Amid the escalation of discord, verbal sniping, and finger-pointing within our government representatives, President Obama stated today in his speech to the nation about our lapses in security, “The buck stops with me.” It was Trumanesque, to be sure, but honorable. He took accountability for failures in national security that nearly had disastrous effects on Christmas Day.
The tone he struck calibrated the absolute fact that we are “at war.” The magnitude of his message must not be lost. He called out the CIA and others who had failed to “connect the dots” to the terrorist who had been trained in Yemen. Stopping short of firing individuals as a way of appeasing partisans, Obama set forth strident efforts to be implemented. In one of these changes, he will augment the number of federal air marshals in both domestic and international flights. And the correlation among agencies dealing with national security issues is to become intrinsic, not continue like a sibling rivalry.
As Americans we need to recognize that this war is unlike any we have known. Terrorists are organizing, not only in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but in Yemen and Somalia. Tomorrow another country may be added, and the day after that, yet another country. We need to nullify these terrorists, but it cannot happen through whining which transcends our purpose: to keep America safe. This is the most intellectual game of chess ever played. If we as a nation do not coalesce, we may find ourselves in checkmate. Obama has set the tone. It is incumbent upon our government officials not to eclipse this message and exacerbate our problems by continued discord and self-aggrandizement.
—cher
Tags: absolute fact, christmas day, correlation, disastrous effects, discord, discord in government, dots, escalation, federal air marshals, game of chess, government officials, government representatives, intellectual game, international flights, lapses, magnitude, mea culpa, national security, national security issues, Obama, partisans, self aggrandizement, sibling rivalry, Somalia, terrorists, the buk stops here, Yemen
It’s unfortunate, maybe tragically so, but the Republicans will use this dangerous time to try and score points with voters for the mid-term elections and beyond.
Didn’t one of the Repbulican senators or a right-wing commentator say some months ago something about wishing there was a successful attack to teach people a lesson or somesuch? With those attitudes, what’s the hope for pulling together now?
[Translate]
ChrisJ,
You are so correct. They are already saying that the country was safe when Bush was in office. Gee, didn’t 9/11 happen under his watch?
[Translate]
I have a question to ask but I’m struggling with how to phrase it. It is a genuine question so I’ll dive into it. I trust and approve of Obama (as much as a non-American can). In the past, I felt that the government didn’t take due care and was rushing into war without necessary preparation or the setting of clear, obtainable objectives. I’ve often said that I feel both US and UK are sending off troops like lambs to the slaughter. But as I said, I trust Obama and now tha he is considering expanding military action, do you think he is taking due care?
[Translate]
Emm,
As you aptly stated, in the past, during the Bush administration, I do believe that we rushed into Iraq as a gut-reaction at a terrorist hit on 9/11. But there was also the pretext of WMD’s which did not exist. Bush did not have a proper exit strategy nor did he clearly define his objectives. He also conned (I believe) Tony Blair into being his partner in that, since few others were willing.
Obama, on the other hand, is setting goals for troops in Iraq to begin coming home and to help get some semblance of order in Afghanistan by targeting terrorists. He is learning, as we all are, that they are everywhere. Insipid and deadly, they wait to strike us.
From my point of view Obama is taking due diligence, and though I personally am not happy about us going into Afghanistan, I will trust his motives.
[Translate]
If Obama thinks the buck stops with him maybe he will finally stop blaming other parties. That would be a welcome change. Obama and his people are naive and to have Napolitano say this was an isolated incident when it was not is a joke. Let’s hope Obama can learn faster than the terrorists can attack
[Translate]
Well said Cher. I’m so disgusted with how this country has become so divided. Maybe it was always so and I’m just not old enough to remember. But since I’ve been “involved” with politics it seems to have gotten progressively worse. So bad, that yes, I agree with Chris J, that the Republicans and all their party/voters would almost be happy if something bad happened under Obama’s watch.
If I’m not mistaken wasn’t 9/11 under Bush’s watch? (Maybe I’m wrong, or maybe they blamed it on the Democrats) All I remember is the country came together during that terrible time.
I think the Republicans see the writing on the wall, that their party is becoming obsolete as this country changes and they’re doing everything they can to hold on to some sort of power. It’s sad and alarming.
[Translate]
One of The Guys,
Truthfully, I cannot remember when this country was so divided that HATE has become the order of the day. There was dissension in the Sixties, of course, but leaders in opposing parties did not hoist a flag to slander and rock-solid implacability.
Yep, 9/11 happened under Bush, as did the false information about WMD’s in Iraq. It may have been a simmering pot under the Clinton administration but he kept a lid on it. Theses are indeed frightening times.
[Translate]
Thanks for answering my question! It does seem to help me understand the situation a bit better.
[Translate]
I usually feel that President Obama either doesn’t understand how real of a threat terrorism is or that he just tends to understate it in his speeches. I felt that his speech was a step in the right direction, but I would have liked to have seen him address this sooner. That period were only Gibbs and Napolitano were commenting was rather unsettling. I hope that we’ll continue to hear a tougher message from the president.
[Translate]
Tina T,
Remember that saying from Teddy Roosevelt that stated, “Speak softly and carry a big stick”? I believe Obama has that same style. I think he is also cautious about reacting to situations off-the-cuff, before all the facts are in. That’s why he has Gibbs fielding questions. I would rather have a man who is deliberate in his actions, than one like Bush who was knee-jerk in his style.
[Translate]
I’ve never seen anything like the way so many people are now, almost feverish in their greed, like they know we’re running out of time. It’s all very unsettling.
But I’m also meeting people who are generous and loving, sharing what they have with others and working diligently on their spiritual growth. Won’t it be interesting to see which side wins?
[Translate]
Melody,
We are certainly a house divided, but you gently remind us that there is still good in this world. It is my sincerest wish that it will prevail.
[Translate]