After the attempted Christmas Day bombing, Obama stayed in Hawaii and played golf. His administration has botched the investigation of the Fort Hood jihadist. And now, we’ve had the attempted car bombing in Times Square. How did Obama handle that? He cut New York’s anti-terror funding just 11 days later:
Eleven days after the botched plot to bomb Times Square, the Obama administration on Wednesday slashed some $53 million from the city’s terror-fighting budget.
“For the administration to announce these cuts two weeks after the attempted Times Square bombing shows they just don’t get it and are not doing right by New York City,” fumed Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
To top it off, the news arrives as President Obama comes to town today amid buzz he will meet with the very cops who helped thwart the bombing.
Obama will also be tapping the city’s deep pockets for the Democratic Party.
“The President seems more interested in raising money for political campaigns than providing New York the money it needs to defend itself against Islamic terrorism,” said Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.), the top Republican on the Homeland Security Committee.
Bingo, Rep. King.
This has apparently been in the works since December, but one would think that after New York was the subject of an attempted terrorist attack, he would reconsider. Even Chuck Schumer is astounded by this. Obama clearly doesn’t understand the concept of homeland security, and I’ve got a feeling that he probably wouldn’t care even if he did. He’s perfectly fine trying to squeeze more money out of New Yorkers for himself, but he isn’t willing to spend a little to keep them safe. If this administration, the most spend-happy administration in decades, isn’t willing to spend money on something, then you know it’s got to be low on their priority list.
Of course, they’re trying to dance around the issue, too.
Homeland Security Department spokesman Matthew Chandler begged to differ with New York’s interpretation, insisting his agency is “actively engaged in supporting New York City’s first responders and overall preparedness.”
He argued that in 2009, the administration gave the area more than $457 million for “terrorism and other threats.” He blamed Congress for appropriating less money for 2010, and an administration official said if New York includes the cash it got from the economic stimulus bill passed in 2009, it’s actually getting $47.3 million more than last year for ports and transit protection.
King was unimpressed by that math, arguing the stimulus cash is a one-time payout that won’t be repeated.
“That’s a story they’re coming up with at the last minute, because an hour ago they were saying they couldn’t give us the money because Congress only allocated $300 million,” he said. “Actually, Obama only asked for $250 million.”
It’s always someone else’s fault. It’s never Obama’s fault, or the administration’s fault. It’s because of George Bush, or Congress, or the ignorant hick Tea Partiers — anyone except themselves.
New York is the number one terror target, and our clueless president is cutting anti-terror funding. If you need the definition of an amateur who doesn’t care about protecting the lives of Americans, look up Obama’s name in the dictionary.
Cross-posted at The Green Room, Stop the ACLU, and Liberty Pundits.
Chris M-G says: Of course the biggest factual error here is that said cops did not thwart anything- the bomb diffused itself. We were lucky.
Ann Coulter says the Obama administration’s counter-terrorism strategy is to hope the bombs don’t go off. A persistent characteristic of Coulter rhetoric is that it is inflammatory. Another persistent characteristic is that the facts back it up. Insert frowny face here.
This has apparently been in the works since December, but one would think that after New York was the subject of an attempted terrorist attack, he would reconsider.
This makes the situation worse, IMO. It makes it worse because it makes the whole parable much simpler, almost suitable for condensation into a Hans Christian Andersen or Brothers Grimm fairy tale. See, “we all” voted for Obama because the desire was for a champion to emerge who would soothe our emotions and make sure “hope is in the air.” We got precisely what we wanted. A cheerleader. Managers like Obama do not labor to alter the outcome, with regard to anything save a narrow sliver of issues within their immediate concerns. They are status quo. What they manage, is our emotional reaction to things. They are there to encourage us to accept things we otherwise would not.
They are like the customer service representative on the phone, who wastes our time, letting us figure out for ourselves we are talking to the wrong person. Changing nothing, just throwing useless bromides at us to stop us from litigating.
I have other words for those other matters on which Obama wants to be a force of advocacy, as opposed to “leadership.” On those matters He does real harm. But I think the more potent lesson for us all to learn is with regard to these management issues in which His harm is passive. Anyone who’s worked for any length of time, has had a boss like this. It does not make you want to go to work any earlier or work any harder.
Poor Chuck Schumer. First the Israel hatred and now this. It’s funny to watch it dawn him that the idol has feet of clay. Never mind that he and all the other disillusioned liberals had to have been blind and comatose not to see it coming. And it’s a little late for regret now.
Smithwick says: Have to save money somewhere so we can guarantee the survivors of the next attack can get free 2nd rate government healthcare to treat their injuries. Well, when a bed opens up, try again in a month.
6 Comments