On a light note, read the following from the American Thinker:
Top Ten reasons it took Obama 3 days to respond to terror attempt
William Tate
"Barack Obama has received considerable criticism for waiting three days to address the attempted Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Flight 253. In the holiday spirit of giving, I would like to offer Obama ... the Top 10 excuses Obama can use for why it took him so long to speak up.
10. My teleprompter was on vacation last week.
9. Polishing a Nobel Prize takes longer than you think.
8. It was Bush's fault. (Hey, it worked last year.)
7. The waves here in Hawaii are bitchen, dude.
6. Janet Napolitano said the system worked great, even if I couldn't get email on my Blackberry for a while there.
5. This sort of thing just ain't supposed to happen on my watch.
4. It was Bush's fault.
3. Axelrod never told me I'd have to work holidays.
2. I was busy celebrating Festivus.
And the Number One excuse Obama can give for taking so long to respond to the attempted attack on Northwest Flight 253:
I was busy looking for my birth certificate."
On a more serious note, read about the interesting priorities of our commander-in-chief, also from the American Thinker:
Strange priorities in Obamaland
Andrew Thomas
"Let me get the facts straight. On Christmas day, an al-Qaida associated suicide bomber nearly incinerates a planeload of Americans over Detroit. Our fearless leader makes a flaccid statement three days later, decrying the act. What took three days? Was he busy golfing, shooting hoops, or just working out at the gym?
Later on that day, the son of a friend who was vacationing with the Obama family in Hawaii has a minor accident. The nine year-old son of Dr. Eric Whitaker bumps his head during a surfing lesson. Obama instantly interrupts his golf game to rush back to his luxury resort and check on his friend's son's condition. As it turns out, he is fine.
My question is: Why does a friend's son get immediate attention while the safety of American citizens takes three days of vacation before getting around to addressing it? Obama reveals himself again?"
Good point.
UPDATE: BTW, take note, Diogenes, to the last sentence in the second article. You will notice that I did not post the name the author gave to President Obama, but instead, out of respect for his office, replaced it with his name. You forgot to acknowledge that I do that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
How many days did it take for Bush to comment on the arrest of Richard Reid? You remember him, the "Shoe Bomber"? The guy who tried to use the same kind of explosives on a commercial airliner eight years ago, in December 2001?
Six days. Not three.
What took Bush so long? Did it take that long to defibrillate Dick Cheney, so that Cheney could tell Bush what to say?
And, speaking of which, would somebody kindly tell Cheney to STFU?
Richard Reid tried the same kind of explosive eight years ago. How come the Bush administration never worked to get technology developed to detect that explosive? Nawww.... let's just tell airline passengers that they can't carry on any liquids; that'll solve the problem!
(Maybe George was too busy capturing Osama bin Laden? Oooops)
And when they caught Reid, what did they do? Did they put him in front of a military tribunal and charge him as an enemy combatant? Uhhhh, no. They arrested Reid and charged him as a criminal in federal court. Just like Abdulmutalib has been charged.
Yeah, but where's Reid now? In a SuperMax prison just down the interstae from where I live, as a matter of fact. Haven't lost a minute's sleep over that, either; nobody's EVER escaped from SuperMax.
And Cheney complains that Obama can't shut down Gitmo, because it's full of dangerous terrorists. Really? Is that why you and George let the two guys who actually planned the Christmas Day caper OUT of Gitmo in 2007?
But Cheney says all this is just evidence that the Obama administration doesn't know how to deal with terrorism. Why, because they're following your lead, Dick?
There's no doubt that we need to do something, probably more than what we're doing now. I don't know that Americans have the stomach for it, quite frankly; we're all so spoiled that we bitch and moan about long security lines, so they ease up to keep us from whining, and then we rage when somebody slips through.
The one thing we certainly do NOT need is some old olitical hack trying to score cheap political points and cover his own sorry nutt.
STFU, Dick. (And I don't use that term often, Ms. Moore.I hope you can appreciate my use of the acronym and not releagte my comment to your trash bin, like you do so many other comments you can't agree with.)
When you put something inside of quotation marks, Ms. Moore, it means you're quoting it verbatim. If you made changes to the original text in some manner you're supposed to [bracket] your change. Not seeing any brackets, the assumption is that you didn't change anything. And I sure as heck am not going to waste my time going to yet another rightwingnut blog to verify whether or not you've quoted them accurately, or if you've made any editorial changes of your own.
But it does raise an interesting question: how often , would you guesstimate, you've made that sort of change? Have you EVER done it before now? :-)
Actually, I've done it quite a few times. Toby Harnden at the UK Telegraph frequently refers to Obama as "President Pantywaist". As much as I would like to call Obama that when I post his articles, I don't.
I'll try to remember to use brackets in the future.
Post a Comment