Saturday, January 17, 2009

Obama administration cannot plan security for a party?

The link to the story is here...

Millions are expected to make the pilgrimage to see him place his left hand on Abraham Lincoln's burgundy velvet-bound Bible to take the inaugural oath.

The US Secret Service is overseeing a security force of more than 40,000 people, including 7,500 active duty soldiers, 10,000 National Guard troops and 25,000 law-enforcement officers, FOX News reported.

That surpasses the 31,000 American troops serving in Afghanistan.

If, as expected, a record crowd turns out for Obama's inauguration, Washington will be ready with the largest number of security people ever assembled in the capital.

Intelligence officials say there are no specific threats, but they acknowledge that the high visibility of the inauguration, the presence of dignitaries and the significance of swearing in the first Black president make it a vulnerable target.


I read this...

"We have to be prepared for the lone individual who will try to interrupt the event all the way up to a terrorist organization," FOX news quoted Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan, as saying.

Huh, terrorism? What terrorism? I thought most of the left thinks this terrorism is a sham...maybe they are worried about Bill Ayers showing up?

Where is the hypocrisy now?

Here is what I cannot get over, they are still calling folks up for this thing, because security was not properly planned....I am still hearing of units getting called up NOW.

So we are trusting this administration with National Security, but they cannot plan security for "a historic event"...


Wendy said...

Our guys left yesterday.

Two days on a bus, 3 days at the Capitol, another 2 days on a bus.

Most were not amused.

Guard Wife said...

What a mess.

I become dizzy just trying to follow all the circular arguments. Then, my stomach becomes upset. Then, I puke. So, I'm just skipping the entire mess.

Marc Miyake said...

That surpasses the 31,000 American troops serving in Afghanistan.

Good to see our government has its priOrities straight.

What terrorism?

As kevin might say, don't forget about the Europpressive Crusaders still on the loose. And what about the geese?

maybe they are worried about Bill Ayers showing up?

They'd be more worried about him not showing up and missing the event of the millennium. 991 more years to go, but surely no moment could be greater than this. Michelle will be so proud ...

liberal army wife said...

The security arrangements are made by the Secret Service and the Pentagon (if Guard is called up) The administration (which, by the way is still the Republican Administration of President Bush, who went to war with the army we had - that quote from Rumsfeld... remember?) has NOTHING to do with security arrangements. If there is anyone to blame for any lack of planning, let's look at the Pentagon/Washington DC and other Police departments and most of all the Secret Service. Last time I looked, they are still under the command of President Bush. Give it a rest, wouldja?


Rachelle Jones said...

Give it a rest? Seriously LAW...

You are a funny lady.

An open to everyone inaug? does that seem like a "safe, and economical plan?"...

I suppose so a chicken in every pot and all of that...

I also assume any failure of this new administration (of which I hope there are none I love this country too much) will be blamed on what the left calls "Bushco"...

Rachelle Jones said...


liberal army wife said...

excuse me... but Bush declared the SOE. sorry that so many people want to attend the ceremonies... but I don't think that's Obama's fault. That a lot of people are coming to see a piece of history - surprising, huh?

As for what the President Elect has inherited... a recession that is not yet bottomed out. and 2 wars. don't think he caused those either.

Since my husband just hit the Sand again, you will forgive me if I am celebrating the fact that the man who is the cause of that - is leaving.


Guard Wife said...

I'm afraid there is no least not one I can conjure up at this moment.

You're spitting into the wind on this one, I'm afraid, AWTM.

Don't feed the trolls.

liberal army wife said...

troll? thank you - for all your support, GW. I suppose actually READING the article AWTM linked to is something a lawyer would leave to a paralegal??? try it sometime...

"Mr. Bush granted the request as 'a precaution,' Mr. Stanzel said; if the District needs the money, it can apply for reimbursement through the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The declaration will also allow federal public health workers to join in the public safety effort.

The president’s power to declare a state of emergency is typically used after hurricanes, floods or other natural disasters, although Mr. Stanzel said presidents have occasionally declared emergencies in advance of an anticipated event.

But never before, he said, has an advance emergency declaration been used for a 'non-disaster.'"


wifeunit said...

There is no one man that is the cause of our husbands traveling to the sand. And surely if all fingers could point at one man, a more fitting subject could be found than Bush. Like maybe the freehooking bad guys. The ones that like to hole up and plan to kill as many of us as possible.

And the recession that has yet to bottom out that the messiah will get a free pass for not being able to fix because fingers will still be pointing Bush's way (not that he has an iota of follow through for all the hope and change he spewed forth), has its roots in multiple administrations. Red and Blue.

And I might have smoked some braincells up, might have dropped out of college, but after talking with a dad who spent a career on the floor of the NYSE, I'm pretty confident that no amount of 'reporters'/proselytizers laying the blame on their opponents side will convince me all sides have been and always will be blame-worthy.

My verification word is babble. I guess that sums it up.

Rachelle Jones said...

Whoa hold on Nellie...

you typed...

"sorry that so many people want to attend the ceremonies... but I don't think that's Obama's fault."

Are you serious?

So if folks WANT, the government should oblige?

That is the circular argument we are talking about....

Chuck said...


What are you going to do when your husband is told that his unit doesn't have the budget to provide for him like he used to? That is the traditional effect of a Democrat, especially a liberal democrat, president. (See Bay of Pigs (Kennedy), Kosovo (Clinton's Penis), Bosnia (Clinton's Penis), Iran Embassy (Jimmah), Vietnam (Kennedy), Task Force Smith (Truman), Pearl Harbor (FDR), Philippines--Bataan, (FDR)...)

Whose fault is it going to be when he is deployed more often, with fewer troops, and wildly restrictive rules of engagement, which presume guilt on his part if he defends himself?(See again Bay of Pigs (Kennedy), Kosovo (Clinton's Penis), Bosnia (Clinton's Penis), Iran Embassy (Jimmah), Vietnam (Kennedy), Task Force Smith (Truman), Pearl Harbor (FDR), Philippines--Bataan, (FDR)...)

Whose fault was it when Osama Bin Laden was still alive on 9/11/2001, having been in the crosshairs of a predator years prior? (See Bill Clinton).

And now BHO is saying OBL is less of a threat. Seriously? You really need to face facts. Your husband is going to suffer, his unit is going to suffer, and the military is going to suffer. Troops are going to be forced into doing more with less. Federal spending for the military will decrease, meaning operations and training budgets will decrease. Pay will decrease, not overtly, but by annual cost of living raises being less, widening the gap between military pay and civilian counterparts. THIS HAPPENS EVERY TIME WE PUT A DEMOCRAT IN OFFICE.

Your husband's chances of survival have decreased because of your political chances. I seriously hope nothing happens to him, or any other soldier, but the fact is, we have a higher deployment and casualty rate when led by members of the party that see us as gun-toting neanderthals.

You'll have to forgive me if I've a jaundiced eye, BHO hasn't done anything except change out the current administration's staff and cabinet for former Clinton lackeys. I don't know if you and your husband served during that time, but I did, and most of us who did do NOT look on those days fondly.

Anonymous said...

Chuck Z:

Why would you ever put a bug in the ear of a military wife that the odds of something "happening" to their husband are higher simply because of their political view points? Seriously? So, my husband, who is also currently deployed and fighting for you, has a lesser chance of living because of who we voted for? Nice. We LOVE hearing that our deployed husbands might get killed. Way to go.

BHO may say that OBL is less of a threat, but at least he has a clue. Did you catch the Larry King interview with GWB? Dubya has no clue where Bin Laden is, or if we're close to catching him, or if we've even GOT close to catching him. The man who launched the war had no idea, after eight years, of how it's going. So heaven forbid somebody at least know what's going on. You say he (Obama) hasn't done anything except change out administration ... last I checked he's not "officially" president until Tuesday. Hasn't exactly had a lot of opportunities to "do" anything yet, has he? Will you even give him a chance? Or just harbor this bitterness for four years?

liberal army wife said...

thank you, TAW. Chuck, I didn't want to believe that you would say something like that to me, about a man you sat and talked to for quite a while... to throw that in my face... That takes - I don't know what it takes. Besides a lack of taste, class or feeling, that is. I am so disappointed - we may disagree about politics, but to hurt another army wife in that way, is vile.


wifeunit said...

Is Larry King really the place to answer or even discuss anything related to the work being done and progress being made in these wars?

How is it that people have decided they deserve honest straightforward answers to questions that would HARM those deployed and HELP those trying to kill us and our forward troops. Things are classified for a reason. Larry King and Joe SixPack and everyone else can curse the fates that they didn't get their clearance, but is it really necessary to insert imaginary realities to hide the fact that they don't know the whole story.

GWB knows he is not saying what people want to hear. Knows people hate his choices and take his nonanswers to unreasonable questions and point to them as lies and stupidity.

I'll take that slimeball politician behavior over his highness and his saying whatever he can about utopian ideals so he gets enough votes to win. Having passed his time not bringing about any change, just lining himself up for victory. And now that he was successful he can make sure people still point their fingers in blame to the other side.

There are civilians working side by side with service members who have no job security. Who are worried his highness will decide this department or that gl account needs to cut its bottom line and jobs will be lost. People who won't go speaking out about what their job was or why it was ludicrous they are no longer doing it.

I have trouble believing he would be presented with the whole truth and still make those changes. But seeing people in uniform and civilians in the field feeling the change is near and not looking forward with much hope doesn't give me a warm fuzzy.

Rachelle Jones said...


I am not sure when this thread became a place to name call, and "act victim", or make inflammatory accusations, but it will be no more. You are free to do this on your own blog, at this time as I will not publish inflammatory comments any longer. Feel free to post them at your site...

I may have the most mediocre blog in the sphere, but when you start playing dirty, well....

I also did not care for the "lawyer vs paralegal" comment you made, and felt it was a very personal attack on a FRIEND as well.

LAW, Chuck did not "plant a seed", and to take this argument there was completely WRONG TAW.

That seed you speak of, is always there when our husbands go into danger. That is why military service is a sacrifice...

liberal army wife said...

I know you arent' going to post this, and honestly I don't care. chuck's comment was uncalled for. I'm not a victim, and I don't pretend to BE one. Nor do I think that saying it was a nasty thinkg to do - to tell me that because of how I voted, my husband is more likely to die. I could have said that because of how you voted, we got into a war that was not necessary and that NO ONE has been able to justify, if they can think. but that's a lost cause now. So I'll just go on supporting my husband, the troops, the wounded and my country, if you don't mind, of course.

I am a paralegal and usually end up having to give a precis to a lawyer, they prefer that.

I wish you luck and joy in your future.


Chuck said...


You're right. I never should have made you aware that the One's views on foreign policy and fiscal responsibility are detrimental to her husbands' profession. I never should have said that he's going to be in more danger because a neophyte president is definitely going to be tested, and who has already stated a willingness to appease our enemy.

Unless you've forgotten, OBL and islamics started this war. Their mentality isn't that we can somehow come to an agreement, they don't for a minute believe that if we up and leave the middle east that they'll seek peace. They believe in one thing: world submission to Islam. Period.

They will proclaim peace, and seek to make nice, until it suits them to go back on the offensive. There can be no "end" to a religious war, as the one seeks, there can be only winning or losing. In the eyes of the muslim, there can be only winning.

The muslim mind only respects power, and here's the key, the willingness to use it. President Bush understands that. He makes choices that are unpopular, because they are the right thing to do.

Tomorrow, when BHO comes riding in on his white unicorn, and everything becomes candy and puppy kisses, the world is not going to change because he says so. He is going to learn through trial and error. Since he doesn't have any real experience, he's at the mercy of the people he's surrounded himself with, who are themselves terrorists (like bill ayers) or Clinton's former advisors. His choice of that woman for secstate only illustrates my point.

Clinton's foreign policy is largely responsible for the mess we're in, GWB merely tried to do something about it. How many times was the world trade center attacked prior to 2001? remember the USS Cole? What was our response to terror attacks under clinton? How many have we had, domestically or internationally, since 2001? Did either of you consider that maybe, just maybe, our clueless president has something to do with that? Maybe he's let loose the military to prosecute this war the best way they know how, made sure they had everything they needed that was possible to give them, and believed in us? (Instead of, say, calling our top general a bold-faced liar, like the her did to General Petraeus?)

Yeah, telling LAW her husband was likely to be in more danger because the one's party has a history of screwing over the soldier at the cost of national security was hard for her to hear. It doesn't make it less true. She champions BHO and his party. I don't. I hate, loathe war. Regardless of the bravado shown by those in uniform, most of us hate war more than any ass-clown at berkley. We hate it because our lives our the ones on the line, we're the ones who come home one of three ways, whole, on a stretcher, or in a box.

I came home on a stretcher, nearly in a box, save by the grace of god and the steady hands of a platoon of very talented surgeons. When I deployed, I had the confidence that my commander in chief knew wat we were doing, and supported us and the mission. BHO has NEVER inspired that confidence in me. So no, I am not willing to cut him any slack. I don't cut my leaders some slack. Slack is something you give to subordinates when they screw up. Leaders make mistakes, and those mistakes get people killed. As a leader, you try to make decisions that result in the fewest people being killed in relation to the objectives you seek to accomplish. A leader who chooses poorly gets more people killed than he should have, to accomplish the same objectives. Still think he deserves some slack, some room to make errors?
Did you EVER give GWB that same courtesy? I never did. I've never looked at him and said, hey, nobody's perfect.

GWB didn't sit on Larry King and say he knew where OBL was. Did it ever occur to you that information regarding the location of the worlds most wanted man would be classified? That there could be people, right this minute, closing in, and saying that he knew where obl was would put them in greater danger? That saying we knew where he was would cause him to leave? That saying we had no clue would give him a measure of comfort that could lead to our capture/killing of him? There's these things we have in government called secrets. We have to keep some of them, you know, secret to keep from letting the enemy know our secrets. You don't have a right to know what they are.

LAW, yes, I will tell you something this hard to hear, because I'm not, nor will I ever be, the kind of guy who will give you platitudes and promises rather than truth. You know if I had my druthers' I'd be standing in your husbands shoes right now, and he'd be home. You know how much I've sacrificed, and how much others have sacrificed, and still believe in the mission and GWB, and yet you still malign him as an imbecile, his policies stupid, and "his" war pointless. What does that say about us? Those of us who served, and continue to serve, despite pain and injury, despite multiple deployments, despite the risk to our lives and our families' well being? By now, we've all had the opportunity to reenlist, or resign, and most have stayed, and even more have joined. Are we mindless drones who blindly follow? Is your husband, or is he the one exception and the rest of us are just "following orders?"

Unless you believe that, you have to admit that just maybe we believe in GWB because we've seen the elephant, and we've seen what life could be like under the threat of terror in the streets. Because we don't want Hometown, USA to look like Khan Bani Sahd, Safwan, Kharnabat, Diyala, Anbar, Ramadi, or Baqubah. We, that is the vast majority of serving military, and and even larger majority of veterans, don't trust BHO or his party, because the party has consistently screwed us over for the last 227 years, and BHO has given us no reason, none, to trust him, and he's actively opposed the current policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, which, oh by the way, are working.

We'll follow him because he's our commander, and many of us will do just like we did under Clinton, keep our heads down and try to protect, train, and lead our men as best as possible, given a reduced budget, broken equipment, hypersonic optempo, and ridiculous Rules of Engagement.

vet66 said...

In the same vein, I read where there will be around 1 portapotty for every 6000 potential potty users. 1440 minutes per 24 hours divided by 6000 = We are in deep ____(Fill in the blank).

It is that kind of math that got us into this current fiscal ____ (Fill in the blank!)

Where's the Honey wagon? Going through security. Who's driving the honey wagon?

I think I will stay home...

Anonymous said...

As an Ivy-League educated lawyer I will say only this - my paralegal doesn't have the education or training to do what I do - she is a fine assistant - a capable researcher - an excellent draftsman - but a lawyer she is not.

Our new president - has a fine education, some able assistants - capable researchers and excellent speech writers - the jury is still out on whether or not a fine president he will be.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. But only just.

I salute GWB, thank him for his courage and service, bless him for keeping these shores safe. History will remember him as steadfast and sure. Oh, and as someone who is well aware that there are not 57 states in this great nation . . . I'm just saying! ;)