of-fact" manner (at best) that most taxpayers know all to well.
If the "buck stops here" as the President has said and if he is not going to insist on the resignation of Leitner, Brennan and Napolitano, then maybe he should resign. It would be much simpler and more appropriate to identify the people who actually dropped the ball and FIRE them. But, with the pervasive PC attitude that handcuffs our government, that would make those actually responsible "feel bad" and we can't have that!
This approach is doomed to fail and most likely will result in a catastrophic event that will again be shown to have been preventable if only someone had done their job. The next event, successful or not, will not be tolerated by taxpayers. The President has said he won't tolerate it, so why should we? Unfortunately, his proclamation rings empty without those responsible getting the axe!
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Friday, January 8, 2010
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
OBAMA WANTS "CIVILIAN" PARA-MILITARY GROUP?
August 5, 2009
On July 2, 2008, during a campaign appearance in Colorado Springs, candidate Barack Obama was explaining his plans to expand the Peace Corps and the Americorp program when he suddenly made another statement, which has been totally ignored by both mainstream print and broadcast media.
The candidate, now President, said "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
The first response from Obama supporters will be that his statement was taken "out of context". That's sometimes a valid concern, however, we try very hard to be totally objective in our reporting, so a full video clip of his statement from that appearance can be played at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
so watch and decide for yourself.
Granted candidates sometimes say things that they subsequently have to reverse or retract and sometimes they just "stupidly" executing their rhetoric, but this is off the scale. This statement cannot be simply ignored. President Obama must explain exactly what he meant - especially since the plan has apparently been getting the hush-hush from virtually everyone, except for a few independent, truth-seeking bloggers. Why would broadcast news commentators and anchors from programs/networks and editors/investigative reporters from print media, most with fairly obvious political preferences, choose to completely ignore this issue?
Is it too much to ask for the President to disclose what his intentions are/were in relation to this statement, one important enough for him to deliberately include in his prepared speech? Not only would the creation of such a "security force" be a hotly debated issue, it would have a potentially devastating impact on our fragile economy. Well, maybe we've hit on the reason for the silence. Let's hope it's not hidden in the proposed "health care" legislation, most members of Congress have a problem reading an entire bill and midnight additions are common.
Bottom line: All Americans deserve to have an explanation and now!
On July 2, 2008, during a campaign appearance in Colorado Springs, candidate Barack Obama was explaining his plans to expand the Peace Corps and the Americorp program when he suddenly made another statement, which has been totally ignored by both mainstream print and broadcast media.
The candidate, now President, said "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
The first response from Obama supporters will be that his statement was taken "out of context". That's sometimes a valid concern, however, we try very hard to be totally objective in our reporting, so a full video clip of his statement from that appearance can be played at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
so watch and decide for yourself.
Granted candidates sometimes say things that they subsequently have to reverse or retract and sometimes they just "stupidly" executing their rhetoric, but this is off the scale. This statement cannot be simply ignored. President Obama must explain exactly what he meant - especially since the plan has apparently been getting the hush-hush from virtually everyone, except for a few independent, truth-seeking bloggers. Why would broadcast news commentators and anchors from programs/networks and editors/investigative reporters from print media, most with fairly obvious political preferences, choose to completely ignore this issue?
Is it too much to ask for the President to disclose what his intentions are/were in relation to this statement, one important enough for him to deliberately include in his prepared speech? Not only would the creation of such a "security force" be a hotly debated issue, it would have a potentially devastating impact on our fragile economy. Well, maybe we've hit on the reason for the silence. Let's hope it's not hidden in the proposed "health care" legislation, most members of Congress have a problem reading an entire bill and midnight additions are common.
Bottom line: All Americans deserve to have an explanation and now!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)