Obama: 'Buck stops with me': The Swamp

Posted January 7, 2010 5:07 PM

See the White House review: Summary of review.pdf

See the order for action: Corrective actions.pdf

See Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair's letter to the intelligence community this evening: Dennis Blair letter.pdf

by Mark Silva and Christi Parsons, updated again at 10 pm EST

President Barack Obama, accepting responsibility for a lapse in intelligence analysis that permitted "a known terrorist'' to board a U.S.-bound airliner carrying explosives, said today that he has ordered immediate steps to improve intelligence and security screening.

"Ultimately the buck stops with me... and when the system fails it is my responsibility,'' Obama said in a stern, 15-minute address from the White House today, as the administration released the summary of the results of an initial review of the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound flight on Christmas Day in which U.S. intelligence agencies did not synthesize a variety of signals that the man posed a threat.

The president said he will hold his agencies and staff "accountable'' for any lapses, but at this stage of the White House's review it appears that the failure to stop a Nigerian man from boarding the Northwest Airlines flight in Amsterdam "was not the fault of a single individual or agency.''

Rather, the president said, it stemmed from a failure of intelligence agencies to synthesize leads that had been collected from Yemen, where the Nigerian was trained, and Nigeria, where the man's father had reported worries about his son.

"I am less interested in passing out blame'' than in improving the intelligence analysis that failed in this case and improving screening of airline travelers, the president said.

"We are at war,'' Obama said in his address from the State Dining Room of the White House.

The president dispatched his homeland security and counterterrorism advisers after his address to explain "how our government failed to connect the dots in a way that would have prevented a known terrorist from boarding an airplane.

"America's first line of defense is timely, accurate intelligence... that is analyzed and acted upon quickly and effectively,'' the president said. "Unfortunately that's not what happened in the lead-up to Christmas Day.''

(President Barack Obama, above, addressing intelligence and security lapses in the attempted bombing of a U.S.-bound plane on Christmas Day, Photo by Olivier Douliery / Abaca Press / MCT)

U.S. intelligence "had learned a great deal about the al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen'' which claimed responsibility for the attempted bombing of the U.S.-bound flight and "we knew they were planning to attack the United States,'' he said. "This contributed to a larger failure of intelligence.... "This in turn fed into shortcomings in the watch-listing system which resulted in this person not being placed on the no-fly list.

"In summary, the U.S. government had the information scattered throughout the system to potentially'' interrupt the botched bombing, which ended with the suspected terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, failing to ignite explosives that were hidden in his underwear. "It was a failure to understand that intelligence that we had.''

In a summary of the review released as the president was speaking, examiners found that "human errors" as well as a "series of systematic breakdowns" prevented the intelligence network from detecting the threat before Abdulmutallab boarded the plane.

The intelligence network had all the information it needed to do so, the report states, but "leadership" of the intelligence community did not increase analytic resources working on the full threat posed by al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula.

That is owed to a "breakdown of accountability for threat warning and response," according to the report, which suggests that the CIA and the National Counterterrorism Center have "primary and overlapping responsibility" to analyze all sources of intelligence.

Watch-list personnel had access to additional "derogatory information" in databases that could have been connected to Abdulmutallab, but that access did not result in their uncovering biographic information that would have been necessary to place him on the watch-list.

"Intelligence fell through the cracks," John O. Brennan, Obama's director of counterterrorism, said during a briefing immediately following the president's remarks.I told the president today that I let him down," Brennan said. "I told him that I will do better and that we will do better as a team."

The president said he had issued several directives to the intelligence community. This includes specifically assigning people to investigate all threats. "We must follow the leads that we get and we must pursue them until plots are disrupted,'' Obama said.

Intelligence reports about threats to the U.S. must be distributed more swiftly, he said -- "We can't sit on information.''

Additionally, intelligence analysis must be improved.

The president said he also has ordered homeland security officials to strengthen the criteria used to assemble watch-lists, including the no-fly list. "But, even the best intelligence can't identify in advance every individual who would do us harm,'' the president conceded.

"There is no silver bullet to securing the thousands of flights'' entering the U.S. each day, he said, but more sophisticated equipment will be put in place - including technology that could have detected the explosive that the Nigerian passenger carried but was not in place at the point where he boarded the airliner. "These are major investments, and they'll make our skies safer and more secure.''

"There is of course no foolproof solution,'' Obama said. "In the never-ending race to protect our country, we have to stay one step ahead of a nimble adversary.''

Although the initial reviews are complete, he said, "we will continue a sustained and intense effort... so that we leave no stone unturned.''

Obama turned to a stern assessment of the broader threat of terrorism that the U.S. faces, while claiming some success in thwarting al Qaeda's ability to carry out its plots.
"We have made progress,'' he said. "Al Qaeda's leadership is hunkered down... and we have disrupted plots at home and abroad and saved American lives...''

The U.S. also has sought "new understandings'' with Muslim communities around the world, he said, maintaining that that vision of progress which the U.S. sponsors "is far more powerful'' than the hatred of enemies. "Great and proud nations don't hunker down and hide behind'' mistrust, he said. "We will define the character of our country, not some small band of men intent on killing men, women and children.

"Now is not a time for partisanship. It's a time for citizenship,'' the president said in closing. "That's how we will prevail in this fight.''

Comments

It's nice to have a President who is willing to take responsibilty for things....unlike Bush and Cheney who are still trying to blame 9/11 on Bill Clinton and Iraq.

Posted by: over do it and have a fit | January 7, 2010 5:12 PM

Since at least last May, extremist right-wing politicians and pundits have been trying to signal our enemies in Al Qaeda that now is the time to strike. They have been waving their arms excitedly and shouting to anyone who will listen that America is less safe and, therefore, vulnerable. They have been partnering with their pals in the press to make sure that the message gets out. And they know full well that the enemy is paying attention.

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=1278

Dick Cheney is the de facto leader of this forward brigade. He outlined the theme over five years ago when he said:

"Terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness."
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=16

And ever since Barack Obama took up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Cheney and his comrades have endeavored to produce the very perception of weakness about which he pretended warn. The question is, how does announcing to the terrorists that our nation is weaker make us safer? Are they just pasting a big bulls eye on America and hoping for an "I told you so" moment? I desperately hope that that's not the case, but there aren't many other plausible explanations.

We need to find a way to defend ourselves that protects both our lives and our way of life. We cannot allow terrorists to take control of our daily affairs. When they observe the effect of their attacks, even those that don't succeed, they regard it as a victory. They cheer as we establish ever more restrictive and intrusive policies that cost us billions of dollars. They see themselves as winning tactically and at the same time draining our financial resources.

This is unacceptable. And the irresponsible, unpatriotic actions of Dick Cheney and company play right into the hands of the enemy. It is good to see that some in the corporate media have started calling out Cheney and his fellow right wing thugs for their reckless behavior. It would be even better if more of the corporate media would do the same. But it is a start and it should be encouraged. Because if the Cheneys of the world have their way it will be a dark world indeed.

Posted by: Lithium | January 7, 2010 5:13 PM

Republicans Think Fear-Mongering Is The Best Way To Fight Terrorism

(R) Peter King wants Pres Obam to use the word 'terrorism' more often.

"New York Rep. Peter King, a leading Republican critic of the White House on terror policy, offered a piece of advice on Good Morning America today: Obama should speak the word "terrorism" more.
"You are saying someone should be held accountable. Name one other specific recommendation the president could implement right now to fix this," host George Stephanopolous said to King.
"I think one main thing would be to -- just himself to use the word terrorism more often," said King, the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee.
.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/King_Use_word_terrorism_more.html?showall

That's right...the GOP's #1 security guy in the House thinks President Obama's biggest failing is that he just doesn't say the word terrorism enough.

Well, if King is so darn eager to be super-terrified then why hasn't he been listening to what the President and the Administration have actually been saying?

For example:

1) 70 examples of remarks by the President mentioning terror or its derivatives.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/search/site/terror?filters=tid%3A19

2) 83 statements or releases.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/search/site/terror?filters=tid%3A21

3) And 64 press briefings.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/search/site/terror?filters=tid%3A20

So why doesn't King know this? Maybe it's because he's off cowering in the corner somewhere. Or maybe he's just a Dick Cheneyish liar.

Posted by: former Republican | January 7, 2010 5:16 PM

Excellent steps, but the question is: Where was Obama's concern about terrorism prior to Christmas Day? Perhaps now he has learned that the safety of the American people MUST take precedent over health care, card check, cap and trade, Nobel prizes, and apologizing to this nation's enemies. Fortunately, 287 people in a plane and potentially thousands on the ground did not have to die for Obama to learn a valuable lesson.

Posted by: Derrock | January 7, 2010 5:25 PM

Improve intelligence? Do you mean a step like not treating this guy like a pursesnatcher? Obama has already failed.

Posted by: ed | January 7, 2010 5:32 PM

Well, isn't this special -- the attempted murder of nearly 300 Americans is "good" for Republican Pete Hoekstra?

Disgraced Blowhard NEWT GINGRICH: "In Michigan, I think Pete Hoekstra is putting together such a good campaign and has gotten such a boost out of having been intelligence committee chairman now with the attempted attack on Detroit that Pete really is becoming a dominant figure in the state."
.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/07/gingrich-hoekstra-boost/

If by dominant, Gingrich means the disgust normal people felt at seeing another Republican (Hoekstra) trying to cash in on the attempted terrorist bombing, then yes, it was great Newt.
.
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/12/candidate_rick_snyder_criticiz.html

Posted by: Nonnie9999 | January 7, 2010 5:52 PM

What did the President know and when did he know it?

OH YEAH.........he was vacationing in Hawaii and could not address the American public for THREE DAYS!!!

Nice job, Prez!!!!

Posted by: RDL1044 | January 7, 2010 6:20 PM

That's right...the GOP's #1 security guy in the House thinks President Obama's biggest failing is that he just doesn't say the word terrorism enough.

Posted by: former Republican | January 7, 2010 5:16 PM

Again, you actually voluntarily bring up the LIBERAL LOGIC: Calling terrorists other more politically correct terms like, "isolated extremist (meaning that this can't happen again; this guy is a loner), or "manmade disaster" will alter the TERRORIST MIND and they will stop wanting to kill us, fall to their knees and sing "God Bless America."

You silly word games only matter to YOU. The terrorists couldn't care less.

Just call a terrorist a terrorist, stop with the Politically Correct nonsense. It gets people killed, like the Fort Hood TERRORIST ATTACK. Maybe if Obama had CALLED IT A TERRORIST ATTACK THE "INTELLIGENCE" NETWORK WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST A LITTLE MORE ALERT. And, he wouldn't have to make 16 days worth of CYA speeches to try and look President and like a strong leader.

Posted by: Free to Watch Whatever I Want | January 7, 2010 6:27 PM

Day 352 of liberals bringing up Bush / Cheney after every Obama article.

Posted by: Mike | January 7, 2010 6:39 PM

********************************************
Again, you actually voluntarily bring up the LIBERAL LOGIC: Calling terrorists other more politically correct terms like, "isolated extremist (meaning that this can't happen again; this guy is a loner), or "manmade disaster" will alter the TERRORIST MIND and they will stop wanting to kill
Posted by: Free to Watch Whatever I Want | January 7, 2010 6:27 PM
______________________

Clown,
As usual, you're missing the point. OBAMA DOES CALL THEM TERRORSITS! And he has done it over and over again. Are you really that dumb or do you just automatically get stupid when you put on your Wingnut hat?

1) 70 examples of remarks by the President mentioning terror or its derivatives.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/search/site/terror?filters=tid%3A19

2) 83 statements or releases.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/search/site/terror?filters=tid%3A21

3) And 64 press briefings.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/search/site/terror?filters=tid%3A20

Posted by: former Republican | January 7, 2010 6:48 PM

RDL 1044,
Bush didn't address the shoe bomber incident until six days after the event, and took no responsibility. It's usually a good idea to collect some facts before you address such a situation, don't you think? Let's look at how Bush handled a simialar situation:
.
On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid, the 'shoe-bomber,' attempted to detonate explosives on an American airliner. On December 27, Usama Bin Laden issued a new, menacing videotape. How did the Bush administration respond to these dramatic events? How did CNN cover the response?

Bush's response was to plant a live oak tree and go for a jog, and follow 'through on his promise to get a little bit of rest and relaxation on this trip down here to Crawford.' CNN reported this as a good thing. Bush also declined to comment on the Bin Laden tape, and CNN helpfully explained this silence as a wise decision not to respond to someone who 'might be dead.' (???)

The next day, on Dec. 28, Bush affirmed of Bin Laden, "He is not escaping us." He explained that this was because Bin Laden was no longer 'in control' of Afghanistan. But he never had been, and anyway his supposed loss of influence there (not clear even in 2010) would not constitute 'not escaping us.'

Then Bush went on to talk about the shoe bomber: "The shoe bomber was a case in point where the country has been on alert. A stewardess on American Airlines flight... A flight attendant on American Airlines flight was vigilant, saw something amiss and responded. It's an indication that the culture of America has shifted to one of alertness. I'm grateful for the flight attendant's response as I'm sure the passengers are from the airplane. We've got to be aware that there are still enemies to the country and our government is responding accordingly."

Isn't that a way of saying that the system was working? What else could "our government is responding accordingly" have meant?

Posted by: America the Stupid | January 7, 2010 6:53 PM

obama accepted responsibility? Does that mean is going to resign? If not, then that acceptance of responsiblity is meaningless.

This guy is a clown.

Posted by: Melinda Hansen | January 7, 2010 6:54 PM

Nothing new here....
Panty waist should, and could have taken blame for his in-actions and being inept last week, but golfing comes first....this terrorism,er...man caused disaster stuff can wait a week or two.

Paulo

Posted by: Paulo | January 7, 2010 6:56 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What did the President know and when did he know it?OH YEAH.........he was vacationing in Hawaii and could not address the American public for THREE DAYS!!!Nice job, Prez!!!!

Posted by: RDL1044 | January 7, 2010 6:20 PM
_______________________

That's funny, I don't seem to remember any of you bed wetting Repugs crying about Bush not addressing the media for SIX days after the failed shoe bomber attack.
.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/29/bush-waited-nine-days-to_n_406307.html

What do you want Wingnuts? Do you want Obama to vacation in Texas so he can shove a cod pice down his pants and pretend to be cutting brush on his fake ranch everytime there's an emergency? Would that make you crybabies feel safer?
.
http://yellowcakewalk.net/2006-07-01/bush_codpiece.jpg

Posted by: HHH | January 7, 2010 6:59 PM

====================
Day 352 of liberals bringing up Bush / Cheney after every Obama article.

Posted by: Mike | January 7, 2010 6:39 PM
_________________

Yeah, because 3000+ people dying on 9/11 is so much LESS important than some idiot failing to light his underwear on fire......not.

This is getting really old, when are you phony tough guy Republicans going to quit sceaming for mommy everytime a terrorist says BOO? You're a pathetic bunch of hacks, even my seven year old is laughing at you...

Posted by: Annie | January 7, 2010 7:07 PM

Hey Wingnuts!

It's OK to come out from under your beds now!

The underwear bomber failed!

ALL CLEAR!!!!!!

Posted by: OMG! Help Me! | January 7, 2010 7:11 PM

Former Republican said:

"Clown,
As usual, you're missing the point. OBAMA DOES CALL THEM TERRORSITS! And he has done it over and over again. Are you really that dumb or do you just automatically get stupid when you put on your Wingnut hat?"

Maybe if Obama called them "terrorists" instead of "terrorsits," they'd be nice to us!!

I think Obama should bow to Osama Bin Laden next, don't you?

Posted by: Otis | January 7, 2010 7:15 PM

I LOVE THE SMELL OF MISPLACED REPUBLICAN FEAR AND ANGER IN THE MORNING. IT SMELLS LIKE....DICK CHENEY.

Posted by: Bill Kilgore | January 7, 2010 7:51 PM

Obama was given a train wreck at Homeland Security by Bush.

They can't find the critical data because they are collecting too much useless data. They have too many political programs (pro GOP) that collect data on law abiding citizens that have near zero probability of committing terrorist acts.

The system needs to be focused on finding actual terrorists.

The Bush administration took a "needle in a haystack" and added ten more tons of hay in the form of useless information. It's going to take a good 30-40 years to clean up all of the messes they made of everything everywhere.

Posted by: obionekinobe | January 7, 2010 8:00 PM

There was once a time when, if the nation were under attack, even the strictest of right wing partisan hacks like Republican Jim Demint would put away their petty squabbling and try their best to figure out how to make the United States a safe haven for its citizens.

You see, Demint has been one of the loudest screaming bedwetters on the right ever since that wannabe Al-Qaeda guy lit his underwear on fire in Detroit on X-Mas...while also failing to mention that it is he who is holding up the Homeland Security TSA Leadership nomination of Errol Southers. If Demint has some personal problems with Southers past issues with his ex wife that's fine, just say so. But Nooooo, despite what Demint might be saying now, his hold on the nomination had nothing to do with that, and it had nothing to do with keeping America safe. Nope, Jim Demint is holding up Southers TSA nomination because he see's it as way to union bust, period, end of story. Someone needs to remind Demint that the heroes who ran into the burning Twin Towers to save people on 9/11 were: UNION WORKERS!

While DeMint insists that "America must use every tool at its disposal" to fight terrorism, he clearly doesn't mind if the toolbox is a little light as long as he can bust on the hard working blue collar union workers a little. And though he professes to be "a strong supporter of the men and women" who keep us safe from terrorism, he doesn't seem to include the hard-working TSA (union workers or not) in that equation.
.
http://blog.buzzflash.com/honors/267
.

Posted by: Vito | January 7, 2010 8:03 PM

YADA YADA YADA ALL TALK AND NO ACTION

Posted by: Bob | January 7, 2010 8:04 PM

The Republican crybabies in this country always overreact and panic after any sort of national emergency. And by doing so they are telling Al Qaeda and every other extremist group on Earth that a significant portion of the American political spectrum (Republicans) will:

~ Wet their pants quickly and easily.

~ Will always focus obsessively with defending ourselves from the last attack and using it to score political points instead of coming together and looking for answers with the rest of America

~ Emote such instant panic and terror that they can transform a humiliatingly unspinnable tactical failure (underwear bomber) into something with the national impact of a successful and devastating terrorist attack.

~ Believe that theater, noise and mind games meant to build a false sense of safety and security will 'beat' terrorism. When all it does is make the next attack even more psychologically devistating because people thought they were "safe" now.

If Osama Bin Ladin had the personel, he could paralyze the United States with a random suicide bombing a week. A movie theatre one week. A restaurant in Seattle the next. A public library in Oklahoma the next. It couldn't be stopped. Our free society wouldn't allow the entire nation to be paralyzed to the point where it could be prevented.

It hasn't happened, and that should tell the national right wing bed-wetting brigade, that considers themselves 'tough guy terrorist fighters' ,that they are Al Qaida's best friends.

Al Qaida is being aided by the right, and the terror is being amplified, by their willing irrationally to surrender our freedoms to protect our freedoms mindset.

It's time for them to re-assess the value of freaking out and unwisely and rashly putting band-aid psychological affirmations of false safety ahead of soberly examining what will, and what will not, work as a defensive strategy.

We live in a free society. You can't be 100% safe from evil people or organizations, even if we surrender everything that makes the US the US in the name of feeling safe. Republicans, if you're still to scared to understand that....leave.

Posted by: Jim Shortz | January 7, 2010 8:13 PM

========================
Panty waist should, and could have taken blame for his in-actions and being inept last week, but golfing comes first....this terrorism,er...man caused disaster stuff can wait a week or two.
Posted by: Paulo | January 7, 2010 6:56 PM
_____________________

Pablo,
You seem to be obsessing with the word "panty waist" all the time. Sounds like you're compensating for something.

Quit being a whiny baby and act like a man, Pablo. As much as Dick Cheney wants you to think it, there isn't an Al-Qaeda underwear bomber hiding under your bed.

Posted by: Gotti | January 7, 2010 8:24 PM

==========================
obama accepted responsibility? Does that mean is going to resign? If not, then that acceptance of responsiblity is meaningless.This guy is

Posted by: Melinda Hansen | January 7, 2010 6:54 PM
======================

Really? So why didn't Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Condi all fire themselves after 9/11?

What do you want Obama to do, tuck you into bed every night and then fly to Amsterdam and personally check everyones bags?

Grow up, you wimp.

Posted by: Gillian Roberts | January 7, 2010 8:30 PM

I have some intelligence for the President involving terrorists: You go over to the executive floors at Goldman Sachs...Henry Paulson and Tim Geitner can give you directions...

C'mon. There have been, are, and always will be crazy people screwing with planes.

Round up the people who really damaged this country.

Posted by: DGS | January 7, 2010 8:44 PM

Hey Paula,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3p9y_OEAdc

Posted by: Rod Serling ♫♫ | January 7, 2010 9:06 PM

Until we get rid of the political correctness stupidity that seems to prevail in every corner of this country, we are no match for any terrorist.

Our so-called homeland security measures do nothing more than irritate and annoy people, without giving us any real protection.

We must begin to realize that it is muslim, of middle eastern descent, young men that are the terrorists. It's not the blacks, whites, indians, or asians that we should be so worried about.

Our present security system is no more than a slow suicide for our culture.

Posted by: David W. Lamar | January 7, 2010 9:37 PM

"Ultimately the buck stops with me... and when the system fails it is my responsibility,''

This is what the rabid really want. This whole thing never was about security to the GOP, it was about politics. Bravo to the self proclaimed, but nothing like ..... "great Americans".

Posted by: bill r. | January 7, 2010 9:50 PM

"Utimately, the buck stops with me...."
~Panty waist.

But first, let me spend the first 14 minutes of my 15 minute speech trashing everything, and everyone else and do a little finger pointing.

And bill r. fell for it....

Paulo

Posted by: Paulo | January 7, 2010 10:34 PM

Can Obama be much worse?

Why is this terrorist in the civil justice system?

Where are we going to find a "jury of his peers?"

These liberals are such a joke.

Posted by: Alz | January 7, 2010 11:59 PM

Former, Obama does NOT call them terrorists. He makes mention of terrorism, but when it came down to the brass tacks on Fort Hood, Obama acted like the shooter's defense attorney, lecturing about how WE shouldn't jump to conclusions blah, blah, blah. This was an isolated incident etc; same thing he initially said about the underwear bomber.

YOU can try and spin it, but it won't fly.

American's have seen Obama bow down. But, I'm sure that if you asked him why he is bombing villages with drones, he would reply to kill terrorists. Funny that they don't get Miranda rights.

Poor Obama, trying to please wack job liberals while still having to kill to protect their white flag waving souls.

Posted by: Free to Watch Whatever I Want | January 8, 2010 12:29 AM

I haven't seen any mention of how quickly the Obama administration tried to release as much info as it could to the public vs. Bush's endless stonewalling when it came to releasing any info that could prove politically damaging. I can't imagine the Bush crime family offering up this kind of report to the public without a subpoena.

Posted by: Buzz Lightyear | January 8, 2010 3:45 AM

Obama is only saying what he knows people want to hear…I don't know who is putting the words into his mouth but they are not his real plans for this country…he has seen his poll numbers drop drastically…this is the only reason he has FINALLY decided to speak in this way…again, TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE!!!

Posted by: life jackets | January 8, 2010 5:59 AM

Wow, the list of tactics in the article is both amazing and sickening. I urge everyone to read the article.

Obama and the White House Chicago Boys

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/obama_and_the_white_house_chic.html

Posted by: Thank God I'm Conservative | January 8, 2010 7:04 AM

"Can Obama be much worse?
Why is this terrorist in the civil justice system?
Where are we going to find a "jury of his peers?"
These liberals are such a joke.
Posted by: Alz | January 7, 2010 11:59 PM"

The same place they found Reid's peers.
You realize that was under BushCo?
Were was the outrage then?
Go have a nice cry with Becky.

Posted by: C.Morris✧ | January 8, 2010 7:53 AM

Posted by: Derrock | January 7, 2010 5:25

Playing golf.

Posted by: Inky | January 8, 2010 10:14 AM

Inky...Please explain why you failed to mention that when the shoe bomber attempt failed, Bush planted a live oak and went for a jog, then 6 days later addressed it.

Posted by: bill r. | January 8, 2010 10:34 AM

Look left (read the teleprompter) look right (read the teleprompter)

insert serious look

Look left (read the teleprompter) look right (read the teleprompter)

Posted by: springfield | January 8, 2010 11:18 AM

The GOP seems to be complaining quite a bit. What people in the Bush administration lost their jobs right away when thousands of Americans actually died as a result of Bush not heeding intelligence reports before 9/11 that stated 'planes would be flown into buildings? Bush, Cheney and the GOP had a horrible lapse in intelligence and prevention on 9/11. Our biggest terrorist hit on American soil happened on the GOP watch. And THEY are %itch!ng now? Those talking heads have to be reminded of this every time--especially when others like Ghouliani are painting their own picture on morning TV.

Posted by: Vivian | January 8, 2010 11:28 AM

Meanwhile, the Airline Corporations go on their merry way. Let Uncle Sam take care of my work area. What the heck, we are no different than any other Corporation in America. Let the taxpayers make our airports, safe and secure. That is what they are there for, right !!? Just ask the Banks, The Investment Houses, The Mortgagers, the Pharmaceuticals, The slick Oil Corps, GM and her weak sisters. Just to name a few dependents, claiming to be capitalists !! Ha-Ha !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | January 8, 2010 11:33 AM

The buck didn't stop with Mr. Obama - it started. There is plenty of fault to go around with both parties about the economy, but there is no excuse with the President's never-ending crusade to tell the rest of the world the U.S. is to blame and we're not a leader any more. He should be looking at a mirror when he spews this venom. His shrinking majority in Congress knows what's what which is one reason why they're bailing out. The other is that a number of them face legal issues and they'll have to find a way to pay for that.

Posted by: Oak Park Lefty | January 8, 2010 11:35 AM

Mmmm... Mmmm... Mmmm...
Barack Hussein Obama
The 2010 election clock is tickin
We Told You So that he was chicken
Barack Hussein Obama
Mmmm... Mmmm... Mmmm...

Except for his increasing the troop levels in Afghanistan, that is....
War monger.

Posted by: Roy Rogers | January 8, 2010 1:11 PM

Terrorism 101, Semester One

Having the Obamians in charge of the America’s security is like a teacher appointing the wimpiest kid in a class full of rowdies to take names during the teacher’s brief absence. The kid will be lucky to escape with a bloody nose and a broken limb or two.

So will we.

When the boss man refuses to acknowledge that there’s a worldwide war in progress with Islamic jihadists pitted against Western civilization, with the United States designated as the epicenter for another Ground Zero, there’s not much hope for the good guys.

(Note to the Obamians: We are the good guys!)

To be fair, on Thursday, with his back up against the obvious, the president did finally say, “We are at war, we are at war against al Qaeda.” As CNS added, that was ”a departure from the administration’s move in 2009 to discontinue the phrase ‘Global War on Terrorism’ from U.S. policy:” http://bit.ly/8hKF39

So, the new policy simply materialized as a result of Umar Farouk Abdulmutellab’s flubbed Muslim present to Americans on Christmas Day, whereas Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan murdering 12 and wounding 30 at Fort Hood while screaming, “Alahu Akbar” is still untrelated to al Qaeda?

Pardon me, Mr. President, but that doesn’t make any sense and if it does in your mind, why didn’t you connect the Fort Hood dot with the NWA dot when you declared this war which has been going on for years?

I repeat, the boss man refuses to acknowledge that there’s a worldwide war in progress with Islamic jihadists. . .

Posted by: Berlet98 | January 8, 2010 4:10 PM

Barack Hussein Obama talks a good game but plays nasty. He can talk the talk but not bother to walk the walk. Today he said it was not time for partisanship rather citizenship. He is too ignorant to understand that concept. Nothing but an overeducated idiot with NO moral values.

This flippin idiot is a MORON!

Posted by: Subnshine Connie | January 8, 2010 9:10 PM

What a joke. Obama say the buck stops with him, but I hear them using Bush's name quite a bit.

How about jobs? Does the buck stop with him on that? The employment situation is dismal and dire.

See...
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/01/obama-recovery-john-galt-tipping-point.html

It's a mess..a big liberal mess.

Posted by: Alz | January 9, 2010 9:40 PM

good post

Posted by: uggs outlet | August 29, 2010 3:56 PM