Hope and Change versus Political Favoritism, andl Pandering

Submitted by LOU FROM QUEENS,NYC, USA (United States), Dec 29, 2009 at 15:26

Concerning this latest terrorist event, let's start off with Homeland Security Chief - Janet Napolitano saying that "everything worked as it should". Oh really, lets see, a guy with powerful explosives in his underwear boards a commercial aircraft coming to America. As the plane is about to land his pants begin to smoke, and fellow travelers' subdue him, and hold him for the authorities. Lucky for them, the young (23 yr old) Islamic fanatic did not mix the ingredients right, and probably only burned his private parts which by most accounts got very little usage. Except maybe for a few good times with his fellow Yemeni Islamic brother warriors. Lets keep in mind that this man was turned in by his own affluent Nigerian (self made) father who had spend a fortune trying to educate his weird son to become a productive, happy, and successful man. And the little creep turned into a mutant, how sad.

Now lets talk about the way the very liberal main stream media handles this story. If it was Bush/Cheney they would be bring up George W's paltry national guard service, and Cheney's draft deferments.

Yet what exactly are the qualifications of our current administration concerning the war on terrorism, and our national defense?

Concerning my own criteria concerning: police, military, or intelligence gathering experience, here are the facts concerning the topic:

The President- Barrack Obama has no experience.

The Vice President - Joe Biden has no experience (in fact got 5 draft deferments during the Vietnam War). The last one was for asthma, hmmm, anybody but me knows, or remembers Teddy Roosevelt's fight with that same illness ? And that was decades before the advent of "modern medicine".

The head of Homeland Security - Janet Napolitano- was given the position of district attorney by Bill Clinton, then won two terms as governor of Arizona. In the first race she won the vote by less then one (1) percent. Arizona has the worse record concerning the border control issues with Mexico, and there is growing concern about the number of "other than Mexicans" that have recently been arrested trying to enter our country from that state.

The Director of the CIA - Leon Panetta, was drafted during the Vietnam War and served two years. He worked briefly with the civil rights division under Nixon, resigned, then moved to NYC where he become a supporter of ultra-liberal, unpopular, Mayor John Lindsay. He was later appointed Chief of Staff to the Clinton administration and aggressively supported Clinton's - " 30 percent -reduction in forces" military spending and intelligence gathering cuts during that period.

Again not having any real intelligence background, nor ever working for the CIA he was never the less been appointed Director by Obama.

So of the five major players who are responsible for defending our country against both foreign, and domestic terrorism only one is left.

Director of the FBI - Robert Muller- served in Vietnam with the Marines, and received both the Bronze Star, and Purple Heart. Along with his background in the FBI he was also an Attorney General. So at least as far as domestic terrorism, and crime, one out of five people responsible for keeping our beloved country safe is the very least somebody we should all be grateful for.

Once again we are dealing with the "classic argument" between liberals and conservatives concerning intelligence, and national security. To my mind there is no possible way that "political correctness" and "protecting the public interest" can compromise their positions. A simple way is to give an example of what I am talking about. The NYPD police get a call that a tall white man is robbing Chinese stores in their ethnic neighborhood every week. Would you expect the police to put out an alert on just a "tall guy", would you round up every tall Asian, Black, and Hispanic male looking for the suspect ? I can even remember that when the police first put up surveillance camera's in Washington Square Park, (because of aggressive drug dealers) in New York's Greenwich Village, the ACLU opposed the cameras citing the invasion of personal privacy. The later opposed camera's in NYC's Central Park at various areas after several rapes, murders, muggings had occurred in in that same park. Lucky for us, they lost, and even my Coop building has security camera's that have helped the police solve a couple of crimes in the last decade. So perhaps its about time that we think about profiling people who have travelled to, or come from known terrorist states, instead of harassing the rest of us who are innocent victims', directly or indirectly because of their psychotic, cowardly, terrorist actions. Criminals should be the victims' of the state, not innocent people !!!!

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".