After discovering that the federal no-fly list failed to keep Faisal Shahzad off a Dubai-bound commercial flight, there is only one thing to say: It’s becoming clear that the system that has been in place for years now is not sufficiently up to date to take full advantage of the information we collect and the knowledge we have.
Actually, that was said, word for word, by President Obama – back in December. He was talking about alleged Nigerian underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who managed to board a Northwest flight bound for Detroit, despite intelligence agencies having long been aware of the threat he posed.
That “systemic failure” led to an immediate investigation of the no-fly-list system. That investigation led, four months later, to Faisal Shahzad seated in an upright position, cash-bought ticket in hand, and ready to take off after allegedly trying to set Times Square ablaze.
What did the December investigation produce? At the time, Bloomberg reported, “Obama directed intelligence agencies to collect all information in government files that could be related to the bombing attempt, the date it was collected and how it had been shared between different departments. He also requested the criteria used for placing people on terrorist watch lists.”
It sounds reassuringly presidential, doesn’t it? But somehow we’re still left with street vendors and New York City Police as our first line of defense. This administration is great with broad, visionary talk: the universal this, international that, and historic other. But the particulars are another story. Whether it’s getting individual Gitmo detainees relocated, explaining health-care reform, or making sure that suspected terrorists don’t get on airplanes, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and Janet Napolitano are hopelessly adrift. This is an administration so swept up in its own sense of destiny it’s simply not governing in the here and now.
From an online dictionary:
rook·ie (rk)
n.
1. Slang
a. An untrained or inexperienced recruit, as in the army or police.
b. An inexperienced person; a novice.
2. Sports A first-year player, especially in a professional sport.
You are right on the mark with the “shocking indeed” comment on the lack of preparedness. This has been a thing that has puzzled me since the primaries ended and Obama embarked on the tun-up to the Convention.
Obama’s long and close association with Uncle Jerry surfaces, as was inevitable. The Obama campaign is abviously totally off-guard, fumbling for response. The Ayers/Dohrn relationship is brought up: he was just a neighbor. How could a politician start a campaign for the highest office in our Nation and fail to do the rudimental strategic CYA preparation for attacks that were 100% sure to happen?
A combination of supreme hubris with stupidity should certainly represent a formula for failure. But the MSM swoons and pees down its collective leg at the magic of his singing, of the songs he doesn’t sing very well.
There’s another advantage to having Hillary on the ticket. She could show him how to have the “missing” documents mysteriously show up in his bedroom after a couple of years.
My mostly hard-and-fast rule: the only people who act like they have something to hide, usually DO have something to hide.
In Obama’s case, it’s probably NOT this article that he’s been hiding (b/c it doesn’t seem all that incriminating, especially when compared to his infanticide votes and lies), but another article that hasn’t yet surfaced.
“They simply took his word on a variety of matters which turn out not to be exactly as The One recollected.”
Barack Obama is a liar. This is solidly established. The odds are high that he hid some basic facts from his own staff. More is sure to come.
By this time in 1971 George McGovern was way down in the polls. Everybody took it for granted that Richard Nixon would easily win. It is shocking that Obama still has a realistic chance of capturing the White House. Self hating Americanism is now embraced by many voters. No other explanation seems reasonable.
First, they are relying on a “no snitch” rule from most of their past friends, which I think will see them through.
Second, I think the left really felt that since this was their election, they had a right to have whoever they wanted, they were owed. Like being on a diet for a while, you are going to have the richest, most special treat you can find.
Obama won the straw poll of the June 2007 Take Back America conference of the Campaign for America’s Future with 29% of the vote, narrowly out-polling Edwards. This con-fab featured Robert Borosage’s talk “Now is our time” and Keith Ellison “Our time has come”. Hillary was booed.
So their caucus strategy worked really well. No need to vet. He is their man. The Democratic wing of the Democratic Party has spoken. What Dem leader is going to say no?
“It is shocking that Obama still has a realistic chance of capturing the White House. Self hating Americanism is now embraced by many voters. No other explanation seems reasonable.”
Well, there is, if not another explaination, then at least a contributing factor to the fact that Obama has at least a fighting chance to win the presidency in November. It is that Americans have been deeply stupified by the public education system and many of them are not only ignorant of basic facts but worse yet, they simply don’t know how to reason.
Dead_Ender – “Americans have been deeply stupified by the public education system ”
Hasn’t that always been the plan?
One has only to interview a few top graduates of an inner city high school to see the practical result of Democratic Party “compassion” for minorities. All achieved by application of educational, legal and disciplinary policies presented as motivated by caring.
Sully,
Yes, dumbing down has been a hidden objective of public education at least since John Dewey and his secular wrecking crew from Columbia gained influence.
And the dumbing down is not limited to minorities and inner cities; suburban areas and white students are also stunted, albeit not as severely.
I like Fred’s word “enstupidation” better than “dumbing down” but I agree that it must be a leading reason why Barack Hussein Obama could be seen as a serious presidential candidate.
On an unrelated note: my spell-checker highlights Barack and Obama but not Hussein.