Saturday, June 6, 2009
By JENNIFER LOVEN – 31 minutes ago
CAEN, France (AP) — President Barack Obama on Saturday expressed impatience with North Korea's refusal to restart nuclear disarmament talks and said his administration was taking "a very hard look" at possible tougher approaches.
"We are not intending to continue a policy of rewarding provocation," he said.
While hardening the U.S. position, Obama did not cite any specific new measures and said he preferred following a diplomatic path. He made no reference to potential military action, but his language suggested he sees little point in continuing policy that has failed to rid North Korea of its nuclear weapons or halt development of missiles capable of striking Asian nation and potentially the U.S.
On a different front, Obama won support from French President Nicolas Sarkozy on seeking a Mideast peace that provides for Israeli and Palestinian states, and on the need to thwart Iran's disputed nuclear ambitions.
The State Department said Friday the U.S. is considering imposing its own financial penalties against North Korea, in addition to whatever punishment the U.N. takes in response to the North's recent nuclear test.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with South Korea's foreign minister, Yu Myung-Hwan, in Washington on Friday amid indications the reclusive communist government was preparing to test a missile that could reach U.S. territory.
The North recently conducted a barrage of missile launches and an underground nuclear test that violated previous U.N. Security Council penalties. Clinton told reporters that U.N. diplomats were making progress on new penalties.
In his remarks Saturday, Obama was more blunt about the limits of U.S. patience.
"North Korea's actions over the last several months have been extraordinarily provocative and they have made no bones about the fact that they are testing nuclear weapons, testing missiles that potentially would have intercontinental capacity," the president said.
Earlier Saturday, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak delivered a stern warning to the North in a nationally televised speech honoring the country's war dead. "I would like to make it clear that there will be no compromise against things that threaten our people and security," Lee said.
At an earlier point in the long-running struggle to put a lid on North Korea's nuclear ambitions, President Bill Clinton's administration in the mid-1990s discussed with urgency the possibility of taking military action. That seems less likely now. The North evidently is nuclear-armed and other nations are focused first on searching for a nonmilitary solution.
Obama mentioned that Russia and China, two of the six nations in the disarmament talks, responded more forcefully to North Korea's recent tests than they had in the past. He said this was an indication that Moscow and Beijing share the U.S. view that North Korea's repeated defiance of international demands is destabilizing the region.
"My preference is always to use a diplomatic approach," Obama said. "But diplomacy has to involve the other side engaging in a serious way in trying to solve problems. And we have not seen that kind of reaction from North Korea. So we will continue to consult with our allies."
The U.S., Russia, China, Japan and South Korea are seeking to get North Korea back to the bargaining table, with little progress so far.
"We are going to take a very hard look at how we move forward on these issues, and I don't think that there should be an assumption that we will simply continue down a path in which North Korea is constantly destabilizing the region and we just react in the same ways by, after they've done these things for a while, then we reward them," he said.
Obama did not mention it, but the Bush administration agreed to remove North Korea from the U.S. list of terrorist states after the North said it would dismantle its nuclear weapons facilities. It later refused to go forward with the dismantlement.
Obama spoke after a private meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who told reporters that on the matter of North Korea, "we have total convergence of views with the American president."
Later the two presidents flew to the Normandy coast to mark the 65th anniversary of the D-Day invasion that turned the tide of World War II in Europe.
On Iran, Sarkozy said "we do not want military nuclear weapons to spread and we are clear on that." On Wednesday he had met with Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, and told him "to take this hand stretched out by Barack Obama."
Obama reaffirmed that there must be "tough diplomacy" with Tehran and said Iran's actions are contrary to its leaders' insistence that the country does not seek nuclear weapons.
He said he wants to see greater U.S.-Russian efforts to limit nuclear weapons and said that his work against nuclear proliferation and the efforts toward that end by other countries should signal Iran's leaders that they are not being singled out for rebuke.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
America's military and intelligence agencies (most of them) have already changed administrations, with NRO, NSA and DIA scheduled for changovers immanently. The Senate has elected new committees as has the House, but the financial powerbase appears to have shifted little, the most notable being Senator Rockefeller being removed from the Senate Intelligence Committee for reasons kept more than a little quiet, and surfacing to head up Commerce, Science and Transportation, an area that gives him the perfect vantage point to influence his family's notable holdings in all three areas, in addition to oil, electricity, coal and gas.
In the past week, many things have changed. America, under President O'Bama, has pursued an aggressive robotic war against Al Qaeda in Pakistan. America continues to slowly withdraw from Iraq in accordance with the Gates Plan, and continues to strongly support Israel, during a Hamas provokation which in the past 24 hours has seen a return to Hamas shooting missiles into civilian communities in Israel. Olmert (Israeli prime minister) has promised that if the missile shelling continues, the Israeli army will return to Gaza with a "disproportionate" response, in an effort to shake Hamas's resolve to continue terror attacks on Israel in an effort to draw in the IDF.
The head of Turkey, dispite historical political affinity for Israel, has been hammering Isreal for its alleged "mistreatment of Hamas" despite Hamas being the provoketeur with its missiles, suicide bombers and murder of legitimate Palestinian elected officials in its seizure of power, with Iran's financial backing, in the Palestinian Terrotories, instituting mainly pro Iranian policies over the poor, downtrodden Palestinians to cower at weaponized Hamas's feet.
The Pope, in a contratemps to his past public policies, has endorsed an Archbishop who has publicly espoused that the Holocaust was "faux", despite the nearly 1 million devout Catholics put to Concentration Camps in Germany, and Europe under Adolph Hitler in the period 1938 to 1944, over half of who were put to death, not to mention the nearly 1 million Roman (Gypsies) murdered by the Nazis and the 6 Million Jews, and 20 million europeans who died under the jackbooted theives of Germany's soul, Adolph Hitler (he was Austrian, by the way), Himmler, Goebels, Rosenburg, Hess, et al. the Nazis.
Today, in 2009, Barack O'Bama has his hands more than full. In addition to the above, he has conflict of opinions in UK, French reluctance to take responsibility for anything involving terrorism, the Spanish who are perennially on the fence, the Chinese denying they are manipulating their own currency and economy, despite their obvious expertise at it, and inevitably, the Russians, lurking as if on the wings, waiting to make yet another noisy political move, under Vladimir Putin's watchful eyes.
Here is President O'Bama's first TV interview, which appeared on Al Arabiya TV January 26, AA being a moderate station with a middle of the road appeal to everyone in the Arabic Communities.
History will bear witness to these events.
INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT BY HISHAM MELHEM, AL ARABIYA
5:46 P.M. EST
Q Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity, we really appreciate it.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much.
Q Sir, you just met with your personal envoy to theMiddle East, Senator Mitchell. Obviously, his first task is to consolidate the cease-fire. But beyond that you've been saying that you want to pursue actively and aggressively peacemaking between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Tell us a little bit about how do you see your personal role, because, you know, if the President of the United States is not involved, nothing happens -- as the history of peacemaking shows. Will you be proposing ideas, pitching proposals, parameters, as one of your predecessors did? Or just urging the parties to come up with their own resolutions, as your immediate predecessor did?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the most important thing is for the United States to get engaged right away. And George Mitchell is somebody of enormous stature. He is one of the few people who have international experience brokering peace deals.
And so what I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these issues -- and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen. He's going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response.
Ultimately, we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what's best for them. They're going to have to make some decisions. But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that instead, it's time to return to the negotiating table.
And it's going to be difficult, it's going to take time. I don't want to prejudge many of these issues, and I want to make sure that expectations are not raised so that we think that this is going to be resolved in a few months. But if we start the steady progress on these issues, I'm absolutely confident that the United States -- working in tandem with the European Union, with Russia, with all the Arab states in the region -- I'm absolutely certain that we can make significant progress.
Q You've been saying essentially that we should not look at these issues -- like the Palestinian-Israeli track and separation from the border region -- you've been talking about a kind of holistic approach to the region. Are we expecting a different paradigm in the sense that in the past one of the critiques -- at least from the Arab side, the Muslim side -- is that everything the Americans always tested with the Israelis, if it works. Now there is an Arab peace plan, there is a regional aspect to it. And you've indicated that. Would there be any shift, a paradigm shift?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, here's what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia --
THE PRESIDENT: I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage --
THE PRESIDENT: -- to put forward something that is as significant as that. I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace.
I do think that it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what's happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan. These things are interrelated. And what I've said, and I think Hillary Clinton has expressed this in her confirmation, is that if we are looking at the region as a whole and communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world, that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress.
Now, Israel is a strong ally of the United States. They will not stop being a strong ally of the United States. And I will continue to believe that Israel's security is paramount. But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side.
And so what we want to do is to listen, set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years. And I think if we do that, then there's a possibility at least of achieving some breakthroughs.
Q I want to ask you about the broader Muslim world, but let me -- one final thing about the Palestinian-Israeli theater. There are many Palestinians and Israelis who are very frustrated now with the current conditions and they are losing hope, they are disillusioned, and they believe that time is running out on the two-state solution because -- mainly because of the settlement activities in Palestinian-occupied territories. Will it still be possible to see a Palestinian state -- and you know the contours of it -- within the first Obama administration?
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state -- I'm not going to put a time frame on it -- that is contiguous, that allows freedom of movement for its people, that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life.
And, look, I think anybody who has studied the region recognizes that the situation for the ordinary Palestinian in many cases has not improved. And the bottom line in all these talks and all these conversations is, is a child in the Palestinian Territories going to be better off? Do they have a future for themselves? And is the child in Israel going to feel confident about his or her safety and security? And if we can keep our focus on making their lives better and look forward, and not simply think about all the conflicts and tragedies of the past, then I think that we have an opportunity to make real progress.
But it is not going to be easy, and that's why we've got George Mitchell going there. This is somebody with extraordinary patience as well as extraordinary skill, and that's what's going to be necessary.
Q Absolutely. Let me take a broader look at the whole region. You are planning to address the Muslim world in your first 100 days from a Muslim capital. And everybody is speculating about the capital. (Laughter.) If you have anything further, that would be great.
How concerned are you -- because, let me tell you, honestly, when I see certain things about America -- in some parts, I don't want to exaggerate -- there is a demonization of America.
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely.
Q It's become like a new religion, and like a new religion it has new converts -- like a new religion has its own high priests.
THE PRESIDENT: Right.
Q It's only a religious text.
THE PRESIDENT: Right.
Q And in the last -- since 9/11 and because of Iraq, that alienation is wider between the Americans and -- and in generations past, the United States was held high. It was the only Western power with no colonial legacy.
THE PRESIDENT: Right.
Q How concerned are you and -- because people sense that you have a different political discourse. And I think, judging by (inaudible) and Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden and all these, you know -- a chorus --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I noticed this. They seem nervous.
Q They seem very nervous, exactly. Now, tell me why they should be more nervous?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that when you look at the rhetoric that they've been using against me before I even took office --
Q I know, I know.
THE PRESIDENT: -- what that tells me is that their ideas are bankrupt. There's no actions that they've taken that say a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education because of them, or has better health care because of them.
In my inauguration speech, I spoke about: You will be judged on what you've built, not what you've destroyed. And what they've been doing is destroying things. And over time, I think the Muslim world has recognized that that path is leading no place, except more death and destruction.
Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.
Q The largest one.
THE PRESIDENT: The largest one, Indonesia. And so what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of your faith -- and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers -- regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams.
And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task.
But ultimately, people are going to judge me not by my words but by my actions and my administration's actions. And I think that what you will see over the next several years is that I'm not going to agree with everything that some Muslim leader may say, or what's on a television station in the Arab world -- but I think that what you'll see is somebody who is listening, who is respectful, and who is trying to promote the interests not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity. I want to make sure that I'm speaking to them, as well.
Q Tell me, time is running out, any decision on from where you will be visiting the Muslim world?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm not going to break the news right here.
THE PRESIDENT: But maybe next time. But it is something that is going to be important. I want people to recognize, though, that we are going to be making a series of initiatives. Sending George Mitchell to the Middle East is fulfilling my campaign promise that we're not going to wait until the end of my administration to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace, we're going to start now. It may take a long time to do, but we're going to do it now. We're going to follow through on our commitment for me to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital. We are going to follow through on many of my commitments to do a more effective job of reaching out, listening, as well as speaking to the Muslim world.
And you're going to see me following through with dealing with a drawdown of troops in Iraq, so that Iraqis can start taking more responsibility. And finally, I think you've already seen a commitment, in terms of closing Guantanamo, and making clear that even as we are decisive in going after terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians, that we're going to do so on our terms, and we're going to do so respecting the rule of law that I think makes America great.
Q President Bush framed the war on terror conceptually in a way that was very broad, "war on terror," and used sometimes certain terminology that the many people -- Islamic fascism. You've always framed it in a different way, specifically against one group called al Qaeda and their collaborators. And is this one way of --
THE PRESIDENT: I think that you're making a very important point. And that is that the language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations -- whether Muslim or any other faith in the past -- that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name.
And so you will I think see our administration be very clear in distinguishing between organizations like al Qaeda -- that espouse violence, espouse terror and act on it -- and people who may disagree with my administration and certain actions, or may have a particular viewpoint in terms of how their countries should develop. We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful. I cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians and we will hunt them down.
But to the broader Muslim world what we are going to be offering is a hand of friendship.
Q Can I end with a question on Iran and Iraq then quickly?
THE PRESIDENT: It's up to the team --
MR. GIBBS: You have 30 seconds. (Laughter.)
Q Will the United States ever live with a nuclear Iran? And if not, how far are you going in the direction of preventing it?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, I said during the campaign that it is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of U.S. power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran.
Now, the Iranian people are a great people, and Persian civilization is a great civilization. Iran has acted in ways that's not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past -- none of these things have been helpful.
But I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress. And we will over the next several months be laying out our general framework and approach. And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.
Q Shall we leave Iraq next interview, or just --
MR. GIBBS: Yes, let's -- we're past, and I got to get him back to dinner with his wife.
Q Sir, I really appreciate it.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much.
Q Thanks a lot.
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate it.
Q Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
END 6:03 P.M. EST
### courtesy of Al Arabiya ###
Monday, January 19, 2009
As of now, that's President Barack O'Bama.
First brought into the national public eye immediately after the 9/11/2001 disaster/tragedy, Barack shortly became in quick succession: Senator, Committee Leader, Presidential Hopeful, Candidate in Last Position, Rising Candidate, Winning Democratic Candidate, Back to Presidential Hopeful, then Leading Candidate, then President Elect.
In only 7 short years, Barack O'Bama went from Chicago Landlord Lawyer and Inner City Democratic Party Vote Organizer and SubPrime Loan / Acorn Promoter, to the highest office in the land and Leader of the Free World, with only three years of actual Senatorial experience.
Never before in the History of the United States has any candidate risen that quickly from being a businessman lawyer to President of the United States.
Part of the reason for his success was the weakness of other candidates. Hilary Clinton suffered from a scattered backing and weak public performances, and even less experience or demonstrated potential than she might have, the former first lady, and her husband Bill Clinton seems to have become something of a liability.
John McCaine, with skeletons in his closet about his alleged disposession of Natives from his home state of Arizona in Coal for Beer deals with the Las Vegas and Tahoe crowd: http://www.cain2008.org/ and his weak overall public speaking prowess, and age limited appearance of vitality, paled by comparison, ending up with a decent showing, but losing by a substantial margin. Public attacks on Governor Sarah Palin, his running mate, by a Press stage manipulated to promote O'Bama at any expense by the Oil Industry owners of those many TV and Radio and News Outlets, were orchestrated from the Board Room to undermine Clinton and McCaine.
So what was the appeal? Why all the rush to summon up images of "Kennedy Camalot"/"O'Bama Bamalot" comparing Michelle O'Bama to Jackie Kennedy? The imagery was quite clear, a young president, and first lady, Chicago Rockefeller Business backing (as in David Rockefeller, Jr., John D. Rockefeller, Senator, and the rest of the erstwhile 150 richest people on the planet), a Kennedy image in the making.
Since more money is made by business by dividing people than by uniting them, could it possibly be that there is a hidden agenda afoot?
The ACSA at the outset of Barack O'Bama's candidacy, predicted he'd win by a mid margin and that eventually, the financial resources who had backed him, would attempt to orchestrate an assassination or extremely pro-African American, anti-Caucasian American subdivision over his policies, or both, in an effort to divide White and Black America apart even further, further defining "cheap labor" for their businesses as 'black and minority labor', and further suppressing the middle class, redirecting its wealth to the upper class of, well, Rockefeller Family allies which permeate the top 4% of this country's wealth.
By making the removing of the US Military from Iraq and stiffening the resistance in Afghanistan to draw troops off even quicker, the Iraqi Government will strive to make alliances to protect its oil wealth and nation against a world full of sharks. In every other oil rich country in the world, the rules of the Red Line Agreement were imposed, and each country eventually conceeded a 40% tithe payment to the Rockefellers to distribute, pool, auction, refine and sell their petroleum products globally through a vast network of oil wealth distribution belonging to the erstwhile 150 members of the family. Today, Iraq distributes its wealth between and among its tribes. Will it, seeing itself no longer having American military presence to protect it in the near future, make the infamous Red Line type deal with the Rockefellers? It seems fairly likely.
Will there be an assassination attempt? The ACSA and CCUAT hopes not: we will support the President in any way we can, informationally, personally and presidentially. We pray for the safety of the O'Bama family, this country does not need another Presidential tragedy, atop everything else it would be devastating.
Nevertheless, ACSA and the CCUAT organization have been predicting the takeover of Iraq's oil by the top ten oil companies (or one of them anyway) under Rockefeller family control, once President Bush and the American Military were out of the way, for eight years now. So we do expect that to happen. Whichever oil company gets the deal, expect it's stock to skyrocket and the US Economy right along with it. Invest wisely.
Getting a Barack O'Bama elected requires a very claustrophobic economy which is squeezed into believing there is no real war on terrorism, agrees with Mr. O'Bama that our military in Iraq is inappropriate and that the Economy is the first and foremost instigation for fear in every American Household. So we've just had one of the biggest manipulations of the American Economy foisted upon us by that one and same group of the top 4% wealthy in this Country, just so they could gain access to Iraq's trillion or so barrels of oil wealth and other derivative things (such as control over a pipeline from Russia to India and the continued confrontations of Pakistan vs. India, Palestinians vs Israel, and so on).
Because Barack O'Bama DOES NOT (as he has stated publicly to remove them from Iraq) support American Military Security in Iraq, the threat to the Iraqis self-security will become so great to the fledgling democracy that arranging a concession with the all wealthy Rockefellers will be "an automatic" for them, ACSA believes. The Rockefellers do not just buy into everyone's oil and get a concession, they sell protection. That's what they were selling to Saddam Hussein, selling him protection in the form of Pakistani Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for a 40% concession on Hussein's oil, when President Bush and the US Military barged in on the "Rock's" little garden party with Saddam, and broke up the celebrations.
Those powers that be like to dangle hope in the very faces of Americans, in this case the left, the Democrats and a lot of very hopeful and supporting Black Americans, and then YANK IT RIGHT OUT FROM UNDER its most hopeful advocates and supporters, by implementing a coup,a scandal, assassination or incessent press political undermining by everyone from Keith Obermann to David Letterman. The end of his political reputation (much as they attacked Bush) only lurks around that next corner where in his unwitting youthfulness, Barack O'Bama steps inadvertently over that invisible line in the sand where the super wealthy will no longer support his 'uppity' ness, using their terminology for him if he ever does cross it. If he ever goes too far over that line, who knows what they'll do to him.
They are not known for their patience.
------What do you think will happen next? What will be President O'Bama's first moves in office, his first moves with respect to the Economy, will he, like Bill Clinton before him, consider his first family to be an extension of the Rockefeller lineage of his past?
Express your opinion...
Thursday, December 25, 2008
There have been major security preparedness activities underway regarding the alleged threat of a major attack on the continental United States during early 2009. Reportedly, despite having no concrete leads, some intelligence reportedly gathered by the major intelligence organizations over the course of the past six months has been strongly suggestive that an attack might take place during the Presidential Inauguration, when the US Government is undergoing an exchange of power.
Reports by such as Senator Joseph Lieberman and the candidates running for office themselves during the 2008 Presidential Campaign, have preceded Goverment Security Experts and Homeland Security and the FBI, the Capitol Police and the US Military Leadership, who are busy planning exhaustive security measures for Washington's Presidential Inauguration on January 20, 2009. Just to be safe, they are providing extensive security at the Inaugural itself and for the numerous celebrations surrounding it. But is that enough, is America truly safe? Are we leaving ourselves vulnerable due to the necessity to focus our attentions on the Presidential change of administration?
The Politics of Inauguration Day Terror Attacks is quite a tricky subject. There have been a number of studies after threats were taken seriously but no attack surfaced during past inaugurations, most recently in 2005.The enclosure links associated with this Post takes us back to the 2005 era and a study of presumed Inaugural Attack Threats forecast at that time (then DHS Secretary Tom Ridge and others are quoted).
Speaking of Politics, there are those who feel it critical to establish themselves as a "true threat to Terrorism" by calling out claims that the "terrorists will attack as soon as I take office" (prophetic words if an attack takes place in January).
We have included a link to Hilary Clinton's campaign words regarding such an attack she forecast would take place moments after she (when she was running for President) was inagurated.
Last but not least, there are those in the Press who spend an enormous amount of time analyzing anti-terror preparations to such a degree that they might as well lay out a roadmap for Terrorists to follow when they are seeking a way around the security. Is America losing its sophistication borne during World War II, the old adage "loose lips sink ships?"
We've included an audio report from Ari Shapiro speaking in detail about the extensive security arrangements surrounding the Inaugural for the highly liberal National Public Radio. It is not clear NPR's political position, however they clearly are on the side of Freedom of Speech. There clearly is a conflict between Freedom of Speech and being Ready, the phenomenon known as 'war nerves' often hits those who think they've detected or seen a terrorism attack in progress or in planning, and it can be terribly difficult to differentiate between a report and reality.
In fact, due to the tendancy today by the Authorities to backlash at anyone offering an opinion or checking out a story (even among the Press) about such an attack, many have become fearful of reporting what they have observed to such as the FBI or their local police for fear of being automatically type cast as being among "the usual nutcases", a cliched behavior that Advances Magazine has verifiably determined is really quite common among the FBI and other counter terrorism groups. Many believe they really do not want to hear from the public or anyone even trying to verify whether a story told them was true or not, as likely to prosecute the reporting party as they are to investigate.
Is America now in a position where "the boy who cried wolf" syndrome, or, in reality, the belief everyone is "the boy who cried wolf" could prevent us from properly responding to a serious attack?
Are our Authorities so skeptical that one would ever take place, would the FBI, DHS and top government levels simply conclude that public reports were flights of fiction or fancy? Could terror groups or those with a negative agenda take advantage of the situation by getting proxies to spread hoaxes and plant false stories just to irritate the counter terror groups and get them to adopt a position of total disbelief?
Are international terror groups leveraging "boy who cried wolf" backlashes so as to keep US Security in the dark: so that once our guard is really down, they can hit the USA with another 9/11 magnitude attack?
An attack on the Inauguration has been labeled by some as being a "send off" for the Bush Administration and a "slap down" for the Obama Administration by rumorors and critics alike, BOLO has raised a few more questions for the General Public:
Do you think the Inauguration represents a target that Al Qaeda or other Terror Group might want to attack? What political gain will they have disrupting what might be a newer, more pacifist US administration? Will America look weak to the rest of the world?
How will the outgoing administration look, if terrorists succeed at attracting attention away from the Inaugural Celebration? The incoming administration which has expressed considerably less enthusiasm for an aggressive War on Terror?
Do you feel that America's domestic security programs are adequate, inadequate or do you believe that the whole terror program is just one big fairy story? There are some who think 9/11 was a setup, with theories ranging from the implausible: US Government involvement to the more likely: wealthy international business interests becoming wealthier by eliciting a massive US Government response to Terrorism (and associated aggressive buying policies), so as to supplement their business revenues which have been lagging since the end of the Cold War? Your opinion is important to this blog. We are not interested in weird opinions, we're interested in EVERY OPINION... Here are the links to three key articles that frame the issue
1.0 Hillary Clinton on Terror Attack on Inauguration
2.0 National Public Radio
Post your coments here...