Tag Archives: policy

Obamaitis


 

 

Ye Olde Crabb sez

 

comprehensive

 

New Oxford Dictionary:

 

b. Embracing many things, broad in mental grasp, sympathies, or the like.

 

incrementalism

 

(A belief in) the policy or practice of introducing change incrementally or by degrees; gradualism. (Esp. in Pol.)

 

Every time we hear President Obama use the word “comprehensive”, we reach for our remote — and prepare for the worst.

 

The morasse that health care reform has turned into is his “comprehensive” approach to a gigantic tissue of problems incorporating at least sixth of the U.S. economy – and every citizen’s psyche and ego.

 

In his Cairo speech announcing a comprehensive approach to the 1.3 billion Muslim world, the part of the world that didn’t yawn immediately went their own separate ways.

 

Dealing with the problem of Sudan, Africa’s largest state and one of its biggest problems, Obama’s tsar Gen. Scott Gration invited the Chinese into a comprehensive solution and now we have a a new Khartoum offensive against Darfur and the probability of the 30-year civil war in the South recommencing.

 

The Obama comprehenive settlement for the Israel-Arab feud has turned into Palestinians who cannot negotiate, Israelis who defy Obama on his settlements ban, and Special Envoy George Mitchell threatening to cut off Jerusalem‘s special loan guarantees he cannot enforce.

 

His comprehensive settlement with the Russians has turned into betraying our Central European allies and Moscow turning down every initiative — except arms control which would confirm their inability to build new longrange missiles and their decaying nuclear stockpile.

 

Mr. President, please, you came in on a messianic wave of sympathy and adoration. But there are limits, even for a charismatic leader.

 

Mr. President, please, one step at a time. That’s the way it is generally done in a representative, conciliatory democracy.

 

 

 

Truman said it all!


—– Original Message —–
From: “Truman Reference” <Truman.Reference@nara.gov>
To: “Sol W. Sanders” <solsanders@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: media request

> Dear Mr. Sanders,
>
> Thank you for the e-mail message that you sent us yesterday.  I have
> not found a speech in which president Truman used the phrase “the buck
> stops here” in the context in which you refer.  In a speech he gave at
> the National War College on December 19, 1952, Truman said, “You know,
> it’s easy enough for the Monday morning quarterback to say what the
> coach should have done, after the game is over. But when the decision is
> up before you–and on my desk I have a motto which says “The buck stops
> here”–the decision has to be made. That decision may be right. It may
> be wrong. If it is wrong, and it has been shown that it is wrong, I have
> no desire to cover it up. I admit it, and try to make another decision
> that will meet the situation. And that is what any President of the
> United States has to do. Just bear that in mind.”  The full text of this
> speech is located on our website at
> http://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=2094&st=&st1=.
>
> In his Farewell Address of January 15, 1953, Truman stated, “The
> greatest part of the President’s job is to make decisions–big ones and
> small ones, dozens of them almost every day. The papers may circulate
> around the Government for a while but they finally reach this desk. And
> then, there’s no place else for them to go. The President–whoever he
> is–has to decide. He can’t pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do
> the deciding for him. That’s his job.”  The full text of this speech is
> located on our website at
> http://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=2059&st=&st1=.
>
> On a third occasion, Mr. Truman used the phrase, “the buck stops here,”
> in the context of his use of the atomic bomb in 1945.  Text of that
> campaign speech is located on our website at
>
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=1989&st=&st1=http://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=1989&st=&st1=.
>
> I hope that this information is helpful.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Sam Rushay
> Supervisory Archivist
> Harry S. Truman Library
> 500 West U.S. Highway 24
> Independence, MO 64050
> 816-268-8211
> Fax: 816-268-8295
>
> >>> “Sol W. Sanders” <solsanders@cox.net> 1/7/2010 8:06 PM >>>
> Could an archivist help me please?
>
> If memory serves [and it doesn’t often], the phrase “the buck stops
> here” was originally in a larger Truman quotation. I believe he said
> something along the lines of 1] the Constitution and history have made
> the American president a very strong exeecutive, 2] because of that, it
> sometimes is as important that he make a decision as to what the
> decision is, and therefore 3] the buck stops here.
>
> Was there such a statement by the President? Can I have the exact
> text?
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Sol W. Sanders
>
> International Business Editor, The Washington Times

Ye Olde Crabb sez

Well, maybe he didn’t say it just that way. But I think the meaning was clear.

Mr. Pres. Obama, are you listening to yourself when you quote the former president?

The Obama Administration’s Anti-terrorist Lie


The attempted bombing of NW 253 gives the lie to the Obama Administration’s policy of trying to down play the continuing threat to internal American Security.

The White House’s belated statement from the President’s vacation in Hawaii has had to acknowledge this, reverting to former nomenclature, naming the incident as a terrorist threat. But when not blaming the problem on the former administration, repeating old cliches without meaning.

But it is an about face for the Administration’s effort from its inauguration to minimize the threat, to refuse to use the Bush Administration’s slogan of a war on terrorism It substituted the tongue twisters of the Administration’s principal spokesman on the issue, Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano. These would have been a joke had the issue not reflected a failure of analysis and policy far more serious.

A return to the policy of treating terrorism as primarily a police function has now been dramatically shown to be inadequate in the face of the growing international challenge with its domestic manifestations.

For the security of The Republic, the Administration needs to take a deep breath, review its decisions of the past year, and launch a new and more throughgoing policy of facing a growing domestic threat to peace and security.

That should start with Sec. Napolitano’s resignation as the responsible for the continuing inadequacy of policy.

Whatever further investigation will demonstrate by way of failures of government and airlines security precautions in the Northwest 253 affair, the fact remains that the Obama Administration from its inauguration has tried to minimize the threat.

The recent series of terrorist episiodes inside the U.S. — including the massacre at Ft. Hood — have demonstrated not only that the threat continues to exist but that it may have taken on new and sinister domestic aspects. That includes the discovery of young American Muslims joining jihad forces in Pakistan and Somalia, an American and a permanent resident allegedly playing principal roles in the Mumbai Massacre, and, of course, the refusal to investigate/dismiss a military doctor who had shown every evidence of sympathy with the killers before he, himself, became the most significant terrorist since 9/11.

The President’s campaign rhetoric has seduced his Attorney-General into bringing battlefield prsioners into the civilian courts. That is an affirmation of the old, failed former concept that terrorism was essentially a subject for our civilian justics system, and not an act of war fought with war strategies and tactics. The New York trials will give the jidahists enormous propaganda opportunities, cost enormous amounts for enhanced security, and present a new domestic target for terrorism. [There have been attempted near-successful escapes by terrorist suspects from New York City federal prisons.]

Spending vast new sums to modify a state prison in Illinois in an effort to meet the Guantanomo conundrum is equally ridiculous. Given their fanaticism, it beggars common sense to argue a Stateside prison would be any less of a provocation for the jihadists. Yet, it will infinitely complicate their judicial status and present new problems for local as well as federal officials..

In the political gambit to close Guantanamo, caution has been thrown to the winds. The knotty problem of the Moslem Uighur prisoners has been “solved” by sending some of them to ministates [Bermuda, Palau] where their security would be up for grabs. Worse still, six captured terrorists have been released to Yemen. The failed Yemen regime has a long history of permitting escapes of terrorist suspects, its own threatening internal terrorist threat — now enhanced by ties to Iran as well as Al Qaeda. Indeed, early reports say the Northwest Arlines bomber, while a British-resident Nigerian, was armed in Yemen.

All of this flies in the face of logic.

The President has made extending an open hand to Muslims and Muslim regimes — even those like Iran whose leaders have continued to call the U.S. their enemy — a strategy for achieving peace. So far, that strategy has produced little.

But whatever its aptitude in the coming months, the domestic threat of terrorism from foreign and native killers must receive a higher priority. It must not be confused by a false politically correct attitude which ignores the relevancy of ethnic backgrounds and indoctrination [some of it domestically that needs to be curbed].

The beginning of such a policy is to replace Napolitano who never really had credentials for the job in the first place. The new secretary should be a person of stature — hopefully crossing any political boundary necessary — and with experience and understanding of a growing security problem. If Obama still clings to his campaign rhetoric of bipartisanship, there would be no better candidate for the job than Rudi Giuliani.

Without such a new policy, strategy and tactics, the sacrifices of our young men in Iraq and Afghanistan in the war on terror will go for naught.

The time for action has long since passed…


 

 

Ye Olde Crabb sez

comprehensive

New Oxford Dictionary:

b. Embracing many things, broad in mental grasp, sympathies, or the like.

incrementalism

(A belief in) the policy or practice of introducing change incrementally or by degrees; gradualism. (Esp. in Pol.)

Every time we hear President Obama use the word “comprehensive”, we reach for our remote — and prepare for the worst.

The morass that health care reform has turned into is his “comprehensive” approach to a gigantic tissue of problems incorporating at least sixth of the U.S. economy – and every citizen’s psyche and ego.

In his Cairo speech announcing a comprehensive approach to the 1.3 billion Muslim world, the part of the world that didn’t yawn immediately went their own separate ways.

Dealing with the problem of Sudan, Africa’s largest state and one of its biggest problems, Obama’s tsar Gen. Scott Gration invited the Chinese into a comprehensive solution and now we have a a new Khartoum offensive against Darfur and the probability of the 30-year civil war in the South recommencing.

The Obama comprehenive settlement for the Israel-Arab feud has turned into Palestinians who cannot negotiate, Israelis who defy Obama on his settlements ban, and Special Envoy George Mitchell threatening to cut off Jerusalem‘s special loan guarantees he cannot enforce.

His comprehensive settlement with the Russians has turned into betraying our Central European allies and Moscow turning down every initiative — except arms control which would confirm their inability to build new longrange missiles and their decaying nuclear stockpile.

Mr. President, please, you came in on a messianic wave of sympathy and adoration. But there are limits, even for a charismatic leader.

Mr. President, please, one step at a time. That’s the way it is generally done in a representative, conciliatory democracy.